Monday 6 August 2012

Where else should it go?

Last week's announcement by National Grid of the preferred location for the substation to serve wind farms in Wales brings a long-running dispute to the surface once again.  But like many Welsh political arguments, it is an argument which seems to generate more heat than light.
Many of those I saw interviewed by the BBC were refreshingly honest - they concentrated on issues such as the view from their homes and villages and the effect on property values as the basis of their opposition.  These are issues to which most of us can relate; but ultimately, electricity generation, and the infrastructure to support that, have to go somewhere, and local concerns have always to be balanced with wider needs.
We need electricity, and we need to generate it somehow.  We cannot all assume that the electricity we want and need will be generated ‘somewhere else’.  If we are going to build wind farms in Wales then the infrastructure to connect them to the grid has to go somewhere.  Not building substations is simply not an option.
That in turn brings us right back to two underlying questions.
The first is whether and to what extent onshore wind has a role in the energy mix, and the second is the subsequent question of where it should be sited. 
The second of those is the easier of the two to answer - the best location is always going to be the one where the presence and speed of wind is most consistent.  And whether we might choose it to be thus or not, Welsh uplands are ideal from that perspective.
The first question is rather harder.  It is an issue on which opinion is seriously divided, and raises a number of issues.
Some opponents of on-shore wind don't accept the need to reduce emissions, and reject the idea that anthropogenic climate change is a real phenomenon.  This is, at least, an honest position to adopt.  It may fly in the face of majority scientific opinion, but majority scientific opinion hasn't always been proved right.  If emissions are not a problem, we can simply go on using gas, oil, and even coal.
However, the consequences of rejecting the majority view if it's right are much worse than the consequences of accepting the majority view if it’s wrong.  That balancing of risks and consequences would be enough to convince me that we should act, even if I wasn't convinced that the scientific majority was right.  And once we decide to act to reduce emissions, the fact that, as of today, on-shore wind is the most proven and readily available source of renewable energy is an inescapable fact.
"The benefits will flow elsewhere", we are told.  It’s true of course.  But it's also true of many other things that happen in Wales, whether relating to energy generation or not.  It's an argument (and one I’d entirely accept) for changing the economic model under which we exploit a resource, but it's not an argument for non-exploitation as such.  I want Wales to have control over its own infrastructure, and to be able to make a decent profit from those things of which we can produce a surplus.  But I also want there to be some infrastructure and surpluses for us to bring under our own control.
“It's exploiting Welsh resources for the benefit of England."  Again, possibly true, but over-simplistic.  Exploitation doesn't recognise, or stop at, borders.  If turbines were built on some of the more suitable locations in England (whether as well as, or instead of, is irrelevant in this context), that exploitative (if it is indeed such) relationship between users of electricity and those living close to the points at which it is generated would still be the same; it would merely have become internalised within a different set of human-defined borders.  (In any event, is either the wind or the landscape really 'owned' by those who happen to live nearby, or is it more widely 'owned' by us all?)
"They wouldn't be built without the subsidies."  Again, it's true that the subsidy regime encourages renewable rather than fossil fuel electricity generation.  That's exactly what it is intended to do, in order to reduce emissions from energy generation.  But it's also true that other forms of generation are effectively "subsidised" by being able to externalise some of their costs.  Not all subsidies appear in our electricity bills, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t exist.
But perhaps the favourite counter argument is the one about "wind farms are useless".  It is an issue which I have posted on before a number of times.  If it were true, then it would indeed be something of a killer argument against both turbines and the supporting infrastructure.
It is, though, a claim which is often based on selective use of facts, some interesting ‘interpretations’ of facts, and sometimes even simplistic axiomatic assertion.  Whilst a sensible policy wouldn’t go above around 15% - 20% wind in the overall generation mix, the argument that it is completely useless doesn’t stand up to examination.
The argument about whether the sub-station should go on the proposed location will no doubt continue – but it has to go somewhere, and the best form of opposition would be to come up with a more acceptable location rather than simply oppose its construction.

13 comments:

Robert said...

I was watching the route of the electricity, hell of a lot of it will be sent to England, in that case build the turbines in England.

maen_tramgwydd said...

"I want Wales to have control over its own infrastructure, and to be able to make a decent profit from those things of which we can produce a surplus. But I also want there to be some infrastructure and surpluses for us to bring under our own control."

I think this is where your argument is weakest. The people of Wales, that is the Welsh Government and the local authorities, don't have control of its infrastructure. They 'manage' part of it, but sovereign control lies with Westminster. They don't profit from it either.

