Enough energy to power Hampshire ten times over
20th June 2006
Alan Whitehead, MP for Southampton Test, said that offshore wind energy would produce enough energy to power Hampshire ten times over.
Speaking in an adjournment debate on Friday, Dr Whitehead argued the case for an extension of the use of wind energy as not only a non-carbon emitting source but a source that can contribute a substantial amount of power to the energy mix - the question is how we move to maximise this contribution by making it a viable option.
The Energy Act of 2004 allowed for a three phase roll out of off wind energy. So far only the first two phases have seen any development: wind farms in inshore waters close to the coast, and larger wind farms slightly further out to sea such as the Wash, Morecombe Bay and the Thames estuary. Dr Whitehead is therefore keen to see the next and third phase rolled out which would allow for the wind farms to be built in deeper and further waters, essentially up to the boundaries of the energy allocation zone for gas and oil.
Dr Whitehead was also keen to dispel many myths regarding cost and viability arguing that there are answers to both these potential barriers. On cost Dr Whitehead argued that relatively wind power is cost effective, particularly as it can be financed entirely privately, the same of which has not been said for nuclear power - especially with regard to the costs of decommissioning and storing nuclear waste.
The issue presenting itself of how this power can be harnessed has also already been largely addressed in the Airtricity proposed project. Airtricity, a large renewable energy company has drawn up a detailed outline of the components of a supergrid and the way in which it would work and proposes a pilot programme to develop a grid system that would operate between the UK, Holland and Germany in the southern part of the North Sea. This initial pilot alone would produce the equivalent of 80% of our nuclear power plants, and could meet the perceived gap in energy envisaged by 2020.
During the debate Dr Whitehead said:
"The main hurdle to be cleared is one of imagination, but it is not as high a hurdle as may be thought. If, a relatively few years ago, someone had said that we would in a few years erect platforms in a number of locations, lay pipes across the North sea to connect them up, and establish shore-based facilities to receive their contents, it would have been easy to say that that could not be done, or that it would cost the people of UK an arm and a leg to make it happen. But it was done, and the North sea gas industry came of age.
"Those facilities are still there as the gas industry declines, so why not a new phase for the North sea at, incidentally, less cost than that of the first industry that developed those facilities in the North sea for the benefit of the United Kingdom? Why not a new phase in which the North sea once again provides energy security, reliability of supply and low cost electricity in exactly the way that gas has done over past 30 years? In the context of our future energy planning, perhaps the question [with regard to wind energy] is not why, but why not?"
He added after the debate:
'The arguments presented against an enhanced use of wind power are often based on unfounded premises which have and can be resolved. What seems to be required is a shift in perspective from wind energy as a pipe dream to wind energy as a reality that could power Hampshire ten times over.'