In a carefully calculated move to switch opposition to fracking to opposition to wind turbines the UK energy department’s recently-gone chief scientific advisor has claimed that a wind farm requires 700 times more land to produce the same amount of energy as a fracking site.

Wind versus Fracking: The Debate Continues…

Prof David MacKay, pictured right in the picture above,  stood down from the Government role at the end of July. But he has published analysis which claims to show that fracking is far less “intrusive” on the landscape than wind or solar power.  Not surprisingly his intervention was welcomed by fracking groups, who are battling to win public support amid claims from green groups and other critics that shale gas extraction will require the “industrialisation” of the countryside and that there is inadequate health and safety protection for those around the chosen sites. Hundreds of anti-fracking protesters on Thursday occupied a field near Blackpool neighbouring a proposed fracking site for energy firm Cuadrilla.

frackingno to fracking

Prof MacKay said that a shale gas site uses less land and “creates the least visual intrusion”, compared with a wind farm or solar farm capable of producing the equivalent amount of energy over 25 years. He developed his own system to come up with the analysis, rating each technology’s “footprint” against six criteria covering aspects of land use, height, visual impact and truck movements to and from the site. According to the ex-government advisor, the shale gas site  was the “winning” technology on three measures, solar farms won on two, while wind farms did not win any. None was deemed to have “won” on truck movements as all types generated “lots” of traffic. Very green.

Prof MacKay said that a shale gas pad of 10 wells would require just 2 hectares of land and would be visible – due to an 85-foot-high drilling rig – from 77 hectares of surrounding area. However, the drilling rig would be in place for “only the first few years of operations”.

An artist’s impression of the proposed Cuadrilla fracking site at Preston New Road, Lancs

By contrast, a wind farm capable of producing the same energy would span an area of 1,450 hectares, requiring 87 turbines each 328-foot tall. A solar farm generating equivalent energy would span a 924 hectare area, directly building on 208 hectares of it.

Prof MacKay admitted that the analysis showed that “perhaps unsurprisingly, there is no silver bullet – no energy source with all-round small environmental impact”. [all sources] “have their costs and risks” and said the public should “look at all the options”.

While the fracking fraternity flocked to fanfare the analysis,  Dr Jimmy Aldridge, energy analyst for Greenpeace UK, said:

“The visual impact of fracking isn’t really the main issue – everyone knows that wind turbines are taller than drilling rigs, so you can see them from further away, but government figures show three times as many people support wind power than shale gas, and that difference just gets more pronounced when it’s in their local area. That’s partly because of the risk of localised air and water pollution, partly noise and inconvenience, but most importantly, because shale gas is a high-carbon energy source, which is exactly what we need a lot less of.”

So was the anaylsis just an attempt to please his ex-government colleagues, and/or Frackers United?

While the analysis may well be sound, what about offshore wind? What about the dangers of fracking?  And perhaps, most-importantly, fracking is not a renewable energy source. Once it has been extracted, it has been exhausted, and we will once again have to look for renewable sources such as wind, hydro-electric power and solar power. So fracking is just a short-term solution.  And a recent survey showed that more people would prefer to live near to a wind farm than a fracking site.

wind farm in the UK

Nordex and Vestas News Previous post Nordex and Vestas News
UK Wind Turbine Record- And the Seals are Loving it! Next post UK Wind Turbine Record- And the Seals are Loving it!