TWO new wind turbines are already dividing opinion – and they have not even started operating yet. Reporter Isaac Crowson finds out why:
THE building of two new huge wind turbines which can be seen on the Derby skyline has brought into stark focus the debate over whether wind power is an economically efficient and credible way of cutting greenhouse gases.
Residents in Spondon have questioned the efficiency of the two 130m-high turbines in the village which are due to become operational in the next few months.
Severn Trent Water received permission to erect the structures at Derby Sewage Treatment Works, in Megaloughton Lane, last year.
John Beeson, renewable energy specialist at Severn Trent, defended the green scheme and said the wind turbines would produce about 10,000 megawatt hours of electricity per year, which is the equivalent of supplying about 3,000 homes with power.
Derby Friends of the Earth campaigner Dorothy Skrytek also added her support and said: "We thank Severn Trent for the wind turbines, which give us, and our children, hope for the future.
"As climate changes worsen, energy reduction and true renewables need support.
The turbines will have an operational efficiency of almost 23 per cent and be used to power the company's sewage plant, with the rest going to the national grid.
But the two 130-metre structures have not been so well received by many residents and their energy efficiency is the latest talking point.
Wind will need to reach 6mph for the turbines to start to generate. If winds exceed 60mph then they will come to a natural stop and will no longer be able to generate electricity.
Gordon Highman, of Wingerworth Park Road, said: "When I worked on power stations they used to run all of the time but wind turbines don't.
"I don't see wind turbines as being part of the future at all because of how little they work – they depend on the wind and shut down if there is too much wind.
"I used to think wave power was a good idea because waves are always there and can't be shut down.
"Power stations are the more efficient machines because they can work all of the time. They cope better with power than wind turbines do. However, if they do end up cutting my energy costs, then good luck to them."
Jon Beeson, said his team were working hard to get the turbines operational but months of testing would need to take place first.
FOR AND AGAINST
DOROTHY SKRYTEK IS FOR THE SCHEME
Derby Friends of the Earth campaigner Dorothy Skrytek backs the green energy scheme.
Wind energy output soared to new records across Europe last year. Electricity prices and air pollution dropped as wind energy drastically reduced fossil fuel use during high winter energy demand.
Ireland, Denmark, Spain, Portugal, Germany and the UK all saw wind output records broken. Britain set a new wind record on December 2, providing about 14 percent of UK electricity.
Nearly 7,900 megawatt of gas-fired generation was shut down during the high wind. Wind and solar have no fuel costs, thus generally cheaper than coal or gas, and meaning that less-efficient gas-burn facility operators dropped output, including RWE AG and SSE Plc.
The Saturday before Christmas, 132,812 megawatts of wind power was generated; a staggering 17 per cent of the nation's total electricity consumption that day.
Remember that every unit of clean electricity generated by wind = one less unit generated using polluting fossil fuels, meaning a significant economic and environmental benefit for us all.
Wind has produced some 23,700 gigawatt hours of power – 22 gigawatt hours of power from fossil fuels was needed to fill the gaps when the wind didn't blow; less than a thousandth of turbines' output.
Fossil fuel and nuclear power stations need back-up. A fossil-fuelled power station needs to shut down for repairs or maintenance, taking many gigawatts of power offline. Nuclear power is also unsustainable.
We thank Severn Trent for the wind turbines, which give us, and children, hope for their future. As climate changes worsen, energy reduction and true renewables need support.
There are many pretenders to the word "sustainable", like the proposed Derbyshire incineration plant, classified as such by the Waste Incineration Directive.
The company RRS/Shanks has said the incinerator will also emit over 172,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide annually, though this is an underestimate as the added CO2 from burning recyclables has not been added. Incineration will also worsen pollution in an Air Quality Management Area. Wind power does not create CO2 or pollution.
We fought alongside Spondon residents against incineration. The Spondon turbines are testament to the continuing fight against unsustainable, polluting development.
A spokesman for Shanks said: "The proposed development is an Energy Recovery operation, but unlike Energy from Waste (EfW) Facilities which recover energy by simply incinerating raw waste, it will recover energy through the combustion of synthetic gas using Advanced Conversion Technology (ACT). The facility at Sinfin will generate 11mwh of renewable energy, enough to power 18,000 homes."
RAY MELLOR IS AGAINST
Eighty-year-old Ray Mellor, of Wingerworth Park Road, Spondon believes the wind turbines are a monstrosity.
THESE wind turbines areas are subsidised by the UK Government, as part of meeting the EU Green Campaign. The main beneficiaries of this bounty are those who managed get the necessary permission to have the wind turbines erected on their land.
Yes, they do produce electricity, but without the subsidy NOT one would be erected.
They are inefficient which is due to the spasmodic production of electricity, this governed by the wind strength, and if the wind is too strong they have to be shut down. They cannot be guaranteed to activate when really needed.
Also to ensure that the bearings are kept well lubricated, they actually consume electricity, if there is insufficient wind.
We, the tax payers and consumers, are paying a very high price for our electricity because of this and also with selling UK power companies to foreign owners, allegedly to encourage competition.
Past and present Governments should have invested in low emission, more conventional power stations, built to modern low pollution standards, which could have used our vast existing resources, of coal for example, but not mined from deep coal mines, which had a dreadful casualty rate.
The viable contentious alternative is "fracking", a resource that would last well beyond most people's lifetime, and considerably reduce costs to customers. The problems of groundwater and other pollution in the USA are often quoted by the anti-fracking lobby as prime reasons for not fracking.
However, having lived and worked in the USA, I know "big business" is much more ruthless in the USA than in the UK, and this possible accounts for some of the problems. Also consider that in the UK we have much more stringent controls to ensure the safety of fracking.
