TRACKING THE WIND RUSH IN NORTH EAST ENGLAND AND SOUTH EAST SCOTLAND

MOORSYDE ACTION GROUP

Moorsyde Action Group (MAG) was wound up on Wednesday, 12 May 2010 after the so-called ‘Moorsyde’ proposal was finally thrown out at appeal. The MAG website has since been closed and much of its information content has now been transferred to Windbyte.

THE WIND RUSH CONTINUES

The defeat of the ‘Moorsyde’ and Toft Hill proposals is not the end of the story in the Berwick area of north Northumberland: E.ON UK have, after six months, eventually assimilated the findings of the Berwick Public Inquiry and have dropped their deeply flawed proposal for eight 115m turbines at West Ancroft, next door to the ‘Moorsyde’ site.

However, it is very clear from their statements to the press that they see this as merely a strategic withdrawal and that they are intending to come back with a smaller scheme.

Proposals by RES, at Murton and Halidon Hill, are still at the pre-application stage.

There is continuing developer interest in the area around Barmoor and south of Lowick down towards Horton. If the Weetwood Moor community scheme goes ahead it will no doubt excite renewed commercial interest in areas fringing the National Park and within the Kyloe Hills and Glendale Area of High Landscape Value.

MAG supporters are asked to give their support to West Ancroft Community Action (WACA). The West Ancroft page on this website has more information on the scheme.

‘CRYSTAL RIG III’ PROPOSED

A proposal to add yet another extension, of “9-18 125m turbines”, to the existing Crystal Rig complex of eighty six 100 and 125m turbines has been revealed.

This echoes the tactics used with the CR ‘phase 2a’ application, which proposed an addition of 9 more turbines immediately the CR2 application had been approved.

The proposal appears in the latest edition of Scottish Borders Council’s wind farm database which has yet to be uploaded to their website.

-------------------------

See ‘Rape of the Lammermuirs’ below.
‘Winds of change in Lammermuir Hills’, Berwickshire News, 2 September 2010.
The SBC wind proposals planning list and locations map are both downloadable as PDF files from the SBC website. (If the downloaded map fails to open, click on the size slider; the map should then open properly).

WIND INDUSTRY TRIES TO KILL BILL

‘Buffer zone gets red flag from industry’

From Renewable Energy News, Issue 197, 5 August 2010

‘The coalition government’s upcoming Decentralisation and Localism Bill is expected to include proposals for a 2000-metre residential buffer zone for onshore wind farms. The measure would severely restrict the number of locations for developments in most parts of England. RenewableUK [formerly the British Wind Energy Association] said it would “strongly oppose” the proposal as well as a clause permitting third-party right of appeal on planning consents for wind farms, which it also expects to see stitched into the bill. The legislation, which will also include the abolition of the Infrastructure Planning Committee, is expected to be introduced in November this year and passed towards the end of 2011.

‘The Department for Communities and Local Government would not comment on the possible inclusion of the 2km setback rule. The third-party right of appeal was included in the Liberal Democrats’ preelection manifesto.

‘R-UK is actively lobbying government to back away from the measures and is calling instead for increased involvement with local communities to win the battle for “hearts and minds”.

‘[...]

LARGE INDUSTRIAL TURBINES PLANNED FOR WOOLER’S WEETWOOD MOOR

In June this year CoRE (Community Renewable Energy Ltd) obtained permission for a 50m anemometer mast on Weetwood Moor near Wooler, in Northumberland. We understand that this is the precursor to a planning application for 2 large turbines. ¹

When Windbyte tried to get some information on the project in July 2010, CoRE’s manager stated:

We see no point in proposing anything until we know what the site is capable of supporting.

I can tell you that we are not a wind farm developer. CoRE works with communities to provide them with the ownership and an income from all types of renewables. It is extremely unlikely that we would put more than two turbines on the site; it is just as unlikely that they would be in excess of 50m to hub height. ²

This is a blade-tip height of at least 74m (242 ft). For comparison: the Angel of the North is 20m high and Berwick Town Hall is 46m (150 ft high). Many will be familiar with the Blyth Harbour turbines: these have a hub height of 30m and a blade tip height of 42.5m. The huge Dun Law (Soutra) commercial wind park on the way to Edinburgh has turbines with a hub height of 40m and a blade tip height of 63m, while the new Dun Law extension has turbines with 49m hubs and an overall height of 75m, Similar to the Weetwood project.

CoRE (website) and the Glendale Gateway Trust (website) have now (August 2010) posted some information on the project.

Sadly, CoRE are just like most commercial wind developers in their use of misleading wind industry propaganda and their interest in the money-earning potential of turbines. Both their leaflets and website clearly state that the main driver for their Berwick wind turbine project is the very large returns that it will provide:

Berwick’s Community Wind Turbine — using the power of the wind to supply an income for our Community. ... This could amount to £4 million of income (at today’s prices) for Berwick Community Trust. ³

Much of a turbine’s earnings come from the Renewables Obligation (RO) levy or the new Feed In Tariff (FIT) system, both are paid from electricity bills (“The FITs scheme, which will provide thousands of individuals, businesses, communities and other organisations with more predictable and higher levels of income than previous schemes have delivered, brings many benefits but also has costs. These are costs that we expect will eventually be passed through to all electricity users through higher bills.” Government Consultation Response, February 2010).

Government figures in June 2008 showed that renewables payments then comprised around 14% of domestic and 21% of industrial electricity bills, much of this from the RO; this, when only a very small amount of power came from renewables. Many experts, including Professor Sir David King, Government Chief Scientific Advisor 2002-2007, have criticised the efficacy of wind turbines in reducing CO2 emissions and warned that the support mechanisms which are fuelling the wind rush are inefficient, expensive, penalise the poor and cause fuel poverty.

Landscape impacts

Whether large turbines are erected by a speculative developer or by a community trust, the impact on the landscape is the same.

The Weetwood Moor site is within the Kyloe Hills and Glendale Area of High Landscape Value, close to the National Park and is in an area of high amenity value. It has both a high concentration of footpaths and bridleways (including St Cuthbert’s Way) and nationally important archaeological monuments, most especially a number of very fine ancient ‘cup and ring’ carvings. The sheer density of rock art in the area would seem to show that this landscape was also valued by our distant ancestors.

Speculative wind developers will be following this project with interest. They know that if it is consented and the landscape compromised it will help undermine the argument for protecting that landscape and the environs of the National Park from further development with even larger industrial turbines. It will also, as is so often heard, mean that some landowners think that they too might as well “get a slice of the action” if there are turbines on a neighbour’s land.

This has repeatedly been the case in other areas, where consents have triggered many more ‘me-too’ applications. For example, the Moneynut Edge/Dunbar Common area of the Lammermuirs is in an Area of Great Landscape Value with a number of important habitats, including SSSI’s, on fragile peatlands. Development started with one unobjectionable project on a “contained site” at Crystal Rig in August 2003. This was not objected to by local community councils, the many local people who are now fighting wind developers in the area or, indeed, by this writer who expressed support for the scheme at the time. There are now 81 very large turbines built or under construction. A further application cites as the main reason for disregarding the visual impact of thirty 145m turbines the fact that the area is already “a well-established windfarm landscape” (See below). ⁴

In Northumberland there is the dramatic example of the cluster effect in the Wingates/Longhorsley area: 5 developers are proposing 7 arrays, all within a few kilometres of each other and entirely circling the village of Wingates.

Similarly, just to the south of Berwick, we have experienced 4 different developers proposing 4 schemes within 5km of each other. After 5.5 years, and the approval of the Barmoor proposal, the saga is ongoing, with E.ON UK still threatening to return with a revised application at West Ancroft, RES still seeking to progress a large scheme at Murton and developers still trying to get farmers to sign up to development options.

This has blighted investment in tourist businesses in the area. So it is surprising to see the Glendale Gateway Trust as partners in a project which may well kick-start the industrial degradation of local tourist landscapes in the Wooler area.

-------------------------

¹ Application Ref. 10/00083/REN.
² Email from the manager of CoRE to Windbyte, 3 July, 2010.
³ CoRE brochure for Berwick turbine (PDF download).
⁴ Argument used in a planning application for 30 turbines at Aikengall II (Wester Dod). This is next door to 16 turbines at Aikengall I which were recommended for refusal by planning officers due to landscape and ecological impacts but which were passed by E Lothian Council; 81 turbines are already operating or consented in the immediate area (see maps).
Press:
‘War of words over Wooler wind turbine plan’, The Journal, 12 August, 2010.
‘Glendale Gateway Trust defends wind turbine plan’, The Journal, 19 August 2010.

‘OFFSHORE DEALS TESTS BANKS AS WIND DROPS’

Reuters, 27 August, 2010

‘LONDON (Project Finance International) - Two projects in the embryonic but fast growing offshore wind sector are currently seeking debt finance. The sponsors, large European utilities, want to transfer construction risk on the deals to the banks to keep the financings off their balance sheets. A further test for the financiers is the fact UK wind speeds have been at 180 year record lows this year - raising concerns about the reliability of wind as an energy source.

‘C-Power - in which RWE (RWEG.DE) and EDF (EDF.PA) are involved - has put together a second 950m euros financing on its 325MW Thornton Bank scheme off Belgium while Centrica (CNA.L), DONG [DONG.UL] and Siemens (SIEGn.DE) are out to banks on their new 270MW £1bn Lincs deal off the UK.

‘Despite the risks, neither scheme has a construction guarantee from the sponsors. And there is plenty of risk on offshore deals. The Fluor (FLR.N) additional revenue claim on its US$1.7bn Greater Gabbard construction contract now stands at US$202m and could rise further. The 500MW UK scheme, being developed by Scottish & Southern Energy (SSE.L) and RWE, had been suffering from faulty monopiles. The scheme is being financed solely on balance sheet. C-Power believes, as an expansion project with an operating first phase, its construction story is already well progressed. However, its first phase was for just 30MW whereas the latest will be for a further 295MW. The Centrica team is offering various financial contingencies to cover its construction risk - up to £180m on the £1bn plus scheme.

‘It’s not windy

‘The deals are being launched as it has become clear 2010 has been a bad year for UK wind speeds, perhaps the worse since 1821. Wind speeds clearly have a direct impact on energy MW yields from wind.

‘A recent report from wind consultancy Garrad Hassan said UK wind yields have dropped this year to perhaps a 1 in 15 year event due to stable high pressure. Energy levels from wind dropped 27.8% in the first quarter compared with the average and 18.3% in the second quarter - compared with a 5% drop in the last quarter of 2009 and a 15.7% increase in the third quarter of 2009. The North Atlantic Oscillation index has been measured since 1821 and this correlates with the Garrad Hassan wind index which itself been in existence for 15 years. The NAO index numbers for the 4 months from December 2009 to March 2010 were the most negative since 1821.

‘Unless something very odd is happening [climate change?] it is fair to assume wind yields will continue to vary quarter by quarter. Debt and equity financiers use probability models - P50 and P90 tests - to make judgments on the wind yields over a period of time so while low wind yields are not good, they can be factored into financial models.

‘The much bigger question, however, is for energy planners. Relying on a variable source of energy creates problems in terms of day-to-day security of power supply, particularly if wind accounts a quarter of the country's power generation by 2030 as planned in the UK. National Grid Company (NG.L) has already started to build up its short term operating reserve (STOR) programme to encourage the building of peaking power plants which can be turned on very quickly, for short periods of time.

‘[...]’

Just over 90% of the income to the scheme is backed by power purchase agreements and renewable obligation certificates (ROCs) with Centrica and DONG. The equity on the deal is around 40%. The EIB and EKF have been approached as potential funders, either by providing direct loans or funding banks, or even the EIB funding an EKF guaranteed portion.

Low wind yields

Lower than expected wind speeds can be a global phenomenon in the renewables market. In a recent note on FPL Energy American Wind's US$250m of bond debt, rating agency Moody’s referred to the recent “very low wind years” in the US. However the bonds kept their rating due the financial structural protections built into the debt. In Europe, rating agency Fitch has downgraded the 350m euros of bonds issued by Breeze Finance twice this year on a portfolio of German and French wind farms to below investment grade due to lower than expected wind yields and some unbudgeted construction costs.’ [Our emphases].

‘MORE THAN HALF OF BRITAIN’S WIND FARMS HAVE BEEN BUILT WHERE THERE IS NOT ENOUGH WIND’

Daily Mail, 17 August, 2010.

‘It’s not exactly rocket science – when building a wind farm, look for a site that is, well, quite windy.

‘But more than half of Britain’s wind farms are operating at less than 25 per cent capacity.

‘In England, the figure rises to 70 per cent of onshore developments, research shows.

‘Experts say that over-generous subsidies mean hundreds of turbines are going up on sites that are simply not breezy enough.

‘[...]’

‘Turbines operating well under capacity are still doing well out of the scheme, but Professor Jefferson, of the London Metropolitan Business School, wants the cash to be reserved for the windiest sites.

‘He said: “There is a political motivation to drive non-fossil fuel energy, which I very much respect, but we need more focus.”

‘He suggests that the full subsidy be restricted to turbines which achieve capacity of 30 per cent or more – managed by just eight of England’s 104 on-shore wind farms last year.

‘Those that fall below 25 per cent should not be eligible for any subsidy. Professor Jefferson said: ‘That would focus the mind to put them in a sensible place.’

‘Britain has 2,906 wind turbines spread over 264 sites. But a further 7,000 are planned for the next 12 years to meet European targets on cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

‘Nick Medic, of Renewable UK [formerly the British Wind Energy Association], which represents the wind industry, said talk of efficiency was ‘unhelpful’.

‘[...]’

‘COMMUNITY TURBINE’ DIVIDES COMMUNITY

Berwickshire News, 22 July 2010)

‘SIR, - This is an open letter to the Lammermuir Hill-Foot villages.

‘Stenton is a community in turmoil due to a proposal to site a 67 metre high wind turbine, which will tower above Stenton conservation village and Pressmennan Forest. Information given out on behalf of Carbon Neutral Stenton states the community is supporting the project, but even some of the membership are not supporting it.

Friendships are faltering, there has been anger, tears and frustration on both sides of the divide.

‘I no longer care whether a wind turbine is erected or not. What I do care about are my friendships.

‘The plans for the Stenton wind turbine have now been lodged with the planning department. If it gets the go ahead there are plans for other Hill Foot Villages to be encouraged to follow. If your community decides to go down the wind turbine route, be aware there will be divisions within your community. Don’t be taken in by false promises. Make sure you know the truth regarding the benefits and the liabilities. Take great care in your choice of leader; be sure it is someone who is a team player and who cares for the whole community as much as you do.

‘Most of all hold your friendships close.

‘Let’s face it, a wind turbine can’t give you a hug or feed your cat when you go on holiday.

‘MEELING WHITEHEAD, Stenton.’

DANES COUNT THE COST OF THE WIND RUSH

‘Dong gives up on land-based turbines’

Copenhagen Post, 1 September 2010.

‘‘Mass protests mean the energy firm will look offshore’

‘State-owned energy firm Dong Energy has given up building more wind farms on Danish land, following protests from residents complaining about the noise the turbines make.

‘It had been Dong and the government’s plan that 500 large turbines be built on land over the coming 10 years, as part of a large-scale national energy plan. This plan has hit a serious stumbling block, though, due to many protests, and the firm has now given up building any more wind farms on land.

‘Anders Eldrup, the CEO of Dong Energy, told TV2 News: “It is very difficult to get the public’s acceptance if the turbines are built close to residential buildings, and therefore we are now looking at maritime options.”

