Wind Farms / Biogas Plant Forum
Disclaimer: Rackenford-devon.co.uk
encourages responsible debate but holds no responsibility for the comments
shown on this page. The thoughts and views published are those of the author
shown at the top of each article and are published without any interference
from the Webmaster unless it is thought to be break copyright laws or if the
views are considered unsuitable, threatening, vulgar or incite unlawful
actions.
HAVE YOUR SAY. SEND IN YOUR COMMENTS AND, IF SUITABLE, I WILL PUBLISH THEM ON THIS SITE.
See comments below
Jim Fraser – 10/02/2008
If you can’t beat them join
them, at least that’s what they did in Fintry when they had this problem. The
following article is really worth reading.
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/Fintry39s-green-revolution-means-power.3761482.jp
Bob Ashton – 21/08/2006
Hi, I’m Bob Ashton …you may
have seen some of my letters in the North Devon Journal.
I wonder how many of your
contacts know of the recent u-turn by North Devon District Council …I attach a
scan of the item that appeared in the Journal a month ago. (Webmasters
note: copy will be published once written agreement from North Devon Journal
has been received)
I have written to Malcolm
Prowse asking how they can justify this decision. His reply indicated that they believe if they can control the
size, numbers and location of a few, they will then be in a better position to
oppose applications from the commercial developers. This is the kind of logic that gets Lunatic Asylums a bad
name! The fact is that the Regional
Assembly for the South West of
I would urge everyone to
write to their Councillors and MP, as I have done, demanding to know why they
haven’t been consulted on this.
---------------------------------------------
Jane Faust – 27/01/06
Please would you add a link to the Two Moors Campaign
website from your
Rackenford website if that's OK.
www.twomoorscampaign.co.uk
"Never could so much be lost for so little."
The Two Moors Campaign is one of about 100 campaign groups in this country
established to protect our precious landscapes
---------------------------------------------
Giles Chichester MEP for Southwest England – 26/01/06
Mr Chichester has asked me to send you a copy of his
energy commentary with his compliments.
Kind regards
Netia Carr (Mrs)
Secretary to Giles Chichester MEP
Top ---------------------------------------------
Don Brownlow - 20/01/06
If you think it is worth trashing the landscape for a small, intermittent supply of power, then I would suggest that you look at the body of technical papers by the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change. One quote:
"We observed that
wind generation has a relatively small capacity credit. At lower levels of wind
penetrations the capacity credit of wind generation is found to be about the same
as the average load factor of wind. However, as the level of wind penetration
rises, the capacity credit begins to tail off. That is why in order to maintain
the same level of system security a significant capacity of conventional plant
will still be required.
However, these conventional plants will be required to run either
occasionally and/or at part load when shortages of supply are likely to occur
due to a low total wind power output. Considering that conventional plants at
full load are the most efficient and generate the lowest amount of CO2 emission
(per electricity produced) such occasionally and/or part-loaded plants will be
less utilised and/or produce more CO2 per electricity produced."
(Conclusions, 5, Ensuring new and renewable energy can meet
electricity demand: security of decarbonised electricity systems, Tyndall
Centre Technical Report 30, July 2005).
Or the report
by the Council for Science and Technology, 'An electricity
supply strategy for the UK (2005)'.
Hugh Sharman, a consultant in the energy industry, in 'The Dash
for Wind - West Denmark’s Experience and UK’s Energy Aspirations'
presents a devastating analysis of the problems created by Denmark's huge
investment in onshore wind power generating capacity. He forecasts that these
problems will be even worse in the UK if we go ahead with the present massive
unplanned expansion of onshore wind power stations. We lack the interconnects
that allow Denmark to manage a large wind supply. Google 'Eltra' for industry
reports on managing wind generated power.
There is a huge amount of information out there - don't just accept the
assertions of the UK wind power industry, read the research and the reports
from Germany (especially the EON.
Netz Wind Report 2005 - industry, not NIMBY!) and Denmark, the
countries with the highest installed capacity in the world. Both have
caused huge damage to their landscapes without improving security of supply or
contributing much to their carbon reduction targets.
