|
Page 1 of 3 Politics and EconomicsWind Farms produce electricity without the harmful emissions of carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen. Advocates say that carbon dioxide emissions in particular are linked to global warming. Those who oppose wind farms emphasise that if the UK were to be filled with wind turbines there would be no discernable benefit because the major contribution to greenhouse gases comes from China, India and the USA. Others argue that the issue is better addressed by making homes more energy efficient (thereby reducing carbon dioxide production in power stations) or by applying new technology to existing power stations and by ‘cleaning up’ road transport. Whether viewed as a structure of beauty or a blot on the landscape there is no disputing the fact that wind turbines are very large structures for the relatively small amount of electrical energy that they produce. Not many years ago few wind turbines existed in the UK since they were uneconomic to build and electricity companies only invested in means of creating shareholder value. However, all that was to change! In the UK the government established, via the Utilities Act 2000, a requirement that 5% of electricity should be provided by renewable sources by 2005, rising to 10% by 2010.  The most readily available ‘renewable source’ is the wind turbine and the government suggested that wind would supply 75% of the Act’s requirement. Also in the year 2000, in support of ‘fast tracking’, the government required all regions to prepare renewable energy assessments and to set regional renewable energy targets. In 2002, recognising that wind turbines were uneconomic to build and that the process needed accelerating, the government created a subsidy called the ‘renewables obligation’ which incentivised developers. The result was a ‘dash for wind’- nothing better than a certain return on investment to get developers into high gear. The actual mechanism of the ‘renewables obligation’ is complex and has been described by the industry as deliberately obscure. The end result is that developers are paid around twice the price for the energy from wind compared to coal, gas or nuclear power. What is not often understood is that this subsidy ‘for life’ is funded by a levy on everyone’s electricity bill, whether they agree with wind farms or not and irrespective of whether or not they have a ‘green tariff’. Despite the large subsidy and the ‘dash for wind’ the strategy struggled and developers started to squeal because objections during the planning process caused schemes to be turned down. There were demands for a fast track system. The government had intended that most of the wind farm capacity should be off-shore but it is much more costly to build off-shore which reduces the profitability of all but the larger schemes. On-shore one of the strengths of the ‘anti’ lobby was The Countryside Act 1968 which restricted industrial developments, usually to already industrialised areas. The hold up was eased in England in 2004 when Planning Policy Statement 22 (PPS 22) was adopted which, whilst only ‘advisory’, presumes in favour of wind farms unless there are strong arguments to the contrary. The Committee of Public Accounts in 2005 said that the new guidance ‘would increase the chance of the 2010 target being met but only by reducing local communities’ influence on the planning process’. On 16th February 2004 in response to an MP’s question, Yvette Cooper, MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in the ODPM replied ‘…….decisions will continue to be made with due regard to planning policies and only after very careful consideration of all the relevant issues, such as, for example, the visual impact of the project and the views of the local population. I would also like to reassure your constituent that there is no intention to overrule the democratic processes in local planning.’
|
