Windfarm Questions
Since going walking with the Save Dava Moor campaigners last year, I’ve been digging much deeper into the science of renewables and land-based wind-farms in particular.
I’ve often wondered when my Physics degree would come in useful.
Well it certainly has now as I’ve ploughed through page after page of maths, statistics and power engineering science in the various reports authored by "experts" on different sides of the debate!
One of the key arguments made by those opposed to on-shore wind-farms is about variability; that wind is too unpredictable to be relied on as a steady source of energy, hence requiring major amounts of non-renewable capacity – mainly gas - to be available as "back up" for days when the wind isn’t blowing.
Its true the wind is highly variable, but I’m convinced by some very detailed work by National Grid that the UK energy network is designed to deal with such variability.
There is also significant backup-generation capacity already connected into the grid, to cope with failure of a big coal or nuclear plant.
Wind-energy by itself does not seem to require substantial additional backup.
But are we getting the balance right between different forms of renewable energy generation?
Off-shore wind and wave power suffers far less from variability - compared to on-shore wind - with a much higher load factor. These schemes really can provide high-capacity renewable generation with a much bigger "capacity credit" (the amount of non-renewable generating capacity that can, in theory, be turned off when such wind-farms are working normally).
Such developments will also have far less impact on our visual environment.
At the other end of the scale, community wind-power schemes have the potential to liberate rural communities from supply constraints and energy-poverty, but can run into all sorts of problems with the planning system.
Energy generators are incentivised to construct commercial scale renewables through the Renewal Obligation scheme (RO), through which they can earn significant revenues – often more than for the electricity itself - by selling the corresponding certificates (ROCS) to the energy supply companies.
The energy supply companies need to have sufficient ROCS in order to show that they have met their legal obligations to supply a given percentage of their electricity from renewable sources (they get fined if they don’t).
In 2010, energy companies are required to supply 10% from renewables.
This mechanism is fine in theory.
However, the original scheme does not distinguish between different types of renewables, so guess what happens?
Since on-shore wind farms are the least expensive to build, but still earn huge revenues from the sale of ROCS, then many energy companies enter this market.
Big landowners also stand to benefit from selling land to the energy generators.
Are these financial factors distorting the market in favour of constructing so many land-based wind farms – with their much lower capacity credit - instead of the longer term investment needed in more beneficial off shore and community schemes?
On-shore commercial wind-farm capacity is necessary and there are many areas of our countryside which are ideal for such schemes.
Given the cumulative impact on our countryside, however, I think that we need to take a far more cautious approach until we are clear that the capacity credit of such schemes will actually translate into serious reductions in non-renewable generation.
A modified version of the Renewable Obligation scheme came into operation in 2009 and puts more emphasis on off-shore generation.
The recent announcements of off-shore licences are welcome, but we need to do more to make sure the energy market delivers the outcomes we want to see.
Finally, this is not just about an abstract argument about the best way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, important though that is.
It’s also about economics and in particular the ability of the renewable energy industry to create jobs.
The development, manufacture and operation of renewable technology can create just as many high-quality, sustainable jobs as the oil industry has done.
The north of Scotland in particular has a rich potential for off-shore wave and wind power but we need to be pro-active in encouraging the technology and energy companies to invest in the North, with the jobs and economic prosperity that will follow.
That’s going to need government at all levels – Westminster, Holyrood and Highland Council – working together to put the infrastructure and services in place which will send the message that the Highlands are open for business with these crucial new technologies.
Mike Robb
February 2010
You can share this news release with others on social networking sites , or post it to your online profile, or send it to a friend, by clicking on the "Share This" link immediately below.