‘[...]’

‘Wind turbines threatened by nuclear power’

‘New nuclear power stations in Finland and Sweden are poison for the Danish wind industry, but good for electricity prices.’

Jyllands-Posten, Denmark, 19 June 2010.

‘Sweden’s decision to allow the construction of up to 10 new nuclear power stations may result in the electricity price in Denmark collapsing. That will destroy the economy for wind turbines, biogas plant and other forms of sustainable energy, according to Lars Aagaard, a director of Danish Energy.

‘[...]

‘According to General director Luis Echávarri of the OECD Nuclear Energy Authority everyone is banking massively on nuclear energy.

‘Poland and Italy are new nuclear energy states, while Finland, Great Britain, France, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Rumania and Belgium as well as the USA, China, India and now Sweden are developing more’.

‘Governing party proposes to cut funding for wind turbines to support other green energy technology.’

Copenhagen Post, 21 September 2009.

‘The Liberal Party wants to cut state funding for land-based wind turbines in favour of financing biogas, hydrogen and solar cell development. Several parties oppose the idea.

‘Since 2005, the wind turbine industry has received an average of 1.3 billion kroner in subsidies each year.

‘[...]’

‘The government’s ally, the Danish People’s Party, welcomed the proposal, pointing out that the subsidies had cost residents and electric companies billions of kroner.

‘Party group chairman Kristian Thulesen Dahl said consumers had paid huge additional charges on their electric bills for almost three decades, based on an ideological desire to promote the development of wind turbines.

‘When the current energy agreement expires in 2012, we expect a new agreement will be reached where support for onshore wind turbines is phased out.’

‘Now the wind turbines stop, just when it blows most’ (Denmark)

Ingeniøren, 14 September 2009

‘On the 1 October [2009] wind turbine owners risk having to pay to get rid of their power in windy weather. They have therefore developed a system which automatically stops the turbines, they say it is a crying shame to chuck away green power.

‘[...]’

‘Vestas Plunges as Wind-Turbine Maker Cuts Forecasts Blaming Delayed Orders’

Bloomberg, 18 August, 2010

‘Vestas Wind Systems A/S, the world’s largest wind-turbine maker, lost more than a quarter of its value in Copenhagen trading after it reported a larger-than- expected loss and cut forecasts, blaming delayed orders.

‘The stock dropped the most since October 2008 after the Randers, Denmark-based company posted a second-quarter loss of 119 million euros ($153 million), exceeding the average estimate of a 7.3 million-euro loss in a survey of 15 analysts.

‘“Right now it’s just a shock, and Vestas has suffered a serious blow to its credibility,” Teea Reijonen, a London-based analyst with Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc, said today in a telephone interview. “Analysts are going to take a very dim view of margins for 2011 given what’s happened this year.” Reijonen had a “hold” rating on the shares before today.

‘[...]’

IBERIAN WIND BUBBLE PUNCTURED

It is reported that Portugal will review its feed-in tariff mechanism following widespread criticism that the subsidies are excessive and are ramping up electricity prices to consumers. ¹

This follows reports in July that the Spanish government is set to trim US$1.5 billion off wind power subsidies.

The Spanish system of funding renewables subsidies, “has created debt of about 16 billion euros for which the government is ultimately liable”. ²

The Wall Street Journal reported that cuts in subsidies will result in the loss of 2/3 of wind power jobs by the end of 2010. ³

-------------------------

¹ ‘Portugal set to cut feed-in tariffs’, Windpower Monthly, 1 August 2010
² ‘Spain Said to Save $1.5 Billion on Wind Power Cuts’, Bloomberg Businessweek, 9 July, 2010.
³ ‘Spain to shed 2/3 of wind power jobs by end 2010’, Wall Street Journal, (On IWA), 18 March, 2010.

THE HIGH COST OF GESTURE POLITICS

In the same week that it was reported that the Olympic Delivery Authority spent almost £1m working up plans for a ‘symbolic’ wind turbine on the Olympic park only to drop the idea when it could not be delivered in time, it has been reported that smaller turbines on top of the Civic Centre in Kirklees have proved to be an expensive fiasco:

‘Kirklees Council’s wind turbine woes deepen’

Huddersfield Daily Examiner, 31 July, 2010.

‘More than FOUR MONTHS after one of the two turbines on top of Civic Centre 3 broke down, it is still out of action.

‘And a Kirklees Council spokesman said there was still no date for a repair.

‘The two turbines on top of the building alongside the ring road have become a familiar sight since they were put up four years ago.

‘But in the middle of March, one of the two 6kw turbines had stopped working and Kirklees Council confirmed it was broken.

‘The council confirmed the electrical generator was faulty and officials were investigating repair costs.

‘Today, a council spokesman said: “No date has been set for the repair of the faulty turbine.”

‘The Examiner revealed last summer that the pair of 27ft-tall turbines on top of the Civic Centre cost far more to run than the amount of money they save the council.

‘The two turbines only generated enough energy to cover a third of their upkeep in 2008.

‘The two turbines brought £2,078 into Kirklees Council coffers, but cost £6,431 to maintain and repair.

‘They cost the council £101,000 to buy and install.’

MORE WHITEWASH?

On 27 July, DECC stated (very quietly, while attention was focused on the ministerial energy statement) that:

• DECC has announced on 27 July that it will fund a new, independent analysis of matters arising in the consideration of noise impacts in the determination of wind farm planning applications in England. The contract for carrying out the work has been awarded to Hayes McKenzie Partnership, following a standard competitive tendering process.

• The project will seek to establish best practice in assessing and rating wind turbine noise by investigating previous planning inspectorate decisions, to ensure that the ETSU-R-97 guidance is applied in a consistent and effective manner. The project will not revisit ETSU itself. Results are expected around the end of the year. [Our emphasis].

(DECC website - in small print ‘Latest news’ column).

Credibility

The appointment of the Hayes Mackenzie Partnership does nothing to convince the public of the claimed independence of this exercise. HMP are now firmly identified with the wind industry establishment and seem to have been complicit in the suppression of findings that might inconvenience the government/wind industry (viz. The Amplitude Modulation report and suggested new noise limits, see ‘Officials cover up wind farm noise report’, Noise page).

Nor do we really need another coat of whitewash on the ramshackle and discredited structure that is ETSU-R-97.

In 1996, turbine arrays in Cornwall and Wales were between 30-60 metres high. Today’s turbines are 100-200 metres high and we know a lot more about their adverse noise effects.

The Noise Working Group that first formulated ETSU-R-97 stated in its recommendations that it might need revisiting and recommended revision within two years, with reviews at regular intervals to accord with changes in wind turbine technology. There is no evidence to show that the DTI, or its various successors, including DECC, have ever revisited ETSU-R-97 despite both turbines and arrays being dramatically larger than those on which ETSU had been based. After a token survey, research into the Amplitude Modulation problem was firmly kicked into the long grass, going against undertakings given to the Noise Working Group.

Health effects ignored

Nor has ETSU-R-97 been revised to recognise that World Health Organisation Guidelines for Community Noise (1999) have been materially updated.

Once more we are seeing the subject of turbine noise addressed solely by wind industry acousticians. Where are the audiologists, sleep medicine clinicians and epidemiologists in this exercise?

-------------------------

Now picked up by The Telegraph, 1 August, 2010.

ANOTHER STITCH UP?

‘Community Windpower’, the privately-owned, speculative development company behind the huge Wester Dod/Aikengall II proposal for thirty 145m turbines, has submitted “supplemental information in the form of an addendum relating to the revision of the layout including the omission of eight turbines”. ¹

This would seem to confirm rumours that CW have been in talks with the Scottish Government with a view to fixing the planning and political problems of their grandiose scheme.

Because it has a headline capacity of over 50MW a government minister will decide the planning application.

Eight of the 30 turbines were to be built in the Scottish Borders and Scottish Borders Council had objected to the scheme, triggering a public inquiry.

East Lothian Council has not objected. This was not a surprise following their abject behaviour in approving the sixteen 125m turbines at Aikengall I, against planning advice and only on the casting vote of their Convenor (normally, the Convenor (Chairman) of a local planning committee would be expected to vote according to the Planning Officer’s recommendation). ²

According to press reports, only 5 of the 12 members of the East Lothian Planning Committee had even bothered to visit the site.

‘Community Windpower’ have now cut the 8 Scottish Borders turbines from the scheme.

It is thought that they are seeking to avoid a public inquiry by this manoeuvre, arguing that SBC are no longer an interested party.

Local people and their representatives say that the public interest demands that this massive scheme and its part in the excessive cumulative burden of wind development in the Lammermuirs should be properly examined at a public inquiry rather than being nodded through by the Scottish Government.

Have your say on the revised planning application:

“Any representations should be made in writing to The Scottish Government, Energy Consents Unit, 4th Floor, 5 Atlantic Quay, 150 Broomielaw, Glasgow G28 LU or emailed to energyconsents@scotland.gsi.gov.uk identifying the proposal and specifying grounds for objection or support, not later than 14th August 2010. Representations should be dated and should clearly state the name (in block capitals) and full return email or postal address of those making representation. All representations to the Scottish Government will be copied in full to the planning authority. All previous representations received in relation to this development remain valid.” (Planning Notice).

UPDATE

We understand that a local landowner has applied for a judicial review of the Wester Dod/Aikengall II application. It is scheduled to be heard on 18 August.

-------------------------

¹ The three volumes of the addendum, together with the original planning diocuments, are available for download from the East Lothian Council website.
The planning documents are available for inspection at Duns, Dunbar, Haddington and Melrose public libraries.
The directors & shareholders of ‘Community Windpower’ are Diane and Roderick Wood of Northwich, Cheshire. CW owns Dalry Community Wind Company Ltd and Aikengall Community Wind Company Ltd.
The company’s first wind farm, 6 turbines at Dalry, North Ayrshire, was commissioned in 2006; the Sunday Times reports that Dalry Community Wind Company Ltd “made a £2.5m profit on £4.5m sales” in 2008 (‘Britain’s green rich list’, The Sunday Times, 27 December, 2009).
² ‘Eastern Lammermuirs now lost to windfarms’, Berwickshire News, 22 March 2007.
See also:
‘Anger at revised wind farm extension’, East Lothian Courier, 15 July, 2010.
‘The Rape of the Lammermuirs’ below.
The local response group: Save the Lammermuirs (STL) has more information on the planning issues.

‘RISING COSTS ARE PUTTING FUTURE OF OFFSHORE WIND UP IN AIR’

Recharge News 12 July, 2010

‘The offshore wind industry faces a disquieting reality: that the cost of building projects has risen dramatically over the past five years - and is likely to continue rising for the foreseeable future, rather than fall as has been predicted.

‘“Let’s face it, if you didn’t have government support through the EIB [European Investment Bank] pouring in, very few of these projects would be going ahead”, says Subocean managing director John Sinclair. In the past, when confronted with offshore wind’s eyebrow-raising price tag, supporters have consistently fallen back on the line that costs will shrink as the industry gains experience and economies of scale.

‘That may yet prove true. But with 1GW now installed in UK waters, and the industry supposedly shifting into a rapid-growth phase in anticipation of Round 3, the notion that offshore wind will naturally become cheaper seems more slippery now than ever.

‘“Sadly, it would seem we have not derived benefits from learning, scale and technological improvement over the last five years,” says Rob Hastings, director of the marine estate at the UK’s Crown Estate. “We have, indeed, gone backwards.”

‘Consider the 60MW North Hoyle project, owned by Germany's RWE, which in 2003 became the first major offshore wind farm commissioned in UK waters. North Hoyle was built at a cost of £1.2m ($1.8m) per mega­watt, according to Hastings.

‘Allowing for price inflation and the current weakness of the pound, it would cost at least £2.6m/MW if built today.

‘Yet even that figure is significantly less than the £3.25m/MW average quoted for most projects currently moving into the water. Moreover, a new report, written by consultant Douglas-Westwood and published by the trade body RenewableUK, concludes that things will get worse before they get better.

‘“It is likely that costs will increase - or at least remain high - during the initial stages of Round 3 projects due to a combination of factors, such as increased project size, distance from shore and water depth,” the report says.

‘With Round 3 projects not set to enter construction until 2014 at the earliest, many industry sources worry that investors will simply lose patience. A financial chill - exacerbated by the recession - has already clouded the prospects for many projects.

‘Making matters worse, the UK has not decided whether to extend the increased Renewables Obligation Certificates (ROCs) [subsidy] banding for offshore wind, set to regress from two to 1.5 ROCs in 2014.

‘[...]’

‘U.K. ENERGY POLICY THREATENS THOUSANDS OF JOBS, CIVITAS SAYS’

Bloomberg Businessweek, 12 July, 2010.

‘Thousands of U.K. manufacturing jobs are threatened by the government’s drive to slash carbon dioxide emissions and boost renewable power, London-based policy analyst Civitas said in a report.

‘Green energy policies have already boosted energy bills to businesses by 21 percent, a figure that could rise to 70 percent by 2020, the group said today. That endangers jobs in industries such as steel, cement, chemicals, paper, ceramics and plastics, according to Jeremy Nicholson, a co-author of the 35-page study.

‘“If we do not see reform of energy and climate legislation a whole swathe of businesses will not be able to operate competitively in the U.K.,” Nicholson said in a telephone interview. “The only question is how long it takes for their closure to result.”

‘[...]’

MORE OFFSHORE PROBLEMS

The wind industry trade press reports that major repairs are required on 181 Siemens turbines at four different UK offshore wind parks. In addition to Dong Energy’s Gunfleet Sands, the affected developments are: Burbo Bank (Dong), Rhyl Flats (RWE NPower) and Lynn and Inner Dowsing (Centrica). Gunfleet Sands was only brought online last month.

The turbines require “extensive work” in order to address problems “relating to corrosion protection of pitch bearings in blades”. This will require the removal of blades using a specialist 7000-ton vessel hired for the task.

Offshore turbine parks have experienced repeated problems with corrosion and blade and gearbox failures, as well as major construction faults. This does not help the costs of offshore wind projects, including very high insurance premiums.

Some major turbine manufacturers, such as Enercon, refuse to get involved with the marine market.

-------------------------

Full story: ‘Wind Power Monthly’, 17 August 2010)
See also:
‘OVG report points to fatuous Crown Estate build estimates’, Press & Journal, Energy, 7 June 2010.
‘Cash crisis is a threat to wind target’, This is Money, 25 July 2010

JOHN MUIR TRUST - ‘WILD LAND’ CAMPAIGN

As part of the JMT’s ‘Wild Land’ Campaign two petitions have been launched to call on the Scottish and UK parliaments to provide greater protection for the last remaining areas of wild land. This will be through designation in Scotland, and through extending and creating national park areas in the rest of the UK.

These petitions will be presented to the Scottish Parliament and the House of Commons as a sign of the public demand to protect wild land.

Please sign the petitions today. See the JMT Wild Land Campaign page.

‘SAVE THE BORDER HILLS’ PROTEST

On Saturday, 12 June, over 350 people protested at the industrialisation of the Lammermuir Hills with huge numbers of turbines.

PETITION THE SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT

The organisers of the ‘Save the Border Hills’ protest have set up an e-petition - ‘Inquiry into the consent of renewable energy generating sites’ - on the Scottish Parliament website.

