The Daily Mail - Getting It Wrong on Wind
Help us demand that the Daily Mail gets it right on wind power.
The Daily Mail has published a letter by Michael Cole attacking wind power following Miriam Durantez, the wife of the deputy prime minister Nick Clegg, taking up a job in the renewables industry. Unfortunately for Mr Cole, his claims about wind power have little to do with reality. You can use the button to your right (if you've signed in) to write to the editor of the Daily Mail - we've included a sample letter - urging him to not publish any further inaccuracies about wind power and other renewables.
Here are his claims, and our answers to them:
[Wind Turbines] can't run without power from the National Grid and need their own generator to keep them constantly supplied with electricity.
Mr Cole here appears to be getting confused about how wind turbines generate power. Because wind speeds are variable, turbines use an induction generator to extract as much energy from the wind as possible. Induction generators could be considered to be a form of reversed electrical motor: when the wind turbines' blades are turning faster than the speed of the equivalent electrical motor, the generator produces power. This doesn't mean they drain it when the wind speeds are low - when they are, the turbine is switched off. However, to turn the generator back on again it requires an initial burst of electricity to create the magnetic flux which allows it to work - a jump start, if you will. Stand-alone wind turbines get this from a bank of capacitors, and grid-connected turbines take it directly from the grid.
This means that Mr Cole would be right if he wanted to say that if all the generators supplying power to the National Grid failed simultaneously you couldn't use a wind turbine to start it up again, but given that a typical coal or nuclear plant requires about a seventh of the electricity it generates, it seems odd to focus only on wind turbines.
...billions of pounds have been spent in Britain on more than 2,000 turbines - and yet they contribute barely one per cent of all the electricity that we need. The combined output is less than one medium-sized conventional power station.
This is simply wrong. Wind capacity in the UK is 4.5GW, and the total capacity of all generators in the country is 80GW. Owing to wind's variability, wind turbines typically produce about 3% of the country's electricity. However, we actually only use a maximum of 63GW - the remainder is backup for when thermal power stations 'trip' and fall off the grid. About 1GW of conventional power trips every week on average.
In terms of cost, it's true that over the last ten years the Government has spent approximately £1billion on supporting the wind industry via the Renewables Obligation system, and another £270 million on research and development. However, in the same period the Government has also spent £200 million on the National Opera, and last year alone around £35 billion on defence. Yearly Government spending on renewable energy is extremely low and easily affordable compared with other areas of state activity.
...they are an ever-present eyesore and are blamed for killing bats and birds that accidentally fly into them.
As Bill Oddie knows, before a wind farm is built the developers have to conduct an environmental impact assessment to ensure that local wildlife won't be adversely affected. Large wind turbines actually have less of an impact on wildlife than comparable structures like communication masts or road traffic - and certainly less than cats!
It is true that some people dislike the look of wind turbines, but they're in the minority - surveys have repeatedly shown that the majority of people support the expansion of wind energy. Their concerns shouldn't be ignored, however, and during the planning consultation process people have the opportunity to ask developers to ensure that the visual impact of a proposed farm is minimised. This can and has led to developers moving the planned sites of turbines so that they're less visible to people who dislike them.
Constructive engagement like this on both sides of the debate is crucial to ensuring we can use renewables to help prevent dangerous climate change and secure our energy supplies - while at the same time ensuring that people who will be impacted by new renewable energy projects have the chance to have their say. Unfortunately, what Mr Cole has written does not constitute constructive debate.
Dear Mr Dacre,
I am writing to you regarding the open letter you published by Michael Cole on June 10th. The letter contained a number of factual inaccuracies & mistakes around wind energy, which I urge you to correct.
The mistakes are:
- Wind power can't run without energy from the grid and require their own generator to keep them constantly supplied.
Given that conventional power plants require around a seventh of the electricity they generate, this seems to be an unfair singling out of wind. It's also a distortion of the truth - wind turbines do require a burst of energy from the grid to switch them on, but beyond that are self-powering. They in fact consume less electricity per unit they produce than the equivalent conventional plant.
- All the wind turbines in Britain produce less electricity than a medium sized conventional plant - barely 1% of the electricity we use.
This is simply untrue. All the wind farms in the UK combined produce about 5.5% of our country's generating capacity - and their output can be predicted more reliably than conventional power generation.
