Wednesday, February 20, 2013
The Green Party’s enthusiasm for fickle wind as a viable alternative energy source is contrary to physics, economics and common sense.
Betz’s law tells us how pathetically inefficient wind turbines are. Moreover, they are costly to erect (especially at sea), intermittent in performance, environmentally damaging, aesthetically unsightly, of short life expectancy (at only 25 years) and present a navigational hazard.
It would take over 3,000 turbines working at full capacity to equal one moderate nuclear power station – which lasts over 40 years, can be positioned much closer to the consumer, and occupies only a fraction of the space.
As an energy specialist said recently: “Powering the national grid from wind turbines is like using a rubber band to run an HGV.”
A Western Power representative stated that turbines “provide grossly inadequate power when you don’t want it, and none when you do”.
So, why then the enthusiasm? Apart from the Green Party feelgood factor, it must be the FIT (feed in tariff) and, of course, the subsidy.
Were it not for this, hardly a single turbine would blight our land or seascape.
Just as this Atlantic Array nonsense is being considered, a number of marine protection zones, in addition to the existing Lundy one, are also on the cards for the Welsh coast and North Cornwall.
In its proposed co-location, the Array and Lundy seems about as appropriate as positioning an abattoir next to a game reserve!
Companies like RWE will probably not be around in 25 years. So who would decommission the field? Parts of California are a veritable forest of redundant, rusting masts, which nobody will pay to remove.
Denmark has already experienced the same thing, with companies dissolving when the time is right only to re-emerge under another name and devoid of all previous liabilities.