It is very noticeable that the BWEA, the wind power developers' trade body,
never quotes any evidence of the benefits that wind power has brought to
Germany and Denmark (apart from to their subsidy farmers and turbine
builders). Why not?
As usual, we are late adopters of an inefficient, outmoded technology (first
seen in 1895 and still claiming that it will soon be economically viable!) The
wind power generation industry was on its uppers in this country until the
subsidy regime was introduced. Nobody wanted to buy small,
intermittent supplies of power until the Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO)
and Renewables Obligation mechanism forced them to do so.
Don't throw away your most precious asset: the landscape of North Devon.
DonIf you think it is worth trashing the landscape for a small, intermittent
supply of power, then I would suggest that you look at the body of
technical papers by the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change. One quote:
"We observed that
wind generation has a relatively small capacity credit. At lower levels of wind
penetrations the capacity credit of wind generation is found to be about the
same as the average load factor of wind. However, as the level of wind penetration
rises, the capacity credit begins to tail off. That is why in order to maintain
the same level of system security a significant capacity of conventional plant
will still be required.
However, these conventional plants will be required to run either occasionally
and/or at part load when shortages of supply are likely to occur due to a low
total wind power output. Considering that conventional plants at full load are
the most efficient and generate the lowest amount of CO2 emission (per
electricity produced) such occasionally and/or part-loaded plants will be less
utilised and/or produce more CO2 per electricity produced."
(Conclusions, 5, Ensuring new and renewable energy can meet
electricity demand: security of decarbonised electricity systems, Tyndall
Centre Technical Report 30, July 2005).
Or the report
by the Council for Science and Technology, 'An electricity
supply strategy for the UK (2005)'.
Hugh Sharman, a consultant in the energy industry, in 'The Dash for
Wind - West Denmark’s Experience and UK’s Energy Aspirations'
presents a devastating analysis of the problems created by Denmark's huge
investment in onshore wind power generating capacity. He forecasts that these
problems will be even worse in the UK if we go ahead with the present massive
unplanned expansion of onshore wind power stations. We lack the interconnects
that allow Denmark to manage a large wind supply. Google 'Eltra' for industry
reports on managing wind generated power.
There is a huge amount of information out there - don't just accept the
assertions of the UK wind power industry, read the research and the reports
from Germany (especially the EON.
Netz Wind Report 2005 - industry, not NIMBY!) and Denmark, the
countries with the highest installed capacity in the world. Both have
caused huge damage to their landscapes without improving security of supply or
contributing much to their carbon reduction targets.
It is very noticeable that the BWEA, the wind power developers' trade body,
never quotes any evidence of the benefits that wind power has brought to
Germany and Denmark (apart from to their subsidy farmers and turbine builders).
Why not?
As usual, we are late adopters of an inefficient, outmoded technology (first
seen in 1895 and still claiming that it will soon be economically viable!) The
wind power generation industry was on its uppers in this country until the
subsidy regime was introduced. Nobody wanted to buy small,
intermittent supplies of power until the Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO)
and Renewables Obligation mechanism forced them to do so.
Don't throw away your most precious asset: the landscape of North Devon.
Don
Top ---------------------------------------------
Chloe Green – 13/01/06
Is Jon Hooper a member of
the same Green Party that, in the summer of 2005, about 500m from Hinkley
nuclear power station, found a quaint little English village where most of the
windows bore signs saying “NO” to the Hinkley wind farm?
Go to the following link and scroll down to the 4th entry from Ricky Knight! http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/news/index.php?page=just_feedback&article_id=8GEWTWE-765GTQE-Q5VHF9L-DESFDL4&offset=12&pp=12
Top ---------------------------------------------
Jon Hooper – The Green party 12/01/06
> The Sustainable Development Commission's report is seen
as THE definitive
> report on wind power in the UK: "Because of the highly charged debate
on
> wind power the report has been peer reviewed, like a scientific paper, to
> give it greater credibility so it can be used by planners as an
> authoritative document" Paul Brown, Guardian 19th May; "The most
> comprehensive study of wind energy in Britain" Geoffrey Lean, Independent,
> 15th May.