THE ALICE IN WONDERLAND WORLD OF WIND DEVELOPMENT

The wind industry’s trade body includes the following in its list of ‘Top Myths About Wind Energy’:

11. Myth: Wind farms negatively affect tourism
15. Myth: Wind farms are noisy ¹

Meanwhile, in the real world ...

TURBINES V. TOURISM

Wind Prospect Developments, which recently won planning permission for eighteen 110m turbines at Green Rigg, near Sweethope Lough in Tynedale, Northumberland, has objected to plans for an eco-friendly tourist development nearby.

Supporters say that the Waterfalls park and equestrian centre will attract high-spending tourists, create 67 direct and indirect jobs and pump £1.7m a year into the local economy.

In a letter from their solicitors Wind Prospect state that:

... this is a proposed holiday centre, where patrons would reasonably expect to sit outside to enjoy the relative peace and quiet of the countryside. [...] Noise from the permitted wind energy development [the closest turbine will be 450m away] will be very likely to provoke complaints, and this will place both the [NCC] Environmental Health Department and the wind farm operator in an impossible position: a complaint about noise could be found to be justified, and construed as a noise nuisance, even though the wind farm was operating lawfully within the constraints of its planning conditions. ²

So, it appears that a wind development company is admitting that:

• wind turbine developments can seriously affect the peace and quiet of the countryside;

• wind turbine developments can cause a noise nuisance within the grounds of a nearby property where noise has been monitored;

• wind turbine developments can harm or restrict tourism;

• complaints about turbine noise may be justified even though the turbine scheme is, “operating lawfully within the constraints of its planning conditions”.

-------------------------

See: ‘Decision time for Northumberland holiday complex’, The Journal, 15 June, 2010.
¹ Renewable UK (formerly known as the British Wind Energy Association) ‘Top Myths About Wind Energy’.
² Letter from Hammonds LLP, 11 June 2010, to Northumberland County Council planning department (letter and map linked here).

‘GREEN SETBACK FOR UK AS BRITISH POWER SUPPLIED BY RENEWABLE SOURCES FALLS’

‘Fall of 7.5% in power obtained from wind, hydro and other renewable sources blamed on dry winter with low wind speeds.

The Guardian, 28 June 2010.

‘Britain's renewable energy revolution suffered an abrupt setback this winter when the power supplied from wind, hydro and other "clean" sources fell, despite years of promises and policies to end the nation's dependence on fossil fuels and slash global warming pollution, the Guardian can reveal.

‘The news comes as the government will tomorrow unveil a major report into how it will pay for the hundreds of billions of new spending needed to meet the UK's targets for renewable energy and cutting climate change emissions by setting up a new Green Investment Bank (GIB).

‘[...].

‘The DECC Energy Statistics for the first quarter of 2010 show renewable electricity fell from 6.7% to 6.2% of total supply. Supply from coal power also fell, while nuclear and gas generation increased, bringing the total electricity supply up slightly, by 1.1%, although consumption of electricity fell fractionally. Total energy consumption, including heating, fell by 1.1%.

‘RenewableUK [formerly know as the British Wind Energy Association], the industry lobby group, said the ongoing increase in wind power would reduce problems from relying on hydro schemes as climate change was expected to bring an era of less reliable rainfall.

‘However Sir David King, the government’s former chief scientist and director of the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment at Oxford University, said the figures highlighted the need for new nuclear generators to help cut emissions and keep power supplies reliable. “We can’t rely too heavily on wind because it always requires a gas-fired turbine to be able to be switched on to provide alternative energy,” he said.’ [our emphasis]

-------------------------

See also:
‘Failing to deliver’, Windpower page.
‘Experts warn of power cuts as warm, dry weather creates a blow for wind turbine energy’, The Scotsman, 04 July 2010.

‘FIRMS PAID TO SHUT DOWN WIND FARMS WHEN THE WIND IS BLOWING

By Robert Mendick, The Telegraph, 19 Jun 2010.

‘Britain's biggest wind farm companies are to be paid not to produce electricity when the wind is blowing.

‘Energy firms will receive thousands of pounds a day per wind farm to turn off their turbines because the National Grid cannot use the power they are producing.

‘Critics of wind farms have seized on the revelation as evidence of the unsuitability of turbines to meet the UK's energy needs in the future. They claim that the ‘intermittent’ nature of wind makes such farms unreliable providers of electricity.

‘The National Grid fears that on breezy summer nights, wind farms could actually cause a surge in the electricity supply which is not met by demand from businesses and households.

‘The electricity cannot be stored, so one solution – known as ‘the balancing mechanism’ – is to switch off or reduce the power supplied. ¹

‘The system is already used to reduce supply from coal and gas-fired power stations when there is low demand. But shutting down wind farms is likely to cost the National grid – and ultimately consumers – far more. When wind turbines are turned off, owners are being deprived not only of money for the electricity they would have generated but also lucrative ‘green’ subsidies for that electricity.

‘The first successful test shut down of wind farms took place three weeks ago. Scottish Power received £13,000 for closing down two farms for a little over an hour on 30 May at about five in the morning.

‘Whereas coal and gas power stations often pay the National Grid £15 to £20 per megawatt hour they do not supply, Scottish Power was paid £180 per megawatt hour during the test to switch off its turbines.

‘It raises the prospect of hugely profitable electricity suppliers receiving large sums of money from the National Grid just for switching off wind turbines.

‘Dr Lee Moroney, planning director of the Renewable Energy Foundation, a think tank opposed to the widespread introduction of wind farms, said: “As more and more wind farms come on stream this will become more and more of an issue. Wind power is not controllable and does not provide a solid supply to keep the national grid manageable. Paying multinational companies large sums of money not to supply electricity seems wrong.”

‘Earlier this year, The Sunday Telegraph revealed that electricity customers are paying more than £1 billion a year to subsidise wind farms and other forms of renewable energy.

‘The proceeds of the levy, known as the Renewables Obligation (RO), are divided between the main renewable energy sources, with wind receiving 40 per cent, landfill gas 25 per cent, biomass 20 per cent, hydroelectric 12 per cent and sewage gas 3 per cent.

‘Professor Michael Laughton, emeritus professor of electrical engineering at the University of London, said: “People will find it very hard to understand that an electricity company is getting paid the market rate plus a subsidy for doing nothing. It is essentially a waste of consumers’ money.”

‘[...].’

‘CURTAILMENT’ IN GERMANY

In 2006 wind turbines were taken off the grid for several hours on about 40 windy days in the effort to dampen instability, “And with respect to this year [2007] we are already talking about a downtime of 15 percent,” said Hermann Albers, vice president of the BWE [German Wind Energy Association ]. ²

Germany’s huge installed wind capacity has not delivered on the forecasts made for it, delivering only 17-18% of installed capacity. It has also caused increasing and serious instability in the electricity supply system.

As in the UK, there are also huge cost implications in strengthening the transmission system to try and cope with intermittent wind power surges:

‘FRANKFURT (Thomson Financial) - German utilities are warning the government of bottlenecks in power transmission grids due to the difficulties of integrating higher shares of wind energy, Handelsblatt reported.

[...]

‘The number of incidents has risen significantly over the past two years, the report said. Vattenfall Europe AG's transmission unit recorded 155 days where the situation was critical on grids last year [2007], and 28 out of 29 days so far this year. ³

Germany is committed to not replacing nuclear stations and it was announced in 2007 that they will have to build 26 new coal- and lignite-fired power stations in order to provide stable, base-load power generation. Lignite, or ‘brown coal’, is even more environmentally damaging than coal.

‘German state agency calls for new power stations.’

‘Demand increases and supply volatility arising from a growing share of erratic production from renewable sources still make new coal and gas-fired power stations necessary, Dena Managing Director Stephan Kohler said during a trade fair.’

[...]

‘Kohler illustrated problems with wind energy, saying 23,000 MW were nominally installed, but high pressure fronts in January curbed wind speeds. On one day, only 113 MW capacity was active.’

‘“This is nothing against renewables, we will just run into problems if we have 45,000 MW of weak load in the system (2020), we’d have to store power (which is technically not yet possible) or look abroad in the European market environment,” he said.’

‘But imports from neighbouring Europe could not solve the problems as it faced wider supply shortfall scenarios itself.’

‘Also, more trade would necessitate more spending on cross-border transmission lines, which faced uncertainty, Kohler said.’ ⁴

The Danes now penalise wind producers through the use of penalty payments when the spot market for electricity dictates that there is no demand for their product:

‘Now the wind turbines stop, just when it blows most’ (Denmark)

Ingeniøren, 14 September 2009

‘On the 1 October [2009] wind turbine owners risk having to pay to get rid of their power in windy weather. They have therefore developed a system which automatically stops the turbines, they say it is a crying shame to chuck away green power.

‘[...]’

‘Too much of a good thing: Growth in wind power makes life difficult for grid managers’ (Oregon)

‘On the afternoon of May 19, in a single chaotic hour, more than a thousand wind turbines in the Columbia River Gorge went from spinning lazily in the breeze to full throttle as a storm rolled east out of Hood River.

‘Suddenly, almost two nuclear plants worth of extra power was sizzling down the lines -- the largest hourly spike in wind power the Northwest has ever experienced.

‘At the Bonneville Power Administration's control room in Vancouver, it was too much of a good thing. More electricity than its customers needed. More than the available power lines could export from the region. And more than the grid could readily absorb by ramping down generation at the region’s network of federal dams.

‘So the edict went out: Feather your turbine blades; slash output.

‘It was an unwelcome instruction for wind farm owners, whose economics depend on generating electricity whenever possible. Yet it’s one likely to go out with increasing frequency.

‘During the last three years, the building boom spawned by green energy mandates in Oregon, Washington and California doubled the generation capacity of wind farms in the region. By 2013, it’s expected to double again.

‘That seems like great news. Plenty of carbon-free energy with no fuel costs. Jobs. Property taxes.

‘In the real world, however, the pace and geographic concentration of wind development, coupled with wild swings in its output, are overwhelming the region’s electrical grid and outstripping its ability to use the power or send it elsewhere. [...]’ ⁵

-------------------------

¹ See Balancing Mechanism website.
² ‘Wind parks: a hot power lines dispute’, Heise Online, 23 June 2006.
³ ‘German utilities warn of power bottlenecks due to wind integration.’ Thomson Financial News, CNBC, 31 January 2008.
⁴ ‘Germany Plans Boom in Coal-Fired Power Plants -- Despite High Emissions.’Spiegel Online, 22 March 2007.
⁵ ‘Too much of a good thing: Growth in wind power makes life difficult for grid managers’The Oregonian, 17 July 2010.
‘German state agency calls for new power stations.’Yahoo, Finance (Reuters), 10 February 2009..
‘Germany's Green-Energy Gap. Germany stumbles in its move to replace coal and nuclear power with offshore wind energy.’IEEE [Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers] Spectrum magazine feature, July 2009.

WELCOME TO THE LAMMERMUIRS

Thousands of acres of what used to be public access land in upland areas are being fenced off behind welcoming signs such as this:

2003 - AN “AREA OF GREAT LANDSCAPE VALUE” (AGLV).
2009 - “ A WELL ESTABLISHED WINDFARM LANDSCAPE” (Aikengall II planning application).

RAPE OF THE LAMMERMUIRS

The Lammermuir Hills are being turned into what developers are now calling, “a well established wind farm landscape”.

The area is still officially classified as an area of ‘Great Landscape Value’ (AGLV), but it is still under threat despite having had hundreds 100 to 125 metre high turbines built or consented in the ecologically sensitive peatland of this upland landscape.

When developers first applied for ‘only’ 25 turbines at Crystal Rig, many of us naively accepted a proposal that was not close to homes and which was described in 2004 as: “... within a large landscape hidden from the surrounding countryside.”

We were misled.

Applications for another 52 (CR2), then a further 9 turbines (CR2a) soon followed, extending the Crystal Rig complex way beyond the confines of the original site. Not satisfied with that, it has just been revealed (August 2010) that the developers are seeking to shoe-horn in another 9 to 18 125m turbines (‘Crystal Rig 3’).

Against planning advice

After CR2 was approved, a privately owned speculative development company operating under the name of ‘Community Windpower’ applied for 16 more 125m turbines at Aikengall immediately to the east of, and contiguous with, the Crystal Rig I site.

To the huge surprise of local people this scheme was approved, against planning advice and only on the casting vote of the Convenor of the East Lothian Planning Committee. Normally, the Convenor (Chairman) votes according to the the Planning Officer’s advice. Only 5 of the 12 members of the Planning Committee had even bothered to visit the site. This scheme not only dominates the coastal viewshed but also compromises Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI’s) within the site.¹

The Aikengall site had hardly been commissioned, when ‘Community Windpower’ announced that they were applying to the Scottish Executive for another 30 turbines immediately to the south of Aikengall (Wester Dod/Aikengall II), on the Monynut ridge.

A spreading cancer

Recent applications have been met with growing disquiet at the way the planning system is being manipulated. The Lammermuirs are being cynically pillaged by speculative developers who think they have an open ticket on the wind power gravy train.

The Fallago Rig application for 48 turbines in the heart of the Lammermuirs was comprehensively rejected by local people and their representatives, then, we understand, recommended for refusal by the Reporter (Planning Inspector) following a Public Inquiry and objections by the MOD due to its effects on defence radar.

Since then there have been reports in the press of the Scottish Government’s Directorate for Planning and Environmental Appeals (DPEA) being sidelined in secret negotiations between Scottish Ministers, the MOD and North British Windpower.² Stories of Ministers staying at the Duke of Roxburghe’s golfing hotel and being entertained at Floors Castle (the Fallago Rig landowner is the Duke of Roxburghe, who owns some 65,000 acres in the Borders) followed.³ A limited re-opening of the Public Inquiry was announced, to consider additional evidence on radar. This was rapidly followed by the discovery that the developers had started work on the site before permission had been granted. ⁴

Finally, with threats of legal action being made, the Public Inquiry was re-opened with a wider remit.

At times, with feuding aristocratic landowners, carpet-bagging speculators and talk of ‘pork barrel politics’, it has felt like we are living in the southern states of America in the 1920’s rather than the Scottish Borders in 2010.

Enough!

Local people have had enough. A community response group - Save the Lammermuirs (STL) is leading the battle to save what remains of the Lammermuirs from the speculators. Please visit their excellent website and give them your support.

-------------------------

¹ ‘Eastern Lammermuirs now lost to windfarms’, Berwickshire News, 22 March 2007.
² ‘Growing consternation at Fallago Rig Wind Farm Public Inquiry fiasco’, Berwickshire News, 6 May 2009.
³ ‘Wind farm discussions lead to investigations’, Berwickshire News, 25 November 2009.
⁴ ‘Fallago under fire – again’, Southern Reporter, 12 November 2009.
‘Duke is told to halt work on wind farm - because he hasn't even got planning permission’, The Scotsman, 2 December 2009.

View from Millennium Viewpoint, nr. Longformacus
© Don Brownlow Photography.

‘LAMMERMUIRS NOW AT SATURATION POINT WITH WIND FARMS’

‘Council draws up guidelines for wind farm development’

“We have been proactive in supporting wind farms when appropriate but we are very concerned about the number of proposals we are getting.” Charles Johnston, SBC principal planning officer.

Janice Gillie, Berwickshire News, 12 May 2010.

‘The Scottish Borders approved more MW of wind energy power than any other Scottish authority per 1000 population and the region has Scotland's second highest amount of wind farm electricity generating capacity according to 2008 national figures.

