By Zoë Casey

Belgium’s supreme health council (Conseil Supérieur de la Santé, CSS) – a scientific body which advises the government – has called for a “reflection” on the development of wind energy citing apparent health concerns.

The CSS would do well to note that an increasing body of evidence exists showing that there is no link between wind turbines and adverse health effects.

In 2010 the Australian Government National Health Medical Research Council concluded: “there are no direct pathological effects from wind farms and that any potential impact on humans can be minimised by following existing planning guidelines.” In January 2012 a study for the Massachusetts Department of Public Health said: “there is insufficient evidence that noise from wind turbines is directly…causing health problems or disease.”

There are also a number of reviews of independent research and evidence that all conclude that wind energy is not harmful to human health. Meanwhile there are many more studies, some of which have been reviewed on this blog here and here.

As Robert Hornung, President of the Canadian Wind Energy Association, put it: “wind has also been attacked by opponents on the grounds that it is harmful to human health. This is despite the fact that the balance of scientific evidence clearly shows that wind turbines do not adversely affect human health, and in fact, wind energy is broadly recognised to be one of the safest forms of electricity generation available today.”

Last year, the American Wind Energy Association, Australia’s Clean Energy Council, the Canadian Wind Energy Association, the European Wind Energy Association, the Global Wind Energy Council and Renewable UK said:

“As a responsible industry that has been delivering clean electricity for more than 30 years, we collectively continue to engage with experts in science, medicine and occupational and environmental health to monitor ongoing credible research in the area of wind turbines and human health…the balance of scientific evidence and human experience to date clearly concludes that wind turbines are not harmful to humans.”

The CSS does also call for studies into the health effects of all types of electricity production in Belgium. Recently the EWEA blog reported that coal-fired power stations cost the European Union up to €42.8 billion a year in associated health costs, find out more here.

By Zoë Casey

The issue of energy may have been overshadowed by that of tax at yesterday’s EU summit of Heads of State in Brussels, but its growing importance and impact on Europe’s economy is one that cannot be ignored.

As the Financial Times reported on Tuesday, Europeans are paying a lot for their energy – prices are 37% higher than those in the US and 20% higher than those in Japan. Why? Largely because we import an incredibly high share of expensive fossil fuels.

What’s worse is that this dependence – and hence impact on prices – is growing. Herman van Rompuy, President of the European Council, has said that by 2035 over 80% of our energy will be imported, posing a threat to Europe’s competitiveness and endangering its economy.

Taking a look at the evolution of fossil fuel prices over the last three years shows how strong this threat is – the EU’s import bill has gone up by €200 billion due to increasing fuel prices during that time, and last year the EU paid €406 billion for oil and gas imports – 3.2% of its GDP or €1.1 billion a day.

But there is a way out. Europe is at the cutting edge of renewable energy technology and a world leader in wind energy. Wind energy is already meeting 7% of the EU’s electricity demand and its potential is enormous. The European Commission itself says that wind power could meet 32-49% of our electricity demand by 2050.

“Our continent is buffeted by a resource worth renewable gold – the wind, and is currently a world-leader in wind energy technology. We must transform our energy system and reduce our expensive and polluting energy dependence. Wind power is one of the best answers to this necessary transformation”, Thomas Becker, EWEA CEO, said reacting to the Summit conclusions.

It will take a push to get there: we need political motivation in the form of support for the industry and targets for growth, and we need a Europe-wide electricity market and infrastructure system to introduce competition, bring down prices and deliver renewable energy from where it is produced to where it is consumed.

Meanwhile research and development in wind power must be supported to bring down the costs of the technology offshore and constantly improve the long-established and already competitive with conventional fuels onshore technology.

EU leaders did agree that something needs to be done to combat rising energy prices. The issue of shale gas is on people’s minds, but as the Financial Times pointed out, extraction may be much more complicated in Europe than it has been in the US, and there are large question marks over the environmental damage fracking could cause.

As van Rompuy said, there is “huge potential [for renewable energy]…and we should take full advantage of it, especially now that these technologies are becoming more and more mature.”

MEPs back 2030 renewable energy target

As EU leaders fail to come up with concrete support for a healthy energy future in Europe, at least MEPs are supporting strong action. On Tuesday, the European Parliament renewed its commitment to wind power and other renewable energies by supporting a binding renewable energy target for 2030.