>
> http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/pages/media/list/wind.html
Might I suggest adding this
> list of links to neutral and pro-wind organisations under the "For"
heading,
> to readdress the balance:
>
> http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/factsheets/wind_power.pdf
> http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/climate/solution/wind.cfm
> http://www.dti.gov.uk/renewables/renew_1.1.2.2.htm
> http://www.yes2wind.org.uk
> http://www.embracewind.co.uk
> http://www.trans-send.org.uk/
> http://www.northdevongreens.org.uk/localaction_renewableenergy.htm
> http://www.regensw.co.uk/technology/wind-faq.asp
>
> Regards,
>
> Jon Hooper, North Devon Green Party
Top ---------------------------------------------
Phil Jones 11 Jan. 06
I find it hard understanding the opposition to windmills. The pylons that clutter our countryside are a blight but if they were removed and everyone slipped back into the 1930's there would be howls of discontent.
We NEED power and most people are greedy and wasteful. If the anti-s are prepared to give up their collection of electrical gadgets that spend two thirds of their life on standby and turn off all their lights but the one they are using then maybe we shan't need them.
It would be ludicrous ever to expect this to happen and as the population increases we NEED more power. Our supplies from gas are unpredictable, other fuels are in decline and the option of nuclear has sufficient drawbacks to have realistic opposition.
I don't doubt we will have to resort to every option including nuclear,but also wind and wave power. To raise objection is rather silly if we ever expect to maintain this society we have created. Unless there are plans afoot to turn things backward by several decades.
I would be quite alarmed if a nuclear power station were to be placed at Yelland, but there is considerably more to object against with nuclear power. But, if public opinion were massively in favour, by say 60% or more I would have to accept it.
Aesthetic objections to wind farms are groundless in a society that allows SSSI's to be tarmacced over. ( Knowstone Moor !!!). Having spoken with visitors to Cornwall the attitude to the farms there is favourable.
Arguments about the cost effectiveness are futile when the cost of security, from the humble security guard to MI6 investigations, outweighs the gain from nuclear power long before the fuel is spent and sat polluting for hundreds of years.
Safety arguments appear to be misleading,the likelihood of being killed by an impatient driver on the link road far exceed the risk of a blade flying off and causing injury. To my knowledge this hasn't happened anywhere yet and failure is possible with all mechanical equipment but is not grounds to stop progress. (Mercedes A series for example).
Leaving concrete on site is so pifflingly inconsequential compared to decommissioned nuclear sites and as for headaches and flickering blades what about high tension lines and pylons which are associated with leukaemia and other diseases.
Which brings me back to my first comment, I don't understand the objection.
Fine, STOP progress and lets get back to the glorious years, but with it goes antibiotics ( Alpharma need electricity), vehicles ( Woodside garage needs power), internet, mobile phones, satellite TV, air ambulance and so on and so on
I give my whole hearted support to this development at Batsworthy and think it will be a great asset to the county.
Phil Jones
South Molton
Top ---------------------------------------------
Chloe Green – 11/01/06
Mr Patrick Spink, PR Officer of npower describes the Sustainable Development Commissions report, “Windpower in the UK” as a must.
Please
note the following with regard to this report which was revised in November
2005:
Page 31 of
this report states that “…it
would be unrealistic to assume that wind energy would displace any nuclear
capacity…”
The report can be downloaded from the following link (scroll down to
the bottom): http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/pages/media/list/wind.html
Malcolm Keay of the Oxford University,
Institute for Energy Studies comments in his critical report “Wind
power in the UK: Has the Sustainable Development Commission got it
right?”,
“…it is
fair to ask it to present a properly argued case for wind power if it wants
unwilling communities across the country to suffer the environmental
consequences (and unknowing consumers to bear the cost). It has not done so” http://www.oxfordenergy.org/pdfs/comment_0605.pdf
Please
also note that the BWEA consists of a paid up membership of wind developers and
associated industries.
