WIND RUSH
8. Is wind energy much use at all?
The UK Government has already acknowledged that wind turbines in urban
areas are ineffective, and a government minister has said that wind energy will
nor help to fill the Energy Gap (although she thought it would help against
Global Warming) – see the CG website news item
headed “Government
admits that wind energy is ineffective” Under August 2008).
Over the past six months we have had a financial crisis of historic
proportions, which has tended to push to one side the clear evidence that the
Over
the last six months www.countryguardian.net has featured
several reports on this topic, but the most comprehensive and focused on our
campaign was published in June:
Wind Chill : Why wind
energy will not fill the
Commissioned by the Centre for
Policy Studies and written by Tony Lodge
TONY LODGE is a political and energy analyst who has
regularly
written and
commentated on the energy crisis and on the energy
choices facing
Journal. His
publications include Electrifying
Coal, Gas or Nuclear? (Economic
Research Council, 2005), Clean
Coal – A Clean, Secure and Affordable Alternative (Centre
for Policy
Studies, 2007) and All Hot Air – Labour’s
Failed Strategy on Fuel
Poverty (The Bow
Group, 2008).
The full
report can be downloaded from http://www.cps.org.uk/cpsfile.asp?id=1026
It is
also available in book form from http://www.cps.org.uk/
This
abreviated version is produced by kind permission of the Centre for Policy
Studies.
Its
purpose is to give an overview of the report, by quoting significant passages
without editing the text itself. Note also that the report is fully referenced;
the referenced are not included here.
|
Chapter |
Page |
|
Summary |
|
|
1.
Introduction |
1 |
|
2.
Lessons from |
6 |
|
3.
Capacity issues |
9 |
|
4. The
impact on electricity bills |
11 |
|
5.
Declining confidence |
17 |
|
6.
Planning |
23 |
|
7.
Environmental and military objections |
28 |
|
8.
Conclusion |
34 |
|
Appendix:
Survey results |
37 |
SUMMARY
coal and
nuclear power stations are paid off.
from renewable
energy sources by 2020.
help close the
energy gap and to meet its renewable
energy targets.
the amount of
electricity to be generated by wind farms
will have to
increase by more than 20 times.
Expensive
turbines already
enjoys huge subsidies and tax breaks
through the
Renewables Obligation scheme.
meeting the 2020
target will be £100 billion. This is the
equivalent of £4,000
for every household in the country.
wind energy is
two and a half times more expensive
than other
forms of electricity generation in the
Unreliable
power. It must
be backed up by other baseload sources.
supply
disruptions if the wind does not blow, blows too
hard or does
not blow where wind farms are located.
pioneering
development of wind farms – is that wind
energy is
expensive, inefficient and not even
particularly “green”. There are
signs that other
countries are
losing some of their enthusiasm for wind
power.
Unpopular
wind power. Only 15% of
people say that they are fairly
or very
willing to pay higher electricity bills if the extra
money funds
renewable power sources such as wind.
The figures for “very unwilling” and “fairly unwilling”
are 37% and
24% respectively.
with rising
gas prices, will drive six million households
into fuel
poverty.
Disrupting
consideration the
economic viability of the project or
whether the
topography and meteorological conditions
are suitable.
developers. But if
the Government is to meet its
renewable target by
2020, then current planning
regulations will have
to be weighted even further in
favour of wind
farm suppliers.
objections to at
least four onshore wind farms claiming
the turbines
will interfere with their national air defence
radar.
The
alternative
capacity as quickly
as possible.
coal
(including coal gasification) and other renewable
supplies of energy
(particularly tidal).
role in
plugging
Chapter
1
INTRODUCTION
Wind
energy also plays a central role in the
attempts to meet
its targets for renewable energy. The
has been
allocated a binding target to increase renewable
energy to 15% of
total energy consumption, and 40% of
electricity
generation, by 2020 by the EU.
