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.
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
Malcolm | 2 May 2012 3:00 pm
Anonymous: Ralf didn't say EVERYONE has to cycle to work. There are many solutions to reaching our 80% reduction target.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 2 May 2012 3:52 pm
It completely mystifies me that tidal power doesn't receive the priority it deserves as a source of reliable energy. The old adage 'time and tide wait for no man' declares the truth. Tides are predictable, reliable, and the energy available is easily determined.
Tidal turbines are much smaller for a given power output and fluid velocity, since water density is over 800x that of air. The wind energy industries keep reaching for larger and larger turbines, requiring huge amounts of resources to build and maintain. Doubling the size of a turbine requires 8X as much in material, and 8X the expenditure of energy (and CO2 generation) as a baseline size. I'd love to see some real comparisons between the overall energy bill required to build and maintain a tidal turbine vs a wind turbine of the same power output.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Robert Freer | 2 May 2012 3:56 pm
No.
Windfarms are built only because of the massive subsidies we have to pay
And they need back up for the 78% of the time they are not generating full capacity
(which negates any alleged environmental benefit)
Remove the subsidies and no-one would build them
Any form of electrical generation which has to rely entirely on subsidy is bad engineering and bad economics
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
brian M | 2 May 2012 5:03 pm
If you need reliable, repeatable power, wind doesn't hack it. We need tidal, hydro, thermal, carbon capture and more conventional (nuclear...). Give subsides for things that will really make a difference.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
offshorewind | 2 May 2012 5:39 pm
Yes Brian makes a good point - the golfers will be keeping their eye on the ball not looking out to sea!
What may not be well advertised is that this wind farm is being setup by AREG and Vattenfall to demonstrate new technology to reduce the cost of offshore wind. So all the comments about high cost of offshore wind are also missing the point. It does seem yet another sad case of NIMBY!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
GLynn Davies | 2 May 2012 6:22 pm
Wind Turbines are completely useless says Prince Philip and he is right. After FOI questions the Govermnment were ready to admit to £1285m in subsidies for WT which are:
incapable of providing a base load for the Grid
swing between plus 18% and minus 18% in unpredicatability
need fast acting fossil fired generators to compensate for them 85% of the time
weaken small businesses in driving up the cost of electricity
call for extra taxes on efficient power generators
and as a bi product will close important power stations such as Didcot ( now sheduled closure for 2013.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
DAVID RAMSBOTHAM | 2 May 2012 6:36 pm
The dash for cash and politics, not saving the planet, are the driving forces behind wind energy.
Are you disillusioned by rising electricity prices, over dependence on the “green” dream [especially uneconomical and inefficient wind farms] and the destruction of our countryside then please object to the Government at
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/22958
or by GOOGLING “E-PETITION 22958″ and following the link.
Please note that the main purpose of the petition is to get a meaningful debate in Parliament on this matter. Parliament is able to call on all the necessary experts to make it a worthwhile discussion and to reach the right conclusions. At the moment most of our MPs are burying their heads in the sand and do not seem to have the ability to convince the British public that wind power, with all its associated problems, is part of the answer to our energy problems.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Colin Megson | 2 May 2012 9:23 pm
Every 6th day, the electricity delivered to the National Grid by UK wind farms, dropped below 1¼% of average capacity for a period of 5 hours. So the 200 MW averaged sized offshore wind farm would power about 1000 average households. The occupants of the remaining 99,000 might as well take the chance of another few hours in bed. Google - "stuart young" + "wind power"
In reallity, either or both expensive gas burning 'non-spinning reserve' plant or expensive and tragically inefficient 'spinning reserve' plant will be brought online, ensuring that 99,000 household make their full contribution to greenhouse gas emissions.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Bryan Leyland | 2 May 2012 9:54 pm
Subsidies for renewable energy only exist because of a mistaken belief that man-made carbon dioxide causes dangerous global warming.
The fact that the world has not warmed significantly in the last 10 to 15 years proves that this assumption is wrong.
The fact that even if Man-made global warming was real and dangerous wind power would make only a tiny difference to global warming, is totally ignored.
There is no justification for subsidies for a source of energy that is expensive, unreliable and has very low capacity factor. On top of the direct subsidies the consumer–not the wind farm owner– pays for backup generation transmission and the extra cost of system operation.
http://www.adamsmith.org/research/reports/renewable-energy-vision-or-mirage
The money being squandered on huge subsidies for expensive and useless renewable energy would better be spent on nuclear power, cleaning coal using hydrogen fluoride and shale gas.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Roger Bryant | 3 May 2012 9:46 am
In response to Richard Annett:
Let’s have a look at what £2bn (£ 2 x 10exp9) per year would buy you. Taking round numbers if you consider 10 nuclear power stations with a total output of 10GWe generating for 7000 hours per year that is a total of 70 x 10exp9 kw hours per year. The subsidy per kw hour for decommissioning is then 200/70 pence ~2.86 pence per kw hour. This quite a conservative figure as it does not consider the electricity generated by the already closed plants that are included in these decommissioning costs or that the service live are in excess of 40 years.