‘Across the region there are currently 163 operational wind turbines, 92 approved but not yet built, 103 pending, 30 refused, 48 (at Fallago Rig) pending appeal and scoping proposals for another 16 wind farms with a combined total of 220 turbines.

‘Of the 12 approved wind farm in the Borders, planning officials believe six of them could be expanded, including Crystal Rig to the south.

‘And while to some people it may seem like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted, Scottish Borders Council has drawn up guidelines for wind farm development in the region, and the document is now in the public arena for a 12 week consultation period.

‘[...]’

-------------------------

The consultation documents are available on the Council’s website. The consultation closes on the 8th September 2010.

SBC have taken the very welcome step of making their Wind Farm Database and location maps accessible to the public.

Their map is especially useful in giving the site areas for most proposals.

The wind proposals planning list and location map are both downloadable as PDF files from the SBC website. If the downloaded map does not open properly, click on the size slider to increase or decrease its size, the map should then open properly.

SCOTTISH BORDERS COUNCIL

WIND ENERGY - DRAFT SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING GUIDANCE
PUBLIC CONSULTATION

Scottish Borders Council is conducting a public consultation on draft supplementary planning guidance (SPG) for wind energy development.

This notes that:

...there are major concerns that the potential number of approvals in the Scottish Borders is completely disproportionate to the capacity of the landscape to absorb such developments and if all these proposals were to materialise they would have an adverse cumulative impact on the Borders landscape and its tourism value.
(Scottish Borders Local Plan, Draft Supplementary Planning Guidance on Wind Energy, May 2010. 3.4, p. 13).

Scottish Borders has already approved considerably more MW of wind energy power than any other authority per 1000 population. (Ibid).

The consultation documents are available on the Council’s website. The consultation closes on the 8th September 2010.

THE SPREADING CANCER

The public are seldom aware of the scale of the wind rush because built schemes lag several years behind consents. Scottish Natural Heritage has updated their valuable wind turbine mapping which shows the footprint (land area) of turbine sites.

The South Ayrshire planning authority provide a very useful online interactive mapping application for southern Scotland. This shows site areas and can be zoomed and scrolled to examine specific locations.

Both of these clearly demonstrate the huge spatial footprint of wind turbine arrays. Note: these are just the site areas not the ‘visual footprint’ of turbine schemes (i.e. the area upon which they have a visual impact), which is massively larger.

Whitelee I alone covers an area of 55 sq km, about the size of central Glasgow. It has a headline capacity of 322MW, though in reality it might produce about 30% of that. Its output is less than a quarter of that of a single, compact CCGT gas plant (and we will still have to build the gas plant in order to backup the erratic and intermittent production from Whitelee and and all the other wind power stations).

As Sir Martin Holdgate, retired chairman of the Renewable Energy Advisory Group, put it: “The trouble with wind farms is that they have a huge spatial footprint for a piddling little bit of electricity.”

‘FORTH ARRAY’ OFFSHORE SCHEME

Fred Olsen Renewables (FOR), the Norwegian owned company behind the Crystal Rig sites, is looking to develop 70 to 90 turbines on a 130km² site, 17km off St Abbs Head/Eyemouth. (See the FOR website for more information.)

DON’T MENTION THE PEAT PROBLEM!

‘Greenhouse gas threat from wind farms on peatland goes unchecked’

By Jenny Fyall, The Scotsman, 12 June 2010.

‘Damaging wind farms that unleash carbon dioxide from the soil are being permitted in Scotland because no government body is equipped to advise on the impact of building on peatland, The Scotsman has learned. Peat bog has been described as “Scotland’s rainforest” because it stores huge quantities of the greenhouse gas , which is released into the atmosphere if the peat is disturbed.

However, council planning teams in Scotland have been unable to get advice on the damage individual wind farms will do, because of a lack of anyone with the necessary expertise.

Documents seen by The Scotsman reveal that neither the Scottish Government, the country's environment watchdog the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, nor Scottish Natural Heritage, can provide informed advice on the issue.

Environmental groups have said they think it “extraordinary” that such an important issue has been neglected and there have been calls for a moratorium on wind farms on peatland until the issue is resolved.

Planning officials at Shetland Islands Council tried to get advice on the likely impact on peat of the 150-turbine Viking Wind Farm, which, if built, would be the largest onshore wind farm in Europe.

However, they came up against a brick wall.

A reply from David Liddell, a planning official at the Scottish Government, said: “Sorry, but not aware of a particular source of expertise on the carbon accounting query.”

In what the Shetland Council staff member, Hannah Nelson, then described to colleagues in an e-mail as a “surprising response”, Mr Liddell added: “Given that government (and also government planning) policy is in favour of wind and other renewables, I wouldn’t encourage you to query the carbon benefits of wind farms.”

‘[...].’

Helen McDade, head of policy at the John Muir Trust, said: “I think it’s extraordinary that there is nobody available with the necessary expertise. It seems to be a case of see no evil, hear no evil.”

“How on earth are local councils supposed to know what to do? It’s absolutely urgent that something is done about this.”

She believes wind farms that damage peat bogs have already been granted permission in Scotland.

‘[...].’

‘Uplands inquiry disputes ‘greenness’ of turbines’

Wales Online, 6 April 2010. (Article on a Report prepared for the Welsh Assembly).

‘[...].

‘Both Environment Agency Wales and the Countryside Council for Wales pointed out that turbines have been built without any thought to the effect on carbon storage – and are now allowing carbon that has long been locked away to be released from the land.

‘Forestry Commission Wales confirmed that no assessment had been made of the impact of the Welsh Assembly Government’s policy of using national forest estates for wind turbines on the carbon stored in the uplands.

‘And no-one knew who was responsible. The Forestry Commission indicated that it was the planning authorities, but Environment Minister Jane Davidson suggested that it was the responsibility of the developer.

‘The report expressed concern that no-one accepted overall responsibility and called on the WAG to carry out the assessment, and for soil carbon management to become a central consideration in the current review of TAN8 – the policy that defines areas suitable for wind turbines.

‘It also called for a ban on forestry and wind turbines on deep peat “in order to ensure maximum environmental benefit in future”.

‘CPRW director Peter Ogden called for an immediate moratorium on any further wind schemes proposed in upland areas with deep peat.

[...].’

FAREWELL “THE WILDS OF WANNEY”

The picturesque Northumbrian landscape of Sweethope Lough and The Wanneys, where the Wansbeck has its source, are likely to be disfigured with 34 monster turbines.

The Green Rig scheme for eighteen 110m turbines was consented by the Secretary of State on the 25 of March, following the joint Public Inquiry in 2008. The Ray Estate scheme, for sixteen 125m turbines, was recommended for refusal by the Planning Inspector but the Secretary of State decided that he, “is minded to grant section 36 consent”. Further consultation with the parties to the appeal must be carried out before the new SoS can confirm this decision.

Construction of the schemes is conditional on technical solutions to radar problems being found within a 5 year period.

The Steadings proposal for twenty two 120m turbines was refused on the grounds of adverse impacts on the Great Bavington Conservation Area and Saint Aidan’s Church, and on cumulation with the other two schemes. There were radar issues with this site also.

Other proposals, at Harwood Forest (Ray II), Kirkharle, Thockrington and Tone Hall, surround the consented schemes. The SoS’s refusal of the Steadings application may also have sounded the death knell for the Thockrington proposal for seven 100m turbines. Wind Prospect do not appear to be actively pursuing this proposal now and have removed an anemometer mast from the site.

There are also three 66m turbines at Kirkheaton which after barely 10 years operation have not worked for over 24 months due to blade failures. The French operator, EDF, has again obtained permisssion to vary the condition which requires them to remove inoperative turbines after 3 months. However, Newcastle airport has objected, citing interference with civil radar.

We now have over 100 turbines consented or operating in Northumberland. Many more are planned.

-------------------------

See the Sites page for links to the Inspector’s Report and decision letters.
‘Anti-wind farm protesters’ plea’, The Journal, 3 April 2010.
‘Two out of three wind farm bids are given green light’, The Journal, 27 March 2010.

‘TOO MANY TURBINES FOR COUNTY?’

Durham Times, 16 January, 2010.

‘County Durham may be unable to take all the wind turbines envisaged for it in a regional planning blueprint, a study says.

‘The Association of North-East Councils commissioned studies to assess the impact on the landscape of meeting targets set in the Regional Spatial Strategy. Fifty turbines already operate in the county.

‘The study says that the North Durham Upland Coalfield, an area west of Durham City stretching from near Crook to Chester-le-Street, has 32 turbines, which exceeds the strategy’s figure of 20 to 25.

‘“Opportunities for further development appear to be limited without further change to the landscape character of the area,” says a report on the study to Wednesday’s meeting of Durham County Council’s cabinet.

‘South Durham Upland Coalfield, from near Crook to near Barnard Castle, has no wind energy developments and is not capable of taking the 20 to 25 envisaged by the RSS “without a significant change in the landscape character of the area”. An area called East Durham Limestone, from Houghton-le-Spring to the outskirts of Stockton, is said to be “nearly at capacity”.’

COMMENT

Sadly, ANEC may be whistling in the wind - the last Government explicitly condemned the setting of limits on wind power development by local authorities:

The general principle and rule is that the Government have no power to prevent applications from coming forward. That is critical. Furthermore, the Government may intervene in the plan-making process if they consider that the constraints being proposed by local authorities are too great or are poorly justified.

... local planning authorities should not set arbitrary limits in local development documents on the numbers of turbines that will be acceptable in particular locations. It is a fundamental principle of the planning system that each application must be decided on its individual planning merits.
(Shahid Malik MP, PUS, DECC. Wind Farms (Northamptonshire), Westminster Hall debate, 30 June 2009).

The theory is, apparently, that the local planning system should weed out inappropriate applications as they occur rather than setting out a sensible local planning framework.

However, this contradicts the purpose of award-winning capacity studies commissioned from Ove Arup Partners for regional and local planning bodies with the express approval of the then government:

This cutting edge study provides an objective assessment of the impact that windfarm development would have on the South and West of Berwick-upon-Tweed landscape and has concluded that high levels of development would not be appropriate. The study assesses the ability of landscapes to support wind development. Whilst we are committed to ensuring that the region plays a positive part in contributing to tackling global climate change this has to be balanced against unacceptable landscape impacts.
(Malcolm Bowes, Deputy Chief Executive for the North East Assembly, on the ‘South and West of Berwick-upon-Tweed’ Arup study).

A costly free-for-all

The hands-off, free-for-all may suit the wind development carpetbaggers but blights local communities and puts enormous strain on local planning authorities.

The results are plainly seen. It took 6 years for a Planning Inspector and the Secretary of State to finally confirm that the ‘Moorsyde’ proposal, near Berwick broke local, regional and national planning guidance and would cause unacceptable noise and visual impacts. This, at huge expense to local people. The local tourist industry lost substantial investments in this period and the project has discouraged business development in the area. The situation is ongoing with other proposals on nearby sites.

The new coalition government states that:

The Government believes that it is time for a fundamental shift of power from Westminster to people. We will promote decentralisation and democratic engagement, and we will end the era of top-down government by giving new powers to local councils, communities, neighbourhoods and individuals. (Policy and Parliamentary Briefing, 20 May 2010).

It remains to be seen whether the coalition government delivers on Conservative election pledges to democratise the planning system and return control to local planning authorities.

INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ENGINEERS (ICE)
‘THE STATE OF THE NATION: INFRASTRUCTURE 2010’

Once again, ICE have reported on the critical situation of the nation’s energy infrastructure. They state that: “ICE is extremely concerned about the state of energy infrastructure, which puts at risk the well-being of our nation.”

The Report notes that:

In the next 10 years, eight nuclear power stations will come to the end of their functioning life. A further eight gigawatts will be lost when six coal-fired power stations close under the Large Combustion Plant Directive (by 2015 at the latest). Without new energy generation there will be a shortfall that will affect all the UK’s infrastructure.

CONDITION AND CAPACITY

Much of the UK’s electricity generation capacity is nearing the end of its life and needs to be renewed over the next ten years.

RESILIENCE

The UK’s electricity generation is currently resilient, but the spare capacity above peak demand continues to erode.

SUSTAINABILITY

Most of our production of electricity is not sustainable. The UK relies on considerable imports of energy from other countries, and is heavily dependent on fossil fuels. Much of our housing and office stock is energy-inefficient. In the next 10 years, eight nuclear power stations will come to the end of their functioning life. A further eight gigawatts will be lost when six coal-fired power stations close under the Large Combustion Plant Directive (by 2015 at the latest). Without new energy generation there will be a shortfall that will affect all the UK’s infrastructure.

KEY RECOMMENDATIONS

Take urgent decisions on nuclear power, renewable energy and carbon capture & storage for coal fired power stations.

Deliver existing energy strategies and future National Policy Statements to create a delivery plan that sets out:
1) clear timelines for government action
2) a programme of active engagement with asset owners, infrastructure suppliers and financiers.

Retrofit our current building stock to make it energy efficient.

The full report can be downloaded from the ICE website.

WIND BUILD WILL NOT HELP

Few outside the wind industry and eco-activist groups now believe that the massive onshore wind build will make any meaningful contribution to alleviating the problems we are facing.

Indeed, even Ministers in the last government were (eventually) forced to admit what we have been saying for years - large scale wind increases reliance on imported gas, thereby worsening security of energy supplies:

Baroness Vadera (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, BERR): My Lords, my noble friend makes a valid point. In answer to the question that was asked earlier, wind generation is intermittent and therefore needs—may I use a technical term?—base-load capacity, which means we need to build for coal and gas to back up the wind. That is why it is not the most effective source in terms of energy security of supply, ...
(House of Lords,23 Jun 2008. Hansard: Column 1219).

‘Powering the Future’, a comprehensive report published by respected international engineering consultancy Parsons Brinckerhoff also criticises energy policy in recent times and agrees with the report by The Institution of Mechanical Engineers (see below) and ICE in highlighting the dangerous shortfall in energy that we face due to inaction and the influence of the wind lobby.

The wind problem

As with other reports, it also criticises the effects that the present wind policy is likely to have in aggrevating the problem of meeting long term targets for de-carbonisation, finding that: “widespread adoption of wind power to meet the 2020 EU Renewables Directive will undermine UK’s ability to meet critical 2050 targets.”

Significant report findings - Electricity

1. UK electricity generating capacity is forecast to fall to half of its current value by 2023. In order to maintain adequate capacity from 2020 onwards, new plants would have to be built at a rate that is at least equal to the highest historical rate achieved by the UK - this at a time when the capacity of the indigenous UK power plant industry is greatly reduced.

2. There is a risk that decisions and actions taken now to meet the EU 2020 renewables target will have undesired and adverse impacts on the UK's ability to meet 2050 carbon targets. For example, the early and widespread adoption of wind power would severely undermine the viability of other low-carbon technologies, making it more difficult to meet carbon targets and longer-term commitments.

3. Development of the transmission and distribution network system will make a critical contribution to the implementation of the changes identified in this report. A holistic approach to the production, transmission, distribution and control of electricity production and demand will be essential if the transition away from intensive fossil fuel use is to be made successfully.

-------------------------

Parsons Brinckerhoff, ‘Powering the Future, Mapping our low carbon path to 2050’, (23 November 2009): Available in summary, in part or in full here.

NICK CLEGG’S WIFE TAKES JOB WITH SPANISH WIND FARM COMPANY

Daily Mail, 10th June 2010

‘Nick Clegg’s wife has accepted a lucrative job with a major Spanish wind farm firm just weeks after her husband became Deputy Prime Minister.