In the text adopted Tuesday, the Parliament said it agrees with the European Commission that renewable energy will help reduce Europe’s dependence on conventional energy.

“Targets and milestones should be set for the period to 2050 in order to ensure that RES have a credible future in the EU,” the text says, adding all scenarios presented by the Commission in its Energy Roadmap 2050 assume a share of at least 30% renewables in the EU’s energy mix in 2030.

The text also says that the EU should endeavour to achieve an even higher share, and calls on the Commission to propose a mandatory EU-wide renewable energy target for 2030. EurActiv says a Communication on 2030 targets is expected by the end of the year.

Meanwhile, an EWEA blog posting last week noted that French and German ministers have called for 2030 renewable energy targets, highlighting the importance of renewables in transforming the European economy, improving energy security and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The Irish Ambassador to the European Union also said Ireland “would be very keen to have 2030 targets.”

Additional reporting by Chris Rose

Football fans know the value of a hat-trick – the triumvirate of goals that prove success for any striker. Though difficult to achieve, the hat-trick is worth striving for.

The European Renewable Energy Council (EREC) also wants to score a hat-trick. Their new publication proposes three targets to drive EU energy policy after 2020: renewable energy, greenhouse gas emissions and energy efficiency.

“This would yield more benefits for European citizens and industries than a one-legged policy” based on a greenhouse gas only approach, say EREC.

“The message is simple: if you want to lower costs, create jobs, replace fossil fuel imports and drive innovation, competitiveness and investment, then a hat-trick of climate and energy goals works best”, said Rainer Hinrich-Rahlwes, President of EREC.

EREC are talking about 2030 targets now, as the current EU plans only go as far as 2020 – less than a decade away, which in terms of planning infrastructure for the energy business is the blink of an eye. A 2030 target is a vital signal for investors, as it decreases uncertainty which in turn reduces risk, and therefore cost. It would also ensure that the net growth in GDP that the EU currently gains from renewable energy would continue. In addition, a 2030 target would decrease the need for support mechanisms, reduce the costs of decarbonisation, allow Europe to maintain its “first mover advantage” in renewable technology, replace fossil fuels imports, create jobs and create a cleaner environment.

“The successful economies of the next decades will be those which decrease resource use and greenhouse gas emissions while creating new businesses through technology leadership, technology deployment and increasing employment the way renewable technologies do” said Hinrich-Rahlwes.

The EU does not yet have 2030 targets, but the European Commission’s recent Green Paper on a “2030 framework for climate and energy policies” presents 2030 targets as a key policy option. The EU does have the European Commission’s Energy Roadmap 2050, which identifies renewable energy, energy efficiency and infrastructure as “no regrets options”, meaning that in any given scenario they are critical for future decarbonisation.

The European Parliament and the Energy and Climate Action Commissioners support 2030 targets, however there is disagreement in the European Council – made up of ministers and representatives from national governments in the EU. EWEA has urged the Council to join the Parliament and Commissioners in agreeing to a 2030 renewable energy target alongside a carbon cutting target. (See EWEA Press Release EU Commission’s 2030 energy policy needs binding renewables target).

Regrets are certainly what the EU will have if it has to send representatives to the next international climate negotiations without a 2030 target. In typical understatement, Josche Muth of EREC described the job of negotiating in Paris in 2015 without new emissions targets as “hard”. Targets are concrete examples of European commitment to reducing emissions, and the strongest hand to play when convincing others that we are taking renewable energy, the climate and our citizens’ health and wealth seriously.

Read the EREC report Hat-trick 2030 – An integrated climate and energy framework

By Zoë Casey

If all the costs of fossil fuel power generation were detailed in German power bills they would exceed the costs of renewable energy “by a wide margin”, a study by Greenpeace Energy Germany and the German Wind Energy Association (BWE) says.

Currently German power bills clearly outline the cost of the EEG – the support that is channelled to renewable energy and charged to the consumer as a levy – but the costs of conventional fuels are hidden. “State incentives for nuclear and coal are sometimes part of rules that increase the price of power and sometimes part of government budgets. In both cases consumers cannot directly see the full cost in their power bills,” the report says.

