1. Onshore wind energy: what are the pros and
cons?
This Q&A is part of the Guardian's ultimate climate change FAQ
Tuesday 25 September 2012 10.34 BST
Onshore wind already plays a leading role in the generation of renewable electricity in the UK.
Photograph: Graeme Robertson for the Guardian
Wind turbines harness the energy of moving air to generate electricity. Onshore wind refers to
turbines located on land, while offshore turbines are located out at sea or in freshwater. In the UK,
the pros and cons of onshore wind energy, in comparison with other low-carbon and fossil fuel
energy sources, have recently been the subject of debate in the press and among politicians.
Onshore wind already plays a leading role in the generation of renewable electricity in the UK. In
2010, it generated around 7TWh – more than a quarter of the electricity provided by British
renewables at that time and enough to save six million tonnes of CO2, according to government
estimates. By 2020, onshore wind is expected to generate up to 30TWh. Onshore wind can therefore
play a key role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions created by the UK's power sector – which will
be crucial to meeting the UK's legally binding carbon budgets.
Onshore wind has the advantage of being one of the most affordable renewable energy sources.
Generating electricity from onshore wind turbines typically costs around 7–9p per kWh, which is
around half the cost of offshore wind and a quarter of the costs of solar photovoltaic panels. It is
also slightly cheaper, on average, than nuclear power. Onshore wind generation is still slightly more
expensive than fossil fuels (generating electricity from gas power plants currently costs between 4.1
and 7.5 p/kWh), but its price is expected to fall in the coming years.
Some emissions are created by the manufacture, transportation and installation of wind turbines, but
these are considered fairly low. Additional emissions are attributed to the fact that wind energy (like
solar and wave power) is intermittent, generating electricity only when the wind is blowing, and at
sufficient strength. When wind strength is insufficient for turbines to operate, fossil-fuel-based
power supply is needed as "backup". The current small proportion of renewable electricity in the
UK market requires very little backup, but as the share increases additional backup will be needed.
However, other technologies, such as inter-linkages with other countries' grids, energy storage and

2. electricity demand management, are expected to help tackle intermittency in the future, so the
overall future impact on emissions is considered relatively low.
Onshore wind has been criticised for its visual impact. Although other power infrastructure, like
fossil fuel and nuclear power stations, can also modify landscapes and habitats, onshore wind
turbines are typically more spread out than other large-scale energy infrastructure projects and so
can affect a larger area. Another criticism is that species such as birds and bats may also be affected
by wind turbines – though bird fatalities due to turbine collisions are relatively low compared to
other fatality causes, such as traffic and domestic cats. Impacts on wildlife can be minimised by
careful site selection and by avoiding areas of high conservation or habitat value. A third potential
issue is that turbines can contribute to noise pollution, but government studies find noise levels are
comparatively low and should not significantly impact on nearby residents. New guidance is being
drafted to inform future planning policy on noise issues.
Environmental Impact Assessments review these kinds of potential impacts on a case-by-case basis
and seek to protect unsuitable areas, such as those of high conservation or heritage value. In some
cases, undesirable local impacts may make more expensive renewable technologies, such as
offshore wind or solar, more attractive. The extra cost of offshore wind can be seen as the premium
society is willing to pay in order to avoid the local environmental cost of onshore turbines.
The choice between more affordable electricity (which would favour onshore wind) and local
environmental protection (which may favour other low-carbon technologies) is ultimately a societal
and political one. Given the economic and environmental trade-offs, technological uncertainty and
the absence of one clear winner when it comes to energy sources, many economists suggest (pdf)
the best approach is a portfolio of different technologies to balance the cost to consumers and
environmental concerns. Onshore wind has a role to play in this energy mix and in helping the UK
achieve its emission reduction targets.
• This article was written by Samuela Bassi and Naomi Hicks of the Grantham Research Institute on
Climate Change and the Environment at LSE in collaboration with the Guardian

