An ill wind
Even the biggest producer of wind power in the world admits its benefits are largely hot air.
The German Energy Agency has produced a report which suggests that wind power, so heavily promoted as a means of cutting carbon dioxide emissions, may be three times more expensive than other ways to cut emissions. It suggests that placing special filters at conventional power stations may be more cost effective.
While the position is a little different in the UK, the cost of wind power is still considerably more than for conventional power. This is only made possible by consumers and taxpayers paying more - £1billion per annum more by 2010, according to the National Audit Office. Moreover, wind farms are an unreliable source of energy, operating for only a small part of the time, meaning that conventional stations must continue to 'tick over', ready to be brought back online at a moment's notice - an utterly inefficient method.
Leaving aside the question of whether it is sensible to make cutting carbon emissions a priority in energy production, there is a 'clean' and reliable alternative to wind: nuclear power. Both in Germany and the UK, nuclear power seems to be a taboo subject. Yet, a report published in 2004 by the Royal Academy of Engineers suggests that nuclear power should cost fifty percent less than wind when the unreliability of wind generation is taken into account.
We can only hope that this critical discussion of wind power doesn't blow over.
Anti-wind farm report dismissed, BBC News, 26 February 2005