To
clarify Mr Patrick Spinks description of Clear Skies, www.clear-skies.org it is a Government led grant programme to assist
people who want to install the following renewable energy systems:
Solar thermal
Wind turbines
Micro/small scale hydro
turbines
Ground source heat pumps
Room heaters/stoves with
automated wood pellet feed
Wood fuelled boiler systems
The title of the CLAs, Country
Landowners and Business Association report ‘Renewable energy more than wind’
speaks for itself:
The full report can accessed from the following web
page:
http://www.cla.org.uk/article.php?docnum=997&page=government&CLA=2e154f0ef27c3824c8e26a785488f8b9
Top ---------------------------------------------
Patrick Spink – PR Officer Npower Renewables
Dear Sir
I noted with interest that the Rackenford community
web site is debating wind power. I also noted the links to other web sites as
well. Could I suggest that the following maybe of interest to add to the
current list:
British Wind Energy Association - www.bwea.com
Danish Wind Industry Association - www.windpower.org
Embrace the Revolution - www.embracewind.com
Clear Skies (Government led grant
programme to assist people who want to set up domestic wind systems) - www.clear-skies.org
Further links can also be found at http://www.bwea.com/ref/links.html
If the above is not of interest then the Sustainable
Development Commissions report on wind power in the UK is a must. It can be
located at http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/pages/media/list/wind.html
I trust the above is of interest.
Yours sincerely
Patrick
Spink MCIPR
PR
Officer
npower
renewables
Top ---------------------------------------------
Jane Faust – 05/01/06
"Please click below for "ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL
VIEWING"
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~hills/cc/gallery/index.htm#photos
"There is a serious possibility, verging on a certainty, that the ongoing
industrialisation of Britain's landscape with the latest generation of giant
wind power-stations will not only fail to achieve the global environmental
goals set by the government, but will also destabilise our electricity
supply. In this case, the nationwide sacrifice of vulnerable ecologies and
communities will be worse than meaningless" -
The Renewable Energy Foundation gives the bigger picture www.ref.org.uk"
---------------------------------------------
Drew Gee – 04/01/06
Hi there,
Interesting to see that only negative responses to the proposed wind farm at Batsworthy Cross are posted on the site. I live near Rackenford at Bradford Tracy and support the scheme completely. The argument that the turbines will blight the landscape are spurious and backward looking. The entire English landscape is man made by farmers, industry and developers and that is the way it has always been. I wonder if people complained about electric pylons as being ugly. I and many people see wind turbines as graceful and complementary to the landscape.
It is time for people to realise that we simply cannot continue to burn fossil fuels as our only source of energy. The planet and ourselves are on the cusp of complete meltdown. This is scientific fact, not a view of minority wishy washy Greens. Local people need to be proud that they can actively promote a scheme that starts to change our energy footprint and begins to tackle our failure to protect this beautiful country for our children's sake.
Do you know when future meetings with regard to the wind farm are to take place because I would like to give a positive voice to this debate?
Many thanks
Drew Gee
Top ---------------------------------------------
Bob Barfoot.
East Knowstone. 02/01/06
I am opposed to on-shore wind turbine schemes in locations such as Batsworthy Cross.
I am not a "Nimby" as I will not see the turbines from my house, but I am concerned for the residents that will be affected, and also for the future of our beautiful landscape.
Wind power is variable and cannot be successfully integrated into the supply network to any real degree.
Wind power cannot reduce carbon emissions by any significant amount, due to the need to keep power stations on-line to provide backup due to this problem of variability. In fact, E.On Netz, a major German grid operator with long experience of attempting to integrate wind power, goes as far as reporting that wind power cannot replace conventional power stations to any significant degree (E.On Netz Wind Power Report 2005). Continental Europe has long experience of wind power, and this experience is not always a happy one.
On-shore wind turbines have a very low efficiency, in fact the DTI quotes a figure of 24% efficiency throughout the UK as a whole.
Because wind turbine schemes tend to be located in remote rural areas, well away from the areas of heavy demand, there is the problem of transmitting the energy to the areas where it is most needed. This means a massive and highly costly expansion of the national grid. As an instance, at the moment there is no way to pipe the electricity from Scotland's projected and actual wind energy production into England where most of it will be consumed. A new interconnector is to be built at a cost of many millions.
The installation of wind turbines can be visually intrusive over a very large area, with little return in the way of energy generation. The economy of North Devon depends, to a great extent, on tourism, and this visual intrusion could have a very negative effect on the industry.
