A study released by the Adam Smith Institute in Britain called wind power an inadequate, inefficient and unreliable power source that should be ranked behind nuclear and gas as a low-impact energy alternative.
The Adam Smith Institute released the study that said wind farms generate less than 20 percent of their output for about 20 weeks of the year and that for an additional nine weeks they generate about 10 percent.
Wind farms, which do not generate power during low winds periods and have to be shut down to maintain risks when winds are very strong, surpass 90 percent of their projected output for only 17 hours per year, the study said.
That meant a 10GW wind power system for an average of 20 weeks per year would effectively operate as a 2GW system and for nine weeks of the year it would generate the same output as a 1GW option, the Telegraph reported.
Ben Southwood, the think tank's head of policy, called wind farms a “bad way of reducing emissions and a bad way of producing power.”
He said wind power was expensive and devastating to home values. In addition, a vast energy storage system would be needed to compensate for the fluctuating output of wind power, he said.
Wind power advocates reacted negatively to the report. Gordon MacDougall, managing director of wind farm developer Renewable Energy Systems said wind power turbines were still winning in the court of public opinion with 70 percent of the public in favor of wind power, compared to 42 percent in favor of nuclear power and 29 percent for fracking. Green Business quoted MacDougall as saying, “If the facts are ignored it will be consumers who are left to foot the bill and security of supply that will be put at risk."
Wind power currently supplies enough electricity for five million homes, making it a significant part of the supply mix, said Jennifer Webber, director of external affairs at Renewable UK.