In 2012 the EEG levy cost the consumer €c3.59 per KWh, while the report estimates that if there were a similar levy for fossil fuels it would cost €c10.2 per KWh – almost three times as high as the EEG.

The news comes as Germany enters a critical period of debate on the cost of its stepped-up “Energiewende” – or energy transition away from nuclear and fossil fuels towards renewables following a decision taken by the German government and Chancellor Angela Merkel in May 2011. On 1 January, the EEG – which effectively pays for Germany’s energy transition – was raised to €c5.3, a move which prompted German Environment Minister Peter Altmaier to announce in late January a two-year freeze on the EEG and a cap on raises after that.

While the final outcome of the debate is still to come, it is worth bearing in mind that not only are some fossil fuel and nuclear costs are hidden in power bills, but that fossil fuels and nuclear have been subsidised for decades at a cost of many more billions than subsidies to renewables. Moreover, the societal and environmental costs of fossil fuels and nuclear are high and will remain high.

In figures, the report highlights that the German government has paid a lot more to conventional fuels compared to renewables in direct and indirect energy subsidies between 1970 and 2012. While hard coal-fired electricity generation received a total of €177 billion in financial support, lignite received €65 billion, and nuclear received €187 billion. All renewables, meanwhile, received €54 billion over the same period, the report said.

The study then looks at the additional costs to society and the environment of fossil fuels and nuclear compared to renewables – which are only included to a minor extent in power bills. “The resulting price per of a kilowatt-hour of wind power for society in 2012 is €c8.1…in contrast, the total cost of power from lignite and hard coal add up to €c15.6 and €c14.8 respectively, with nuclear reaching at least €c16.4 per KWh,” the report says.

Wind power generated enough electricity to power four out of 10 UK homes last week – and that during a freezing March day and at a time when gas prices were at a seven year high.

From 9.30pm last Thursday night for the rest of the night and day, wind power generated 5 GW of electricity consistently over the 24 hour period, meeting over 10% of the country’s electricity needs.

Last week UK gas prices reached a seven-year-high after a pipeline connecting the UK and Belgium was shut down due to a technical fault.

“What this shows is that wind is a stable and reliable source of power generation on the scale we need, when we need it most,” Maria McCaffery, Chief Executive of industry body RenewableUK, said. The news on gas “serves as a timely reminder of the vulnerability of supply and the price volatility of imported fossil fuels,” she added.

While the UK’s recent record is impressive it falls behind countries like Spain – in April last year Spain reached a new wind power record by producing 317 GW hours of electricity, covering 61% of the country’s electricity demand.

Meanwhile in Denmark, wind power has met nearly all of the country’s electricity needs. Copenhagen Capacity reported that wind produced 3,987 MW of power one day in March this year – just 800 MW short of Danish electricity demand.

By Chris Rose

Health warnings from anti-wind power activists about wind power are likely to be causing some people to think they are getting sick, a new study from an Australian academic shows.

Simon Chapman, one of the study’s contributing authors, said health complaints in Australia about so-called ‘Wind Turbine Syndrome’ began to appear after “scare-mongering groups began megaphoning their apocalyptic, scary messages to rural residents.”

The study, which was published last week, said that “conclusions in view of scientific consensus that the evidence for wind turbine noise and infrasound causing health problems is poor.”

It added that wind-power-related “complaints are consistent with psychogenic hypotheses that health problems arising are ‘communicated diseases’” spread by claims that turbines would make people sick.

Chapman, professor of public health at Sydney University, said in a separate commentary that there are about 32,677 people living within five kilometres of Australia’s 49 wind farms and just 120 – or 0.4%– of them have ever made formal complaints, appeared in news reports or sent complaining submissions to government.

“Moreover, 81 (68%) of these are people living near just five wind farms, each of which have been heavily targeted by wind farm opponent groups,” Chapman added.

He said the study found “almost two thirds (63%) of all wind farms, including half of those with large (>1MW) turbines which opponents particularly demonise, have never been the subject of complaint.”

The study also found that the proportion of nearby residents complaining is minuscule, he said, adding “some complainants took many years to voice their first complaint, when wind farm opponents regularly warn that the ill effects can be almost instant.”

