I’ve commented before that I understand and can empathise with those who oppose windfarms on aesthetic grounds. Whether such aesthetic considerations can or should outweigh the need to act on emissions is a rather more complex issue, however; and when opponents of windfarms start to go into technical detail, they frequently get it plain wrong.
There was a lengthy article in yesterday’s Sunday Times – hidden behind their paywall, I’m afraid, so I can’t link to it – by Frieda Hughes lamenting the construction of wind farms in the part of Wales where she has chosen to live.
She makes some good points, but also includes some absolute howlers. What can one make for instance, of the statement that:
“We should not forget that the Welsh assembly also allowed the apparently unnecessary flooding of Welsh valleys to supply water for Birmingham.”
Her intention appears to be to challenge the credibility of the Assembly on TAN8. That it undermines somebody's credibility is not in doubt; but it misses its intended target, and is a pretty spectacular own goal.
In a variation of the old ‘I know it’s true because I met this bloke down the pub, and he said…’, she also makes the astonishing claim that, if the power should fail in Aberystwyth, the entire Cefn Croes wind farm would only supply enough power to run one light bulb in each house. Well, maybe, but the question I asked myself after a few quick sums was 'who’d want to sit in a room illuminated by a 5000 watt light bulb?'
The authority for this particular gem was the painter who was decorating every room in her house, and he knew because he’d recently been working at Cefn Croes…
Sadly, the power of the internet is such that I’d not be at all surprised to see these ‘facts’ slowly spread and replicate, reinforcing the prejudices of those who oppose windfarms. It’s a pity, because it serves only to obscure serious debate. What really surprises me though is that a ‘quality’ newspaper could have reproduced such claims at all, even as personal opinion.
Posts
11 comments:
"...Well, maybe, but the question I asked myself after a few quick sums was 'who’d want to sit in a room illuminated by a 5000 watt light bulb?'"
I'm sure that your quick calculation showed that the bulb would be between 0W and 5000W depending on the strength of the wind...!
Well, yes it did, of course. But given that, in the context, it was being presented as the best that the wind farm could do, a little bit of shorthand seemed to be in order... And, actually, I was being generous - it actually worked out closer to 6000W, but I didn't want to exaggerate!
"and when opponents of windfarms start to go into technical detail, they frequently get it plain wrong."
Bit like you did then?
Aside from the facts of the windfarm issue, this sort of thing is symptomatic of the "columnist" culture in the British press where bright generalists are paid to sound off about anything they want. It can be very entertaining but it basically IS the same as the "man down the pub" (Julie Burchill, Simon Jenkins, Simon Heffer...take your pick). It's the cult of amateurism, innit? Very different in Germany in my experience, whether in the newspapers, workshop or on the corporate board.
Efrogwr
My household has 11w bulbs throughout. There is a time switch on the immersion tank and the night storage heaters (in winter) kicks in which draws power at night when Aberthaw is generating excess. In fact those Kw cost me less. Is it beyond our technology for the time switch to be replaced with one which draws power into my storage devises when the wind is blowing on Cefn Croes/Gilfach/Bettws? In Scotland they talk of 'intelligent grids'. In Wales we are still argueing about views. I'd be far more agreeable to turbines on the mountain if my household benefited from them and I knew my bill reflected the energy source. I'd even pay myself for the switch to intelligent supply, I did so for low energy bulbs and the insulation. This laptop I'm typing works off a solar panel on my caravan. Hnag on.... put the kettle on Bethan, the tide has just turned !! ......Ooops, that wire probably goes to up to Wylfa. .....I'll get my coat...
John
Its all my fault
I was in this pub in Cardiganshire
and I happened to say that I was thinking of selling my family home
Ty Bach. Tryweryn which although small had lakeside views but no electricity
Well in a flash out comes this cheque book from the guy in a suit next to me with the Sunday Times in his other hand. Wants it for a female client from up country so he says
I left shortly after with 200K in my pocketand I only went in for a pint
cheers
Ps what ever made you think that it was a quality paper-- Cofio Y Byd--Sioni bach
I noticed that own goal on reservoirs, and it did detract badly from the article's green welly author.
However, I do believe that Plaid Cymru are going to find it hard supporting "green" policies which do nothing for Wales and are rather woolly and nebulous even in a UK context. How can this once nationalist party sustain support for a policy which will mean the pssible closure or more likely relocation of Port Talbot steelworks, the loss of Wylfa B or the erection of thousands of useless wind turbines. I did not join the party forty years ago to become a sandal wearing Guardianista.
eclecs,
There are a number of points there where we are not going to agree.
If I start with a very general point - if we believe that we need to reduce carbon and other emissions, then there is a need to rebalance the economy. That means, inevitably, that some activities will contract whilst others expand, and that jobs created in the 'green' sector will not always be 'additional' jobs, but will quite often be 'replacement' jobs. How that process is managed is another question; I think it requires much more direct government intervention than we've seen to date. But if you accept the basic premise, then the fact that there will be some contraction and expansion is inevitable.