The
following table shows how
provide 4.6% of
by wind
turbines, representing 1.1% of total
production. The rest
of this renewable output is largely met
from hydro
electric plants, solar and biofuels. However, in
order to meet
the 2020 target, the increase in wind energy is
immense. If the
2020 target is to be met, the Renewables
Advisory
Board (RAB), which provides advice to the
Government
and is sponsored by the DBERR, has
estimated that this
will have to increase to 36.5% – or 88.6%
of total
renewable energy generation in the
Electricity
generated from wind power, 2006
Source:
Digest of
|
|
GWh
generated |
%
of renewable electricity
production |
%
of total electricity production |
|
|
On
shore wind |
3574 |
19.7 |
0.9 |
|
|
Off
shore wind |
651 |
3.6 |
0.2 |
|
|
Total |
4225 |
23.3 |
1.1 |
|
RAB
target for percentage of electricity generated from wind power by 2020 if
15% target to be
met
Source: Renewables Advisory Board (RAB).
|
|
|
%
of renewable electricity
production |
%
of total electricity production |
|
|
On
shore wind |
|
37.1 |
15.3 |
|
|
Off
shore wind |
|
51.4 |
21.2 |
|
|
Total |
|
88.6 |
36.5 |
|
If these
targets are to be met, then the amount of
electricity to be
generated by wind farms will have to
increase from
4,225 GWh in 2006 to 87,000 GWh in 2020.
This is
over 20 times greater than the amount currently
Generated.
Based on
current projections this would necessitate
around 10,000
new offshore and onshore wind turbines by
2020.3
There are currently under 2,000 turbines in the
The great
majority of these new turbines will have to be
built onshore
on grounds of cost and accessibility.
The
Renewables Obligation (RO) is the Government’s
principal policy
instrument to encourage the development
of the
renewable electricity sector. It is an indirect subsidy
system drawing
funds from consumer bills, and passing
them to
renewable electricity generators. This currently
amounts to £1
billion a year, an amount which will have to
rise
significantly to fund the construction and development
of these
wind farms. It is already projected that by its
conclusion in 2027
it will have totalled around £32 billion –
a figure
which could well be far too low.
OFGEM has
criticised the Renewables Obligation,
concluding that “We fully
support the Government’s aims of
reducing
carbonemissions and promoting renewable generation
but we think
there are cheaper and simpler ways of meeting these
aims than the RO scheme
which is forecast to cost business and
domestic customer
over £30 billion”.
Energy Minister, Malcolm Wicks,
confirmed that wind was the main
benefactor from the RO, “I agree that the Renewables Obligation could
appear to be a blunt instrument and certainly seems to be favouring one
technology – the wind
farm.”
But does
wind power live up to the claims made by its
advocates? How
benign is its impact on the environment?
Will it
really be able to deliver the promise of clean, cheap
and reliable
electricity? Or would the money spent on it be
more effectively
directed towards supporting new
technologies which
will allow us to develop more reliable
and cheaper
forms of baseload energy in a cleaner way?
The challenges now facing Government, local planners,
wind farm
companies and consumers are considerable.
They are
only likely to grow if the Government is to reach
the EU’s
renewable target. These challenges include:
subsidy given to
wind companies through the Renewables
Obligation. This will
increase electricity bills.
in (and
almost certainly unpopular) applications for new
wind farms.
materials become
more expensive and planning
applications become
longer and harder to approve.
to subsidise
thousands of new wind turbines across
Households currently trapped in fuel poverty,half of whom are
pensioners, will be
the worst affected.So, before embarking
on the
construction of 10,000 new wind turbines, we should
surely ask, as
this report does,whether wind energy really is the best,
or even a
sensible,way forward.
Chapter
2
LESSONS
FROM
population of 5.4
million, it has over 6,000 turbines that in
2002
produced electricity equal to 19% of what the country
used. In
theory, at peak output, the Danish wind farms
could account
for nearly 64% of Danish peak power
demand.