The exclusion of water from the domain of the Welsh Government in GoWA 2006 illustrates this fact all too clearly. The UK government will create/dismantle infrastructure in Wales according to ITS priorities, not according to those of the people of Wales. A second nuclear power station at Wylfa would be a case in point, or a Trident submarine base at Milford Haven. The people of Wales would have to pay for these things, in taxes, subsidies, whatever, and live with the consequences/risks of those developments. Wind turbines are just one example of how Wales is exploited in UK terms.

Clearly onshore turbines are not 'completely useless', but there is a case for saying that they are inefficient. To dismiss that case, as you do, illustrates your bias in their favour.

I think this is one road which Plaid has taken which I deeply disagree with, and no, I don't live in the vicinity of a wind farm, or near where one is likely to be built, or any associated structures.

The destruction of Wales' landscape is a high price to pay for the tiny amount of renewable energy generated.

Anonymous said...

Have you seen:

http://thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/hughes-evidence.pdf

"On this basis the average household electricity bill would increase
from £528 per year at 2010 prices to a range from £730 to £840 in 2020
under the Mixed Wind scenario. These figures amount to increases of 38%
to 58% in the average household bill relative to the baseline under the
Gas scenario. The equivalent ranges for the other scenarios are 29-46%
for the More Onshore Wind scenario and 40-62% for the Future Offshore
Wind scenario."

John Dixon said...

Maen-tramgwydd,

"The people of Wales, that is the Welsh Government and the local authorities, don't have control of its infrastructure. They 'manage' part of it, but sovereign control lies with Westminster."

I agree. But, as I said in the post, that's a reason for changing the model of control, not for opposing the infrastructure.

"there is a case for saying that they are inefficient. To dismiss that case ... illustrates your bias in their favour".

Whilst it's true that I disagree with the 'inefficient' argument, it's something of a jump from that to your claim that such disagreement can only be down to 'bias'. I reject it because I don't think it stands up as an argument, based on an assessment of the facts and figures.

John Dixon said...

Anon,

Not sure what point you are making here. If it's simply that, based on current known costs, moving to greater use of renewable energy (including, but not restricted to) wind is likely to increase energy costs compared to the alternative of burning more fossil fuel, then yes, that's true. (Although there is a question mark over whether the cost comparison is on an entirely like-for-like basis, rather than assuming current pricing and billing models, and there's also the known trend for 'newer' technologies to reduce in price as their use becomes more widespread.)

And if you start, as the GWPF appears to do, from a perspective which (a) challenges the existence of Anthropogenic Climate Change, and (b) argues that decisions should be made solely on the basis of cost and economics, then the case against wind is proven.

But, if you start from the assumption that ACC is at least probably a reality, and that we need to reduce emissions, then the higher price of renewable energy in the short term at least is part of the cost of the solution, not a reason for not attempting a solution.

Without a common set of underlying assumptions, mere facts and figures are not enough to 'resolve' arguments in themselves.

Glyndo said...

"I reject it because I don't think it stands up as an argument, based on an assessment of the facts and figures."

I've got a car for sale John. It doesn't need petrol, or any other fuel, to work. On the down side, it will only actually work for, maybe 2.5 days per week and then not always in daylight hours and not always to peak power. You will have no means of knowing when it will actually work and whether it will continue to work once you have started a journey. How much are you willing to pay? Remember no emissions, so no road fund licence.

John Dixon said...

Glyndo,

I have two answers to that!

The first is that the sentence you quoted back at me related very specifically to the claim that wind energy is "inefficient". Your analogy has nothing to do with efficiency at all. It might be making a point about effectiveness or reliability, but it isn't saying anything at all about efficiency. A car which needed no fuel to work would, by definition, have a very high level of 'efficiency', wouldn't it?

The second is that it isn't a very good analogy at all, unless I was proposing an approach to energy policy which relied 100% on wind. But I'm not (and, as far as I'm aware, nor is anyone else). Knocking down a proposition which isn't being made is easy, but that isn't a substitute for considering the real proposition, which is that wind energy has a role to play and can provide, as part of a mix of sources, up to around 20% of our electricity needs over a year.

Glyndo said...

Yes John, I was talking about effectiveness. So are you saying that the car would be fine, as long as I had another car for when it doesn't work? I would also need taxi fare to get me home if it stopped when I was away from the house unless I was willing to sit in it untill it began to work again. I think it's a pretty good analogy, but I'm biased.

John Dixon said...