- Wind Farms kill birds
As the RSPB says, properly sited wind farms constitute little threat to wildlife. That's why Bill Oddie has signed up to the EmbraceMyPlanet campaign, which fights for the expansion of renewable energy.
I request that you print a correction forthwith, and ensure that any further articles on renewable energy are properly fact-checked in the future.

Comments
Isn't the RSPB's stance still that climate change represents a greater threat to wildlife than wind turbines? They and the WWF certainly supported a recent educational DVD called Wind Power in the UK.
(I can't find out exactly when it was produced but it looks like it's still available to order from http://www.windpower-dvd.org/ if anyone's interested.)
Clearly Mr Cole has no understanding of Electrical Engineering Principles..............I think he must be Self Exciting like most wind generators !! (they need nothing but wind......like you Mr Cole ! )
I recommend a self financed fact finding Holiday in Denmark, the Home of WIND Turbines or would it be to much like a chicken looking at an iPhone ?
While in Denmark, Mr Cole could also Report to the RSPB lobby about the Kestrel nesting boxes..........yes Kestrel nesting boxes on the top of Wind Turbines in Denmark.
This happened because the birds were building their own and birds are not stupid either and do not need nannying.
Scottibrian
(Electrical Eng who lived in Denmark and has been back to see progress)
Surely, Mr Cole has had the opportunity to read the material produced by the Sustainable Development Commission? They clearly state that the wholesale cost of electricity from on-shore wind is 3.2p/Kwh and from coal-fired power stations is 3.0p/Kwh.
Surely, he also knows that whilst off-shore wind is more expensive it is still less expensive than nuclear, where full waste disposal and decommissioning costs are as yet unknown?
Surely, he has also read the Offshore Valuation? This report suggests that the renewable power resource in UK waters could yield as much as 6 times as much electricity as we consume at present. Moreover, that this resource, if fully exploited with wind, tidal and wave power schemes, would turn the UK into a net exporter of energy.
Surely, he also knows that fossil fuels (and current nuclear fuels for that matter) are finite and being rapidly depleted? In the context of an international market, prices will inevitably rise as large developing economies such as China and India also bid for supplies. Renewables do not require imported fuel - the wind imports itself.
We've received a response from The Daily Mail:
"Thank you for getting in touch regarding the article by Michael Cole which we published in the paper on June 10.
Mr Cole's article was in the form of an open letter from him to Mrs Clegg and as such was clearly an opinion piece rather than a definitive statement of fact.
It was also primarily about the potential conflict of interest in Mrs Clegg's recent appointment rather than about the merits or otherwise of wind power.
That said, we have received a number of very similar letters since it was published and I understand that Mr Cole has also replied direct to some who contacted him. It is clear therefore that this is a subject which is both controversial and of great interest to our readers.
Since we will no doubt be returning to it, I have therefore marked our library cuttings with a note of the points you have raised and circulated your comments for future reference on this matter."
This seems to be a defence of 'fair comment' - but that doesn't apply to facts, and anyone reading the piece would be left in no doubt that Mr Cole was presenting what he claimed were facts.
We'll keep pursuing this, and will let you know how things develop. If you'd like to complaint to the Daily Mail about this, make reference to the Press Complaints Commissions' Editor's Code of Practice, which you'll find here: http://www.pcc.org.uk/cop/practice.html
I'm sorry but you seem to be suggesting that Daily Mail readers and indeed probably readers of some other "newspapers" as well, are actually troubled by the veracity of the "facts" presented to them.
For some reason that I have yet to fathom the subject of wind turbines elicits fantastical reactions based largely on ignorance on an unbeleivable scale. Some quotes I have heard include:-
I suffer from Hay Fever and am concerned as the turbines will blow pollen into the Village.(?)
The noise pollution will be intolerable (noting that the individual lives within 1 mile of one of Britains busiest trunk roads audible day and night)
They will destroy the landscape for ever (Ignoring the 25 year time limit in the planning application)
The noise will be a big issue. Q have you ever been to a wind turbine? A. No. (3 years later the answer is still no)
I don't have any children so I don't have to worry what sort of world will be left for them, however I would like to think that mankind was able to avoid wrecking its home planet because it couldn't be bothered to gain the necessary understanding of cause and effect.
It's fair to say that the Daily Mail is a news 'product' rather than a newspaper - it reshapes the actual news into something its readers are far more comfortable with believing. I don't believe I've heard that pollen one before!