3. EU energy chief 'satisfied' with nuclear safety
despite critical report
Stress test of 145 reactors reveals hundreds of defects, but Güenther Oettinger says 'generally the
situation is satisfactory'
 Fiona Harvey, environment correspondent
 guardian.co.uk, Thursday 4 October 2012 11.25 BST
EU energy commissioner Güenther Oettinger. Photograph: Georges Gobet/AFP/Getty Images
The European Union's energy chief has called the bloc's nuclear power stations "satisfactory"
despite a report on Thursday that showed hundreds of defects, with dozens of reactors failing to
meet international safety standards.
The report – the "stress test" of Europe's 145 nuclear reactors – was commissioned after the
Fukushima incident in Japan last year. It found that bringing Europe's nuclear power stations up to
international standards could cost €25bn.
Some MEPs criticised the commission for not urging stronger action on the nuclear industry.
Almost all of the EU's nuclear plants need some form of upgrade or repair, ranging from minor
updates to substantial overhauls, but none requiring closure, according to the tests. One issue found
in some plants was insufficient preparation for what could happen if the cooling systems were
compromised, as happened in Fukushima. This is potentially serious as it could lead to meltdown.
Some of the plants do not have sufficient safety measures in place to cope securely with a serious
natural disaster, the tests found. But some other changes needed can be carried out relatively easily.
Guenther Oettinger, the energy commissioner, said: "Our stress test was strict, serious and
transparent. It reveals bluntly and objectively what we are good at and where there is a need to
improve. Generally the situation is satisfactory but there is no room for complacency. We must
work together to ensure that the highest safety standards are in force in every single nuclear power
plant in Europe, for the safety of our citizens."
Some of the defects involve basic safety and monitoring measures, such as the lack of seismic
monitors at reactor sites in several countries including France and the Czech Republic.
Oettinger said the stress test was an opportunity to ensure the comprehensive enforcement of
international safety standards across member states.
He said: "Now we know whether the highest international standards are used for very essential
safety features, for example how the risk of an earthquake is measured."
The stress tests, which included international experts carrying out spot tests of plants, took place in
co-operation with the European Nuclear Safety Regulators Group, made of member states' national
safety authorities.
Oettinger said: "We have assessed the safety and robustness of nuclear power plants in case of
extreme natural events. This means especially flood and earthquakes. Both scenarios were assessed
simultaneously. We have covered air plane crashes to the extent that they have the same effect as
tsunami and earthquakes, meaning that they shut down normal safety and cooling functions. "
But campaigners and MEPs said the nuclear industry had been let off too lightly and demanded to
know how the commission would enforce standards.
Marita Ulvskog, vice president of the Socialists and Democrats grouping in the European
Parliament, said: "There are several nuclear facilities that would not withstand extreme events like

4. an earthquake or a terrorist attack. We must guarantee that all measures are taken to protect human
lives and the environment. A nuclear disaster [in one member state] would have catastrophic
consequences for neighbouring countries and we need to find a common solution."
Rebecca Harms, co-president of the Green grouping in the parliament, said that the stress test had
"been orchestrated to cause as little stress to the nuclear industry as possible". She said: "There are
no real proposals for follow-up. However, the fact that the stress tests failed to address risks in
crucial areas – ageing technology, terrorist attacks or human error – is a more damning indictment
of the whole exercise."
She insisted that the stress test should not be used as an excuse to prolong the life of elderly
reactors: "At the very least, the commission should be pressing for the security deficiencies
identified in the report to be rectified. However, given the prohibitive costs – with estimates of up to
€25bn – investors will only be willing to commit to this if the reactors stay online far longer than
foreseen for safety reasons. These stress tests cannot be used as an excuse to justify lifetime
extensions for decrepit nuclear reactors. If this exercise was serious, the commission should be
recommending the closure of unsafe or ageing reactors."
One nuclear insider, however, said that even under the stress of such a severe natural disaster as the
earthquake and tsunami in Japan, the threat to the nuclear power stations in Fukushima and
elsewhere in Japan had been contained.
Greenpeace spokesman Mark Breddy said: "It's not surprising that the tests, though limited, have
uncovered major concerns. Nuclear power is inherently risky, and failures, accidents and close calls
happen all the time. But there are serious safety issues that the stress tests haven't looked into. EU
governments must act fast by shutting down the oldest and most risky plants and by ordering more
thorough testing on the remaining plants."