‘Miriam Clegg is joining the board of Acciona which has been awarded contracts in Britain.

‘The high-flying Spanish-born lawyer has risked conflict of interest accusations by acting as an independent adviser to the firm which is the world’s largest provider of wind farms.

‘[...].’

‘BLYTH PIER TURBINES ARE COUNTRY’S LEAST EFFICIENT’

The Journal, 23 March 2010.

‘Wind turbines on the Northumberland coast are the least efficient in the country, according to a study.

‘Figures released on behalf of energy regulator Ofgem show the nine turbines at Blyth pier produce just 7.9% of their maximum capacity, the lowest percentage of any operational wind farm in Britain.

‘[...]’

THE REAL COST OF GESTURE POLITICS

‘Balmedie wind turbine plans suffer setback

Press & Journal, 24 March, 2010

‘PLANS to instal a wind turbine at a north-east school have received a setback after councillors heard the mast would take more than 100 years to turn a profit.

‘Aberdeenshire Council wanted to erect the structure at Balmedie Primary School.

‘Councillors on the Formartine area committee refused to give the project the go-ahead after hearing it would cost £102,156.54 to instal.

‘[...]’

‘“The estimated annual reduction in electricity costs due to the energy produced by the wind turbine is £1,000.”

‘The report went on to say it would take 100 years to pay for itself without taking into account maintenance or rising energy costs, adding that “the payback period is significantly longer [by at least five times!] than the expected life of the turbine”.’

‘The answer’s not blowing in the wind

Times Online, May 16, 2010

‘For someone keen not only to do their bit for the environment, but to be seen to be doing their bit, there is nothing better than erecting a wind turbine in the garden. The neighbours may be wary, but those spinning blades are clear proof of your green credentials.

‘When it comes to generating electricity, however, they may not be all they’re cracked up to be, as the broadcaster Jonathan Dimbleby has found. The presenter of BBC Radio 4’s Any Questions?, who courted controversy last year by erecting a 50ft turbine in the grounds of his Devon home, revealed last week that its blades were turning rather more slowly than he had hoped.

‘“It’s meant to produce about 11,000kW a year, but it’s not delivering anything like that,” he complained. “I’m afraid we need a very bad summer for it to deliver its potential.”

‘[...]’

OFGEM WARNS, AGAIN, OF THE IMPENDING ENERGY CRISIS

‘Government urged to step in to stop energy cuts

The Times, February 3, 2010

‘Britain’s energy regulator today urged the Government to tear up the existing rules governing the privatised energy market and take greater control to ensure future supply.

‘Ofgem said the country could face power and gas shortages after 2015 because ageing power stations are not being replaced quickly enough.

‘The country needs up to £200 billion of investment in new low-carbon power stations and gas storage, it said, but existing Government incentives are not strong enough to encourage private companies to invest.

‘It proposed five options for Government intervention in the market — all of which would effectively increase government control over the building of new power stations and infrastructure, replacing existing market-based incentives.

‘Its most radical suggestion was to create a centralised energy buyer which would effectively undo the past 12 years of liberalisation, turning back to the early days of privatisation when a central “pool” was responsible for buying energy.

‘Ofgem said the changes were necessary because there was “reasonable doubt” whether Britain’s current energy market will be able to deliver sustainable supplies in the years to come and that the current supply was only “relatively” secure for another five years.

‘The rising costs of gas and electricity meant that eventually growing numbers of households would not be able to afford the gas and electricity they would need, it said.

‘[...]’

THE WIND BUBBLE EXPOSED

‘A report has exposed the true costs of wind generated electricity’
© Sunday Express.

‘£250BN: THE REAL COST OF WIND POWER’

Sunday Express, 15 November,2009.

‘The Government’s renewable energy strategy is in tatters after a report exposing the true costs of generating electricity by wind power.

‘An internal document from the National Grid, seen by the Sunday Express, says wind turbine energy will at times cost over 3,000 per cent more than conventional power.

‘Industry experts say over-reliance on wind power could mean fuel poverty for consumers, as older power plants reach the end of their working lives while Britain’s new generation of nuclear stations is still a long way off completion. Some experts claim the cost of upgrading the nation’s electricity grid – so it is possible to use all the renewable energy – could be £250 billion or 10 times the Government’s estimates.

‘The revelations will make uncomfortable reading for Gordon Brown and his team, who have pinned much of their hopes of meeting carbon emission targets on wind power.

‘Professor Ian Fells, Emeritus Professor of Energy Conversion at Newcastle University, said: “For a long time I have thought that the wind power bubble would burst. I think that’s starting to happen.

‘“Ed Miliband tells people that to oppose wind farms is morally indefensible, but as more people start to realise the reality of what wind power actually offers, that will change.”

‘The National Grid document, ‘Accessing Renewable Energy’, deals with the issue of “balancing the grid” to get the right amount of power from different sources across the UK so that it can maintain a supply to customers.

‘It says wind power could cost “£300 – £800 per mega watt hour (MWH) compared to conventional generation at £23 per MWH”.

‘With generating capacity from wind “increasing rapidly”, the document says the company is presented with “a range of challenges” in managing output. It talks clearly of the “need to curtail wind” because “conventional power is more economic”.

‘A National Grid spokeswoman said the formula for working out the figures was “very complex”. She said no one had actually paid such a high price for wind power and that the figures related to possible costs on the futures market. But an energy industry insider said: “These facts make for interesting, if not worrying reading.

‘“When they have too much power the Grid bids to shut down operators, but you can’t just switch a big power station off and then hope the wind blows. By the same measure, if the wind doesn’t blow you can’t simply start up a power station at the flick of a switch. It will cost.

‘“What they are saying is that wind farms will be producing power which will not be used, and it’s the taxpayer who’ll be footing the bill. It’s a double whammy because consumers are already paying extra on their fuel bills to fund renewable energy.”

‘Under the Renewables Obligation, an incentive scheme to generate more green electricity, six per cent of everyone’s electricity bill is paid to the Government to fund research. This week Lloyds and RBS said they were involved in a loans scheme offering £700million to onshore windfarm firms, which will be matched by the European Investment Bank. The power industry watchdog Ofgem says electricity prices could rise by 60 per cent by 2012, leaving many in fuel poverty.

‘Prof Fells said that while wind turbines provide such a small amount of power – about two per cent of the country’s energy needs – few customers notice the extra on their bills.

‘“Last year subsidies paid out on wind and landfill gas was £1billion. By 2020 that figure will be £30billion. That could subsidise six nuclear power stations. And they operate all the time and don’t rely on what the weather is doing.”

‘The Department of Energy and Climate Change said: “Wind is at the heart of our renewable energy strategy and it will stay there. A more realistic comparison of conventional and wind power would be £23 MWH compared to £30 or £80 MWH.

‘“The figure of £250billion to upgrade the grid is also not a figure we recognise. It’s estimated the cost to deliver our 2020 target is an additional £4.7billion with an additional £15billion needed for offshore grid connections.”’

UK CLIMATE TARGETS ‘UNACHIEVABLE’

Meanwhile it is becoming more and more apparent to even the more gullible that the UK’s self-imposed wind targets are not realistic or affordable, and that they will not be delivered.

Experts and the power industry are becoming more vocal in their condemnation of the Government’s stubborn refusal to face the facts.

A report, ‘Climate Change, Have We Lost the Battle?’, by The Institution of Mechanical Engineers has criticised government climate change targets as “unachievable”. Far from realising a reduction our emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050, the UK is already losing the climate change mitigation battle. The report notes:

The greenhouse gas emission targets set by the Government require a rate of reduction that has never been achieved by even the most progressive nations in the world.

On a global perspective, the UK is one of the better performing nations – China, United States and Germany (with a massive onshore wind capacity) all having economies with higher carbon intensities.

The report does not analyse the reasons for our modest improvement, which many experts say is mainly due to the ‘dash for gas’ during the Thatcher years and the export of much of our heavy industrial base to countries such as China.

Even more recently, the economic downturn has helped reduce emissions.

France has the most decarbonised economy among the large developed nations. The report notes:

This was achieved as it moved towards nuclear power as the predominant source of electricity generation. However, today France is struggling to increase its decarbonisation rates.

For the UK to be on track to achieve the emission reductions required by the Act, it would have to become as carbon efficient as France by about 2015. To put the magnitude of this challenge into perspective, it is equivalent to the UK constructing and putting into service about 30 new nuclear power stations in the next five years, while retiring an equal amount of coal-fired generation! ¹(Our emphasis).

This view is supported by other reports, for example:

... after a decade of pushing windmills and having come perilously close to grid failure in the cold winter of 2008, the UK now has a policy to build a few new nuclear plants. But it faces grave shortages of trained personnel and, as a Johnny-come-lately to new nuclear build, a global shortage of critical component manufacturing capacity.

[...]

The European country which has been most ambitious in its attempt to legislate a top-down emissions policy has been the United Kingdom, with passage of the Climate Change Act in November 2008. Specifically, it requires Britain, by law, to achieve by 2016 a carbon efficiency of its economy equivalent to that of the world-leading major economy, France. That would require, for example, building and putting into operation 30 nuclear power stations in 7 years. Thereafter, assuming a GDP growth of 2% p.a., a year-on-year annual rate of decarbonisation of 5.3% is required to reach the Act’s target; whereas there is no record of any economy having achieved greater than 2.0%, and then only for short spells. In sum, this Act requires the UK to achieve the impossible. ²

-------------------------

¹ The IMECH report may be downloaded here (1.08Mb PDF download).
² Institute for Science, Innovation and Society, University of Oxford (LSE Mackinder Programme for the Study of Long Wave Events), ‘How to get climate policy back on course’. July 2009. PDF download (0.6Mb) available here.

‘E.ON CONDEMNS OVERAMBITIOUS TARGETS FOR GREEN ENERGY’

The Times, October 18, 2009.

‘Government plans to generate 30 per cent of UK electricity from renewable sources by 2020 are doomed to failure, according to the chief executive of one of the world’s biggest utility companies.

‘Wulf Bernotat, chief executive of E.ON, said that British politicians needed to stop misleading the public about what was achievable.

‘He said that British plans to build 33 gigawatts of offshore wind power, up from 0.6 gigawatts at present, was impossible, given the necessary investment and relatively short timeframe. “Politicians need to be more realistic,” he said. “If you just set out these targets without really taking the effort to square it with industry, then you end up with the dilemma of it not being achievable.”

‘E.ON, which reported 2008 revenues of €87 billion (£79 billion), more than any of its peers, plans to spend €10 billion a year globally on new power-generating equipment, including nuclear power plants, wind farms, gas and coal plants. It has invested about £930 million in Britain this year and is a key partner in London Array, a £3 billion project to build the world’s largest offshore wind farm in the Thames Estuary.

‘Mr Bernotat said that there was a bigger mismatch between government targets and what was achievable in Britain than in E.ON’s other key European markets, including its home market. “Germany started earlier and there is a bigger base to build on,” he said. “It’s not a question of willingness. Targets have to be ambitious but the expectation level should be realistic.” E.ON, which employs 88,000 people, has eight million customers in Britain through its UK subsidiary. Its ten coal, gas and oil-fired power stations generate about 10 per cent of the UK’s electricity.

‘A spokesman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change said: “We must clean up our energy supplies to meet our climate change goals and that will mean a massive expansion of renewable energy. Our target is ambitious but we have a strategy to meet it by 2020.”’.

----------------------------------

See fuller version of interview with Wulf Bernotot: ‘Monday manifesto: UK renewable energy target 'naive' says Wulf Bernotat’, The Times, October 19, 2009.
See below for comment on the Government’s equally exaggerated ‘green jobs’ forecasts.
Germany’s huge, and hugely subsidised, wind capacity has not resulted in any reduction in CO2 emissions according to some reports: ‘Wind Turbines in Europe Do Nothing for Emissions-Reduction Goals’, Spiegel Online; ‘Germany’s renewable myth’, Financial Post.

CLOUD MAKERS

‘The image shows clouds forming in the wakes of the front row of wind turbines of the Horns Rev wind farm off the coast of Denmark. The downstream wind turbines lose 20% or 30% of their power, and sometimes even more, relative to the front row. The spacing of the turbines is 7 diameters.’ (Wind Watch website).

The combined capacity of Horns Rev (80 x 110m turbines) and Horns Rev II (91 x 115m turbines), is 369MW. The combined output of these two enormous schemes will be substantially less than that of a single CCGT gas generating unit.

This is an effect that has not, as far as we know, been factored into consideration of the impacts of coastal turbine arrays on nearby tourist resorts.

No doubt the tourist businesses in Rhyll, Llandudno, Hastings, and in resorts on the Dorset and Norfolk coasts are looking forward to more cloud cover provided by offshore turbines!

‘WIND FARM SUBSIDIES TOP £1 BILLION A YEAR

The Telegraph, 23 Jan 2010.

‘Britain's energy policy faces new controversy as it can be revealed that electricity customers are paying more than £1 billion a year to subsidise windfarms and other forms of renewable energy.

‘The hidden levy is part of a Government scheme to force energy companies to fund green energy. The companies bear the cost but pass it on to consumers in the form of higher bills.

‘The amount raised has climbed steeply since the introduction of the levy in 2002.

‘Next month’s annual report from Ofgem, the energy regulator, will show that it has risen above £1 billion for the first time, according to analysts at the Renewable Energy Foundation (REF), a green energy think-tank.

‘[...]

‘Dr John Constable, director of policy and research at the REF, said: “The fundamental problem with the RO is that the cost to the consumer is extremely high.

‘“Since the cost of the scheme is passed onto businesses as well as households, there will also be a significant impact on the economy.

‘“The Government’s plans for wind are wildly unrealistic. Wind power is going to be very expensive, very difficult and ultimately very costly.”

‘[...]’

-------------------------

Renewable Energy Foundation (REF) website.

‘UK POWER PREPARES FOR A COLD WIND OF CHANGE’

‘The government's new green initiatives are unlikely to come online fast enough to plug our growing energy gap.’

‘The latest electricity generation data, released on Friday, showed that as the temperatures dropped, 45% of output was being produced from coal, 37% from gas, 15% from nuclear power — and just 0.2% from wind.’

‘Jeremy Nicholson, director of the Energy Intensive Users’ Group, says: “Wind is a particularly useless form of power generation if you don't have a way of storing the energy. It just seems the politicians have been taken in by the wind lobby, and they've taken leave of their senses.”’

The Observer, 10 January 2010.

‘It was supposed to be a great leap forward in Britain's green energy revolution. Three of Labour's biggest beasts – the prime minister, Lord Mandelson and Ed Miliband – lined up in London on Friday to launch a new wave of offshore wind turbines the government hopes will create up to 70,000 “green collar” jobs over the next decade. But as snow brought Britain to a halt, the green dream had little hope of dominating the headlines.

‘Thursday had already brought an unwelcome reminder of the more mundane reality of Britain's energy policy today: almost 100 factories were ordered to shut off their gas supplies, to prevent the prolonged cold snap leaving households in the dark, in what energy experts said was the clearest evidence yet of a looming power crisis.

‘The dire winter weather may have been impossible to predict, but the fact that it forced the National Grid to trigger so-called “interruptible contracts” for scores of large firms, underlines just how short supplies already are.

‘“The whole situation is very, very difficult and we have got to stop pretending we have got anything other than chaos,” says Andrew Bainbridge of the Major Energy Users’ Council. He says some major retailers have reported dips in electricity supplies as the temperatures have plunged, adding to the problems of coping with the cold.