Chapman added a New Zealand study that was also published last week showed  “people primed by watching online information about health problems from wind turbines, reported more symptoms after being exposed to recorded infrasound or to sham (fake) infrasound.”

The University of Auckland study, he said, proved “anxiety and fear about wind turbines being spread about by anti-wind farm groups, will cause some people hearing this scary stuff to get those symptoms.”

That study noted results “suggest psychological expectations could explain the link between wind turbine exposure and health complaints.”

This blog has reported on health and wind turbines many-a-time in the past with stories on wind power supposedly ruining a good night’s sleep, a statement from the American, Canadian, UK, European and Global wind energy associations on wind energy being one of the safest sources of electricity, and on wind turbines and infrasound – a blog which also links to a study on the impact of coal-burning on human health.

By Christian Kjaer, EWEA CEO

Investing in wind energy makes absolute economic sense.

Europe’s ageing power plants need replacing. It makes economic sense to replace a growing proportion of those conventional power plants with wind energy.

This is because wind energy does the following:

1. Creates jobs and economic growth in Europe. 238,000 people worked in EU wind energy in 2010.
2. Reduces the cost of importing fossil fuels. Wind energy avoided €5.71 billion of fuel costs in 2010.
3. Reduces the risks of Europe being dependent on other countries for its energy.
4. Costs no more – and soon less – than conventional power sources. Today, production cost of a wind farm on land is broadly cost competitive with building a new coal or gas power station and the electricity costs are half of those from a new nuclear power plant. And that is in a situation in which some of the environmental and health costs of extracting and burning fossil fuels are not covered by power producers and therefore not included in the price of energy.
5. Reduces the risk associated with rising fossil fuel prices.

These are five reasons why it makes economic sense for EU national Governments to achieve the legal requirement they made to get 20% of their energy from renewable sources by 2020.

But Governments are making it unnecessarily difficult and expensive to achieve that legal obligation.

How? Through political campaign rhetoric that agonise financiers into raising the cost of capital, and by introducing retroactive changes to wind energy policies for those that have invested on the basis of the regulations in place when the investments were made.

That is why the European wind industry – through the European Wind Energy Association – is publishing an unparalleled statement warning against the “wave of uncertainty” sweeping across Europe.

The statement warns that “This political uncertainty is deterring financiers and investors and has already caused job losses and negative financial result announcements.”

We conclude that “By deterring wind energy investment, Governments are throwing away opportunities to create jobs and growth in Europe, improve security of energy supply, cut the cost of fossil fuel imports, reduce pollution and tackle climate change.”

Ignore the warning at Europe’s peril.

Read the statement.

Originally published on the EWEA blog.

By Philippa Jones

Anti-wind power lobbyists have long contested claims by the wind industry that wind power is competitive with fossil fuels. But technological advances, making wind turbines bigger, smarter, and more competitive in all situations, mean the wind is fast being taken out of the naysayers’ sails.

Both EWEA and GWEC, the Global Wind Energy Council, agree that “onshore wind power is competitive once all the costs that affect traditional energy sources – like fuel and CO₂ costs, and the effects on environment and health – are factored in”. Taking CO₂ costs alone, “if a cost of €30 per tonne of CO₂ emitted was applied to power produced, onshore wind energy would be the cheapest source of new power generation in Europe,” states EWEA. Moreover, wind is already “directly competitive with conventional sources in many places around the world, such as Mexico, Brazil, New Zealand, parts of China and the US,” according to GWEC.

Australia also seems to have been added to this list after a report published by Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) in February stated that wind is now cheaper than fossil fuels in producing electricity in Australia, a story reported on this blog at the time.

This game-changing potential is being given greater weight by technological advances – at least two of which were launched at EWEA 2013. The biggest impact on electricity production comes from making wind turbines bigger. Siemens Energy launched its new 4MWoffshore wind turbine at the conference in Vienna, which boasts a rotor diameter of 130 meters and provides slightly larger capacity that the current 3.6MW turbine. Meanwhile, Nordex unveiled two new 3MW machines – one for medium wind speeds and the other for very windy areas. The new machines have much larger rotors than previous platforms, increasing the swept area by 23-37% with a view to boosting energy yields by up to 31%, said the company.

