Letters / Renewables fantasy
I take exception to Geordie Pottinger’s attempt to infer that I am an advocate for nuclear power (Nuclear standpoint?; SN 8/4/12); I am no fan of nuclear.
I do recall Geordie questioning me rather keenly during and after the hustings, I don’t recall saying those particular words; in any case such a question could hardly label me as a supporter of nuclear power.
If I did say something along those lines I am confident it would have been rhetorical, based on a response that some form of conventional power must always provide backup for when the wind does not blow, so what, for instance, would that be?
Given current Westminster policy and the Scottish Government’s fantasy to produce 100% renewables by 2020 it would in all probability contain a nuclear element. That is one of many flaws in the Scottish Government’s pursuit of such a dream while at the same time claiming the moral high ground by having a nuclear free policy.
What is most likely to provide reliable backup to any growth of renewables in the short to medium term on the UK grid, (and it will be the UK grid, independence wouldn’t change that), is gas fired power stations.
If the current fantasy for renewables is pursued these will require to be built quickly to stabilise the grid, which means they will not be state of the art but the cheapest available, the power companies will not want to spend too much on backup.
I have no problem with renewables, but I do have a problem with inappropriate developments and with the unrealistic expectations spouted by politicians. These projects would not be built if it were not for the large subsidies through Renewable Obligation Certificates and Climate Change Levy which comes out of the electricity consumer and taxpayer’s pockets.
Environmentally the Viking Energy Wind Farm has no green credentials, the removal and destruction of so much peat moorland and blanket bog will far outweigh any carbon savings. Let’s not forget, saving the planet is what this is supposed to be about!
In terms of energy security that too is fantasy. The recently opened Walney Offshore Wind Farm, claimed to be the largest in the world, has a maximum output of 367.2 Mw/hr. Looking at the figures, the developers appear to have an expectation that it will operate at 43.5% energy efficiency, this gives an average output of some 160 Mw/hr. At a build cost of £1.2 billion this means, based on average output, an installation cost of £7.5million per Mw/hr. Additionally, this extremely expensive and paltry generating output will require some form of reliable backup for its entire lifespan.
When I pointed this out to my parliamentarians and energy ministers I received no reply. Finally a month later I received a response from the Offshore Renewables Policy Team, a Scottish Government quango (I assume) based in Glasgow. A month may seem like a long time to wait but considering this reply had obviously come via Mars I think that is pretty good going.
The Offshore Renewables Policy Team informed me, amongst a raft of platitudes, that “their Offshore Wind Cost Reduction Task Force was setting out a path and action plan to reduce the costs of offshore wind to £100 per Mw/hr by 2020”. At that point I fell off my chair convulsed in a mixture of despair and laughter.
Yes Geordie, that is the level of common sense our policymakers are working with. Now I know you’re not stupid, so please take a long hard look at the madness of this policy, which is being driven by pure political dogma. I have noticed when reasonably intelligent folk do that they generally change their minds about large scale wind farms.
Billy Fox
Quarff
Become a supporter of Shetland News
Shetland News is asking its many readers to consider start paying for their dose of the latest local news delivered straight to their PC, tablet or mobile phone.
Journalism comes at a price and because that price is not being paid in today’s rapidly changing media world, most publishers - national and local - struggle financially despite very healthy audience figures.
Most online publishers have started charging for access to their websites, others have chosen a different route. Shetland News currently has over 600 supporters who are all making small voluntary financial contributions. All funds go towards covering our cost and improving the service further.
Your contribution will ensure Shetland News can: -
- Bring you the headlines as they happen;
- Stay editorially independent;
- Give a voice to the community;
- Grow site traffic further;
- Research and publish more in-depth news, including more Shetland Lives features.
If you appreciate what we do and feel strongly about impartial local journalism, then please become a supporter of Shetland News by either making a single payment or monthly subscription.
Support us from as little as £3 per month – it only takes a minute to sign up. Thank you.
Already a supporter? Sign in to hide this message.