‘Even if the £100bn wind-power revolution hailed by Brown and his colleagues is a stunning success, it will do nothing to alleviate a formidable short-term squeeze, resulting from the fact that many older electricity plants – both nuclear and coal-fired – are due to be scrapped over the next few years, leaving Britain increasingly dependent on gas power, at the same time as its own reserves in the North Sea are being rapidly run down, so that the gas-fired plants will have to be heavily reliant on imported supplies.

‘“We've got all the nukes and most of the coal going off the system in the next 10 years,” says Professor Dieter Helm, an expert in the economics of energy at Oxford University. He says without the worst recession in 50 years, which has reduced economic output this year by more than 5%, “our CO2 emissions would look much worse, and our energy security problems would be pressing”. He describes last week’s rationing as “a little wake-up call”.

‘None of the problems facing the government this winter are new: energy consumers, including many of Britain’s biggest businesses, have been warning for years that there is little supply to spare. Even with the interconnector pipeline now bringing gas directly from the continent, a lack of storage capacity means there is no guarantee that Britain’s needs will be served, and prices can swing dramatically.

‘There is little indication of how the government hopes to fill the gap between the clunky old plants being mothballed, and the shiny new future of renewables in a decade’s time. Labour has announced a new generation of nuclear plants, but few analysts expect them to come on stream in time.

‘The latest electricity generation data, released on Friday, showed that as the temperatures dropped, 45% of output was being produced from coal, 37% from gas, 15% from nuclear power — and just 0.2% from wind.

‘Energy consumers say governments have for decades delayed the costly decisions needed to guarantee a smooth switchover from the old generation of plants to a new, greener era. “Everybody's blaming the Labour government, but the problem started with the Tories: no government has really grasped the nettle of an energy mix to make sure that we have got secure supplies,” says Bainbridge.

‘Meanwhile, many analysts fear rationing, like that which took place last week, will become an increasingly common occurrence. Firms voluntarily sign up to interruptible contracts, which give them cheaper bills; but when a blackout is triggered, as it was last week, companies can suddenly be forced to look for supplies elsewhere at short notice, and often at painfully high cost. Steve Radley, head of policy at manufacturers’ group the EEF, says: “It’s going to be about the signal that this sends to potential investors in this country, and multinationals that are already here and thinking about whether to make that next investment.”

‘And, despite Brown and his colleagues’ enthusiasm for offshore wind, and the jubilation of the firms, including Centrica and Siemens, that formed the winning consortiums, there are profound doubts among some in the industry about whether it can solve even Britain’s longer-term energy challenges.

‘A report prepared by consultants BVG Associates for the Crown Estate, which granted the new round of wind farm licences, highlighted a series of potential problems, from lack of affordable finance to a shortage of skills and to technical problems with servicing installations sited many miles offshore.

‘There are also questions about how much the British economy will benefit. Some regions, including Brown’s constituency in Fife, are hoping to see hundreds of jobs created building and servicing the new turbine platforms, using skills developed for the offshore gas industry.

‘But the EEF estimates that 90% of the €2bn being spent on the vast London Array – the largest example of a wind project already under way – has leaked overseas. There is no turbine manufacturing capacity in the UK, after the closure of the Vestas factory on the Isle of Wight — though the government is known to be trying to persuade manufacturers, including Germany’s Siemens, to locate a new turbine plant here.

‘Perhaps the biggest doubt about the dash for wind, however, is that it only provides an intermittent power supply, which is hard to store – so some back-up alternative is needed for times when the wind is low. Jeremy Nicholson, director of the Energy Intensive Users’ Group, says: “Wind is a particularly useless form of power generation if you don't have a way of storing the energy. It just seems the politicians have been taken in by the wind lobby, and they've taken leave of their senses.”

‘Radley says: “If you're going for more renewable energy, a lot of it is intermittent, and you need back-up with gas. For the foreseeable future we are going to become more dependent on gas, so it's absolutely vital that we get this right.”

‘Almost all analysts are agreed that solving the short-term energy crunch, as well as achieving the target of 30% of power produced from renewable sources by 2020, will be expensive. The energy market regulator Ofgem published a review of Britain’s future energy requirements last year, which suggested an eye-watering £200bn of investment would be necessary to secure the UK’s energy supplies by 2020 and meet its carbon targets. This means that customers could face potential price rises of anywhere between 14% and 60%.

‘Ofgem chief executive Alistair Buchanan said: “Chief among the challenges this country faces are growing exposure to a volatile global gas market and power stations nearing the end of their life. Early action can avoid hasty and even more expensive measures later.”

‘But Helm suggests it may be a forlorn hope to expect the government to take radical action upfront to secure supplies. He draws a parallel with financial regulation. For many years, he says, governments simply stood back and expected the market to provide — but collective problems such as making sure the lights don't go out will never be solved by individual firms, which have an incentive to keep prices high. “Security of supply is a public good: it’s a system property; it will not be provided by the market left to its own devices,” he says.

‘He warns that it could take the energy equivalent of a credit crunch to force politicians to wake up. “Energy policy never changes in advance of a crisis, it only ever changes after a crisis.”’

HAPPY NEW YEAR?

As we welcomed in the New Year with the worst winter weather that the UK has seen in over 30 years, the costs of the Government’s energy policy to ordinary people and to industry were starkly exposed:

Many experts have repeatedly pointed out to government during the last 12 years that we desperately need new thermal power stations to replace the coal power stations that are due to be closed under EU directives and the nuclear capacity that is reaching the end of its working life.

We are now in a desperate situation. This is not helped by the Government’s introduction of legally binding targets to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases to 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. This target is widely regarded as impossible:

... after a decade of pushing windmills and having come perilously close to grid failure in the cold winter of 2008, the UK now has a policy to build a few new nuclear plants. But it faces grave shortages of trained personnel and, as a Johnny-come-lately to new nuclear build, a global shortage of critical component manufacturing capacity.

[...]

The European country which has been most ambitious in its attempt to legislate a top-down emissions policy has been the United Kingdom, with passage of the Climate Change Act in November 2008. Specifically, it requires Britain, by law, to achieve by 2016 a carbon efficiency of its economy equivalent to that of the world-leading major economy, France. That would require, for example, building and putting into operation 30 nuclear power stations in 7 years. Thereafter, assuming a GDP growth of 2% p.a., a year-on-year annual rate of decarbonisation of 5.3% is required to reach the Act’s target; whereas there is no record of any economy having achieved greater than 2.0%, and then only for short spells. In sum, this Act requires the UK to achieve the impossible. [Our emphasis].

-------------------------

(Institute for Science, Innovation and Society, University of Oxford (LSE Mackinder Programme for the Study of Long Wave Events), ‘How to get climate policy back on course’. July 2009. PDF download (0.6Mb) available here).

‘OFFICIALS COVER UP WIND FARM NOISE REPORT’

The Times, December 13, 2009

‘Civil servants have suppressed warnings that wind turbines can generate noise damaging people’s health for several square miles around.

‘The guidance from consultants indicated that the sound level permitted from spinning blades and gearboxes had been set so high — 43 decibels — that local people could be disturbed whenever the wind blew hard. The noise was also thought likely to disrupt sleep.

‘The report said the best way to protect locals was to cut the maximum permitted noise to 38 decibels, or 33 decibels if the machines created discernible “beating” noises as they spun.

‘It has now emerged that officials removed the warnings from the draft report in 2006 by Hayes McKenzie Partnership (HMP), the consultants. The final version made no mention of them.

‘It means that hundreds of turbines at wind farms in Britain have been allowed to generate much higher levels of noise, sparking protests from people living near them.

[...]

-------------------------

The FOI material behind this story is available on the Den Brook Judicial Review Group (DBJRG) website.
See the Noise Page for more on turbine noise nuisance.

WHY NORTHUMBERLAND SAYS NO

The Duke of Northumberland, the largest landowner in Northumberland and the person with perhaps the greatest single, personal responsibility for preserving the our countryside and heritage, has spoken out on his reasons for opposing industrial wind power stations in the Northumbrian countryside:

R CURRAN asks (The Journal letters 25th November) why I am silent on the wind farm issue.

As I and my forebears have opened quarries and mines, built offices, schools and supermarkets, a considerable number of houses and been involved in a wide range of other developments which occasionally provoke local opposition, I could stand accused of double standards if I became publicly involved in the wind farm debate in our region.

However, I have privately stated my opposition and personally written to councillors to state that opposition. There are no wind farms on my family estate and I have repelled all requests to apply for them.

I have studied the debate, arguments and statistics and come to the personal conclusion that wind farms divide communities, ruin landscapes, affect tourism, make a minimal contribution to our energy needs and a negligible contribution towards reducing CO2 emissions.

The landowner and developer are enriched while the consumer is impoverished by higher energy costs.

Turbines are ugly, noisy and completely out of place in our beautiful, historic landscape.

Their requirement for vast amounts of concrete and, in some cases, the destruction of large areas of peat add significant amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere so that it takes many years for them to provide a real benefit.

They generate intermittently, require back-up from traditional or nuclear power and, in some of our most beautiful countryside, necessitate the erection of many miles of large pylons and high capacity lines.

As I am a private, unelected and relatively apolitical individual, Mr Curran’s view that I am the most influential voice in Northumberland is somewhat unrealistic. However, if my personal opinion has any effect on diminishing the threat from vast industrial machines in our landscape, I will be delighted.

Duke of Northumberland

It is worth noting that the Duke is not alone in refusing to have power stations on his land, the overwhelming majority of leading landowners in Northumberland have refused tens of millions (paid from our electricity bills) being offered by speculative wind developers.

In our area, examples include Ford and Etal Estates (Lord Joicey), Lambton Estates (Lord Lambton) and Lilburn Estates (Duncan Davidson).

Nor is it only the big landowners. The great majority of responsible farmers put their role as custodians of the landscape and good neighbours ahead of easy, unearned money from wind turbines that would damage the landscape, local tourist businesses and the wellbeing of their neighbours.

A RELUCTANT ADMISSION

“...due to the intermittency of wind, we will need significantly more generating capacity in the longer term.” (Ed Miliband, DECC Minister). ¹

This is something power engineers have been telling government for many years. Renewable UK (formerly the wind industry lobbying body, the British Wind Energy Association), however, continues to insist on “the myth of intermittency”).

-------------------------

¹ Ed Miliband, Statement to the House on the draft National Policy Statements, 9 November 2009. (See DECC press release).

Simon Hoggert’s sketch in The Guardian, 10 November, concluded:

‘Finally we had the energy secretary, Ed Miliband, explain that after only 12 and a half years delay, the government was going to speed up the planning process for lots more nuclear power stations. It was, we gathered, an emergency. If we didn’t get the power stations, the lights would start going out.

‘He actually came close to admitting that turbines, with their “intermittent wind” (this sounded like a much-loved but elderly dog that lies in front of the fire turning the air in the sitting room foul) were a waste of time and money.

‘But these monstrosities have never been there to provide quantities of clean power. Turbines are the cathedrals of the green religion, huge, vastly expensive and largely useless symbols of faith. However, unlike wind turbines, most cathedrals are beautiful. Except Guildford, of course.’

ONE RULE FOR THE SCOTS ...

In Planning Policy 6, Renewables, the Scottish Executive recommends a separation distance of 2km for large wind farms, which they define as having a headline capacity of 20MW (‘Moorsyde’ had a capacity of 38.5MW when the planning application was submitted):

PAN 45 confirms that development up to 2 km is likely to be a prominent feature in an open landscape. The Scottish Ministers would support this as a separation distance between turbines and the edge of cities, towns and villages so long as policies recognise that this approach is being adopted solely as a mechanism for steering proposals to broad areas of search and, within this distance, proposals will continue to be judged on a case-by-case basis.

The Scottish Minister has recently confirmed that this policy also applies to small hamlets and even individual dwellings:

... SPP6 confirms that, in all instances, proposals should not be permitted if they would have a significant long term detrimental impact on the amenity of people living nearby. This principle applies to houses within and outwith 2km of the proposed development and regardless of whether they are single dwellings or part of a settlement.
(Letter from Jim Mather, Minister for Enterprise, Energy and Tourism, to Stop Highland Windfarms Campaign (SHWC).

When consulted on ‘Moorsyde’, Scottish Borders Council stated:

... this site would not be supported were the proposal to be located in the Scottish borders, primarily by virtue of its landscape character.
(Alistair Lorrimer, Asst. Head of Development Control, SBC. 22 February, 2005. Moorsyde planning file).

Note that there are several homes within 1km of the ‘Moorsyde’ and that all the Berwick appeal proposals would be unacceptable under Scottish guidance.

TURBINES BEFORE PEOPLE

There is no up-to-date guidance on separation distances from housing in England and Wales. In answer to a parliamentary question on separation distances from Sir Alan Beith, the then DTI minister answered:

The issue of windfarms and their proximity to dwellings and roads should be considered at the planning stage of individual developments and will be subject to policies in the local authority's development plan and the national policies set out in Planning Policy statement 22 (PPS22). [PQ No. 2004/872, 27 January 2005].

This is meaningless, because local authorities are not permitted to devise local separation distances that might restrict wind farm development and PPS22 contains only general, and very limited, guidance on separation distances.

Also, when wind proposals are rejected on grounds of protecting residential amenity, decisions are frequently overturned at appeal or by ministerial fiat on the grounds that the decision is not supported by planning guidance and that the outdated ETSU-R-97 noise guidance provides sufficient protection in post-consent planning conditions. In reality, as has been proved at several locations, noise conditions are almost impossible to enforce.

At a recent meeting that representatives of wind action groups in the North East, including MAG, had with Ed Miliband, the DECC Minister, the issue of issuing guidance on separation distances that harmonised with Scotland was repeatedly raised. The Minister rejected the idea of 2km separation in England and Wales out of hand on the grounds that it would make much wind development impossible.

It appears that government targets and the interests of the wind industry are more important than the health and well being of people.

ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

The Noise Act (1996) protects people from noisy neighbours who break a 35dB(A) threshold at night; and Part 8 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 allows local authorities to act against people with overly high hedges.

Meanwhile, the Government is actively encouraging landowners to erect 300-500 ft turbines near housing. These machines have blades that can be 200 ft long, weigh 18 tonnes and have a tip speed of some 200 mph. They commonly emit noise that is measured at 40dB(A) plus at nearby homes at night, breaking WHO guidelines on night noise. Bizarrely, turbine operators are actually permitted to emit more noise at night than during the day. Also, the low frequency, dB(C), spectrum of turbine noise is not required to be assessed, though many clinicians and acousticians regard this as the main factor in adverse health effects.

There is no risk of an ASBO if you are a wind developer or landowner. No wonder that there is a growing perception that this Government does not give a damn about the rural population.

An editorial in the Noise Bulletin summed it up: “Only when the public can trust the Government and wind farm developers on noise issues will there be a chance that the public will accept them without a fight ...” (Editorial, Noise Bulletin, Issue 15, Aug/Sept. 2007).

-------------------------

See the Noise and Safety pages for more information on turbine noise nuisance and the dangers of living close to very large industrial turbines.

WANSBECK HOSPITAL TURBINE FAILS

It has been revealed that the landmark Wansbeck Hospital wind turbine at Ashington, Northumberland, has not been working since 2007. ¹

The small (33m) Vestas turbine in the hospital car park, which was commissioned in 1992, has been shut down for safety reasons, as a blade had begun to delaminate. This is a fairly common problem, even with newer 125m-plus wind turbines.

