Jonathan Porritt (Yes! ’Tis He!) takes on that Simon Jenkins article decrying wind power as ugly and more expensive than wind.
Jenkins claims that wind
will require "dedicated backup", but this is not the case – and our
view is supported by the National Grid, which runs the electricity
system. Dedicated backup is not required for wind because backup
supplies are provided for the whole electricity system, not for each
individual plant. If this weren’t the case, we’d need backup for every
plant in the UK: nuclear and coal also have unplanned shutdowns, and
when they do the effect is more dramatic than for wind.
Well, yes, but nuclear and coal do not have shutdowns 70% of the time so clearly wind power requires more back up than the other systems.
Of course, all generating
plants use energy in their manufacture and construction, but wind is
one of the lowest on the basis of carbon per unit of power delivered.
As, indeed, is nuclear.
Finally, Jenkins claims
that cost for wind adds up to double that of the most expensive nuclear
power. But it’s impossible to make an accurate cost comparison with
nuclear, as no nuclear plants have been built in Europe for over a
decade. The subsidies wind power receives are small by nuclear
standards, but they have already resulted in dramatic cost reductions.
Indeed, as fossil fuel prices increase and wind turbines become cheaper
to build, wind power is likely to become one of the cheapest forms of
electricity generation over the next 15 years.
Riiiight. So you’re comparing the latest and most up to date wind technologies with nuclear at least two decades (given the time it takes to build) out of date? There’s intellectual purity for you. The actual report on the subsidies required for nuclear v wind was done by Oxera and they pointed out that the requirements were three times larger for wind than nuclear. That means larger, not smaller. Finally, "as fossil fuel prices increase"? Who says so? Got some crystal ball telling you what the oil price is going to be in a decade or two? Really? And, err, rising fossil fuel prices, if they do actually occur, work just as much to nuclear’s advantage as they do to wind.
Wind power, both on- and
offshore, must be part of this mix, and has the potential to supply the
UK with 20% or more of our electricity – emission free and at low risk.
Emission free eh? Not what you said above:
Of course, all generating
plants use energy in their manufacture and construction, but wind is
one of the lowest on the basis of carbon per unit of power delivered.
That just ain’t emission free now is it?
Now I know that this is the sub-editor speaking, not Porritt, but:
Wind power is reliable and could soon prove to be cheaper than nuclear, says Jonathon Porritt
So we agree at the moment that it isn’t cheaper than nuclear?
Leave a Reply