By Gabe Trodd
Labour must develop and come to terms with how we feel, as a party, about onshore wind energy. The recent discussions about Vestas and the outlook for British onshore wind energy clearly highlighted: the need for much more thought on what we’re doing with onshore wind; how crucial it is for Labour activists to get behind wind energy and popularise it across the country (like you would with your football team); and the gaping hole that has previously existed within the party for a solid, totemic red-green movement, to lead the charge on the ground. Because opinion surveys routinely show that just over eight out of ten people are in favour of wind energy, and less than one in ten (around 5%) are against it.
Reading Paul Kingsnorth’s recent impassioned rebuttal of British wind energy and the Bright Green Environmental movement at Comment is Free, ‘A wind farm is not the answer’, I realised that amidst all the current green-anorak talk of carbon reduction targets, gigawatt hours, parts per million of carbon, peer-reviewed papers and "sustainable development", there's a typically romantic British resonance at the pulsating heart of the objections and arguments over British wind energy.
Indeed, the picture that particular article expertly painted was vividly bleak and illustrative of much of the high-profile opinion across the country – a distant, sober cousin to Ted Hughes’ story, the Iron Giant. It was a world of Orwellian industrialisation, needless and brutal scarring of the virginal British landscape, with uncompromising materialism and ‘structures, each made of steel and mounted on hundreds of tons of concrete’.
So how can onshore British wind energy be popularised? Well, Labour activists need to get excited about British wind energy and vocalise their own account of the future. At various stages in my life, I’ve had three youthful ambitions: to be a professional drummer, along the lines of Keith Moon; to be a professional actor; and to be a commercial airline pilot. Unfortunately, the onset of puberty put many of those ambitions into some fresh perspective; although, in eventually finding a real passion for the environment, my interest in aviation became especially conflicted – even more so than when I harboured ambitions to be Keith Moon.
To have reformed childhood hopes of being a commercial airline pilot, whilst at the same time being quite unflinchingly adamant that more needs to be done about the aviation industry’s emissions is an odd position to be in. So over the last couple of years, I’ve come to replace my instinctive passion for the grandeur, untold possibilities and theatre of aviation, with the grandeur, untold possibilities and theatre of British wind energy – majestic onshore wind turbines set subtly against the British landscape. I think this is a position Labour needs to popularise. Let’s take the energy, glamour and marvel that has existed around aviation, and invest it in wind energy.
To completely fly in the face of the most oft-vocalised opinion, I happen to think wind turbines look fantastic – stark, moody and paradoxically able to tap into long shadows on cricket grounds, warm beer, invincible green suburbs and dog lovers' soft British nostalgia for traditional countryside windmills, whilst being inherently interwoven with the futuristic and aerodynamic resonance that my youthful interest in aviation was built around.
As an island, Britain has 40% of Europe’s wind resource, with strong winds both on and offshore. This is an opportunity to be a world pioneer and it's a position we should proudly maximise as a country. Most promising of all is the glittering potential that exists for green collar jobs. To overlook this free British fuel, frame it with a depressed, steel-tinted vision of savage industrialisation or put too high a reliance on offshore wind generation and fledgling micro-generation technology would tragically and irreversibly condemn the UK to: missing our renewable energy targets; falling short of our commitment to tackle climate change; drifting away from energy independence at a time when it is essential; and contributing to a significant deficit in the country’s short-term energy supply.
The rise of the green agenda will have to correct the uncompromising, post-Thatcherite, industrialised materialism that has so ruthlessly ravaged the environment and its resources. But amidst the mountains of landfill and rivers of plastic shopping bags, wind turbines should be our rural lighthouses - silent, stoic poetic warnings against the pitfalls of failing to live within our means. Beacons of hope and symbols of a better, less polluted future.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
When I was a kid, the view from our back garden was of the cooling towers at the power station.
The more energy you use the more taxpayer money you get!
As I don't trust government subsidies (anyone relied on pension tax credits? anyone got a diesel care because fuel duty was based on it being green?) the payback time seems to be about equivalent to the life time of the turbine... Break even (except for the land to build it on...)
OK - I am glad it is so cheap, I can get hold of a few grand and would happily buy a turbine if it means I never have to pay for power again.
Turbines are rather more granular than a power station, so there is nothing to stop people or communities doing their own bit - for themselves. (May help with planning objections too...)
So how much would I need to spend now so I never have to pay for power again?
What are the figures - cost of construction, maintenance, running, expected life time, power output? I can feel an LLP coming on.
