Not really news

Thanks to Gordon Harmer (GH) for the intriguing news (Norway and wind; SN 26/7/12) that Norway is considering investing its oil money on offshore wind turbines – except it isn’t really news.

GH hasn’t left a reference for his quotes however they appear to be from an article in the online magazine treehugger.com.

http://www.treehugger.com/renewable-energy/norwegian-wind-power-could-become-europes-battery.html

Problems with the article begin with it being written in 2008, back in the heady days when the UK Climate Change Act 2008 was passed in Parliament and Gordon Brown PM subsequently declared there were “50 days to save the planet.”

If “a week is a long time in politics” four years must be an aeon. Since 2008 we have witnessed the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit fiasco, the “Climate-gate” shenanigans and the claim that Himalayan glaciers might disappear by 2035 being shown to be at least 300 years too soon.

Politically, too, we have travelled a long way from “50 days to save the planet.” GH writes: “Norway’s oil and energy minister Aaslaug Haga seems to think that wind turbines are a good bet.”

Alas, the article is dated 28 May 2008 and Aaslaug Haga resigned on 19 June 2008 following a corruption scandal, so she isn’t Norway’s oil and energy minister. Nor is her successor Terje Riis-Johansen, the present incumbent is Ola Borten Moe.

GH continues: “wind parks – totalling 5,000 to 8,000 megawatts installed capacity,” and: “The energy would be equivalent to up to about eight nuclear power plants.” Really?

Eight modest nuclear plants (1000MW each) would produce 8,000MW with a capacity factor (average output divided by full load capacity) of over 90 per cent.

So it’s hard to see how even the maximum figure of 8000MW wind power with an average capacity factor probably in the range 25 to 45 per cent would be anywhere near enough.

If we, generously, assume a high capacity factor of 45 per cent, 8,000MW of wind power could only replace, at most, half the energy needed to fulfil this extravagant claim.

In fact, at least 16,000MW of wind power would be needed and assuming say, 5MW per turbine, at least 3,200 turbines or about 35 Viking Energy wind farms would be needed to supply the energy equivalent of our eight nuclear plants.

The other thing treehugger.com forget to mention is, of course, when it’s bitterly cold and energy demand is peaking, the wind tends not to blow, so you still need your nuclear, coal and gas-fired power stations.

Except they now need subsidy too because they can’t possibly pay their own way under the required running regime.

John Tulloch
Lyndon
Arrochar

Shetland News — free to read

Membership helps pay for journalism

If you value impartial local journalism, become a member of Shetland News and get:

• Only local ads.
• Members' weekly newsletter.
• Bookmark stories and join the comments.

Already a member? Sign in to hide this message.

One-time

Monthly

Quarterly

Yearly

£50

£75

£100

£125

Amount More Options £150£200£250£300£350

£3

£5

£7

£10

Amount More Options £15£20£25£30£35

£10

£15

£20

£25

Amount More Options £30£35£40£45£50

£60

£80

£100

£120

Amount More Options £140£160£180£200£220

Continue

Remind me later

Billing: Your monthly subscription of £10 will be billed on or shortly after the 16th of each month. You can change how much you pay or cancel at any time.