Rick Eggleston: Wind power is a success story that needs to be told
LAST year was a strong one for the wind sector, with significant industry activity. According to the latest figures from the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), in the third quarter of 2011, 9 per cent of UK electricity demand was met by renewables, up by a percentage point on the same quarter of 2010.
Though the industry continued to receive criticism for being “too expensive” compared with fossil fuels, Bloomberg’s report issued in November confirmed otherwise. The report showed that global rising gas prices and falling average wind energy prices will reach parity as soon as 2016. By 2020, the cost to consumers of support for large-scale renewables will be less than £2 per week – just £48, or 3.5 per cent, of the projected annual energy bill of £1,379.
The cost of wind power generation continues to fall, which will have a positive effect on consumer electricity bills. This is largely down to increasing supply chain efficiencies which are fuelling the trend towards cost-cutting. The offshore wind sector is also more competitive, and the government has challenged the sector to reduce its costs to £100/MWh by 2020.
Attaining planning consent, building a robust grid infrastructure and securing finance will remain key challenges throughout 2012, but there is light at the end of the tunnel. The Beauly to Denny line is making good progress. Banks are opening up more finance options – some are investing in their own wind projects, suggesting the industry recognises wind as a good investment. We are also seeing advancement in defence radar issues which may help with some consents – a new system has been developed, approved and successfully tested by the MoD.
One of the key, ongoing challenges in 2012, for government and industry, is to win the hearts and minds of the public. The media has at times criticised the viability of wind energy generation. Some reports have been factually inaccurate, others have been “agenda based” and therefore heavily biased. It is up to the industry to take up the mantle and present a more balanced, factually based argument to the public.
• Rick Eggleston is managing director of REpower UK
Email to a friend
Print this page- Family mourn death of Glasgow ‘fight’ schoolboy
- Rangers takeover: Duff & Phelps threaten legal action against BBC
- Today’s youth not fit to be employed, says car firm Arnold Clark
- Rangers administration: Fans fear Duff & Phelps claims could scare off Green
- Rangers takeover: triple penalty punishment enough, says Johnston
- Alistair Darling leads ‘No to independence’ fight over tea and biscuits
- Scottish independence: SNP flip-flops over Nato
- Scottish Independence: SNP ‘won’t be Yes campaign’s only voice’
- Scottish independence: Alex Salmond’s pledge to sign up 1m voters
- Today’s youth not fit to be employed, says car firm Arnold Clark
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Edinburgh
Sunday 27 May 2012
Today
Sunny
Temperature: 10 C to 22 C
Wind Speed: 12 mph
Wind direction: North east
Tomorrow
Sunny
Temperature: 9 C to 21 C
Wind Speed: 12 mph
Wind direction: North east
Comments
There are 27 comments to this article
Page 1 of 2
The Great Bohunkus
Thursday, February 16, 2012 at 09:16 PM#26 - Whatever form of power generation we use is going to have unwanted downsides. Having accepted that then lets at least use the ones which are effective, efficient, controllable and dependable. Which effectively rules out wind. If you really want to save CO2 then put the money currently being wasted on windfarm subsidy and put it into proper insulation and energy saving modifications for every house in the country - result - CO2 down, fuel bills down, fuel poverty down, Scottish landscape untrashed. My predictions for the medium term? - shale gas will transform the energy supply just as it's doing in the US, especially when the Dear Leader realises that we're sitting on a bonanza right under our feet- watch his green credentials go out of the window. In the longer term, think thorium reactors, currently being developed in India. Worth googling or simply look on Wikipedia.
acumen
Thursday, February 16, 2012 at 07:25 PMA lot of people here are quick to object to the development of wind farms. Instead of bending statistics to suit your own argument or moaning about developments that (be honest) don't affect you, why not come up with alternative solutions? I can't believe how old fashioned some people's views are. One day you'll wake up and realise that we're in the middle of an irreversible energy crisis and renewable energy represents one of the few realistic options we have left. I only hope that day comes sooner rather than later...
tested
Thursday, February 16, 2012 at 09:47 AMIf windmills have no negative effect on tourism why is it that they are notable by their absence from all the tourist adds even though we were fed the BS that they would actually attract tourists. As for survey data; From a visit scotland survey: "Fifteen per cent of those surveyed by VISITSCOTLAND answered categorically that they would steer clear of an area with a wind development. Nationally, this would result in the loss of over 3,750 tourist-related jobs, 430,000 trips and over £80 million in revenue. A further ten per cent said they would be ‘less likely’ to return to the Scottish countryside if the number of wind-power sites increased. If these are included, the figures rise to over 6,250 jobs, 780,000 trips and nearly £140 million in lost revenue. These losses do not include the self-employed or those working in the grey economy." However I'm sure you can massage the figures down if you only interview tourists visiting the Edinburgh Fringe or other urban attraction.
fred bloggs
Thursday, February 16, 2012 at 08:41 AM'In June 2007, the Scottish Government commissioned Glasgow Caledonian University to assess whether Government priorities for wind farms in Scotland are likely to have an economic impact—either positive or negative—on Scottish tourism. The results, published in March 2008, concluded that wind farm developments have a minimal impact on tourism, provided they are not visible from important tourism corridors, with 97% of those surveyed saying wind farms would have no impact on their decision to visit Scotland again. The report also makes recommendations for planning authorities which could help minimise any negative impacts of wind farms on the tourism industry.'-----------VISITSCOTLAND.
fred bloggs
Thursday, February 16, 2012 at 07:28 AM22. Please provide source of your VISITSCOTLAND quote. There is no sign of it on their site and a search for the phrase only brings up anti-wind groups.