Tory ran Woking use a combination of CHP, solar and fuel cell to deliver electricity 1p/KWh cheaper than the public grid.
Funny how that is never mentioned by Gabe yet he seem fixated with a source of energy that is only 80% available and only delivers between 10-30% of its available capacity.
Regarding nuclear power, there are more than enough alternatives that are cheaper and better than nuclear power:
* Nuclear power is one of the most expensive ways of generating electricity: see http://www.mng.org.uk/gh/nn.htm#subsidies .
* Several reports show how it is possible to cut CO2 emissions and enhance energy security, without using nuclear power (see http://www.mng.org.uk/gh/scenarios.htm ). There are more than enough alternatives that are cheaper, quicker to build and altogether more attractive (see http://www.mng.org.uk/gh/energy.htm ).
Bearing in mind that the nuclear cycle is far from being zero-carbon (as described in some detail in Helen Caldicott's book, "Nuclear power is not the answer"), we get bigger cuts in CO2 for a given amount of money, and we get them sooner, if we choose renewables with energy conservation -- and without using nuclear power. We certainly don't need both.
Whilst I am sure you are a decent enough bloke, this just sounds like "lets have onshore wind farms because they look nice".
Next, can I ask how the silent majprity feel and how do you know - especially if they are, as you say, silent?
So one YouTube video is a scientific study of noise is it? And as for crossing the road against living near one? If you expect to convince people using that then you are seriously ****ed!!
Labour appear to have gone for this one as it looks good on paper. Only when you look deeper, it actually doesn't. The one on Teletubbies may operate at 80% of the time but I'd have to say I'd trust Bill's figures, research and experience more than your governmental handouts.
My personal opinion from what I have seen debated on here and actually gone and read and researched is that they are a good idea - but maybe not such a good idea as other methods and certainly not the answer to all our energy prayers that you, Prescott and Balls go on about.
As regards the oft put about statement that terrible Tories are stopping them, how about asking yourself why that is? Prescott has gone on about NIMBY's yet I doubt he will have one near any of his homes will he?
Unfortunately this is also one of the reasons I'll be voting anyone other than Labour come May 2010 because if your whole reason for an energy policy is because it looks majestic (which I have to say I love the look of them) then you aren't fit to run the country!!
So what you're saying to me on the safety issue is that you didn't bother to read a word I said on it, nor research it yourself to find out what happened in the North East of England? Instead you wrote another article with a lack of knowledge about what these wind turbines might do in the depths of winter. Well done, have a carrot.
If you read what I said, there is nothing wrong with the very same technology, the very same area of space and the very same power output that wind farms give, but offshore not onshore. My objection is far more than just noise and safety (although they are pretty strong arguments on their own) but the fact that democracy itself is being circumvented. Do you know what is being done in the background regarding the objections to wind farms? Do you even know the name of the quango set up to deal with it?
My objection to your argument Gabe is not you personally, I happen to think you're a really decent bloke with good politics in general and you can make one hell of a difference when you apply yourself to the right area, but with this your lack of knowledge on the very basics is quite shocking. Either that or you are being deliberately obtuse. I'm more than willing to rewrite everything I've put elsewhere if you don't want to spend time searching for it, but please, I'm not an illogical loud mouth who objects to things without reason. This is about safety, its about the very democracy we live in and its about really tackling the massive problem we have been building up. I do blame the Conservatives, and not without good reason for this problem being as bad as it is, but I will not and can not ignore Labour and their part in it. They have willfully ignored the real issue and they have failed the British people by addressing it with these giant icons that will not solve the problem, but might make a good photo op.
If you're bored by now, grab a brew, have a minute and reread what I've just written. All due respect Gabe I'm not attacking you, I'm trying to debate with you to make you realise that these turbines are not all sunshine and wind. There are some real issues here that are being overlooked and if they are not addressed, if the questions are not asked particularly by people like you, we're storing up problems rather than solving them. Stop fighting me with words and listen to what I'm saying in a calm and reasonable manner and we may get somewhere.
Firstly, I have no idea what safety issue you keep asking me about. Every time this comes up, you keep making references to ice shards stuck in peoples' heads. I don't know of any evidence of that ever happening. Or any evidence to suggest it would happen. In your opinion, which is safer - crossing the road or being near a wind turbine?
Secondly, I showed you a Youtube video of a turbine - because you said they sounded like jet engines. They don't. It was a good way to show they didn't.
Thirdly, you don't like windfarms, which is loud and clear - because of your safety and noise complaints. But that's not how a silent majority of people feel.
