|
|
Sunday October 25 2009 |
|
|
Sunday October 25 2009 |
By Jonathan Leake Environment Editor
THE first detailed study of Britain's onshore wind farms suggests some treasured landscapes may have been blighted for only small gains in green energy.
The analysis reveals that more than 20 wind farms produce less than a fifth of their potential maximum power output.
One site, at Blyth Harbour in Northumberland, is thought to be the worst in Britain, operating at just 7.9% of its maximum capacity. Another at Chelker reservoir in North Yorkshire operates at only 8.7% of capacity.
Both are relatively small and old, but larger and newer sites fared badly, too, according to analyses of data released by Ofgem, the energy regulator, for 2008.
Siddick wind farm in Cumbria, now operated by Eon, achieved only 15.8% of capacity, the figures suggest. The two turbines at High Volts 2, Co Durham, the largest and most powerful wind farm in Britain when it was commissioned in 2004, achieved 18.7%.
Turbine efficiency is calculated by comparing theoretical maximum output with what the farms actually generate. The best achieve about 50% efficiency and the norm is 25%-30%.
Experts say the figures for individual wind farms have to be treated with caution as output can vary sharply because of factors such as breakdowns.
The revelation that so many wind farms are performing well below par, however, will reinforce the view of objectors who believe many turbines generate too little power to justify their visual impact.
Britain has 245 onshore wind farms. Although wind power is expensive, the industry has boomed because of the "renewable obligation" subsidy system, under which consumers pay roughly double the normal price for energy from wind.
Michael Jefferson, professor of international business and sustainability at London Metropolitan Business School, who is also a former lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has cited the efficiency figures in peer-reviewed papers. He says the subsidy encourages the construction of wind farms.
"Too many developments are underperforming," he said. "It's because developers grossly exaggerate the potential. The subsidies make it viable for developers to put turbines on sites they would not touch if money was not available. It means noise and visual impacts on residents that cannot be justified."
Nick Medic of Renewable UK, which represents the wind industry, said Britain's ambitious targets for clean power meant the country needed "every bit of green energy it could generate".
TOO MUCH WIND AND NOT ENOUGH PUFF
Wind farms appear to offer a perfect solution to the twin problems of global warming and the depletion of hydrocarbon reserves. The wind will still be blowing long after the last petrol-engined car has been crunched into a lump of metal. Britain may be running out of North Sea oil, but you need only stand on our coastline to realise it will never lack wind.
As we report today, however, a detailed study of some of Britain's onshore wind farms suggests they do not come remotely near providing an efficient and reliable source of supply. Worse, they are a blight on some of our most beautiful landscapes.
No wind farm can produce 100% of its maximum power output; the realistic operating maximum is about 50%. Many wind farms fall well below that. The norm for onshore farms is 25% to 30%, based on data from Ofgem, the energy regulator. More than 20 farms produce less than a fifth of their maximum output and some produce less than 10%. This might not matter except that such low output adds to the already high cost of wind generation. More seriously than that, many of these wind farms got planning permission only because they had claimed levels of power output that have never been achieved. Communities have been left with the huge and noisy wind farms on their doorsteps, knowing they are producing little energy.
If onshore wind is disappointing, solar power is likely to be even more so, especially in Britain. A recent study by the Institute for Energy Research, based in Germany, found that the country's renewable energy policy, including the so-called feed-in tariffs about to be introduced in the UK, resulted in "massive expenditures that show little long-term promise for stimulating the economy, protecting the environment, or increasing energy security". Solar power was a particular culprit, with subsidies per worker exceeding average wages but with very little to show for it.
Even George Monbiot, the eco-warrior, has weighed in, warning of the "great green rip-off" of solar panels and the feed-in tariff. Solar panels may be middle-class status symbols but they are "perfectly useless", he wrote. This is the kind of problem that arises when renewable targets are set from on high, in this case from the European Union. It wants 20% of energy across Europe to be generated from renewable sources by 2020. This is folly of the highest order if the only way it can be done is inefficiently and expensively and at the cost of damaging our environment. Far better to push on with technologies we know can deliver, such as nuclear and clean coal.
The answer, sadly, is not blowing in the wind.
