Loading... Please wait...

It's time to get excited about British onshore wind energy

Wind FarmBy 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.

27 Comments · Show / Hide
Leave a comment »   show trash comments ·
Wind turbines look fine already. Complaints about ruining the view are just nimbyism.

When I was a kid, the view from our back garden was of the cooling towers at the power station.
MonkeyBot 5000 @ 56 weeks ago
Ok I had some time, so had a little look - ideal conditions for a small turbine suggest ten years to pay for themselves and that *includes* the taxpayer funded credit for using wind-generated energy (yes, even if you generate and use your own electricity you get a handout!).

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...)
tory 'killed for telling the uncomfortable truth' troll @ 56 weeks ago
I have tried to post this several times... maybe the mod will let it through this time...

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 'killed for telling the uncomfortable truth' troll @ 56 weeks ago
Matt, you are right with a CP of 10, a better local solution would CHPs of the kind that Woking council have installed; they have a CP of 85 and also deliver the most efficient means of power v level of emissions.

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.
Mike Thomas @ 56 weeks and 1 day ago
Energy Conservation is definately route number 1, But I don't think it'll be enough on its own. Hopefully renewables will fill the gap, but if they don't then I'd prefer Nuclear power over gas or coal any day.
Tim Brighton @ 56 weeks and 1 day ago
I just think that the recent example of russia turning off the gas means that we should never be to reliant on other countrys to provide our energy. As on of many sources I would be happy to back it though.
Tim Brighton @ 56 weeks and 1 day ago
Since it turns out onshore wind farms could actually be a health risk - maybe we should just concentrate on offshore?
Morys Ireland @ 56 weeks and 1 day ago
Re running CSP plants with little or no water, see http://www.trec-uk.org.uk/csp/no_water.html .

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.
Gerry Wolff @ 56 weeks and 1 day ago
Gabe

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!!
Gordon Brown-Nose @ 56 weeks and 2 days ago
Speed of reply and you've got yourself in good time, quality when it comes to debate, you've got a zero.

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.
Bill Dewison @ 56 weeks and 2 days ago
OK Bill.

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.
Gabe Trodd @ 56 weeks and 2 days ago
"An individual wind turbine will generate electricity for 70-85% of time. "


I doubt that, do you also not think there may be unintended consequences in removing energy from a little understood dynamic system?
Charlie Farley @ 56 weeks and 2 days ago
Why is it when someone disagrees with you Gabe you go for the patronising 'Dearest' line? We've been down this road before haven't we and discovered that when you can't debate a point, you switch into prat mode.

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!
Bill Dewison @ 56 weeks and 2 days ago
Hi Mark,
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.
Gabe Trodd @ 56 weeks and 2 days ago
TT - wind energy is one of the cheapest of the renewable energy technologies. You don't have to import it.

Is the 'turbines on the screensavers' thing a new Cameron green policy? Like the tree in the logo.
Gabe Trodd @ 56 weeks and 2 days ago
Dearest Man of the Right,

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...
Gabe Trodd @ 56 weeks and 2 days ago
If the security of an electricity feed from the Sahara is doubtful, why are companies such as Siemens and Deutsche Bank planning to invest ¢400 billion in it? http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jun/16/solar-power-europe-africa
Huw Spanner @ 56 weeks and 2 days ago
Tim, I agree. I think there's a huge potential for tidal power. I'm interested to see how the Severn Barrage stuff will turn out. Plus, it's always good to hear about other ideas to harness tidal power - there always seems to be plans kicking round the Pentland Firth. And even the Thames!

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.
Gabe Trodd @ 56 weeks and 2 days ago
You want us to support wind power because Brown won't. The Tories didn't let planning get in the way of telephone masts so why do we let planning get in the way of windfarms? Usually when it's at its coldest it's the wind that's blowing that's contributing to it so there would be some wind contribution by wind energy but some support from non-wind power would definately be required. I think we should have nuclear as a way of having a balance of fuels for energy security but surely if we tap the energy of tidal flows in the River Severn we won't need so much nuclear power. It would probably be quicker to build too if only we had a PM with some get up and go.

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?
Jonathan Morse @ 56 weeks and 2 days ago
Completely agree with para one - Nuclear. Power.

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.
Matt London @ 56 weeks and 2 days ago
Perhaps a better article on Britain's dire Energy situation can be found here: http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayst...ory_id=14167834

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.
James - Man of the Right @ 56 weeks and 2 days ago
Surely, ultimately, due to our position, wave and tidal power are the answer. The security of a supergrid in sahara would surely be brought into question. I have no issues with wind power in the short or long term, but the numbers must work. If they don't and tidal/wave is not ready yet, then nuclear is my preferred option. But all of these must be linked in with a dedicated effort to reduce the energy needs of the country (which should come above creating more energy).
Tim Brighton @ 56 weeks and 2 days ago
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)

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.
tory 'killed for telling the uncomfortable truth' troll @ 56 weeks and 2 days ago
Two words. Nuclear. Power.