A separate but related question is what we do about industries such as steel where there is not always an obvious replacement. Whilst some uses of steel can use alternatives, a very large number can not, and if we accept that the world still needs steel, then it has to be produced somewhere. There is little point in an environmental policy which simply relocates steel production elsewhere whilst continuing to produce the same level of emissions - that does nothing to reduce total global emissions which is what our objective needs to be. The challenge is to devise a policy which maximises the replacement of steel with other alternatives where possible, and minimises the total output of emissions from the steel industry - merely driving steel producers to set up somewhere else does neither of those things.
In the process, however, we need to be careful that the steel producers are not allowed to play off one government against another and simply locate their production facility in the country with the greatest tolerance of emissions. That's one of the reasons for wanting to see more international agreement on emissions control.
So, on the specific example of the steel industry, I have some sympathy with the concern that you express.
On Wylfa B, I do not. Producing electricity solely from renewables is an achievable aim - we simply have no need of nuclear energy. And a renewables-based energy industry will generate and support more long term (i.e. not simply construction) jobs than a nuclear solution, so we don't need to compromise jobs.
On wind energy, I simpy don't agree with the 'useless' tag - but I've blogged on that many times previously and won't repeat a lengthy argument here.
I am quite surprised by your response. Surely, the transition to a lower carbon economy is necessarily a long one. You seem to have scant disregard for the jobs and careers of thousands of Welsh people in the short to middle term. For instance, Wylfa B ( as did Wylfa A) produces good and well paid ( and safe according to the Commissioner)jobs for lopcals, so safeguarding the wider economy and the wider community ( including the Welsh lnnguage).
Steel is hardly going to disappear and will literally form the backbone of economic development in the future with admittedly the slow introduction of alternative materials in the meantime. 30,000 jobs are dependent on Port Talbot both directly and indirectly. Are you seriously saying that this does not matter?
If this is the type of economic policy which Plaid Cymru believed in when you were Chairman then it beggars belief that we hold any seats at all.
The Green issue is something which is more likely settled on the money markets of this world than in any cosy Gaia type seminar. No wonder this party is going down the drain.
Best wishes,
eclecs
eclecs,
"Surely, the transition to a lower carbon economy is necessarily a long one."
How long is 'long'? Governments both in Cardiff and London have signed up to some challenging targets, which mean that the transition has to be faster, much faster, than is currently happening. I expect both governments to miss their targets because of too slow a pace of change, but I don't think that we should just sit back and accept that.
"Wylfa B (as did Wylfa A) produces good and well paid ... jobs"
And I don't disagree with that. The question though is whether Wylfa B fits with the agreed energy policy. It does not. If we ignore agreed policies and support any proposal which brings well-paid jobs, we may as well not have a policy in the first place. But the real point is that nuclear energy is not the only way of providing well-paid jobs - the choice of Wylfa or nothing is a false choice. Presenting it that way is misleading.
"Steel is hardly going to disappear and will literally form the backbone of economic development in the future with admittedly the slow introduction of alternative materials in the meantime. 30,000 jobs are dependent on Port Talbot both directly and indirectly. Are you seriously saying that this does not matter?"
I simply don't understand how you got from my statements to that one. I thought that I'd been pretty clear that we still need steel for the foreseeable future, that steel has to be produced somewhere, and that there is no point in an environmental policy which simply relocates the environmental cost of steel somewhere else. I did not say that the jobs in the steel industry don't matter.
None of that, though, means that we should not be making efforts to reduce the environmental cost of steel production.
"The Green issue is something which is more likely settled on the money markets of this world than in any cosy Gaia type seminar."
I think that goes to the heart of our very different perspectives. If you believe that energy and environmental policy can be, and should be, driven by the money markets, or the drive for profit, then the world will not achieve the globally agreed targets, and the risk of man-made climate change grows. If on the other hand, you believe that man-made climate change is a significant danger to future generations, then you don't leave policy entirely in the hands of those whose primary interest is their own profit.
I accept that there are those who either don't agree that man-made climate change is a danger, or else feel that economic growth has to take precedence over tackling it. It's simply that I don't agree with either of those stances.
In a final punt on this thread, could I put one thing straight. I do not favour the market taking precedence over policy, unfortunately it is a fact. Green technologies to survive and thrive will need investment as against subsidy, at present the technologies are not robust enough to draw that investment without hidden lucre.
With regard to AGW/Climate change, nothing any government will do will change the climate even if the present small changes are catalysed by human behaviour. Adaptation seems a far better bet to me than any idea that you can mitigate a chaotic system such as the climate. To put it bluntly, if the whole green energy business had been dressed up as blind if honest fumblings towards a world without oil (as aginst carbon) then it would gain far more credibility as a worthwhile strategy.
Cofion gorau,
Eclecs
Post a Comment