However,
not a single conventional power plant has been
closed in the
period that Danish wind farms have been
developed. Because
of the intermittency and variability of
the wind,
conventional power plants have had to be kept
running at full
capacity to meet the actual demand for
electricity and to
provide back-up.7
Furthermore,
the Danes have found that it is not
practical for large
baseload plants to be turned on and off as
the wind dies
and rises: indeed, the quick ramping up and
down of those
plants, such as coal, would actually increase
their output of
pollution and carbon dioxide (the primary
greenhouse gas).
Baseload stations have to keep running so
that they can ‘shadow’ wind turbines due to their
intermittency. So when
the wind is blowing perfectly for the
turbines, the
power they generate is usually a surplus and
sold to other
countries at an extremely discounted price; or
the turbines
are simply shut off. According to the
example, 84% of
western
electricity was
exported (at a revenue loss).
accepted only 3.3%
of electricity generated by its vast wind
farms.9 This has
undermined the “green” credentials of
Danish
wind farms. For example, the Danish grid used 50%
more
coal-generated electricity in 2006 than in 2005 to
cover wind’s
failings. The increase in the demand for coal,
needed to plug
the gap left by underperforming wind
farms, meant
that Danish carbon emissions rose by 36% in
2006.10
Chapter
3
CAPACITY
ISSUES
We’re a
big supporter of wind, but at the time when customers
have the
greatest needs, it’s typically not available.
Wayne
Brunetti, CEO of Xcel Energy
WIND FARMS
PERFORM BRILLIANTLY if their average output
reaches as much
as 35% of their generating capacity. On
very rare
occasions, when conditions are ideal (typically a
sustained wind
speed of around 30 mph), wind farms can
produce 100% of
their generating capacity. But as the wind
slows, electricity
output falls off exponentially.14 In
comparison coal
fired plants run at about 75% capacity and
nuclear plants
can operate as high as 92% capacity.
The
evidence is that, throughout
have produced
on average less than 20% of their theoretical
(or rated) capacity in recent years. On-shore
turbines in the
was 16.8% in
2002 and 19% in 2003 (in February 2003, the
output was just
4%)
Chapter
4
THE
IMPACT ON
ELECTRICITY
BILLS
Without
the Renewable Obligation certificates, nobody would be
building wind
farms.
Paul
Golby, the Chief Executive of E.ON UK18
WIND
ENERGY is financially unsustainable without the
Renewables
Obligation, even with the currently record oil
prices. This
subsidy is paid to the wind farm developer and in
some cases the
landowner accommodating the turbines. The
community does not
normally gain from the development.
The
subsidy is administered through the Renewables
Obligation
scheme, a highly complex and little understood
payment
mechanism. This obliges electricity suppliers to
purchase a set
percentage of qualifying renewably generated
electricity. In
2004-05, this stood at 4.9% of qualifying
electricity. This
will rise to 10% by 2010. This is effectively a
hidden tax on
all electricity consumers; and a huge hidden
subsidy,
currently amounting to £1 billion a year and by the
end of the
scheme will have totalled some £32 billion, to
providers of
renewable energy. The Government has now
accepted that the
total bill for implementing its renewables
strategy is in the
region of £100 billion – the equivalent of
£4,000
for every household in the country.
The price
to the consumer
The Royal
Academy of Engineering has calculated that:
In other
words, the cheapest form of wind power is two
and a half
times the cost of nuclear or coal power, the first
of which is
a carbon free baseload energy source.
This
significant price differential is likely to get worse,
not better.
The construction of wind farms in the
onshore and
offshore, is facing large cost increases as the
raw materials
required to build them become harder to
obtain. Turbine
costs alone have risen by about 30% in
recent years.
Siemens, which makes turbines, has no spare
capacity.
Chapter 5
DECLINING
CONFIDENCE
DESPITE
BEING CITED as the shining example of what can be
accomplished with wind
power, the Danish Government has
cancelled plans for
three offshore wind farms planned for
2008. It
has also scheduled the withdrawal of subsidies from
some existing
sites. Development of onshore wind plants in
companies dominate
the European wind industry, however,
the
Government is under pressure to continue its support.
Other
countries are also reducing their support for wind
power.
wind power in
2004. Domestic construction drastically slowed
as a result.
