The Duke of Edinburgh; “absolutely useless, completely reliant on subsidies and an absolute disgrace”
The Duke of Edinburgh, much loved by the public and bane of live broadcasters alike has weighed in on the issue of how to generate clean, green energy that doesn’t pump out millions of tons of carbon dioxide.
The Duke, who is himself no stranger to shifting millions of tons of carbon dioxide per year at the bargain price of £1.50 per household, has now branded wind farms a ‘fairytale’, claiming that they are ‘absolutely useless, completely reliant on subsidy and an absolute disgrace.”
Strong views, and we’d say that it sounds a lot like the Duke has been seriously misinformed about the benefits that wind power is bringing the UK.
As for the 5GW of wind energy already installed in the UK, rather than being useless, it’s powering 2.1 million homes each year, and that’s with clean energy that doesn’t need to rely on hard to source, imported expensive fossil fuels.
“Expensive fossils”
Neither is the cost of investing in cleaner sources of energy particularly high, certainly less than some sections of the media would have you believe. Take an average household energy bill, of £1200 per year. Just £11 is being spent on building renewable sources of energy that doesn’t need to be imported, and for which the fuel is something that the UK has in abundance.
It’s an important investment for the future as well; Ofgem estimate that with the price of fossil fuels going upwards, domestic bills could go up by nearly 50% if we remain overly reliant on non-renewable energy sources.
And while the rest of the economy grinds painfully along, the green energy industry is actually one of the UK’s few success stories, with 10,000 jobs currently and anywhere up to 80,000 by 2020.
There are plenty of myths flying around the media about wind energy, and the Duke’s comments aren’t exactly helpful. It’s important that we recognise the need for a mix of different energy sources, and that includes wind.
Blog Archives
- February 2012 (1)
- January 2012 (2)
- December 2011 (2)
- November 2011 (3)
- October 2011 (2)
- August 2011 (1)
Featured Wind Farm
Goole Fields II
- RWE npower renewables
- 19000 Homes Served
- 40.000 MW Capacity
- 20 Turbines
Comments
One of the main problems with uninformed comments, like those of the Duke of Edinburgh, is that they take no account of global developments. They are based entirely on the Little Englander view of the world and fail to appreciate the extraordinary growth of wind power throughout the world.
A recent American report anticipates a doubling of wind power globally within the next few years:
http://blog.ewea.org/2011/11/new-global-report-predicts-glowing-future-for-wind-power-sector/
That isn't happening because windfarms are "absolutely useless, blah blah blah". The market simply wouldn't allow such a massive continual growth in this most promising of sectors if it didn't work. And it has nothing to do with subsidies, because globally the fossil fuel and nuclear energy industries receive far more in government subsidies that the renewable sector does.
Increasingly, the global market is recognising the growing contribution that wind power will make to energy generation. This makes sense both commercially and environmentally. The idiocy of remarks like those of the Duke's lies in the colossal ignorance that inspires them. The danger is that England will allow itself to become ever more isolated from the rest of the world, telling itself stupid stories and remaining blissfully unaware that other countries are forging ahead with this clean, efficient, cost-effective resource.
If we're not careful, we will let a handful of extreme right-wing reactionaries in our country hobble us for generations to come because they preferred stupid myths to plain facts.
Okay, the Duke is a very old man with a very unrealistic view of the world around him. So we can't expect him to keep up with the times.
But the rest of us do need to know what's happening elsewhere so that we don't allow a few ideologues to lead us back into the Dark Ages with their foolish and utterly misguided claims about windpower.
Further proof of how out-of-touch the Duke of Edinburgh is:
http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2124487/onshore-wind-reach-grid-parity-2016
"Analysts say perception of wind power as 'expensive and intermittent' is out of date ..."
All in all, the DofE couldn't be more wrong.
Wind turbines would not be built if the "subsidies" were not available, so I guess he's right there. And they are useless if the wind isn't blowing.
Perhaps he's just trying to protect our green and pleasant land.
Can't fault him for that.
Wind turbines alone are not the answer. They might be part of our future of energy mix but they have major limitations and should not be built at any cost to the environment and our countryside.
As always with industrial wind farms, it boils down to siting turbines responsibly. Something the wind industry and Aeolus seem to care nothing about.
Forgive me, BillM, but you're making accusations there based more on your own prejudices than anything that anybody else has said or done. If you can point out any occasion on which I have said anything about not wanting wind turbines to be sited responsibly, please post the link. I'd be happy to apologise.
I'm afraid, though, that you won't be able to find any such occasion. You're using a rather typical anti-wind tactic - accuse everybody else of your own absolutism. And yes, wind turbines don't do much when the wind isn't blowing (how often is that, exactly, in the UK?) - just as nuclear power stations do very little whenever they shut down.
At least you've put the word "subsidies" in inverted commas, which I guess means that you recognise that these so-called subsidies don't really exist. And with market analysts now announcing that wind energy will achieve "grid parity" (i.e. cost competitiveness) with gas within the next few years - some windfarms are already at grid parity, I presume those being the ones you think have been sited "irresponsibly" - the subsidies argument is wearing increasingly thin. Where do most of the real subsidies actually go, BillM? Fossil fuels. Pointing the finger at renewables (not just windfarms) is merely creating a distraction.
