Last updated 10:21, Friday, 20 June 2008

Cumbria could be in line for 200 more wind turbines and a lot of hot air has been expended arguing over them. Casting aside the 'not in my back yard' debate, we find out if windfarms really are the solution to energy problems.

FOR: Jill Perry, co-ordinator for West Cumbria Friends of the Earth, is an enthusiastic supporter of windfarms.

She said all forms of clean, green energy had to be explored. Even if climate change was not a threat, new ways of producing electricity are going to have to be developed in future – because coal, oil and gas are not going to last forever.

One 1.8 megawatt wind turbine could produce enough electricity to power 1,000 homes. And Ms Perry argued that the turbines were a better option for Cumbria than solar, wave or hydroelectric power – since Cumbria is the one of the windiest places in the continent.

“Unlike fossil fuels, wind is a completely renewable resource,” Ms Perry said. “It will never run out.

“In Britain we have the best wind levels in Europe, and Cumbria has some of the best wind levels in Britain.

“If you are going to build a windfarm you are going to want to put it where there is most wind. That’s one of the reasons we are seeing lots of applications for them in Cumbria.”

Many opponents argue that wind turbines positioned out at sea would be less of a blot on the landscape than those on Cumbria’s hills.

Ms Perry agreed off-shore wind turbines were an option. But they can only be installed during calm sea conditions, and are very expensive. In comparison on-shore turbines are cheap and quick to erect.

Besides, she added, off-shore windfarms encounter the same opposition that on-shore ones face.

“The opponents of land-based wind energy often say: ‘Put them out to sea.’ But as soon as you do, people start objecting on the grounds of visual impact.

“There’s a ‘not in my backyard’ attitude to on-shore turbines and a ‘not in my bit of the sea’ attitude to off-shore ones.

“The fact is that we are going to have to build more on-shore windfarms while we develop offshore wind. We will need both.”

Another objection is that wind cannot be relied upon. It dies down from time to time – so windfarms will always need back-up from other power stations.

But Ms Perry disputes this. She said: “There are very, very few hours when there is no wind blowing anywhere.

“When the wind is blowing and the wind turbines are working, coal-fired power stations are turned down, so they are not producing as much CO2.

“If the wind falls away they can be turned up again.”

And she said that electric light and heating were needed most during stormy, wintry weather – when the turbines would certainly be working.

“There’s a very strong correlation between times when there’s a high demand for energy and times when the wind is blowing,” she said.

The most fervent opposition to wind turbines is on the grounds of their appearance, and Ms Perry said: “It’s the only objection that holds up.

“Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and if people find them ugly, I won’t be able to persuade them they aren’t.”

But we all need electricity, and she added: “People should be aware of their energy use, and if that means looking at turbines, maybe that’s the price they have to pay.

“If you live beside a coal or nuclear power station you are exposed to a lot of pollution or radioactivity.

“Is that justifiable, just so that someone else in a beautiful part of Cumbria can look out and not see turbines?

“That’s not social or environmental justice.”

AGAINST: Research scientist Dr Mike Hall accepts that wind turbines produce electricity – but he says they will never be able to generate more than a small amount of what we need.

And he says the damage they will do to the Cumbrian landscape is too high a price to pay for the energy they provide.

Dr Hall is vice-chairman of FELLS, the Friends of Eden, Lakeland and Lunesdale Scenery, set up eight years ago to fight the growth of windfarms.

He said: “The amount of electricity from windfarms is so small that to replace one conventional power station you would need 500 wind turbines.

And even then they would only generate when the wind is blowing.

“You have to measure that against the loss of some of the most scenic locations in the country.

“The small benefits from windfarms do not justify the visual impact they will have on Cumbria.”

The British Wind Energy Association – which represents windfarm companies – says one 1.8 megawatt turbine could save more than 4,000 tonnes of CO2 per year.

But Dr Hall says this was calculated using out-of-date figures – and the most up-to-date figures from the Government put the amount of CO2 saved closer to 1,750 tonnes per year.

“Windfarms are not addressing climate change to anything like the extent that the companies claim,” he said.

And Dr Hall said they could damage the local economy as well as the scenery.

“Tourism earns £1.2 billion a year for Cumbria,” he said.

“If windfarms put off just 10 per cent of visitors, that is £120 million in lost revenue, not counting the tourism jobs that would go.

“Every B&B, hotel, campsite, gift shop and tourist attraction would suffer.”

The Government hopes to save about 9.2 million tonnes of CO2 per year through windfarms and other green energy sources.

But Dr Hall argued that there were many other ways of cutting CO2, with more efficient use of energy in transport and housing.

He said: “For example, all Britain’s houses together produce around 84 million tonnes of CO2 every year.

“If they all cut their energy use by 10 per cent, it would save 8.4 million tonnes. They could do that through loft or cavity wall insulation, turning down the thermostat half a degree, installing double glazing and using energy-saving lightbulbs.

“You could save 8.4 million tonnes without harming the Cumbrian landscape.”

Besides, he added, fossil fuels were not about to run out, and there are enough to fuel conventional power stations well into the future.

“Britain has got 300 years’ worth of coal in the ground,” he said.

“Natural gas will last for another 50 years.

“There’s enough uranium for nuclear power stations for a century. And when that runs out they can be converted to use thorium.”

And he said that in future there may be greener ways of burning coal.

“We could solve the problem of CO2 emissions from coal through ‘carbon capture’.

“You capture the CO2 and then pump it down into disused oil wells in the North Sea.

“That has been shown to work on a small scale, though whether it can be done on a larger scale has yet to be proven.

“But renewables are never going to be more than a small percentage of where we get electricity from.” 

CONCLUSION: Both sides of the windfarm debate have persuasive arguments, making it difficult for anyone to know which to back.

But if there are effective ways to combat climate change which do not involve covering Cumbria with wind turbines then they ought to be considered.

Ms Perry supports off-shore wind turbines, and they might be an acceptable compromise for some. The Irish Sea can be as windswept as the Cumbrian hills.

Dr Hall argues that huge CO2 savings can be made if we cut the energy consumption in our homes. Perhaps those who oppose turbines should be the first to do so.

Windfarms might not save as much CO2 as their manufacturers believe. But they do save some. Whether the amount they save is worth damage to our scenery is always going to be a matter of opinion.

In the fight to protect our environment, windfarms should remain one weapon in our armoury. But maybe they should not be the first one we reach for.