Bloomberg News reported that “the unstable flow
of wind
power in their networks” has forced German utilities
to buy more
expensive energy, requiring them to raise prices
for the
consumer.33 And a recent German Energy Agency
study stated
that increasing the amount of wind power would
increase consumer
costs 3.7 times;34 and that the theoretical
reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions could be achieved
much more
cheaply by simply installing filters on existing
fossil-fuel plants
and develop what has become known as
supercritical clean
coal technology. Carbon capture and
storage
technology could be retrofitted to such a station in the
future when
commercially developed.
the lack of
significant benefit. The
decommissioned 90
turbines in 2004 (but to meet its EU
targets, it looks
set to have to erect many more turbines).
Many
Japanese utilities severely limit the amount of wind generated
power they buy,
because of the instability they
cause. For the
same reason,
briefly halted
all new wind power connections to the national
grid. On
to take
emergency measures to reduce the amount of wind
power on the
Irish grid following major concerns about, “the
security and
stability of the power system.”35 The Irish grid
manager concluded
in a study released in February 2004
that:36
The cost
of CO2 abatement
arising from using large levels of wind
energy
penetration appears high relative to other alternatives.
Are people prepared to pay for wind farms?
A poll was
commissioned for this report to assess how willing
people are to
pay higher electricity bills.44 The following
question was
asked:
How
willing or unwilling would you be to pay higher electricity bills if
the extra
money funded renewable power sources like wind or solar
power?
The
response was that:
37% said
they were very unwilling;
24% said
they were fairly unwilling;
25% said
they were neither willing or unwilling;
12% said
they were fairly willing;
3% said
they were very willing.
So, just
as the
wind farms by
six times, the rest of the world, the industry
itself, and the
British public are all showing signs of doubt.
[The poll
was conducted by PoliticsHome who interviewed 1774 people
from their
Phi5000 panel on the
match the
demographic profile of
leading
poll can be
found in Appendix of this report].
Chapter
6
PLANNING
PLANNING
LAW, in principle, addresses the relative merits of an
application and the
value of the development to the proposer,
against the
potential disadvantages and advantages to the local
community. Where a
balance of advantage appears clear, it is
generally accepted
that applications are accepted.
But, in
the case of wind applications, Government
guidance on
renewables targets is encouraging councils to
override all other
issues. Local government seems to be
supporting wind farm
applications irrespective of their
usefulness,
efficiency or practicality. The concerns of local
people are often
being overridden by planning officers.
Councils
examining wind farm applications are not
obliged to take
into consideration the economic viability of
the project;
or whether the topography and meteorological
conditions at the
proposed site are suitable. It is naively
presumed the
presence of the application itself reflects the
suitability of the
site.
For
example, at a planning inquiry last year into the
erection of five
120m 2MW turbines near Burnham on Sea,
Somerset,
the Planning Inspector placed at the top of his list
of issues
for examination, “the contribution that the
proposal would
make to achieving regional and national
targets for
renewable energy generation.” The appeal was
eventually dismissed
after a local campaign highlighting the
environmental, health
and negative economic impact of the
proposed turbines
on the area.
Wind
companies have deep pockets (partly filled of course
with income
from the Renewables Obligation) with which to
fight planning
applications. For example, a proposal by
Enertrag
to build six wind turbines in countryside at
Guestwick
in
local
community. The plan was turned down in 2005 on the
recommendation of local
planning officers and
County
Council. This decision was appealed by Enertrag. A
public inquiry
was held in 2006. The planning inspector
ruled that the
appeal should be dismissed because of the
turbines’ likely
impact on the local landscape. Enertrag
appealed to the
High Court to have the decision overturned.
To the
surprise of the local community the Treasury solicitor
decided not to
contest the application. The decision of the
inspector was set
aside and a second public inquiry was held
in June 2007
with another inspector. Again, Enertrag’s
arguments were
dismissed. But Enertrag is now seeking a
judicial review.
If it wins, it will seek a third planning inquiry.
