The case for wind generation is dismissed out of hand, yet it is the power source of the future, writes Eddie O'Connor.
One of our leading economists in a recent article made the case for nuclear energy. But in doing so he claimed that wind energy does not work and proceeded to trot out the usual myths about it.
Anyone is entitled to put forward a case in favour of nuclear power, but it is entirely misleading to give as a justification that wind energy does not work.
British minister for energy Patricia Hewitt told an audience recently that the myth of wind intermittency was now exploded. She said that when 8,000 megawatts of wind power were installed in the UK, only 600 megawatts of backup power would be needed to cope with fluctuations in wind strength. Yet a spokesman for ESB Networks claimed recently that, for every 100 megawatts of wind power installed, there had to be the same of firm power. Why such a difference?
Wind power is 80 per cent predictable 24 hours ahead; this compares with an average ESB availability of 77 per cent from its thermal stations. Wind plants deliver full power 37 per cent of the time, and on average produce electricity at all times.
The notion that wind power is expensive is a myth. A study by Sustainable Energy Ireland showed that wind saves the customer money because it reduces electrical losses associated with transmission over long distances.
This is the case up to a wind contribution of 10 per cent of national supply; and yet, currently, we are at a level of less than 2 per cent in this country.
With very high amounts of wind on the system, the costs of compensating for intermittency are still low. If wind was generating 35 per cent of customer demand it would cost 0.5 cent per unit to compensate for its variability, yet the average price for a unit of electricity is as much as 12 cent.
Wind power is said to be visually intrusive, the mantra and war chant of the "not in my back yard" people. Yes indeed, wind turbines are visible, but then most of us consider them attractive, and all research indicates that the closer people live to wind farms the more they like them.
When wind turbines have reached the end of their lives, they can be taken down, leaving the environment as it was historically, having emitted no pollutants. This stands in contrast to nuclear power whose byproducts will be around for a quarter of a million years and whose costs of decommissioning run into billions.
Noisy? There is approximately 10 times more noise at the average Saturday night party.
We would be interested if anyone could produce the evidence that wind farms kill birds. As Scotland's chief planner said to me recently: "The Nimbys are great men to tell you about all the birds that will be killed, but what I want to know is how many species of birds will be done away with by global warming."
There are no hidden transmission costs for wind farms. When wind is installed in remote areas, it actually supports the voltage there. Take Donegal, for instance, where locally installed wind power has meant that electricity does not have to be shipped from Dublin. Wind energy cuts down on the transmission of electricity and reduces losses.
Of course if we are serious about exploiting our greatest natural resource we really should redesign the transmission system to facilitate this transition from fossil-fired generation. Such redesign will cost money. But once installed the fuel is free and we have the benefits of renewable generation.
Wind power is being installed by and large by newcomers to electricity generation. Of course the former monopolists jealously guard their space, but to quote those monopolists' objections to wind as a reason for not doing it is like saying that turkeys when polled were found to dislike Christmas.
Which brings us to ESB National Grid (ESBNG) and the moratorium on increased use of wind power it suggested. We now have a penal grid code which is the most costly to comply with in the world. ESBNG refuses to learn how to operate the system with wind included. The commissioner for energy regulation recently came out against supports for wind power and convinced us at Airtricity that the risks were too great to build any further wind plant here.
The experience elsewhere, however, shows such an approach to be short-sighted.
Hans Schiott, chairman of Eltra, the body which controls the Danish electricity grid, said when introducing the 2003 annual report: "Eltra is ready to handle more wind power than the 2,400 megawatts currently installed in the Jytland-Fyen grid. That would make a substantial contribution to Denmark's possibility of meeting its Kyoto Protocol climate obligations. Balancing the system is a daily challenge for the people in the Eltra control room. We are now in the process of developing a new control and steering philosophy for the west-Danish system. It is a process that of course is about technical issues, but first and foremost it is about mental change."
What is sometimes missed is the central point of why wind energy is an absolute must. We cannot go on raising the temperature of the biosphere in which we live. One hundred and fifty thousand people died last year from the effects of global warming. By the middle of this century, one million species could be wiped out. That is our food supply.
Only 10 days ago scientists reported on two separate models of sea-temperature change which assumed human interference in climate
Both predicted the raising of sea-water temperature by one half to one degree, depending on the depth at which the temperature was measured. One model was run in UK and the other in the US, and it is scary how close the results were, and how accurately they concurred with observed reality.
The Danes recently held a "48/48" think-tank session - 48 experts together for 48 hours. The Danes now make the cheapest power in the EU because 20 per cent of it comes from wind.
The goal of the business and utility experts and civil servants was to figure how Denmark could get 60 per cent of its electricity made from wind.
When are Irish policy-makers going to tell ESBNG and the comissioner for energy regulation to get on with maximum wind exploitation?
Wind rocks!
• Eddie O'Connor is chief executive of Airtricity