Share
Jon Excell
Editor
Are wind subsidies a price worth paying?
The anti-wind lobby gained a bizarrely-coiffed ally last week in the shape of US business tycoon Donald Trump.
Angered by plans to build an offshore wind farm near his £1bn Aberdeenshire golf resort, the entrepreneur used his appearance before the Scottish Parliament’s energy committee to attack an industry that he claimed is inefficient, unable to operate without subsidies, and responsible for killing “massive amounts of wildlife”
Stirring stuff. And despite vocal criticisms over the environmental impact of Trump’s own development, questions about the economic sustainability of the sector will always provoke debate amongst readers of The Engineer.
It’s certainly true that the UK wind energy industry is heavily subsidised - to the tune of around £1bn per year according to some reports. Although it’s also true that the extent to which other more mature areas of the energy sector are propped up is often overlooked.
What’s more, with a recent RenwableUK poll suggesting that 67 per cent of people in the UK are in favour of wind energy it seems we think it’s a price worth paying.
There’s a good argument that one of the problems faced by wind energy is the perception that it’s a mature industry. But while it’s certainly true that the core technology has been around formany years, the sector’s still in the process of finding its feet as a mass-manufacturer. And as our latest feature shows, technical breakthroughs on the production side could have a major impact. Compared to many other forms of energy generation the construction, installation and maintenance of offshore wind capacity presents some significant technical hurdles. Most existing methods rely on some element of construction at sea, a demanding and costly process in one of the most unforgiving environments.
Our feature looks at how Strabag, one of Europe’s largest construction firms, is developing an innovative process that could bring much of this work back onto dry land and potentially usher in a new era of highly efficient serial turbine assembly.
Meanwhile our interview looks at wave power, a renewables fledgling compared to wind, but an industry which, according to Ross Henderson, technology Director at UK leader Pelamis Wave power, is finally poised to make the transition from demonstration to commercialisation.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page
Readers' comments (30)
Ralf | 2 May 2012 12:41 pm
I'd rather see more dedicated cycle paths, especially in the smaller cities that have no proper public transport.
Building those paths creates also jobs, and it gives families more money into the pocket when they cycle to work instead of using the car, and it gives them more time for themselves instead of waiting for hours for the bus each day.
And it could reduce health costs as well.
Wind turbines can be paid for by electricity prices.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
allyn Boyes | 2 May 2012 12:49 pm
I agree with Donald Trump. Wind is inefficient (availability to demand) and I do believe if the same subsidies had been provided for tidal or wave we would have much more efficient and available to demand systems nearer maturity. The Engineering challenges and costs of siting wind farms must at least be on a par those of the other renewables I mention but I suspect they are in fact greater further weakening their case.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
David | 2 May 2012 12:54 pm
Subsidies are necessary to allow a technology or market to develop to a point where subsidies are no longer necessary. Those who say offshore wind cannot be economical ignore the lessons of history; onshore wind was claimed to be too expensive, now it is on a par with traditional carbon-based power generation. I’m old enough to remember the same being said about offshore oil and gas, now it is the cornerstone of our production.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
ssam | 2 May 2012 12:55 pm
We should be subsidising all forms of low carbon energy (or massively taxing carbon emissions). While I support wind, we are also going to need a large increase in nuclear power.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Brian | 2 May 2012 1:04 pm
Speaking as someone who lives quite close to several turbines already. I think we have to realize that any energy is no longer cheap energy, the cost of wind energy is currently high compared with some other forms, but we are in a development stage with wind energy and in some point in the future I have no doubt it will be more cost competitive. what wind energy and other renewables give us is energy security. we must get away from reliance on imported energy. What was missing from the Donald Trump evidence was the fact that people playing golf on his new course would have very limited opportunity to actually see the offshore wind turbine development, as the course is based among sand dunes and the turbines at least a mile offshore. I speak as someone who drives past it every day.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Harold Birtwistle | 2 May 2012 1:09 pm
The capital cost of windfarms isn't limited to the turbines, there's also the switchgear, transformers, etc plus the installation and cabling.
Factor in running and maintenance to get a whole of life cost.
Then you can take account of how much energy is generated, bearing in mind how often the wind blows, its direction and the times power is available but not required (middle of Saturday night is an extreme example)
Divide total KWHs by total life cost and you get a silly number that nobody can afford.
Until there's a method of large scale energy storage developed windpower is a financial disaster (except for the equipment mfrs and energy companies of course)
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 2 May 2012 1:31 pm
We demand more & more energy today.
As an island nation we need to exploit all sources of energy, cut reliance on imports
and treat new developments as futuristic not monsters. Taxpayers money needs to be spent wisely, wind turbines are todays technology not pie in the sky ideas.
We can work with the energy providers
to beautify and create future features for our countryside.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Richard Annett | 2 May 2012 1:41 pm
With global warming gathering apace, weather systems changing and movement of species because of habitat changes any renewable energy system is welcome over some toff's golf club.
Just as an aside, we are subsidising Nuclear industry heavily; its costing 72Bn£ to decommision our old stations; divide that over the number of years generating, say 36 years for ease of division and you have 2bn£ subsidy per generating year. So Wind Energy seems a bargain. Plus it comes with insurance, rather than nuclear which has non.
So please say to Mr Trump, should you get a chance, that he's an idiot and should stay out of our renewable energy industry.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Adrian Montagu | 2 May 2012 2:03 pm
I investigated the sample used for the poll recently taken. It was from a set group of people and undertaken over the internet.
Here in Wales where we are to have 800 turbines and hundreds of Pylons desecrating the landscape, we don't have a high poulation density and those that do live there do not enjoy good internet access.
The sample is very skewed in favour of cities with no turbines in their back gardens! hmmmm!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 2 May 2012 2:27 pm
Ralf says cycle top work, UNFORTUNATELY not everyone can work in their own town or indeed anywhere near home. So it is transport in some form, public transport is limited, so the car comes in again as an essential, whatever it costs.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment