HERE we go again with pseudo-scientific hyperbole and factual gloss over
from WWF in its Agenda article (“Back green energy as the offshore
investment that benefits everyone”, The Herald, May 4) and in your report
of its survey (“Leap in renewables power sparks call for new strategy”, The
Herald, extrapolating present wind farm investment to seamlessly provide
100% of our demand without any recognition of the very real technical
impedimenta.
Regarding wind, the “relatively slow start to the year” mentioned was
actually a first quarter 27 per cent fall in onshore and offshore wind
overall output as spelled out by Scottish Power Renewables in their recent
accounts to which they directly attributed a resultant fall in underlying
profits of 25 per cent.
So why, given this we may ask, do the generating companies persist with
wind-based renewables?
There is a Mexican Hat Dance going on between, on the one side, the
generating and distribution companies (responsible for the lower voltage
networks) and National Grid Company (NG) on the other (responsible for our
highest voltage networks) where profitable and ever-increasing subsidised
wind penetration is becoming technically unsustainable but the major
technical problems become the responsibility of the latter. Added to the
mix are industry- promoting bodies such as Scottish Renewables, payrolled
by the generators to keep the music playing.
Some in the industry consider that the generators are playing a dangerous
game as their strategy seems reliant upon the Government saving grid
stability at the 11th hour by subsidising them to build more gas-powered
stations whose subsidies will also then be “socialised” to us all in
additional charges. Meantime, they increasingly reap hefty profits through
grid-weakening wind farms while also profitably contracting their old
fossil plants to NG to keep the grid afloat. One example is gas-fired
Peterhead where two-thirds of its output has been taken off the grid and is
annually reserved only to NG to hopefully control network “wobbles” partly
created by the same generating company’s wind farms.
One risk scenario is that before we reach any rescue point, the cold-eyed
and unforgiving market may consider that the generators are becoming
dangerously “asset light” as the book values of their almost life-expired
coal and gas stations exponentiate to zero and myriad wind farms already 10
years old and only 10 years of useful life cycle remaining have to also be
significantly written down.
The result could be catastrophic share price collapse and all that that
would imply to the Government , whichy would likely have to bail out the
situation passing the bill to us, the public.
The UK crucially needs an executive body fully empowered to properly model
and determine the development strategy for the UK grid based on sound
electrical engineering and with the power to ensure its achievement.
With regard to Ofgem et al we need to replace an impotent structure with a
potent one and most of the Government organisations such as Ofgem must take
a back seat, possibly in an emasculated role, or be disbanded.
D B Watson,
Saviskaill, Langdales Avenue, Cumbernauld.
0 Comments