What are the subsidies for wind power and other renewables? 10-20 pence per kw hour seem to be typical figures. Is wind energy really a bargin?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
JohnK | 3 May 2012 2:08 pm
What nobody seems to have mentioned is the 'green' payback period when the noxious gases produced in manufacturing the windfarms is recovered by the 'green' energy produced. Factor in the gases produced during maintenence, especially offshore, and it would be interesting to see a rational estimate of the time before the green aspect starts paying off.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
JohnK | 3 May 2012 2:08 pm
What nobody seems to have mentioned is the 'green' payback period when the noxious gases produced in manufacturing the windfarms is recovered by the 'green' energy produced. Factor in the gases produced during maintenence, especially offshore, and it would be interesting to see a rational estimate of the time before the green aspect starts paying off.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
S. Martin | 3 May 2012 2:34 pm
Something not mentioned is the claims that windfarms are a guaranteed source of income for the landed gentry and aristocratic landowners. Such claims have come about because many of them have Government backed guarantees for income for long periods. Is it just another way of the aristocracy looking after themselves with taxpayers money?
You decide.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Ralf | 4 May 2012 4:07 pm
Anonymous said, not everyone can work in their home town.
Yes, I am aware of that. I moved quite often in the last 30 years. And I still don't own a car.
I take 1h+ with bus and train to work, with bus only it's about the same + 1 hour waiting for the bus (but 40% cheaper).
Within 2 hours I could cycle to work.
With a car I'd take 25min.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Ralf | 4 May 2012 4:14 pm
Anonymous said, that we demand more and more energy. Why is that so?
20 years ago I bought a flat iron with 800W. That was damaged after 15 years and I had to buy a new one. But you couldn't buy anything for 800W anymore. Now these were steam irons and none under 2500W. And you still need ages ironing one shirt.
In the office we close the curtains because of the sun, and then switch on the lights because it is dark. Electricity prices are included in the rent, so who cares about the consumption?
For water I have to pay a lump sum at home instead of paying only what I use, like in other parts of the world.
So, why are we demanding ever more energy? Couldn't we use less, if we used the brain a little more?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Paul Noonan | 4 May 2012 5:38 pm
Ralf,
I'm a keen cyclist by most measures, covering around 2500 miles a year, most of which I would otherwise drive. However this is a fraction of the average car's annual mileage. In turn cars only represent a fraction of our total energy consumption. Cycling is great for recreation and health but it only reduces my total energy consumption by a few percent at most, and I'm an enthusiast.
We have to be realistic and not over-claim the advantages of proposed solutions. When you look at the numbers nuclear power needs to be taken very seriously if you think anthropomorphic global warming is likely (on balance I do). If not then it's hard to argue against burning gas. Wind is just an ugly, expensive irrelevance for all the reasons others have already pointed out.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Stewart Boyle | 5 May 2012 2:45 pm
If Donald Trump is vehemently against wind power my default would probably be to support them. Who is this guy? He thinks because he invests a dollop of cash on a golf resort he can dictate UK energy policy! Thank goodness that Alex Salmond has a vision for Scotland which is heavily reliant on its natural sources such as wind, waves and biomass. He also knows that there will be plenty of jobs coming if we invest wisely now. A new report by the REA showed that the UK already gets 110,000 jobs from renewable energy and are on track to increase that to over 400,000 within ten years. Tell me where all the new jobs in the UK economy are coming from right now?
Costs are coming down in all areas of renewable technology - in contrast to the fourth version of the brave new nuclear future where costs of the two EPR plant being built have already doubled. If people can just look behind the hysterical anti-wind rhetoric they would see a real success story. Yes - the Big 6 utilities have ensured that costs are higher than they should be but the trend is good and losing our nerves at a time when renewables are beginning to take off would be a big strategic mistake.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Alan | 5 May 2012 3:21 pm
S. Martin mentioned that windfarms are a guaranteed source of income for the wealthy. He omits to mention that these wealthy people are also major shareholders in all other Industries. I therefore decide that electrical energy is not a moral choice, and shall be turning my laptop off forthwith.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
John Davies | 6 May 2012 8:23 am
1- Are wind subsidies a price worth paying?..... NO
The cash would be better spent on developing other technologies & reducing consumption.
2- The “greens” have their village idiot in the shape of Al Gore, so its only democratic that anti-wind get Don Trump, sadly it means the media will focus on the idiots……. not on the real issues.
3- The recent RenwableUK poll suggesting that 67 per cent of people in the UK are in favour of wind energy is an interesting & clever bit of deception taken up by the media (including this organ) & reported as fact,
Asking the right question always gives the answer you want (ask any barrister).
Try this – take any random group of intelligent people and ask if anyone DISAGREES with this statement-
“If you face south on midsummer day, the sun rises in the east, (your left) goes clockwise over head & sets in the west (your right), the following day it rises again in the east.”
95-100% will agree …. From which you can extrapolate that more than 90% of the UK population believe the sun rotates around the earth !!!
See, you can get Turkeys to vote for Xmas.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Dondo | 8 May 2012 5:34 pm
I don't think a lot of people consider the consequences of "massively taxing carbon emissions". The current recession is bringing real suffering to ordinary people on a massive scale. This is the consequence of an economy with practically zero growth. Such "massive taxation" would hit all industries, and send the economy into precipitous decline, which would be disastrous for our whole society. The cause of sensible, responsible, ecology-minded engineers seeking to produce answers to energy problems is undermined by irresponsible and ill-thought-out posturing such as this.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment