Wind Power (Jonathon Porritt)

Search

My Profile

Feeds

What are feeds?

Articles

Other Blogs

News Links

Organisations

« What next for the economy? | Main | Better ways of banking »

Wind Power

The British Wind Energy Association held its 30th Anniversary conference last week – at the Excel Centre in Docklands. Two and a half thousand people taking part over three days. Huge exhibition. Gordon Brown did a video message, Nick Clegg a star turn. Outside, stock markets were plunging and pundits were reaching for ever more apocalyptic heights of rhetoric. Inside, an industry that has truly come of age was quietly flexing it muscles, gearing up to what will be the most astonishing growth period in energy markets since the erstwhile "dash for gas" in the 80s.

A few doubters were in attendance, including some of the NIMBY NGOs which have ensured a far slower roll out for on shore wind farms than would otherwise have been the case. Theirs is an amazing record: literally dozens of planning committees the length and breadth of the land brow beaten and befuddled by often outrageous mis-information and outright scaremongering. They’re still hard at it whenever they get the chance: since January 2006, only 54% of 167 on shore wind farm applications have been consented at the local level. A further 12% were eventually consented at appeal.

This remains a serious problem. With that EU target of 15% of all our energy needing to come from renewables by 2020 now staring policy makers in the face, the race is on for a massive expansion of both on shore and off shore wind. The reality is that wind energy will have to contribute the lion’s share of that target, given the relative immaturity of most of the other potential renewable technologies, and some of the difficulties associated with renewables in the heat and transport sectors.

In that regard, 2008 has been a good year, with more than 40 projects consented to date, totalling a record of nearly 2000 Megawatts. And three big off shore approvals have also been secured.

Whatever the anti-wind brigade may say, public support for on shore wind remains consistently high (at around 80%), with some of the strongest support coming from those living closest to operating wind farms. Support for off shore wind is even higher.

The BWEA has just published a very useful "State of the Industry" report, with all sorts of recommendations as to how the government should now get today’s planning blockages sorted out. But it would help no end if some of our leading “environmental organisations” in the UK finally got to grips with the pressing realities of climate change, and renounced their NIMBY nonsense.

Posted by Jonathon Porritt on October 28, 2008 11:46 AM | Permalink

Comments (14)

I agree (of course). It would be very useful to have a list of facts with which to rebut the "outrageous mis-information and outright scaremongering" which slows down or wipes out planning applications. There are commentators I otherwise respect (Simon Jenkins for example) who assume that it is completely proven that wind farms are useless as well as hideous; can we easily prove them wrong?

Posted by Lesley Bennett | October 31, 2008 6:10 PM

It seems to be that if something is successful e.g. wind energy some people will want to find a reason for it being wrong. I am a member of the Royal Town Planning Association and was disheartened to read in our weekly magazine this week an article by a regular freelance writer - Fyson titled "the UK’s unrealistic reliance on wind" describing wind turbines as “mega”… “forests of turbines.”

The commercial success of wind energy has encouraged and provided a leading example for other renewable technologies.

Wind energy is the only renewable technology that is proven and commercially viable. Contrary to what Fyson says it is the only way we can deliver its share of the green energy target for 2020. The government needs to push for the delivery of grid infrastructure and the public need to have easy access to accurate and unbiased information about wind energy.

Posted by Vicky Portwain | November 3, 2008 7:55 PM

Wind energy is not a commercial success. It needs vast subsidies. It provides intermittent, unpredictable and unreliable electricity (and we can't survive on intermittent electricity, we need it 24/7). I'm pleased to be a wind NIMBY and do all I can to counter the outrageous mis-information given out by the BWEA and wind developers. I therefore agree that the public needs access to accurate and unbiased information.

Oh and of course there is no scientific evidence of anything other than an insignificant amount of man-made climate change. The climate has always changed and always will. We can do very little about it. But look on the bright side; global warming is better than global cooling!

Ah well, must go. I've got to put more logs on my wood-burner.