The Great Bohunkus
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 10:34 PMSo #21 you seem to think that tourists only visit the Edinburgh festival and the Highlands? And that most of Scotland's areas of outstanding natural beauty are protected by National Parks? You really don't get out of the city much, do you? It may surprise you to find out that most of Scotland’s areas of outstanding natural beauty are not within National Parks, that tourism in, for example, Dumfries and Galloway (an area of outstanding natural beauty where the windfarm companies are currently indulging in what can best be described as a feeding frenzy) is the third largest source of employment. And that windfarms, after the construction phase is complete, employ a mere handful of people for control and maintenance. And even during the construction phase, many of those building these wretched things are brought in from abroad - during the building of Arecleoch widfarm for example, many of the construction workers were brought in from Spain. Here is what VisitScotland has said about the likely effects of windarms on tourism: “Fifteen per cent of those surveyed by VISITSCOTLAND answered categorically that they would steer clear of an area with a wind development. Nationally, this would result in the loss of over 3,750 tourist-related jobs, 430,000 trips and over £80 million in revenue. A further ten per cent said they would be ‘less likely’ to return to the Scottish countryside if the number of wind-power sites increased. If these are included, the figures rise to over 6,250 jobs, 780,000 trips and nearly £140 million in lost revenue.” So don’t let yourself be fooled by promises of a ‘jobs bonanza’. Maybe you need rethink your forum alias. My dictionary gives the meaning of Acumen as “astuteness, discernment, discrimination, the ability to make good judgements” . Based on your last post it really doesn’t sound very appropriate for you, does it?
acumen
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 06:41 PMnabodician: " Add to th eequation the destruction of our tourism industry and the loss of many jobs and any sane person would ask why ?" 1) Scotland's tourism industry is not being "destroyed" by wind turbines. For one, the one million tourists who flock to the Edinburgh Festival every year will be blissfully unaware of any wind farm developments outside of the city. And even for those who visit the Highlands, given that most of Scotland's areas of outstanding natural beauty are protected by National Park organisations, it would be nigh on impossible for anyone to get planning permission for a wind farm in the most popular tourist destinations. In fact, wind turbines are largely being developed in areas with very little tourism, such as Whitelee in East Renfrewshire. So I wouldn't worry your little head about the effects on tourism. (However, I'm sure producing beautiful nuclear power stations all over Scotland, such as that architectural masterpiece Torness, would help the tourist industry to thrive...) 2) As for the supposed "loss of jobs"... A rather short-sighted view, don't you think? Wind energy is one of the fastest growing industries in the United Kingdom. In the last decade the number of people employed in this area has increased exponentially - and shows no sign of slowing. Instead of destroying jobs, the wind energy industry is creating them. I'm actually quite interested to hear who, exactly, has had their job taken away from them by the development of a wind turbine? Nobody I can think of. I wasn't aware, nor can I think, of any companies who have been forced to lay-off their staff by the development of wind farms.
Irritatingly Intelligent Chauvinist
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 04:32 PMSuccess story. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
fred bloggs
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 01:09 PM'Claims that onshore wind energy is competitively priced only because of government subsidy, or that wind power is disproportionately subsidised, are not supported by the evidence. In order to meet the UK’s targets for reducing carbon emissions electricity suppliers are required to purchase an increasing number of Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) each year from renewable energy generators. A fine is paid by those suppliers who have not met their obligation, with the revenue being distributed to those suppliers who have (in proportion to how many ROCs they purchased) therefore rewarding those who are purchasing more renewable energy. The only financial support from government for the Renewable Obligation is the administration and regulation by Ofgem, which for 2008–09 was only £988,500, representing less than 0.1% of the scheme’s total value.8 While the costs are ultimately reflected in customer’s bills, one aspect of the policy ensures that this is never more than an additional 3pkWh on a maximum 10% of the customer’s electricity use, meaning that 90% of a customer’s bill is unaffected by the Renewable Obligation.7 Furthermore, ROCs are a market mechanism and nontechnolog specific so it is most economical for suppliers to meet their Renewable Obligation by purchasing the cheapest renewable energy, thereby supporting the case that onshore wind is a cost-effective method of increasing renewable capacity.'-----Centre for Sustainable Energy, May 2011
Rocabarraigh
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 12:04 PMUK wind at present is generating 2724MW (5.7% of total UK demand) which means 2724MW less fossil fuel is being burnt.
The Great Bohunkus
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 11:34 AM"What subsidies...ROCs are not a subsidy..." claims Fred Bloggs disingenuously yet again. The Renewables Obligation system forces power companies to buy power from renewable sources (ie windfarms) at way above market prices. The power companies pass on this cost to their consumers who are thus effectively forced to pay windfarms for energy which would otherwise not be economic to produce. That's a subsidy in anyone's book Freddie the Fraudster.
Grifff
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 10:00 AMFred Bloggs Said: "What subsidies?" "ROCs are not a subsidy and feed-in tariffs only apply to small turbines." From 2017 renewables, nuclear and other lwo carbon forms will all come under the FIT CFD scheme. Whether or not you call this a subsidy is merely playing with words. In addition, the nuclear decommissioning costs of circa £4Bn per MW Installed comes from government coffers.
fred bloggs
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 09:09 AMROCs are not a subsidy and feed-in tariffs only apply to small turbines.
fred bloggs
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 09:08 AMWhat subsidies?
Taigh na Croiche
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 08:40 AM#6 Tested - mibbe it does, mibbe it dosnae. The same can be said of the nuclear industry. Windpower has been used for centuries. One thing Scotland has is lots of wind. Would be daft not to use it.
Page 1 of 2
Your view
Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.