Glyndo,

No I'm not saying that at all, I'm saying it's a poor analogy. It's the equivalent of asking whether a single user can depend on a single turbine at a single location for all his or her energy needs. As a general rule, I'm in favour of simplifying things for the sake of argument, but reductio ad absurdam is going too far.

The proposition which I support is that wind energy, generated from a number of separate installations dispersed over a wide enough geographical area, can reliably provide enough electricity over a year to meet up to around 20% of our total annual electricity requirement, and can do so using fuel which is free, limitless, and has zero emissions. Your argument is, I think, that I cannot depend on any one of those installations to meet the whole of my unpredictable immediate need at any given time. True, but it's irrelevant to the proposition.

Glyndo said...

"can reliably provide enough electricity over a year to meet up to around 20% of our total annual electricity requirement,"

But is it not accepted that these turbines only produce about 25% . 30% of their installed capacity? So according to your figures we would need to build enough turbines to just about match our present generating capability.

And your assertion that "separate installations dispersed over a wide enough geographical area, can reliably provide enough electricity" is surely wishful thinking. Unless by wide geographical area you are thinking of say Europe. When we are using all this free wind from all over Europe, what will the Europeans be using? The Danes can only live with their high turbine count because they have a reciprocal arrangement with Norwegian hydro. Unfortunately the Norwegians don't need Danish wind energy very much so the pay a pittance for it. Denmark on the other hand are dependant on Norwegian electricity so pay top dollar. Check out Danish energy costs, I believe they are the highest in Europe.
Throw the wind turbines in the bin John, spend the money on Hydro.

John Dixon said...

Glyndo,

Let's start with a point where we agree. Yes, we should use hydro generation. It's not an alternative though; we need both if we want a renewables-based energy policy.

"But is it not accepted that these turbines only produce about 25% . 30% of their installed capacity? So according to your figures we would need to build enough turbines to just about match our present generating capability."

There's a danger of confusing our Kw with our Kwh here. Obviously, if we want to generate 'n' Kwh per annum from the wind, we need to build enough turbines to generate those Kwh; the number of turbines needed is calculated on the basis of the expected annual output from those turbines.

The relevance of that to the stated maximum nominal capacity of the turbines escapes me, however. Indeed, to generalise, I don't understand why so many opponents of wind energy keep harping on about that relationship - it really doesn't matter whether it's 40%, 25%, or even 10% in terms of meeting demand for Kwh.

All electricity generation plant has a nominal capacity, which states how many Kw it can produce at peak output. And if you multiply that by the number of hours in a year, you will rapidly discover that all such plant produces less than it is nominally capable of producing. So what?

The gap will be larger (inevitably, I'd argue) for renewables-based plant which is dependent on what free 'fuel' is available at any point in time than for plant which we feed with expensive emissions-producing fossil fuel. Again, so what? This is what one might call a 'feature', a simple fact of life. It's not a 'problem' at all.

Bear in mind the proposition which I said I supported, just a few comments ago, namely "wind energy, generated from a number of separate installations dispersed over a wide enough geographical area, can reliably provide enough electricity over a year to meet up to around 20% of our total annual electricity requirement". That proposition depends entirely on Kwh over a period, not on Kw at a point in time. What proportion those Kwh, for any particular turbine, bears to the nominal capacity has no effect on the proposition.

There are two basic things that the overall mix of electricity generation needs to do. It needs to provide the total number of Kw which we demand of the system when we demand it, and it needs to provide the total number of Kwh we need over a period. Your argument seems to be based on the assumption that because wind cannot do the one, then it cannot do the other either. That's simply a non-sequitur.

Anonymous said...

wind energy, generated from a number of separate installations dispersed over a wide enough geographical area, can reliably provide enough electricity over a year to meet up to around 20% of our total annual electricity requirement" was a concept explored by the European Renewable Energy Council. It found that, as far as the British Islands were concerned, the prevailing south-westerly originating resource would need a footprint of at least half the diameter of depressions running in from the Atlantic. This would suggest that rather than constructing interconnections from Powys into Shropshire, a better 'balance' would be to construct a sub-sea connector between Wales and Ireland. This is not what is being proposed. The Powys to Shropshire connector is a one-way option, does not have any balancing capability. Even if there was a benefit to balancing at smaller spacings there are no proposals to plant wind turbines on Long Mynd, Brown Clee, or the Wrekin. All the turbines are located on the Cambrian mountains and the output intended for export.

John Dixon said...

Anon,

I don't fully understand the point you're making here, or why interconnections are a substitute for generating capacity in this context. Can you provide a link to teh report you are referencing, please?