Roger Watson
I am not sure if I believe that Vladimir Putin is really threatening to send spy ships disguised as research vessels and fishing boats to the North Sea to send our offshore wind turbines to Davey Jones’s locker. But if it is true, then what might the consequences be?
The first consequence is the call by Tory MPs to expand the capacity of our armed forces to deal with the threat. I am not sure how the armed forces would help to deal with an offshore threat. For instance, how will they get there? Swim? We don’t seem to have much of a navy these days. Our flagship aircraft carrier broke down within sight of Portsmouth harbour last year. There were still a few frigates sitting in Portsmouth harbour last time I was there, but I was assured once over dinner by the wife of a very famous peer whose daughter was in the Royal Navy that the navy does not have enough fuel to take most of them out of the harbour. So, it seems we don’t need to expand in that direction, merely send them some fuel.
The second consequence is that Mr Putin could be serious, and his boats could be on the way to the North Sea as I write. What would happen if he ‘took out’ our wind turbines? Frankly, not much. Offshore wind (when the wind is blowing) only contributes 13% of our energy needs in the UK so blasting our wind turbines may, at most, dim a few lightbulbs. Of course, I’ll be irritated if they are my lightbulbs but we are forced to use low energy lightbulbs these days we have all got used to feeling our way about our houses in Dickensian dimness. Bring it on Mr Putin, I think you’ll find that we Brits are made of stern stuff.
With any luck, the Russians will launch a land invasion and destroy all our onshore wind turbines too. That would reduce our energy by a further 11% but, hey-ho, we’d still have over 75% of our energy capacity left. And there would be the added advantage of a vast and immediate improvement to our landscape. No trip to the countryside around my city is complete without some expression of surprise or outrage at some new batch of wind turbines. These automated bird slicers are built in serried ranks like a regiment of HG Wells aliens come to wage war on us.
It is just possible that there was outrage at the copious building of windmills in The Netherlands and the Norfolk Broads when these were needed to pump water and grind corn. But I doubt it. These were built from local materials, provided housing and storage for the operators and their sustainability is evidenced, even if they have fallen into disuse, by the fact that they are still standing hundreds of years later. I can’t imagine many trendy middle class migrants from the suburbs rushing to buy a disused turbine in which to build their retirement home.
Wind turbines are far from sustainable. As explained in Ross Clark’s recent book Not Zero there is a considerable amount of carbon emissions involved in their lifetime use taking manufacture into account. The lifespan of a wind turbine is estimated to be 20 years and they are then cut up and buried. They cannot be recycled. Clark also explains how mass wind turbines, which are a common sight, are far less efficient than isolated turbines; they actually slow the wind down. Finally, it is not much fun living near a wind turbine; they generate a low level noise which some people find disturbing and can cause health problems related to sleep, concentration and headaches.
So, Mr Putin, regarding our wind turbines both on- and offshore, come and have a go if you think you’re hard enough. I, for one, will not be standing in your way.
Roger Watson is a retired academic nurse who lives in the UK.
He is currently engaged in a range of professional consultancies in the UK, Europe and China. He writes regularly for several outlets including The Daily Sceptic, The European Conservative, Country Squire Magazine and The New Conservative.