If that is
unsuccessful, they are prepared to resubmit their
scheme. As the
local MP Keith Simpson has noted:
….under a
subsidy system, developers can keep returning until
they have
worn down the inspectors and the local community.
Local
residents have had to fund their own legal representation.
At
Guestwick, the local community raised £15,000 for the
first inquiry,
and £20,000 for the second. A third inquiry could
cost them
£25,000. And that is only the direct costs: through
taxation and
through their electricity bills, they are effectively
funding the
developers, as well as having to fund their legal
representation. As local
MP Richard Bacon has said:47
One of
the most offensive aspects of this is not simply that local
residents have to
fund their campaigns but that, through taxes
and
subsidies, they are funding the potential despoliation of their
landscape.
Wind farm
companies are receiving subsidies from
consumers’
electricity bills to help construct turbines. But
those same
consumers are not permitted to have various
items of
crucial information at the planning stage. This bias
in the
planning system is unjustifiable.
Chapter
7
ENVIRONMENTAL
& MILITARY
OBJECTIONS
THE
PRESENCE OF WIND TURBINES introduces an industrial
plant to a
rural area. Wind farms are generally considered to
be ugly.
They affect birdlife, ecology and can raise health
issues. And they
affect house prices and can deter tourism.
Energy
companies have applied to build 3,000 wind turbines
over the next
five years, creating fears for hundreds of
acres of rural
landscape.52 The Campaign for the Protection
of Rural
England (CPRE) has expressed its disquiet over the
large number of
planning applications.
Pictures
from the energy companies show slim towers
rising cleanly
from the landscape or hovering faintly in the
distant haze,
their presence modulated by soft clouds
behind them. But
a 200 to 400 foot tower supporting a
turbine housing
the size of a bus and three 100 to 150 foot
rotor blades
sweeping over an acre of air at more than 100
mph requires,
for a start, a large and solid foundation. On a
1.5-MW
tower, the turbine housing, or nacelle, weighs over
56 tons,
the blade assembly weighs over 36 tons, and the
whole tower
assembly totals over 163 tons.53 Wind farms are
industrial and
commercial installations. As the Countryside
Agency has
said, it makes no sense to tackle one
environmental problem
by instead creating another.
The
destruction of wildlife
The
spinning turbine blades kill and maim birds and bats.
Especially
vulnerable are large birds of prey that tend to fly in
the same
sorts of places that developers like to construct wind
towers. Fog is a
common situation on mountainous areas and
hills and this
aggravates the problem for all birds.54
A 2002
study in
(many of them already endangered), 350,000 bats, and
3,000,000
small birds are killed each year by wind turbines
and their
power lines. Another analysis found that it is
officially
recognised that on average a single turbine tower
kills 20 to 40
birds each year.
the plan to
build eight 416ft-tall wind turbines on an abandoned airfield
in Cambridgeshire’s
Ely
Cathedral.
It is
illegal in the
Service
(FWS) has prevented the expansion of the large and numerous
new solid
towers would mitigate the problem.
Noise
pollution
The
problems with noise pollution are well documented. The
EU, for
example, has just financed and published the results
of an
investigation into wind power, finding noise complaints
to be valid
and that noise levels could not be predicted before
developing a site.55
The report concluded that wind turbine
noise is more
annoying than other industrial noises of the
same magnitude
and that wind turbine noise is poorly
masked by
background noise. The author, Dr Fits van den
Berg
writes, “The sound of modern wind turbines on average
does not
decrease at night, but rather becomes louder,
whereas most
other sources are less noisy at night. At the
highest sound levels
in this study (45 decibels or higher) there
is also a
higher prevalence of sleep disturbance.”56 The
American
Wind Energy Association acknowledges that a
turbine is
audible 800 feet away. The
Committee
(NWCC) admits that:
Wind
turbines are highly visible structures that often are located
in
conspicuous settings... they also generate noise that can be
disturbing to
nearby residents.
The NWCC
recommends that wind turbines be installed no
closer than half
a mile from any dwelling.
