Mon 19 Apr 2004
Scotland’s largest wind farm, near Peebles, may not have the economic and
ecological benefits that have been promised, says a new report.
Picture: David Cheskin/PA
Wind power 'will cost taxpayer millions'
JAMES REYNOLDS
ENVIRONMENT CORRESPONDENT
THE publication this week of a new report into renewable energy is set to raise
serious questions over the economic and ecological benefits of wind power.
According to the leading economist Professor David Simpson, the government’s
strategy to promote wind power as a means of reducing carbon emissions is
fundamentally flawed.
His report Tilting at Windmills, a copy of which has been obtained by The
Scotsman, goes on to suggest that nuclear power could be a better option for
the future, as long as there was an "acceptable waste management strategy".
Conducted on behalf of the influential Edinburgh-based think tank the David
Hume Institute (DHI), the paper also claims using so-called "green power" would
cost the taxpayer millions of pounds more than conventional power sources.
In February last year, Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, announced a strategy to
promote greener forms of energy in a bid to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by
more than 60 per cent in the next 50 years.
Pledges to put a five-year block on planning new nuclear power stations and
increase renewable energy sources such as wind and wave power were broadly
welcomed by environmental pressure groups at the time.
However, others dismissed the white paper as a "policy-free zone" and insisted
"intermittent and unproven" renewable resources were no answer to Britain’s
need for reliable, continuous electricity.
The new paper, a severe criticism of the government’s commitment to produce
20 per cent of electricity from renewable resources by 2020, predicts the
consequences of investing in renewables will have costs over and above those of
conventional fuelled energy.
Prof Simpson writes: "Achieving a target of 20 per cent of electricity
generated by wind power would cost consumers at least an extra £1.2 billion
each year, and over £2 billion annually on less favourable assumptions."
He adds that because of the cost of providing additional stand-by generating
capacity - when the wind doesn’t blow - it is unlikely wind power will ever
account for more than 20 per cent of electricity generation.
However, Scottish Renewables, a trade association representing the renewable
energy industry, last night dismissed the report as "a one-sided diatribe
masquerading as an authoritative academic study".
Jason Ormiston, a spokesman for the organistion, said: "The simple truth is
that wind energy is clean, economic and has an important role, alongside other
renewables and energy efficiency, in helping the UK in meeting climate change
targets."
For and against: Prof Simpson's arguments, and the answers from Scottish
Renewables
HERE are Professor David Simpson’s arguments with responses from the industry
representative body, Scottish Renewables. He claims that:
The cost of generating electricity from wind power is twice that of the
cheapest conventional alternative source. By 2010 the cost of subsidising
renewable forms of energy will be about £1 billion a year.
Response: This figure is correct, but the price support for renewables is paid
for through the markets by suppliers and reflects the premium paid for green
energy. Prof Simpson fails to quantify the high cost to society/environment of
pollution from conventional generation.
The government promotes wind energy through the Renewable Obligations scheme,
the cost of which is some 2 per cent and falls on electricity companies who
pass it on to consumers in higher bills.
Response: The RO is designed to support electricity generation that has little
or no environmental cost, whereas conventional generation is cheaper because it
does not pay for other social and environmental costs.
It is generally accepted that wind power will become competitive, but
projections show that by 2020 a generation portfolio containing 20 per cent
wind power will still cost more than a conventionally fuelled alternative.
Response: The cost of wind power is falling and will continue to fall.
Achieving a target of 20 per cent of electricity generated by wind power would
cost consumers at least an extra £1.2 billion each year, and more than £2
billion on less favourable assumptions.
Response: A recent EU study found that wind power had the least additional cost
to society.
It is most unlikely that realising the official targets for the output of
renewables, of which wind power is the principle component, is the lowest cost
way of achieving reductions in CO2 emissions.
Response: Renewable energy is one of several ways of tackling CO2 emissions.
The government has set CO2 reduction targets for 2020, and expects 50 per cent
of the cut to come from energy efficiency. Renewables will be 20 per cent of
this cut.
Between now and 2010 overall CO2 emissions are expected to resume an upward
path reflecting increasing emissions from the transport and household sectors
and from power generation because of run down of nuclear power.
