| Posted on June 7, 2011 at 12:19 PM | 
 edit  comments (0) |
The recently released ‘Common concerns about wind power’ report written by the Centre for Sustainable Energy makes for fascinating reading and explodes a number of myths and concerns often touted by those against turbine developments.
I am a wind turbine proponent, but only as part of a mix of energy generation options and energy reduction measures, and they cannot be relied on alone to provide all of our clean power needs in future. However, I do think they are critical to our low carbon future. But they do need to be located in areas where they make sense, in terms of the environmental, visual and generation impact. I also strongly believe they need to provide a clear and direct benefit to the communities located closest to them, an approach I favour in my professional life.
As part of my job I often engage directly with communities concerned about turbine developments. Often it is those most upset at the whole concept that I hear from the most, the so-called ‘vocal minority’, as they are the ones most likely to come out to a meeting or event to voice their displeasure. A great many concerns I hear include fears about the impact on house prices, visual change, noise, flickering light, ice and other broad safety concerns. Any concern an individual has is a valid one but the reality has to be based on fact.
The recently published report from the Centre for Sustainable Energy shines a light on this reality and it makes for interesting reading…
It clearly outlines and negates the often over-egged headline impacts seen in media coverage and often flat wrong suppositions put forward in respect of likely turbine impact on house prices, infrasound, net energy costs and the environment. It also underpins the assertion that they do have a role to play as part of a broad energy generation mix.
Key findings include:
- The statement that turbine farms payback their embedded energy in less than 6 months, torpedoing one of the common arguments against them.
- Onshore wind costs approximately 3.2p per kWh to generate which compares favourably to the grid-wide wholesale price average of 3.0p per kWh.
- Clarification of the difference between load factor and efficiency – they are not the same. Onshore wind averages 27% load capacity whilst conventional thermal power stations average 38%. As the technology improves, the efficiency of turbines will only go in one direction, narrowing this gap.
- Indication that we need onshore wind turbines to help meet our energy and carbon targets and it is still cheaper to build a turbine on land than offshore.
- The statement that the UK’s free market nuclear sector does not allow for the necessary level of control as evidenced by France’s successful state-owned programme.
- The fact that heavy community involvement in any turbine development is a must. A sentiment I would echo greatly.
- That there is no evidence of turbines impacting on local house prices.
- Evidence that wind energy is one of the safest forms of generation.
- Shadow flicker and noise has minimal impact and can be mitigated.
- That noise can be a factor (dependant upon location) but improved design has helped mitigate any impact
- Many, many more birds and bats are killed by traditional energy generation systems, buildings and power lines than wind turbines even when figures are averaged out.
This detailed report is a powerful statement that many of the concerns held against wind turbine developments are unfounded and I would urge anyone on either side of the debate to read it. You can download it here
I am a wind turbine proponent, but only as part of a mix of energy generation options and energy reduction measures, and they cannot be relied on alone to provide all of our clean power needs in future. However, I do think they are critical to our low carbon future. But they do need to be located in areas where they make sense, in terms of the environmental, visual and generation impact. I also strongly believe they need to provide a clear and direct benefit to the communities located closest to them, an approach I favour in my professional life.
As part of my job I often engage directly with communities concerned about turbine developments. Often it is those most upset at the whole concept that I hear from the most, the so-called ‘vocal minority’, as they are the ones most likely to come out to a meeting or event to voice their displeasure. A great many concerns I hear include fears about the impact on house prices, visual change, noise, flickering light, ice and other broad safety concerns. Any concern an individual has is a valid one but the reality has to be based on fact.
The recently published report from the Centre for Sustainable Energy shines a light on this reality and it makes for interesting reading…
It clearly outlines and negates the often over-egged headline impacts seen in media coverage and often flat wrong suppositions put forward in respect of likely turbine impact on house prices, infrasound, net energy costs and the environment. It also underpins the assertion that they do have a role to play as part of a broad energy generation mix.
Key findings include:
- The statement that turbine farms payback their embedded energy in less than 6 months, torpedoing one of the common arguments against them.
- Onshore wind costs approximately 3.2p per kWh to generate which compares favourably to the grid-wide wholesale price average of 3.0p per kWh.
- Clarification of the difference between load factor and efficiency – they are not the same. Onshore wind averages 27% load capacity whilst conventional thermal power stations average 38%. As the technology improves, the efficiency of turbines will only go in one direction, narrowing this gap.
- Indication that we need onshore wind turbines to help meet our energy and carbon targets and it is still cheaper to build a turbine on land than offshore.
- The statement that the UK’s free market nuclear sector does not allow for the necessary level of control as evidenced by France’s successful state-owned programme.
- The fact that heavy community involvement in any turbine development is a must. A sentiment I would echo greatly.
- That there is no evidence of turbines impacting on local house prices.
- Evidence that wind energy is one of the safest forms of generation.
- Shadow flicker and noise has minimal impact and can be mitigated.
- That noise can be a factor (dependant upon location) but improved design has helped mitigate any impact
- Many, many more birds and bats are killed by traditional energy generation systems, buildings and power lines than wind turbines even when figures are averaged out.
This detailed report is a powerful statement that many of the concerns held against wind turbine developments are unfounded and I would urge anyone on either side of the debate to read it. You can download it here
No comments:
Post a Comment