The noise
of one wind plant in
2002
at 60dB one kilometre upwind. The low-frequency
noise was above
70dB – the sound at which a normal
conversation is held
between two people standing three feet
apart. A
German/Dutch study in 2003 found significant
noise levels
one mile away from a two year-old wind farm of
17
1.8-MW turbines, especially at night. In mountainous
areas the sound
can echo over larger distances. This report
stated that:
“the turbines are audible for most of the day
and night and
a swishing sound is readily discernible.”58
New
turbines do have quieter bearings and gears than
earlier turbines.
However, the huge magnetised generators
can not avoid
producing a low-frequency hum, and the
problem of 100 ft
rotor blades chopping through the air at
over 100 mph
also is insurmountable. Every time each
rotor passes
the tower, the compression of air produces a
deep
resonating thump. Only a “swishing” may be heard
directly beneath
the turbine, but farther away the resulting
sound of
several towers together has been described to be as
loud as a
motorcycle, like aircraft continually passing
overhead, a “brick
wrapped in a towel turning in a tumble
drier,” “as if
someone was mixing cement in the sky,” “like a
train that
never arrives.” It is a relentless rumble like
unceasing thunder
from an approaching storm.60
The
penetrating low-frequency aspect to the noise, a
thudding
vibration, much like the throbbing bass of a
neighbouring
night-club, travels much farther than the
usually measured
“audible” noise. It may be why horses
which are calm
around traffic and heavy construction are
known to become
distressed when they approach wind
turbines. Many
people have complained that it causes anxiety
and nausea.
‘Flicker’ is another health issue. It occurs when
low sun is
behind wind turbines near sunrise and sunset; the
blades cast
shadows which may cause serious irritation and in
some sensitive
individuals, physiological responses. In hilly
areas with
large arrays of machine, some buildings may be
exposed to
‘flicker’ for substantial parts of the day.
This also
has huge implications for local house prices. A
valuer in mid
reduction in house
values caused by a proposed wind farm;
estate agents
estimated that proposals for three 100m wind
turbines in
property by a
third. The home owner commented:61
We
couldn’t live here with those things towering over us. The
turbines would be
west of us so we would get shadowing from the
sun and a
stroking effect when the blades rotated. And we have
no
background traffic hum here to drown out the sound of the
turbines. We went
to see some smaller ones in
heard them
before we saw them.
Military
objections
Military
objections are a relatively recent but increasingly
important factor.
In February 2008, the Ministry of Defence
(MoD)
announced that wind turbines were jeopardising
national defence
as the turbines interfere with radar. The
MoD has
lodged last minute objections to at least four
onshore wind
farms in the line of sight of its radar stations
on the east
coast of
to spot
incoming aircraft. The same objections are likely to
apply to
recently proposed offshore wind farms in the
principle radar
defence stations, Brizlee Wood, Saxton
Wold and
Trimingham on the Northumberland,
and Norfolk
Coasts. Giving evidence to a planning inquiry
in October
2007 Squadron Leader Chris Breedon explained
that the
turbines create a hole in radar coverage so that
aircraft flying
overhead are not detected:62
This
obscuration occurs regardless of the height of the aircraft, of
the radar
and of the turbine.
Wind
turbines are now reaching 500ft above ground
level. This is
not high compared to the normal flying height
of most
aircraft but for specialised pilots they are a serious
hazard. For
example, the Station Commander of RAF
Shawbury63
has officially complained that proposals for a
wind farm in
the
significant danger to
the lives of his trainees.64
Chapter
8
CONCLUSION
sources. Yet
today we face a looming energy crisis.
Today, our
electricity comes from a mix of power stations
– the more recently built are mostly gas, the older mostly
coal-fired and
nuclear. Over the next six to eight years, 40%
of this
ageing fleet will be shut down on environmental,
efficiency and
safety grounds. But replacement baseload
capacity is not
being built. Despite three Energy White
Papers
since 1997, new build has stalled.