Response: This sounds like an argument for more renewable energy. Denmark has
increased GNP by 28 per cent since 1990 whilst CO2 emissions have fallen by 11
per cent in the same period.
A serious attempt to address the issue of a reduction in CO2 emissions has yet
to begin. When it does, it may raise wholesale electricity prices by up to 60
per cent in five years.
Response: Unsubstantiated claim. Renewables will lead to a modest increase in
prices of 2 per cent. If price shocks do occur they will come from price hikes
in conventional generation.
Because of the cost of providing additional stand-by generating capacity, it is
unlikely wind power will ever account for more than 20 per cent of electricity
generation through the National Grid, and will make no substantial contribution
to a reduction in carbon emissions.
Response: Combined with other renewables like hydro and biomass a significant
cut in emissions can be expected.
No matter how large the wind power capacity, the variable nature of its output
means it can make no significant contribution to security of energy supply.
Response: The key to security of supply is to have a mixture of different
renewables working alongside conventional generation. All forms of generation
have strengths and weaknesses.
A 20 per cent share for wind and other renewables in power generation will
require a major re-engineering of the electricity transmission and distribution
networks, costing an extra £2.5 to £4.5 billion.
Response: Much of Scotland’s electricity grid was planned and built over 50
years ago. There has been chronic under investment so, yes, investment is
needed, but why have a 21st century electricity system using old worn-out grid
lines?
The government should take advantage of the renewables review coming up in
2005-6 to reconsider the nuclear option.
Response: Nuclear fuel is not a renewable source of power so should not form
part of the review.
Nuclear power avoids extra costs, emits no greenhouse gasses, and contributes
to security of supply.
Response: Nuclear power has many problems of its own. After 50 years the public
do not support nuclear energy.
Wind power may have a valuable role in locations where grid connections are too
expensive, notably in remote and sparsely-populated areas.
Response: Small wind energy schemes can help isolated communities toward energy
self-sufficiency whilst on a larger scale help cut emissions significantly,
meet future demand and create thousands of jobs.
.
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: Wind power 'will cost taxpayer millions' |
19 Apr 2004 05:41:52 PM |
|
|
In article <20040419043746.13628.00000074@mb-m21.aol.com>, (TonyZ2001) wrote:
Mon 19 Apr 2004
Scotland’s largest wind farm, near Peebles, may not have the economic and
ecological benefits that have been promised, says a new report.
Picture: David Cheskin/PA
Wind power 'will cost taxpayer millions'
JAMES REYNOLDS
ENVIRONMENT CORRESPONDENT
THE publication this week of a new report into renewable energy is set to raise
serious questions over the economic and ecological benefits of wind power.
According to the leading economist Professor David Simpson, the government’s
strategy to promote wind power as a means of reducing carbon emissions is
fundamentally flawed.
His report Tilting at Windmills, a copy of which has been obtained by The
Scotsman, goes on to suggest that nuclear power could be a better option for
the future, as long as there was an "acceptable waste management strategy".
Conducted on behalf of the influential Edinburgh-based think tank the David
Hume Institute (DHI), the paper also claims using so-called "green power" would
cost the taxpayer millions of pounds more than conventional power sources.
In February last year, Tony Blair, the Prime Minister, announced a strategy to
promote greener forms of energy in a bid to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by
more than 60 per cent in the next 50 years.
Pledges to put a five-year block on planning new nuclear power stations and
increase renewable energy sources such as wind and wave power were broadly
welcomed by environmental pressure groups at the time.
However, others dismissed the white paper as a "policy-free zone" and insisted
"intermittent and unproven" renewable resources were no answer to Britain’s
need for reliable, continuous electricity.
The new paper, a severe criticism of the government’s commitment to produce
20 per cent of electricity from renewable resources by 2020, predicts the
consequences of investing in renewables will have costs over and above those of
conventional fuelled energy.
Assuming that the conventional fuelled energy meets 1950s emissions standards,
or 2010 standards?
I note that this is apparently a self-published paper, rather than a peer
reviewed publication. This may indicates a study that wasn't up to the research
standards required for "real" research publications.
Woods
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