A statement from Northumbria Health Care Trust said that: “We have commissioned an external report which will look into the feasability of repairing and re-commissioning the turbine or, if not practical, the alternative uses which the turbine may be put.”

The trust could not reveal how much the turbine cost, as it was included in the hospital’s original capital costs.

The turbine has averaged 14.3% of its headline capacity of 0.1MW since it was commissioned. The British Wind Energy Association has long claimed that, “Over the course of a year, it [‘a modern wind turbine’] will typically generate about 30% of the theoretical maximum output.”.

This is the latest in the long list of turbine problems in Northumberland. It was recently revealed in The Journal that the three 66.5m turbines at Kirkheaton, which were put up less than 10 years ago, haven’t been operational since Autumn 2008 due to blade faults on two of the turbines. ²

The two Blyth offshore turbines, after an early blade failure and cable fault, were exposed as being out of service from April 2006 until January 2009 due to cable damage. ³

-------------------------

¹ ‘Wansbeck General wind turbine produces no power for two years’, The Journal, 5 November 2009.
² ‘Faulty Northumberland wind turbines could be taken down’, The Journal, 23 June 2009.
³ ‘Armour plan to save wind farm’, The Journal, 5 July 2007.

MARCH OF THE MONSTERS

Many small first generation turbines, such as the Blyth Harbour turbines, are being replaced (‘repowered’) with turbines of gargantuan proportions.

The current generation of turbines are commonly 125m (410 ft) high. ¹ The 42.5m turbines at Blyth are to be replaced with six 125m and one 163m turbines.

Enercon’s E-126 turbine, which has already been deployed at several sites in Germany and Belgium (where it is already causing problems with noise, see video on EPAW website), has a height of 198m (649.6 ft)! ²

For comparison, the Chatton TV mast is 152.9m high.

The tallest building in the UK at the moment is the 50 storey Canary Wharf tower, in London, at 235m. The BT tower is 188m and the 40 storey Swiss Re building, ‘the Gherkin’, is 180m.

German turbine manufacturers Enercon and REpower, whose 110m turbines have been identified as candidates for the ‘Moorsyde’ scheme, are both planning the next generation of turbines which it is thought will be up to 250m in height (820 ft).

-------------------------

¹ See 125m Aikengall turbine below.
² See E-126 construction video.

‘ENERGY BILLS COULD RISE 60%, CUSTOMERS WARNED’

The Independent, Friday, 9 October 2009 (Press Association).

‘The energy watchdog today said UK consumers faced potentially steep price rises in their gas and electricity bills as supplies become more volatile.

‘In a review of Britain's energy market, Ofgem said an investment of up to £200 billion is needed to secure supplies and meet environmental targets.

‘It lists four possible scenarios for the future and in one - that of a strong resurgence in global economies along with missed renewable and carbon targets - Ofgem warned prices could surge by more than 60 per cent by 2016 before falling back.

‘[...]

‘The four scenarios include reductions in carbon emissions of between 12 per cent and 43 per cent from 2005 levels.

‘Ofgem said the biggest challenges to Britain's energy supply are the country's growing reliance on a volatile global gas market and its ageing power stations, which are nearing the end of their lives.

‘The regulator also said “significant changes” may have to be made in the way we consume and generate power to manage the “variability associated with increasing reliance on wind power”. [Our emphasis]

‘It said a "massive" investment of between £95 billion and £200 billion in power plants and other infrastructure was necessary “to secure both energy supplies and climate change targets”.

[...]

‘Gary Smith, national officer of the GMB union, said: “This report demonstrates that central planning is essential to ensure that the lights stay on.

‘“How many more red light signals do our politicians have to see before they take action?”

‘Shadow energy secretary Greg Clark said the challenges in the energy sector came about because of Government “dithering”.

‘He said the Tories would take “immediate action” to authorise five gigawatts of capacity in clean coal and publish planning guidance for companies wishing to invest in nuclear power - which he said ministers had held back without good reason.

‘“This is the characteristic over the last 12 years,” Mr Clark said.

‘“There has been no policy, effectively. We are in the situation we are because they have had their head in the sand for 12 years.”

‘Ofgem said current rates of investment would have to be more than doubled to meet the high levels needed.

‘Consumer bills will be pushed up by the level of infrastructure investment and by the increasing cost of carbon - particularly if oil and gas market prices continue to rise as they have been since 2003, or spike sharply.

‘Gas dependence is predicted to increase “dramatically”, especially if environmental measures are not fully successful.

‘The regulator identified the greatest risk as maintaining gas supplies through a severe winter.

‘Ofgem said that while the outlook for this winter is “more comfortable” - with National Grid anticipating high capacity and good gas infrastructure - its analysis suggests that “existing regulatory and market arrangements may well be tested severely over the next two decades”.

‘[...]’

COMMENT

There is a power industry saying: “wind fuels gas”. It is no coincidence that there has been a remarkable growth of gas plants in Spain in parallel with large scale wind development. It is also no coincidence that people like Texan oil and gas man T Boone Pickens have been moving on the wind sector, with an eye to both the huge tax incentives being offered and the potential benefit to their gas interests.

Wind is ‘win, win’ for the gas industry.

THE WIND JOBS DELUSION

Highly publicised claims by Ed Miliband, the Minister for Energy and Climate Change, that offshore wind projects could “create up to 70,000 new jobs” are being exposed at every turn for what they are: political wishful thinking.

Recently, there were press reports on the failure of the London Array to bring promised jobs to Kent. The chairman of the Federation of Small Businesses in Thanet, had said that that dream had faded with the decision to outsource manufacturing and assembly to overseas companies, leaving just a few maintenance and support jobs for local people. ¹

Now we read that the 140 turbine Greater Gabbard project off the Norfolk coast, the biggest offshore project in the world until the London Array is built, is being held up by faulty welding on its Chinese turbine towers. ²

The first of the turbine towers was due to be sunk into the sea bed this year, but sources say the project - hailed as a cornerstone of DECC’s (Department of Energy and Climate Change) green policy - now faces months of delays.

Chinese workers have now been flown in to Holland, where the turbines are being assembled, to remedy the problems.

It is reported that ferrying the 180,000 tonnes of steel tower parts 4,500 miles will have an environmental cost of 27,000 tonnes of CO2.

German engineering firm Siemens is not only supplying the 3.6MW turbines but has also been given the £66 million contract to connect the scheme to the grid.

Dieter Helm (Professor of Energy Policy at the University of Oxford), the CBI and others have long been saying that the excessive costs of wind generated power may have the unintended effect of accelerating the export of what remains of our metallurgical and manufacturing industries to countries such as China and India, where coal is dominant and environmental protection is less rigorous. ³

-------------------------

¹ ‘Wind farm jobs prove to be so much hot air’, Kent Online - Business, 4 September, 2009.
² ‘Broken wind’, The Sun, 18 September 2009.
³ ‘Don’t Blow our £100 Billion on Wind Power’, The Times, July 17, 2009.

POSTSCRIPT

In March, 2010, the Sheringham Shoal offshore scheme started building.

This Norwegian-owned project has seen the usual spin-offs for British jobs: the only major componant being the two 1000 tonne offshore substations. Offshore construction specialist Heerema will fabricate and load out two substation platform topsides from its yard in Hartlepool, County Durham.

‘Turbines

‘The wind turbines selected for the site are Siemens 3.6MW - the latest [Danish] model in the company’s product range. The rotor is a three-blade cantilevered construction, mounted upwind of the tower while the 52m blades are made of fiberglass-reinforced epoxy resin and manufactured in a single operation representing state-of-the-art technology. The turbine is mounted on an 80m-high tapered tubular steel tower with an internal ascent.

‘Foundations

‘These 90 giant monopile structures, as well as the transition pieces which join the turbines to them, are being fabricated by tubular structure specialist, the Sif Group, at their plant in Roermond, the Netherlands, on a sub-contract to the main foundation contractor, MT Højgaard. Once completed, the monopiles will be transported to Kats, Vlissingen, Netherlands for storage before installation. The transition pieces will be transported to Belgium and the Hoboeken plant of offshore foundation pioneer, Smulders for outfitting.

‘Contractor MT Højgaard will use the “Svanen”, its purpose made self-powered heavy-duty floating crane, to drive foundation piles 32-36 metres into the seabed and mount the yellow-painted transition pieces on top, in preparation for the installation of the two substations and 88 wind turbines in 2011.

‘Cables

‘The offshore cables are being produced by global cable experts, Nexans in Norway at their manufacturing plant in Halden, south of Oslo, while the fibre optical elements are being produced in Rognan, in the northern part of Norway. The power and optical cables will be bundled together into one unit.’

‘GENTLE FOOTPRINT’ OR JACKBOOT?

“... a huge spatial footprint for a piddling little bit of electricity”

Scottish Natural Heritage’s footprint mapping, above, shows the huge spatial footprint of wind turbine arrays. Note: these are just the site areas not the ‘visual footprint’ of turbine schemes (i.e. the area upon which they have a visual impact), which is massively larger.

As Sir Martin Holdgate, retired chairman of the Renewable Energy Advisory Group, put it: “The trouble with wind farms is that they have a huge spatial footprint for a piddling little bit of electricity.”

In the ‘Moorsyde’ case, we have a 300 acre site for seven 360 ft. turbines that might, erratically and intermittently, produce as little as 18-24% of a headline capacity of 14MW.

By comparison, a small, modern combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT) power station has a capacity of 500-600MW and a 50-60% load factor in producing reliable, base load power when it is needed.

Teesside biomass power station, “will generate a similar benefit to a 1,000MWe wind farm, which currently would require 300 wind turbines”

The recently announced Teesport biomass power station, a compact industrial plant with a single 70-90 metre chimney, will occupy a brownfield, industrial site that is only 11.5% of the area of the ‘Moorsyde’ site. It will operate for some 8,000 hours per annum producing 2,400,000MWh of predictable, base load power. The project scoping report notes:

‘As the project will run 24 hours per day, 365 days per annum, it will generate as much renewable electricity as a 1,000MWe offshore wind farm (equivalent to that generated by the London Array wind farm which is one of the largest renewable energy projects in the world)’

The company claims that this plant will save, “ approximately 1.2 million tonnes of CO2 emissions.” YEL claim, using an extravagantly optimistic load factor and making no allowance for reduced output due to noise restrictions or the backup required from conventional power stations, that ‘Moorsyde’ would save 14,650 tonnes. ¹

Wind industry propaganda

The wind industry and its apologists repeatedly suggest that wind turbines are the only “mature” and “proven” technology available. This is not true. Denmark, often cited as the shining example of wind power, actually produces much more power - and much more reliable power - from biomass:

Belated Recognition

The EU and our government are belatedly waking up to the relative advantages of biomass energy generation as the weaknesses of wind power generation become more apparent to the politicians.

A European consultation has found overwhelming support for the development of a sustainability scheme for biomass feedstocks used to generate electricity or heat. A scheme is being devised by the European Commission, and could be put forward as early as December 2009.

A recent article by David Williams, Chair of the biomass sub-group within the Government’s Renewables Advisory Board and chief executive of renewables firm Eco2, noted:

‘Developing sustainable biomass feedstocks

The European Commission recently announced the findings of a report it had commissioned into the development of sustainability criteria for biomass feedstocks. Reassuringly the results were overwhelmingly supportive, with 90% in favour of the introduction of some kind of scheme. ³

The Commission plans to use this feedback as the basis for a formal proposal, which may apparently be tabled as early as December. Clearly the introduction of such a scheme can only be beneficial for the sector.

For some time now developers have been aware of the advantages that biomass projects hold over those of other renewable technologies. This is especially apparent in the case of onshore wind, perceived by many to be the most viable source of clean energy today.

Not only are the comparisons favourable in terms of the competition for and consenting of potential sites, biomass also offers far higher generation potential, up to four times according to some sources. [Our emphasis].

Noises coming from Government are also optimistic. The recent Renewable Energy Strategy envisages huge growth, with biomass expected to provide 30% of electricity and heat towards the UK's target of 15% renewable energy by 2020. The Government has also increased the ROCs for biomass to 1.5 to help facilitate the process.

[...]’ ³

-------------------------

¹ MGT Power. ‘Biomass Power Station, Teesport: Final Scoping Report’, April 2008.
² Danish Energy Authority website.
³ ‘Commission finds favour for EU biomass sustainability scheme’, New Energy Focus, 17 June, 2009.
⁴ David Williams, New Energy Focus, 24 August, 2009.

‘GERMAN STATE AGENCY CALLS FOR NEW COAL AND GAS POWER STATIONS’

ESSEN, Germany, Feb 10 (Reuters story on Yahoo).

‘Demand increases and supply volatility arising from a growing share of erratic production from renewable sources still make new coal and gas-fired power stations necessary, Dena Managing Director Stephan Kohler said during a trade fair.’

[...]

Kohler illustrated problems with wind energy, saying 23,000 MW were nominally installed, but high pressure fronts in January curbed wind speeds. On one day, only 113 MW capacity [0.5%!] was active.

‘“This is nothing against renewables, we will just run into problems if we have 45,000 MW of weak load in the system (2020), we'd have to store power (which is technically not yet possible) or look abroad in the European market environment,” he said.’

‘But imports from neighbouring Europe could not solve the problems as it faced wider supply shortfall scenarios itself.’

‘Also, more trade would necessitate more spending on cross-border transmission lines, which faced uncertainty, Kohler said.’

(See full article on Yahoo, Finance).

FROM GREEN DREAM TO GRIM REALITY

“Wind turbine Madness: from a dream of environmentally friendly energy to highly subsidised destruction of the countryside.”

At the end of 2007, Germany had 19,460 wind turbines installed with a theoretical capacity of 22,247MW. The UK had 1,951 turbines installed at the end of February 2008. With onshore sites running out and huge swathes of countryside industrialised with giant turbines, Germany has not closed any fossil-fuelled capacity. Indeed, their government announced in 2007 that they were going ahead with 26 new lignite- and coal-fired power stations to add to the numbers of new gas-fired power stations that have been built in recent years. Germany retains its position as the leading greenhouse gas producer in Europe (European Environment Agency figures).

See the Wind Power page for more about the real world experience of wind power in other countries with very large wind capacity.

WIND TURBINES IN EUROPE DO NOTHING FOR EMISSIONS-REDUCTION GOALS

Anselm Waldermann, Spiegel Online

‘Despite Europe's boom in solar and wind energy, CO2 emissions haven't been reduced by even a single gram. Now, even the Green Party is taking a new look at the issue -- as shown in e-mails obtained by SPIEGEL ONLINE.’

‘Germany's renewable energy companies are a tremendous success story. Roughly 15 percent of the country's electricity comes from solar, wind or biomass facilities, almost 250,000 jobs have been created and the net worth of the business is €35 billion per year.’

‘But there's a catch: The climate hasn't in fact profited from these developments. As astonishing as it may sound, the new wind turbines and solar cells haven't prohibited the emission of even a single gram of CO2.’

‘Under current EU law, German wind turbines aren't helping to reduce CO2 emissions. They simply allow Eastern European countries to pollute more.’

‘Even more surprising, the European Union's own climate change policies, touted as the most progressive in the world, are to blame. The EU-wide emissions trading system determines the total amount of CO2 that can be emitted by power companies and industries. And this amount doesn't change -- no matter how many wind turbines are erected.’