Increasing the size of a wind turbine’s blades, and making the tower taller, allow a turbine to capture more wind, especially at low speeds. Certain companies are ensuring that they get the most out of such improvements by employing cutting-edge techniques. GE announced at the end of January the creation of a 2.5-120 wind turbine (a 2.5 MW machine with a rotor length of 120m), which over the course of a year can generate 15% more kilowatt hours that the turbines it is replacing. To reach this potential, the turbine will be operated and managed by specially developed algorithms that will let it keep turning when earlier generations of wind turbines would have had to shut down.

Vestas have also announced a new offshore turbine, the V164-8.0 MW, with a swept area of more than 21,000m2 – the equivalent to almost three football pitches. “When it comes to profitability, the biggest the swept area, the bigger the revenue,” the company says. Vestas also points out that bigger turbines means fewer turbines, fewer foundations and less cabling.

This is all great news, but there is still a long way to go. As Kobad Bhavnagri, head of clean energy research for Bloomberg New Energy Finance in Australia, pointed out, while “new wind is cheaper than building new coal and gas, [it] cannot compete with old assets that have already been paid off”. For that reason “policy support is still needed to put megawatts in the ground today and build up the skills and experience to de-carbonise the energy system in the long-term,” said Bhavnagri.

By Julian Scola, Communication Director, EWEA

It seems that energy policy has never been such a hot topic – at least judging by the huge media attention it is now receiving.

Today, and this week generally, has seen a blizzard of European media coverage of energy policy – with wildly differing perspectives, and arguably also in quality of reasoning.

Today in Germany, Environment Minister Peter Altmeier is strongly criticised in the heavyweight Suddeutsche Zeitung for “misleading” statements on the cost of renewables. It is claimed he exaggerates the cost and is not helping his country’s transition from nuclear to renewable energy.  Suddeutsche Zeitung accuses the Minister of creating uncertainty and fear.

In the UK the Daily Telegraph reports that an MEP has published a book attacking wind energy in Scotland. The newspaper highlights claims in the book about the amount of rental income gained by, often aristocratic, landowners from wind turbines erected on their land. The Times reported that “the MEP’s views remain outside the political mainstream north and south of the border”.

The book-writing MEP attacks the idea of making Scotland “the Saudi Arabia of renewables”, an idea The Economist sees as “not too far-fetched.” For The Economist, Scotland’s renewables industry is a strength, and the paper worries that “the biggest shadow over Scotland’s renewables industry is cast by independence” potentially making it harder for Scotland to export electricity generated by renewables to the English market.

Meanwhile French newspaper ‘Le Figaro’ prints an opinion article condemning the alleged cost of reducing nuclear energy’s share of electricity production from 75 to 50% in France, and replacing it with renewables. A previous article by the same author was called “Nuclear, a responsible and considered choice”. A very different view of nuclear is presented in The Guardian.

At a special press briefing organized by The International Press Association in Brussels last week, EU Energy Commissioner Günther Oettinger confirmed that he will be bringing forward proposals for post-2020 policy, before the current term of the Commission ends, which is 31 October 2014. He said that the Council would talk about binding targets in an orientation debate and that he favoured binding targets. He also said that the targets will be “pragmatic” and “sensitive”.

For 2020, the EU has committed to cutting its emissions to 20% below 1990 levels, as well as renewable energy and energy efficiency targets. A binding renewable energy target for 2030 would provide much needed confidence for the renewables industry, as well as secure commitment to tackle climate change from EU member states.

Oettinger was asked about the implications of the recently agreed EU budget for 2014-2020 on energy. He said “in the past, we developed energy policy without funding”…“In the past MFF, there was zero for infrastructure”. Now, the 2014-2020 Multiannual Financial Framework has proposed €5bn for co-financing of projects of cross-European interests, such as electricity interconnectors, instead of the €9bn proposed by the Commission. Even so, this will result in a “complete pan-European infrastructure”, said the Commissioner. With the new Multi-Annual Framework budget  “we have the financial resources to contribute and be a fair partner”. Oettinger also emphasised the need for private investment in EU energy projects, and smart instruments being devised by the European Investment Bank with the Commission with which “we can get much more than €5bn”.

Read more on the EWEA blog.