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.
Mike Thomas @ 56 weeks and 2 days ago
I agree absolutely – with two provisos. First, PLEASE could we make sure that our turbines are things of beauty? Remember how the Victorians commissioned one of Britain's greatest architects to design the first telephone kiosk. Remember how the man who commissioned the Routemaster said we must think of a doubledecker bus as moving architecture. If we are going to erect thousands of turbines across our landscape, would it really add that much to the costs to get Norman Foster or Richard Rogers to design something that truly enhances it?

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!
Huw Spanner @ 56 weeks and 2 days ago
This is all nonsense. We need nuclear power stations as soon as possible. Wind power is a lot of, um, hot air
Nick Warren @ 56 weeks and 2 days ago
On shore wind farms are expensive and ecologically disastrous. They only produce electricity when the wind is blowing (ie not when it's cold in January when demand for electricity is at its highest). You need back up power stations for when the wind drops. So how on earth can they be the answer?
Mark Cannon @ 56 weeks and 2 days ago
-->

Contributors

  1. Alex Smith
  2. Tim Nicholls
  3. Jack Scott
  4. Sunder Katwala
  5. Brian Barder
  6. Sonny Leong
  7. Michael Green
  8. Paul Richards
  9. Chris Cook
  10. Jag Singh
  11. Anthony Painter
  12. Cath Arakelian
  13. Amanjit Jhund
  14. Grace Fletcher-Hackwood
  15. Lewis Goodall
  16. Salome Zourabichvili
  17. Rosie Hucklesby
  18. Sam Tarry
  19. Tom Miller
  20. Jessica Asato
  21. Olly Deed
  22. James Alexander
  23. Fiona Millar
  24. Ellie Levenson
  25. Gabe Trodd
  26. Colin Burgon
  27. Richard Watts
  28. Richard Lane
  29. James Stafford
  30. Mike Katz
  31. Jeremy Corbyn
  32. Mary Honeyball
  33. Byron Taylor
  34. Mark Hanson
  35. Mike Ion
  36. Richard Murphy
  37. Julian Ware-Lane
  38. Wes Streeting
  39. Paul Burgin
  40. Bill Dewison
  41. Hadleigh Roberts
  42. LabourList
  43. Rowenna Davis
  44. Will Straw
  45. Don Paskini
  46. Jennette Arnold
  47. Robbie Erbmann
  48. Martin Tiedemann
  49. Jonathan Isaby
  50. Rebecca Hickman
  51. Hugh Goulbourne
  52. Ed Miliband
  53. Alun Michael
  54. Frances Rehal
  55. David Rodgers
  56. Douglas Alexander
  57. Ed Balls
  58. Louise Ellman
  59. Michael Stephenson
  60. Len Wardle
  61. Greg Rosen
  62. Gareth Thomas
  63. Rachel Reeves
  64. Laurie Penny
  65. Simon Fletcher
  66. VoteRed GoGreen
  67. Tom Watson
  68. Kathryn White
  69. Morys Ireland
  70. Jack Straw
  71. Andrew Lomas
  72. Graeme Cooke
  73. Andrew Neilson
  74. Stuart White
  75. Kathryn Corrick
  76. Ed Williams
  77. Bill Kerry
  78. Gisela Stuart
  79. Shamik Das
  80. Gary Kent
  81. Mathew Hulbert
  82. Gavin Hayes
  83. Rupa Huq
  84. Andrew Pakes
  85. Tom Ogg
  86. James Mills
  87. Dan McCurry
  88. Christine Quigley
  89. Huw Lewis
  90. Marie Birchall
  91. Societarian
  92. Tom Harris
  93. Harriet Yeo
  94. Andy Burnham
  95. Tom Flynn
  96. Theo Blackwell
  97. John Gray
  98. Liam Byrne
  99. Ian Adderley
  100. Paul Afshar
  101. Olivia Bailey
  102. Alex Ross
  103. Duncan Weldon
  104. Tim Cheetham
  105. Kevin Bonavia
  106. James Crabtree
  107. James Valentine
  108. Johanna Baxter
  109. Dan Wilson
  110. Rich Green
  111. Rachel Rowson
  112. James Macintyre
  113. Luciana Berger
  114. Jake Hayman
  115. James Purnell
  116. Sue Regan
  117. John Healey
  118. Mark Spiro
  119. Glenis Willmott
  120. Chris Ostrowski
  121. Andy Slaughter
  122. Hope not Hate
  123. John Prescott
  124. Mark Day
  125. John Hirst
  126. Gary Elsby
  127. Shane Mann
  128. Alastair Campbell
  129. Cherie Booth
  130. Nick Clegg
  131. You - Email us if you want to post!

View all contributors


Latest comments

BlogList


#LabourDoorstep

Update comrades on your campaigning progress at #LabourDoorstep.


LabourList on Twitter

Follow us on Twitter