Thanks for your comments - have a good one. Bye.
I doubt that, do you also not think there may be unintended consequences in removing energy from a little understood dynamic system?
Who sets the targets Gabe? Yep, the Labour government sets them, whether directly or indirectly. Do we have to have the same debate (or when I attempted to debate with you and you ran off when you couldn't) that we had last week regarding this? Onshore wind farms are not realistic for the UK. You haven't addressed a single issue I came up with last time other than to argue on pedantic points and show me ridiculous YouTube videos that proved nothing other than you have way too much time on your hands.
You won't get people excited about these farms at all, the electorate do not want them. They could sited offshore, but no, the government goes full blast at creating an undemocratic quango to push them onto the electorate. Its a vote loser to begin with, but you haven't addressed the safety issue I raised, not at all. What will it take? A kid to be found somewhere with an ice shard stuck in their head before you'll listen? And you'll be the first to complain, I'm sure.
Long and short of it, as you already know from the 2000+ words from our last outing, the national grid needs a lot more power over the next decade than these turbines can produce. We need a joined up energy solution, not 60ft tall gimmicks pushed into areas where they are not wanted. Its fine for that to happen is it Gabe? Sod democracy as long as you get a wind turbine sited where you want it? And you have the nerve to comment here that you want Labour to win a 4th term when you won't listen to what is being shouted at you from over 200 groups nationwide!
No energy source is 100% reliable. An individual wind turbine will generate electricity for 70-85% of time. But the combined output of the UK’s entire wind power portfolio
shows less variability, given the differences in wind speeds over the country as
a whole.
So yeh, they have to be part of a clever energy mix. But making the most a free British fuel, working towards energy security and helping the climate change agenda is definitely part of the answer. I don't see why energy sources need to be in competition with each other.
Is the 'turbines on the screensavers' thing a new Cameron green policy? Like the tree in the logo.
The UK has targets to meet - 15% of all the UK's energy has to come from renewables by 2020. A big proportion will have to be wind. It's great Labour have led the way with the targets. Plus, anyway, people care about climate change and energy security in a big way.
Which Tory policies are going to 'fix' things? Be quite specific...
But it's really not an either/or choice, especially when you're faced with a short-term energy deficit. We should just get moving with onshore wind, plus look at the other stuff you've said.
With Concentrated Solar Power, where mirrors target solar heat on boilers on towers, how do you cool the steam after use prior to reheating if there's no water in the sahara?
As to para 2, I'm not so sure about ultra-low cost - or that onshore wind would have much contribution to make if it had to justify itself economically and environmentally against all other means of generation. It doesn't seem to feature very highly in the EIA's Energy Technlogy Perspectives scenarios for 2050.
To quote the key parts relevant here.
"IN THE frigid opening days of 2009, Britain’s electricity demand peaked at 59 gigawatts (GW). Just over 45% of that came from power plants fuelled by gas from the North Sea. A further 35% or so came from coal, less than 15% from nuclear power and the rest from a hotch-potch of other sources. By 2015, assuming that modest economic growth resumes, a reasonable guess is that Britain will need around 64GW to cope with similar conditions. Where will that come from?"
"In terms of energy policy, this is almost criminal—as bad as any other planning failure in New Labour’s 12-year reign"
Wind is not going to provide 20GW, not in the wildest dreams of the Greens could wind ever provide that much. This has been another case of Labour incompetence. Another disaster left to the Tories to fix.
Like a football team - based on emotion, faith and tribalism... not based on science and economics... ok...
I like the look of the turbines too - thats an argument to have one as windows wallpaper of screen saver, not to spend anything on them...
Oil is just as 'free' as wind and just like wind its the extraction, processing and delivery that you actually pay for (plus tax of course).
Putting oil and gas based companies in charge of alternative energy production is a bit stupid though... give it to new, greedy entrepreneurs and watch them rip their faces off the fossil fuel boys.
Then you can have your windmills because the UK will have a secure, reliable primary energy source and wind power can give us the ultra-low cost energy when the wind blows.
The second thing is this: of course we need another source of energy to kick in whenever the wind dies. Please can the Labour Party throw its weight behind CSP, the cheap and straightforward technology that can generate vast amounts of electricity in the Sahara and other deserts and feed it into a new European supergrid? See eg http://www.desertec.org/. German industry is planning to pour billions of euros into this, and Jonathon Porritt described the basic concept years ago as a "no-brainer". There is no need for nuclear power – we can do this!