‘Experts have known about this situation for some time, but it still isn't widely known to the public. Even Germany's government officials mention it only under their breath. No one wants to discuss the political ramifications’.

‘It's a sensitive subject: Germany is recognized worldwide as a leader in all things related to renewable energy. The environmental energy sector doesn't want this image to be tarnished. Under no circumstances does Berlin want the Renewable Energy Law (EEG) -- which mandates the prices at which energy companies have to buy green power -- to fall into disrepute.’

‘At the same time, big energy companies have an interest in maintaining the status quo. As a result, no one is pushing for change. Everyone involved is remaining silent.’

Not an Instrument against Climate Change

[...]

‘In the worst case scenario, sustainable energy plants might even have a detrimental effect on the climate. As more wind turbines go online, coal plants will be able to reduce their output. This in itself is desirable -- but the problem is that the total number of available CO2 emission certificates remains the same. In other words, there will suddenly be more certificates per kilowatt of coal energy. That means the price per ton of CO2 emitted will fall.’

‘That is exactly what happened in recent trading. A certificate to emit a ton of CO2 cost almost nothing. As a result, there was very little incentive for big energy companies to invest in climate friendly technologies.’

‘On the contrary. Germany was able to sell unused certificates across Europe -- to coal companies in countries like Poland or Slovakia, for example. Thanks to Germany's wind turbines, these companies were then able to emit more greenhouse gases than originally planned. Given the often lower efficiency of Eastern European power plants, this is anything but environmentally beneficial.’

Building Renovations Are Better than Windmills

‘Experts from the Green Party are taking the problem very seriously: “We are in a veritable crisis situation, and that means we must reconsider and alter things we once took for granted,” writes one contributor, adding that it's important to re-examine “whether we have set the right priorities.”’

‘Another expert begins his e-mail with a general clarification: “Dear People, I'm not fundamentally against the EEG. I only emphasize this because Manfred has repeatedly and erroneously described me as an opponent of the EEG.” But here comes the big "but": “When reduction of CO2 emissions is more cheaply achieved through insulating a building than using a wind turbine, that is where we should concentrate our support. When it comes to climate change, everything else is secondary to reducing CO2 emissions”.’

‘Indeed, when it comes to climage change, investments in wind and solar energy are not very efficient. Preventing one ton of CO2 emissions requires a relatively large amount of money. Other measures, especially building renovations, cost much less -- and have the same effect.’

‘The e-mail exchange ends with a conciliatory “What do you think?” But it is quickly followed by a bitter PS: “Do the Greens think that this problem (of climate change) will solve itself if we just screw solar panels onto our rooftops?”’

Environmental Groups Admit to the Problem

‘The German Renewable Energy Federation is clearly not thrilled about the debate. The lobbying group's official line is: “By implementing renewable energy, there will by a reduction in 2008 of 120 million tons of CO2.” When pressed, however, representatives of the federation will admit that this only applies to Germany. But the reality is that the freely traded CO2 certificates can be sold and used abroad.’

‘Likewise, one federation employee openly said that there is “a certain degree of inconsistency” between the EEG and emissions trading.’

‘WINDFARM LOBBY BOWS TO A.S.A.
AND CUTS CO2 SAVING FIGURES’

‘Spinners’ numbers overblown’

The Register, 23 December 2008.

‘The British Wind Energy Association, which promotes the UK windfarm industry, has been forced to halve its figures on carbon-emission reductions by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).’

‘The BWEA had formerly made its calculations on the basis that every kilowatt-hour (or “unit”) of electricity generated by a wind turbine would mean 860 grams of CO2 not emitted by fossil-fuelled power stations. Now, however, it has cut that claim to 430 grams per kWh, following a landmark ASA ruling last year against RWE nPower.’

“The 860 gCO2/kWh figure was hard to validate,” ASA spokesman Matt Wilson told the Reg today. “Following the ruling there was a consensus that the figure be lowered.”

‘Setting a new figure was difficult, however, as judging just how much carbon is saved per kWH of wind energy generated is almost impossible to do with any accuracy. The amount of carbon generated by fossil stations per kWh varies according to the technology used and the age of the facility, and different stations are on line at different times.’

“It was a fiendishly complex process,” said Wilson. “In the end, we're not experts in this area. We can say a figure is misleading, but we can't say what the true value is.”

‘The BWEA has now recalculated its carbon savings figures based on 430 gCO2/kWh, which will effectively mean that the amount of wind turbines required to achieve a given level of carbon savings has doubled. This is an acknowledgement of the fact that some older and dirtier fossil stations - particularly coal ones - have closed, and the increasing prevalence of efficient combined-cycle machinery in the gas sector.’

‘At present, the BWEA still makes no allowance in its calculations for the carbon effects of uncontrolled variability in wind supply, saying t“his is unlikely to become a significant issue until wind generates over 20 per cent of total electricity supply”.’

‘A report written for the Renewable Energy Foundation in the summer said that a substantial wind base would involve more carbon burden than current figures suggest. This was owing to the need for backup gas turbine power during calms - and the fact that irregularly-run turbines would be dirtier than ones run on a predictable schedule.’

‘The BWEA is also sticking to its line that a "normal" 2 megawatt turbine “produces enough electricity each year to meet the needs of 1,000 homes”. This is true [NOT IN OUR AREA, IT ISN'T - THE BWEA ‘ASSUME’ A 30% LOAD FACTOR. Ed.] - provided that those homes are well supplied with gas or heating oil to turn into carbon emissions.’

‘In a post-fossil future where heating, cooking and hot water were all electric - and assuming no rise in domestic energy use overall - such a turbine would actually meet the needs of 214 homes. Provided there was also a backup fossil power station and/or pumped storage hydropower reservoirs, of course.’

‘As of publication, the BWEA still hadn't responded to requests for comment’

THE HIDDEN COSTS OF WIND POWER

Even now, most people are unaware that wind turbines are receiving a massive indirect subsidy that is paid from every consumer’s electricity bills (see the Windpower page for the figures).

Even less well known is the fact that the grid is having to be strengthened at very considerable cost to the consumer in order to handle large amounts of intermittent wind power, much of which will be generated at sites such as Lewis or the Shetlands, far removed from the end user.

National Grid has just [8 October 2008] revealed the latest costings for this work:

‘National Grid to boost transmission investments by £2bn a year’

‘In a presentation to its investors, the transmission system operator said the plan represented an annual spend of £3 billion on the electricity network for mainland Britain. And beyond 2012, the company said “that investment will continue at least at that level for the foreseeable future”.’

‘National Grid said yesterday it has earmarked an extra £2 billion of capital investment in the UK transmission system up to 2012, above and beyond the £16 billion already announced.’ [Our emphasis].

[...]

‘During the investors' day, Mike Anderson, director general of Defra’s Climate Change Group pointed to the “electrification” of the UK’s heat and transport as countering the reduction of energy demand in expected efficiency schemes. ’

‘With an increase in intermittent wind power, Mr Anderson said the UK would require a jump from the current 78GW of power capacity to more than 100GW.’ [Our emphasis].

Reinforcement

‘Getting more renewable energy down from Scotland could involve offshore high-voltage direct current cables running from Loch Ness around Galloway into the Irish Sea and from north-east Aberdeenshire down to Teesside.’

‘The presentation also suggested strategic strengthening of the grid in the Humberside and Lincolnshire areas to enable links to a series of 1.8GW offshore substation platforms to link up Round Three offshore wind projects.’

‘It also noted the developments in nuclear energy regarding transmission arrangements for up to eight new nuclear plants in the application stage of development. A £1 billion investment in the grid would be needed in the South West of England alone to cope with new nuclear plants at Hinkley Point and Oldbury.’

‘Further reinforcements would be needed in Suffolk, Sussex and North-West Wales and Anglesey as two nuclear plants - 3.5GW of capacity - are developed by 2020 and seven plants (10GW) by 2030.’

‘Along with investments in offshore grids for 25GW of wind power, that would see investments of £5 to £9 billion around England and Wales to cope with the new power generation sites. In the short-term, a "connect and manage" approach will attempt to connect up renewable energy projects more quickly than the current system where investment in transmission reinforcements waits until sufficient renewable energy proposals come forward in certain areas.’ [Our emphasis].

[...]

-------------------------

See: ‘National Grid to boost transmission investments by £2bn a year.’ New Energy Focus, 8 October 2008.

ONCE A POWER STATION, ALWAYS A POWER STATION

The wind industry frequently argues that wind turbines are only a temporary blot on the landscape and that they will be removed after “only 25 years”.

Like much else they come out with, this is demonstrably untrue.

Delabole was the first commercial wind farm built in the UK, it opened in 1991. The ten 30m (100ft) turbines installed in 1991 were supposed to have a lifespan of 20 years, after which time local people were told they would be removed and the land returned to its original state.

However, after just 16 years the company Good Energy have won permission to ‘repower’ Delabole by replacing the existing 10 turbines with fewer 110m turbines. For “only [another] 25 years”.

This is being seen all over the country, as the planners nod through repowering applications. After all, if the site is already a power station, there is only the question of its size.

Locally, we have seen the same process at Blyth Harbour: opened in 1993 with nine 42.5m turbines. Planning permission nodded through in 2008 to replace them with six 125m (410 ft) and one 163m. (534 ft.!) turbines.

There is also an application in for the only other first generation wind power station in the North East, at Great Eppleton, in County Durham. Commissioned in 1997, this array of four 72m twin-bladed turbines was shut down in 2005 after only eight years in operation. E.ON have applied to replace them with four 115m turbines.

The Planning Inspector at the Boxworth appeal poured cold water on the appellant’s argument that the scheme was ‘temporary’:

The appellant has made much of the reversibility of the project, but to my mind the extent to which this argument is deployed rather undermines its efficacy. If the development was compatible with its landscape setting, there would be no need to protest that the scheme is of a temporary nature. Indeed, Para 109 of DOE Circular 11/95 The Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions states that the reason for granting a temporary permission can never be that the time-limit is necessary because of the effect of the development on the amenities of the area. If it is not possible to overcome the adverse effect on amenity, and if the damage cannot be accepted, then the only course open is to refuse permission. I understand from the appellant however that the reason for the proposed temporary period is the unpredictability of changes to the structure and mix of the power supply industry - circumstances may be entirely different in 25 years time. However, in my view this argument is not compatible with the long-term targets in the Energy Review - for example, to cut emissions by 60% by about 2050. In my opinion the development proposed is substantial in nature, and the appellant acknowledges that the period envisaged is equivalent in human terms to a generation. Although I recognise the 25 year period is the appellant’s suggestion, I nevertheless understand that some of the earlier turbines on established wind farms have been replaced by more recent models. And, in the event of the appeal succeeding, I consider that this would be a more likely future than the closure of the site at the end of the period. (Appeal Decision APP/W0530/A/05/1190473, Para. 26, P.7 )

Once a power station, always a power station.

‘WIND FUELS GAS’

‘Wind power is clearly not reducing the dependence on imported fuel, contrary to the frequent claims of its proponents. In fact the experience from Germany and Spain shows that it is increasing the dependence of imported natural gas. And that's not energy security.’

Edgar Gärtner, Business Europe, Wall Street Journal. 11 September, 2008.

‘[...]’

‘Wind turbines generate electricity very irregularly, because the wind itself is inconsistent. Therefore wind turbines always need backup power from fossil fuels to keep the electricity grid in balance. Gas turbines are the best way to do this. They are able to respond quickly and push power production when wind generators stop suddenly. They can be turned on and off almost instantly, whereas traditional coal-fired plants need to be maintained in a very inefficient standby mode if they are to respond to large fluctuations in power demand.’

‘A proliferation of windmills, then, can become a windfall for gas sellers. Just look at the cases of Spain and Germany, Europe's leading producers of wind power.’

‘By the end of 2007 Spain had 14,700 megawatts (MW) of installed wind capacity, according to Enagás, which manages the national gas network, producing 8.7% of the country's total power supplies. Most of these wind generators are located in scarcely populated areas, while the power consumption is concentrated in big cities with their many air-conditioned buildings. The peak load of the Spanish power grid is thus in the hot summer months—but this is precisely the time of year when there usually isn't much wind.’

‘For this reason, more and more gas turbines are being installed near consumers in the suburbs of Spain's cities. Only last year, Spanish power providers added 6,400 MW of gas-turbine power capacity, taking the total installed capacity of gas turbines to 21,000 MW. Natural gas has become the main source of electricity generation in Spain, and according to Enagás, 99.8% of the gas used in Spain is imported. Most of this comes via pipeline from Algeria, but the import of liquid natural gas (LNG) by ships will increase.’

‘In Germany, more than 20,000 wind turbines with a total capacity of 21,400 MW are now “embellishing” landscapes. Wind power's share of total electricity generation has risen in line with that of natural gas since 1990. Germany's gas consumption for power generation more than doubled between 1990 and 2007, and now represents 11.7% of the country's total power generation. The country imported 83% of its natural gas supplies.’

‘Today part of the wind power backup in Germany is still done by old coal-fired plants. But the Greens and even parts of the governing Christian and Social Democratic parties are fervently opposed to the construction of new coal plants. So many old power stations will probably be replaced by gas turbines. The green opponents of new coal-fired plants are nowadays the most dependable allies of the big gas companies such as Gazprom, Shell or BP.’

‘[...]’

(Mr. Gärtner is a specialized writer on energy and chemicals issues based in Frankfurt. See: Business Europe, Wall Street Journal for the full story).

COMMENT

The UK will be importing 50% of its gas by 2010, and 80% by 2020. The UK is now in the early stages of intense competition with the major Asian economies for supplies of Liquefied Natural Gas.

Even the originators of the wind policy were beginning to recognise the implications for energy security by the fag end phase of the last government:

• ... due to the intermittency of wind, we will need significantly more generating capacity in the longer term. (Ed Miliband, Statement to the House on the draft National Policy Statements, 9 November 2009. (See DECC press release).

• My Lords, my noble friend makes a valid point. In answer to the question that was asked earlier, wind generation is intermittent and therefore needs—may I use a technical term?—base-load capacity, which means we need to build for coal and gas to back up the wind. That is why it is not the most effective source in terms of energy security of supply, ...
  (Baroness Vadera, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, BERR, House of Lords,23 Jun 2008. Hansard: Column 1219).

Problems ahead

We frequently hear about the 12GW of coal and oil fired capacity that is scheduled to be retired by 2016/2017. We are supposed to be reassured that National Grid is apparently planning for at least 17GW of new combined cycle gas plants. What is not clear is how a market that is scheduled to have some 13GW of intermittent wind capacity with priority access is going to work, or even if it can work without capital grants for gas plant construction and an expensive market mechanism to compensate operators for curtailing output. The unplanned nature of the British system will exacerbate these costs.

Whatever happens, the evidence from other countries is that it will cost the consumer dear.

‘POVERTY FEARS OVER WIND POWER’

Professor King, who served as government chief scientific adviser from 2000 to 2007, told BBC Radio 4’s The Investigation that half a million people could be pushed into fuel poverty by the UK’s drive for wind power. [the programme is sadly no longer available as a download].

‘[...]’

‘The EU needed to renegotiate a more achievable and less expensive target, and he added: “This is an issue which needs to be revisited and I say this as somebody who feels that we really have to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions very substantially but in my view it is an expensive, and not a very clever route to go for 35 to 40% on wind turbines.”’

‘[...]’

(Read the full article: ‘Poverty fears over wind power’, BBC News , 4 September 2008.