Tilting at windmills

Prince Charles, long recognised as an environmentalist, has caused a stir by describing onshore windfarms as 'horrendous' (1).

According to the Sunday Telegraph, Charles favours renewable energy but thinks that windfarms are a blot on the landscape. This is great news for the anti-turbine lobby - but it will disappoint environmentalist groups who have been pushing wind power as a viable new source of renewable energy, and the government, which has bankrolled subsidies and manipulated planning laws to get such schemes built. However, the least worst thing about windfarms is what they look like. Wind power is an inefficient way to produce electricity that has only been employed at all due to the misplaced reaction against other methods, most notably nuclear power. The Royal Academy of Engineering suggests that while coal, gas and nuclear power is generated at between 2p and 3p per unit, land-based turbines produce electricity at 5.4p per unit (2). We are entering a Wind Age (3). To have windmills, a technology long since outdated, as a symbol of our society is a terrible indictment. Yet those who complain about the presence on land of such turbines are often happy enough to see them sited offshore, despite the fact that the offshore version is even more costly. Never mind the inefficiency, as long as they are out of sight. But to expect a rational discussion of energy policy at the moment seems as deluded as Don Quixote himself.

(1) Prince Charles: wind farms are horrendous, Sunday Telegraph, 8 August 2004

(2) Wind farm claims are so much hot air, Telegraph, 16 July 2004

(3) Welcome to the Wind Age, by Jennie Bristow

spiked-central | Bites | spiked bite