The rush for sites by the wind turbine companies is caused by huge Government subsidies, and the way that these subsidies are targeted is preventing any real research into other renewable energy technologies which are reliable and flexible in output. Now that the renewable energy companies have virtually exhausted landfill gas schemes, they are in a "feeding frenzy" to exploit the next cheapest option in capital expenditure terms, which is on-shore wind turbines.
The permissions already granted for off-shore wind turbines, along with those projected over the next few years, will go along way towards satisfying the Government's targets, and may mean that no more on-shore wind turbines need be built. This could mean that sites such as Batsworthy Cross will be unnecessary, but once built the turbines may well be there for 25 years.
Although the wind turbine companies will not admit it, turbine failure does occur, and the sites are unmanned. If a fire or blade failure takes place, then there will be no-one on hand to report it and take action. I have attached a cutting from Booker's Diary, Sunday Telegraph, 1 January 2006. The photograph in the cutting proves that this can happen. The proposed site at Batsworthy is bisected by a public road, and the site boundary is within yards of the North Devon Link road. Do we have any guarantees that blade failure will not happen, and if it does occur would there be any danger to human life?
My view is that on-shore wind power is an expensive fallacy and will have a very significant negative impact on our area, with very little real effect on greenhouse gas emissions, and minimal energy output.
Could I suggest that local residents carry out their own research into the facts. The Renewable Energy Foundation (www.ref.org.uk) gives a good perspective of the potential drawbacks, whilst the British Wind Energy Association (www.bwea.com) gives the views of the wind power companies on the advantages.
Having carried out this research, it may well be that they will then join those of us holding the view that the drawbacks of on-shore wind turbines outweigh the advantages.
Bob Barfoot
East Knowstone.
Top ---------------------------------------------
Chloe
Green 30/12/05
CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING WIND TURBINE SITE PROPOSALS
They
are unable to significantly address our energy and carbon emissions issues and
so are a waste of your (tax payers) money.
They
devalue your property indefinitely. See the Royal Institute of Chartered
Surveyors survey on the affects of wind farms on house prices.
They
damage the economy, that is to say, your business. The North Devon Marketing
Bureau survey on the Fullerbrook Down wind turbine proposal showed a potential
loss of a quarter of its tourism revenue if the proposal were allowed to go
ahead. Most of these proposals are in the countryside where tourism is a
massive part of the economy.
2 MW wind turbines are a 100m tall, with blades of 40m long, that is three
times the size of those seen in the south west. 3MW turbines are bigger.
The
three, 40m long, exposed blades revolve at up to 150mph at their tip. They
revolve about 80% of the time. A small wind turbine site may have about 10
turbines.
Thirty,
exposed, revolving, 40m blades make a noise. The noise is repetitive and
de-habilitating and can travel across the land in an unpredictable way.
Thirty,
exposed, revolving, 40m blades create shadow flicker, the visually impairing
strobe effect caused by the shadows of the revolving blades.
That
is thirty, exposed, revolving, 40m blades to project ice and broken blade
components over distances of hundreds of metres.
That
is ten turbines to topple over or to catch fire.
And
all of this right next door to your roads, your footpaths, your bridleways (see
the BHS), your friends, your visitors, your home and your loved ones.
Increased
incidences of depression and headaches have been linked to the low level
frequency noise from wind turbines.
The
foundations, built of hundreds of tonnes of concrete and steel are never removed and have changed watercourses on
some sites.
Wind turbines have interfered with television reception up to 20km away.
Wind turbines kill bats and birds (see RSPB) and so affect the food chain.
The build alone of approximately one year involves massive disruption with
noise, increased traffic, traffic jams, road alterations and road closures. The
lorries to carry the turbine parts are 50 metres long.
AND WHAT FOR?
At
a cost of between £150,000-£250,000, one 2MW turbine will save about the same
amount of CO2 per year as a single truck travelling at 100kph.
You’d
need about 2,000 2MW turbines to output throughout a year, the same output
throughout the year from a modern conventional power station.
AND
then you’d still need the conventional power station for firm backup, burning
fuel to remain on standby, to meet demand when the wind blows too much, too
little or not at all.
To
allow just one such industrial development in Devon is to invite another to a
hill near you. Have you visited Scotland or Wales recently?
Other sites to consider –
www.warmwell.com/windfarms.html
Top
---------------------------------------------