I wonder if you saw the recent article in the Leicester Mercury about former anti-windfarm protesters now admitting that they were "wrong about turbine noise"? Another windfarm which turns out to have been sited responsibly after all!
Quote form your post 5th July :
"Aeolus
Tue, 05/07/2011 - 2:01am
Bill - the notion that there should be a legally enforced minimum distance between wind turbines and residences is a canard. Various windfarms in the UK and elsewhere have properties right in their midst, and those properties are still lived in, perfectly happily, by their tenants. In terms of "noise", 500 metres (half a kilometre) is a reasonable separation, unless unusual circumstances are involved."
500m separation from peoples homes is irresponsible siting of a 125m tall windturbine - most sensible readers will agree with me. I'll hold my breath for the apology?
If that's true about noise by the way, why have Jane and Julian Davis been paid an out of court settlement by the wind farm 1000m from their home to stop their misery from noise being dragged through the courts with the inevitable public scrutiny? This is a real issue and the developer is desperate to keep it out of the public eye.
It' doesn't matter what site restrictions there are, from everything you've blogged I don't believe you would ever consider them a barrier to a wind farm. You accuse me of prejudice but I think you are blind to your own. Everyone of your blogs I read is full of them. I would say that you are prejudiced against people who don't want irresponsibly sited wind farms on low wind speed sites with major impacts on wildlife, landscape, heritage assets, individuals, homes, and businesses.
"Nuclear power stations do very little when they are shut down"?? You dont say. That's a gem that is. The problem is wind turbines aren't shut down they just stop when the wind doesn't blow - irrespective of demand for power from the grid. There's a significant difference I believe. Perhaps the lure of clean green energy (something we all want) is blinding you to the problems with large ons hore wind turbines?
"Subsidies" in inverted commas because I understand what ROCs are and how they work and what they mean for the consumer... higher energy prices at the consumers expense (not the Government's as many people think).
I Didn't see the article you refer to but suspect it was a load of rubbish - probably a press release by the developer - where's the link?
Adios Aeolus
The article about former wind farm protesters admitting that they were wrong about noise - quite obviously not a press release (rather a paranoid suggestion, wasn't it, BillM?):
http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/wrong-turbine-noise-admit-protesters/story-13713002-detail/story.html
Meanwhile, on the subject of that old 2km exclusion zone nonsense ... as you well know, this is an unreasonable, unworkable demand. If it made any sense, we might have seen some other countries implement such a rule. Australia considered it recently, and then realised that it was both pointless and counterproductive. Those who, for purely ideological reasons, oppose all wind power developments regardless (even though they claim to be "pro-renewables" and to want clean energy) keep rabbiting on about the nonexistent virtues of a 2km exclusion zone because they think it makes them look reasonable and concerned, when in reality they just want to undermine the wind energy industry and make the cheapest form of renewable energy (and, pretty soon, the cheapest form of energy generation full-stop) a practical impossibility in most of the UK - which is neither reasonable nor sensible. There is nothing "irresponsible", as you put it, about siting a wind turbine at least half a kilometre away from the perimeter of somebody's property unless you're making the mistake of confusing the landscape with the environment or falling into the trap of thinking that homeowners own the view. As the RSPB and others have pointed out, the greatest threat to British wildlife and our "green and pleasant land" (oh, what hackneyed phrases you use, BillM - not a Daily Mail reader are you, by any chance?) is climate change, and so to oppose one of the principal remedies to that threat on the grounds of "landscape" is insane.
You accuse me of prejudice. As a matter of fact, I began to study the realities of wind power - not the mindless myth-mongering we get from the anti-wind neo-fascists - when a large wind farm was proposed for my immediate neighbourhood. Predictably, the proposal was greeted by a sick, vicious and thoroughly reckless campaign of lies and intimidation from a few locals (who thought that they owned the view). They decided to pose as "experts" on wind matters after googling a handful of false facts and ludicrous anti-wind farm myths and then they proceeded to bully their neighbours into believing the insane propaganda they were spouting. That, BillM, is what prejudice looks like, and I am fiercely opposed to it.
You're probably not aware that a briefing paper was prepared for the House of Commons library about the issue of compensation for homeowners "affected" by a nearby wind farm last year. The paper concluded that, as there was no evidence whatsoever that house prices suffer as a result of proximity to a wind farm, and a fair amount of evidence which suggests that they benefit, it would be practically impossible - as well as pointless - to determine what level of compensation should be paid.
I feel slightly disappointed that the Davises' high court case has closed without a verdict being given - we could all have done with some clear findings (unlike the decision of their local council to drop their council tax by one band - ONE band - without any finding of a statutory nuisance and only a vague "balance of probabilities" that the sound of the wind farm had caused them distress). But, again, how typical of a confirmed anti-wind campaigner to make out that this was some sort of victory for the Davises. A victory would have been a win, would it not? In reality, they've probably got the best deal they could have got, given the inconsistencies in their stories.
And you can be as snide as you like about my remarks concerning nuclear power stations - but only if you're prepared to argue that all nuclear power station outtages and accidents are pre-planned. Ah, no, of course they're not, so it's you who's the fool. And every time a nuclear power station suddenly decides to go offline (and then to stay offline for months on end), it causes much more of a problem for the National Grid than when some of our wind turbines aren't turning.