Coal still
provides 37% of our electricity, but now faces
the challenge
of cutting its carbon emissions. As a baseload
supplier of
electricity it can have a bright future if clean coal
technology is
developed. Coal is comparatively cheap and
coal plants
can be activated quickly to meets peaks in
demand and to
help stabilise electricity prices. New
supercritical coal
plants, which are able to be retrofitted with
carbon capture
and storage facilities when the technology is
commercially
available, are long overdue.
Electricity
from gas-fired power stations has, until
recently, also
provided relatively cheap supplies for the
consumer. Gas supplies 37% of our electricity. But
reserves of
indigenous gas are in decline and we have
become a net
importer of gas for the first time. Gas prices
are tied to
the high oil price and this shows little sign of
falling:
electricity from gas-fired power stations is
increasingly expensive
and the country risks becoming overdependent
on gas for
the generation of electricity. And it
should not be
forgotten that gas often has to be imported
from
geo-politically turbulent regions.
Nuclear
power is virtually carbon-free. Nuclear power
stations operate
at exceptionally high load factors and
represent the most
efficient source of baseload carbon-free
energy. The
price of electricity produced by nuclear stations
is also
competitive when compared against other baseload
suppliers like coal
and gas.
Over the
last decade the Government has let our nuclear
stations run down
without any replacement plants. It will
now be
difficult to rapidly increase nuclear power in the
engineering know-how
has dwindled while public fears, and
misunderstanding, on
issues such as the handling of nuclear
waste have not
been countered.
So it is
true that the
clean coal
(including coal gasification) and renewable
supplies of
energy. Yet this does not mean that wind is the
only, or even
a preferable option. For wind energy is
proving to be an
unreliable, costly, uncompetitive and
unpopular horse in
the great energy race. Overdependence
on wind
energy and the resultant costs to
electricity consumers
risks plummeting more and more
families into the
fuel poverty trap.
of the
highest tidal ranges in the world. Tidal energy
provides a far
higher level of load consistency than wind
and can be
housed and installed away from the population
thereby negating
the problems, cost and time taken up with
lengthy planning
applications so associated with wind.
Compared
with wind energy, the costs and environmental
impact of tidal
energy are substantially lower. David
Cameron
was right to herald tidal power in his speech
unveiling the Blue
Green Charter.65
Wind
energy, in contrast, can only play a negligible role
in plugging
halt to new
wind farms, and to expand aggressively our
nuclear, clean
coal and tidal resources.
APPENDIX
SURVEY
RESULTS
POLITICSHOME
interviewed 1,774 people from their
Phi5000
panel on the
weighted to match
the demographic profile of
[FYI]
Public
Opinion Research: The Phi5000 Panel
The
Phi5000 panel is PoliticsHome’s daily measure of how opinion
is shifting in the general public. A specially
recruited, politically
balanced panel of 5000 real voters across
the country, taken from the
YouGov
panel, answer a short survey every day, consisting of rotating
tracking questions and ad-hocs.
Data
from the Phi5000 Panel has featured in front page stories in
the Daily Telegraph and Observer, as well as the
Financial Times,
Evening
Standard, Daily Mail, Scotsman, Bloomberg and across the
blogosphere.]
How
willing or unwilling would you be to pay higher electricity bills if
the extra
money funded renewable power sources like wind or solar
power?
|
Political allegiance |
||||||||
|
Total |
Lab |
Con |
Lib |
Other |
None |
Don’t |
||
|
|
|
|
Dem |
|
|
Know |
||
|
37 24 25 12 3 |
35 26 26 10 3 |
45 24 22 8 1 |
26 24 28 17 5 |
47 19 17 15 3 |
37 21 31 10 2 |
24 20 48 8 0 |
|
|
Gender and
Age |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total |
Male |
Female |
18 to |
35 to |
55+ |
||
|
|
|
|
|
34 |
54 |
|
||
|
Very
unwilling Fairly unwilling Neither willing nor unwilling Fairly willing Very
willing |
37 24 25 12 3 |
41 20 26 10 3 |
34 27 25 12 2 |
25 27 28 17 3 |
39 21 27 10 3 |
44 24 22 9 2 |
||