Posted by Phillip Bratby | November 4, 2008 5:13 PM

Whether the BWEA information is totally accurate, only slightly accurate or totally bogus, isn't it about time (and I'm not referring to those artificial horizons set by the EU, the UN or a host of academic institutions) that we addressed the NEED for renewable energy?

NIMBY or not there has to be a way forward to secure energy requirements for an ever-hungry population. Government are woefully slow at tackling this, so it's likely to fall to the renewables industry to develop the technology required. So let's lend them some support rather than constantly tearing them down and denigrating their efforts.

Posted by Ironspider | November 12, 2008 11:58 AM

Let the wind blow high, let the wind blow low, either times my heater won't glow.

Why do we insist on taking the solution the Primary school children would dream up when there are so many better ones?

Wind power has its uses, but only marginally and it requires conventional power stations to keep burning for when the wind or machinery fails.

I have written to Jonathon with one better solution but he appears not to have had the courtesy to reply. So is this debate about energy or visibility?

Posted by Frank Fray | November 13, 2008 11:08 AM

In response to the incorrect information above I would like to point out that wind energy is almost as cheap as clean coal technology and cheaper than new nuclear. As for it being no use - 1 modern turbine will provide enough electricity to supply around 1500 homes per year. This takes into account the fact it is intermittent and that it produces around 30% of its maximum theoretical capacity (not to be confused with how often they turn which is around 85% of the time). I think this is pretty good going. Of course the more wind farms we have spread across the UK the more effective it is - there is a good Oxford University study on this.

Perhaps Jonathon is tired of repeating why wind is good - whether or not you do need back up from conventional plant - electricity from wind means less coal being burnt so offsets carbon dioxide.

Posted by Victoria Portwain | November 15, 2008 2:29 PM

A shame to see you using a word like "NIMBY". In my experience it's mostly used by people who want to make a lot of money out of despoiling the environment to attack people who want to protect it. Time to recognise it for what it is?

Posted by Jon Reeds | November 28, 2008 2:55 PM

There are causes for the planning problems. It might have been expected that with wind and other renewables environmental sensitivity would have been at the heart of the business approach. Reality has been the opposite: that it is the right, green thing to do for this and other renewables - most dangerously biofuels - seems to have led to ignoring or expecting to overide environmental concerns, many of which could have been dealt with, as in the involvement of RSPB in advising on hazards to birds in the Thames Estuary. This experience directly parrallels the problems with afforestation in Britain which peaked 30 years ago.

Posted by Roderick Leslie | November 28, 2008 5:24 PM

Underwater turbines for rivers and coasts may be better but the companies need financial help. (See Google).

Posted by elizabeth | January 25, 2009 3:58 PM

Interesting that James Lovelock appears to be opposed to wind turbines on aesthetic grounds, but also, he says, because one gigawatt of power requires 2500 square kilometres.

Posted by Trofim | January 28, 2009 8:23 AM

Wind Turbines are never going to provide baseload generation. The answer is nuclear.

Posted by Nick M | February 1, 2009 8:54 PM

Jeez,

NIMBY's everywhere... oh well... let's just wait until we start with the brownouts as per the USA, and then see who's still a NIMBY shall we ?

When they can't just flick a switch to get electric - that will pour water on their fire (or woodburner).

It seems as though most people who comment haven't even done any research and quote old, totally inaccurate statistics.

I have worked in the energy industry for over 15 years, and can assure people that Mr Porritt is correct.

Posted by Graham | March 9, 2009 10:53 AM

There seems to be a lot of wind, both hot and cold, on the subject but very few reliable facts.
I can accept that wind power will help but it is unreliable. Tides are not and perhaps we are looking in the wrong direction?

Posted by Ron Spacey | April 23, 2009 2:46 PM

I would love to know which of my comments Victoria Portwain finds untrue! Of course the wind blows for most of the time, but to allow for when it does not, or when gearboxes break dow, or maintenance, coal stations have to be kept burning 24/7 365 days a year. They cannot just be switched on and off!
Ron Spacey hits the nail on the head when he tells of the reliability of tides.

Posted by frank fray | July 16, 2009 7:20 PM

Search

Feeds

Recent Posts

Categories

Archives