Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To think that it's about time the government rethink the wind issue??????

232 replies

ohanotherone · 17/04/2012 09:50

I've spent some time investigating wind farms. I thought they were clean and green, sadly, I now realise they are not. It seems we are all being taken for a ride, a ride that will destroy our beautiful nations. The plans to cover Wales and Scotland with turbines are on a scale that many people do not comprehend. Am I being unreasonable to think that the government should objectively look at the facts and finally ditch wind power????

Here are some of the issues......looking at these factors broadens the debate from a "you are a Nimby" level, which is the level the last government wanted the debate to be as it was in their interests to do so.

1.Landscape and wildlife
2.Unreliable energy source requiring backup
3.No reduction in CO2
4.Additional grid infrastructure
5.Subsidies
6.Employment, business and property

  1. Landscape and wildlife
Windfarms reduce landscape value, kill birds and compromise wildlife habitats. They also compromise essential environmental services.

? It was established in the Public Inquiry into the Cumulative Effect of Windfarms in Powys in 2001 that windfarms always have a negative effect on the landscape; the question is whether the level of negative impact remains acceptable. The conclusions reached by the Planning Inspectorate indicated clearly that the cumulative impact of such proposals on the visual and recreational quality of the upland areas in Powys would be unacceptable; these conclusions were agreed in full by the National Assembly for Wales. The height of turbines has increased by over 40 metres since then, increasing the impact and area visually affected immeasurably.

? Installing a manmade structure out of proportion with its surroundings such as a large wind turbine affects individual perception and understanding of the view, natural and cultural landscape and distorts people&rquot;s engagement with what they see; the value of citizen&rquot;s engagement with their surroundings is acknowledged by government.

? "We need to help people appreciate the historic environment and 'read the landscape' - not just the obvious elements such as castles and chapels, but also the pattern of quarries, ancient trackways, field systems and cairns. The rewards are not simply personal satisfaction for individuals. The historic environment creates our 'sense of place' and therefore our sense of shared belonging and of roots. Nurturing a living sense of what it is to be a citizen of Wales is a key priority for the Assembly Government, and citizenship cannot be a theoretical concept. It is about emotional ties and imagined community, as much with previous generations as with ones to come." © Crown Copyright 2009. Heritage Minister's Ambition for the Welsh Historic Environment

? James Pearce-Higgins et. al. (Journal of Applied Ecology vol 46, Issue 6 pages 1139- 1357) have found that birds, including buzzards, golden plovers, curlews and red grouse, are abandoning countryside around upland windfarms. The study used upland areas because they have the strongest winds and so are preferred by wind-farm developers and are favoured, by some of Britain's most vulnerable bird species. They found evidence for localised reductions in bird breeding density; birds tended to stop nesting within half a mile of any turbine. Since the effect extends around each machine, up to three quarters of a square mile could be affected by one turbine. Results highlight significant avoidance of otherwise apparently suitable habitat close to turbines in at least seven of the 12 species studied. The impact is not huge now because there are still some areas without wind farms but the researchers warn that, with hundreds more planned, plus an increase in the size of turbines, the effect could become much worse.

? Where wind farms are proposed, their development should not contravene the protective measures that apply under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981; Schedule 1 Birds, Schedule 5 Animals and Schedule 8 Plants.

2.Unreliable energy source requiring backup
Electricity from windfarms is unreliable and cannot be stored. Wind is an intermittent and unpredictable energy source; it can provide neither the base-load nor the load-following power required by the Grid. It is beyond dispute that windfarms require at least 90% backup from reliable controllable energy sources.

? National Grid data shows that windfarms cannot be relied upon to provide us with energy when we most need it. The cold weather of December/January 2009/10 illustrated this problem. With high pressure and a lack of wind only 0.2%, of a possible 5% of the UK's energy was generated by wind turbines during this time of greatest need.

? Jeremy Nicholson, director of the Energy Intensive Users Group (EIUG), gave warning that this unreliability could turn into a crisis when the UK is reliant on 6,400 turbines for a quarter of UK electricity. He said the shortfall in power generated by wind during cold snaps seriously undermined the Government's pledge to build nine major new wind 'super farms' by 2020. "If we had this 30 gigawatts of wind power, it wouldn't have contributed anything of any significance this winter," he said. "The current cold snap is a warning that our power generation and gas supplies are under strain and it is getting worse."

? In Germany their 20,000MW of wind energy require 90% back-up from conventional sources; indeed Rupert Steele of Scottish Power/Iberdrola admitted on 22.4.09 that the 30GW of wind proposed for the UK would require 25GW of back up. What this means in practice is that as more wind farms come on line they require a greater proportion of back up by reliable generation; 90% according to EON Netz.

? E.ON said that it could take 50 gigawatts of renewable electricity generation to meet the EU target. But it would require approximately 90% of this amount as back up from coal and gas plants to ensure supply when intermittent renewable supplies were not available. This will require a significant increase in Britain's generating capacity, at considerable cost, simply to maintain the current level of secure supply, as evidenced by National Grid's own estimates, which show that by 2025 the Nation needs a 21% increase in generating capacity to meet a 2% increase in demand.

? The impact of ensuring reliable backup is:

  • Capital cost of building 90% more generation than we actually need in inefficient plant that will give lower return to investors as it will frequently be idling rather than producing energy for which they will be paid. UK government has already committed £10 billion to back-up generation in 2011.
  • Increased wear and tear on plant that has to be turned up and down with less than four hours notice. Higher costs of maintenance and reduced life of machinery.
  • Reluctance to build conventional power plants where the maintenance and reduced life are unknown costs.
  • Increased payments from National Grid to generators when they are required to go off-line, as their generation is not required. Wind is most expensive so National Grid uses all available wind as first option and compensate conventional generators when the wind is blowing. In Scotland (01.05.11) wind generation exceeded demand and National Grid paid wind farm companies £1.2 million to switch off the turbines. In 2012 National Grid paid windfarm companies £25 million to switch off line.
  1. No reduction in CO2
There is no evidence that increasing the number of windfarms is reducing national CO2 emissions in UK or any other country adopting wind energy.

? Recent work by Fred Udo is based on EIRGRID real time data on carbon emissions and wind energy production. His abstract states: "In the absence of hydro-energy the CO2 production of the conventional generation increases with wind energy penetration. The data shows that the reduction of CO2 emissions is at most a few % if gas fired generation is used for balancing a 30% share of wind energy."

? A carbon payback equation should be part of each Environmental Statement. The Scottish Government has made an algorithm to calculate this for peat land. (Ref: The Scottish Government Calculating carbon savings from wind farms on Scottish peat lands - A New Approach www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/06/25114657/9)

? A full carbon equation should count of the carbon cost of:

  • Building, transportation to site and construction
  • Grid connection
  • Running a turbine
  • Clean coal, gas, nuclear power stations running less efficiently, developing and maintaining the back up power stations
  • Upgrading highways
  • Peat displacement by an average of 300cu m concrete per turbine, as well as aggregate for turbine bases, crane pads, sub-stations and access roads.
  • Forestry clearance
  • The Capacity Credit, i.e. the percentage of wind generated energy that actually displaces conventionally generated energy. Bearing in mind that a percentage of this is nuclear and therefore would be carbon free anyway.

? There is no evidence that wind is an alternative to nuclear. As early as 1994 Welsh Affairs Select Committee, the British Wind Energy Association (now RenewablesUK) have admitted that the future is a mix of nuclear and renewables.

  1. Additional grid infrastructure
Additional grid connection is needed to meet the installed capacity of wind installation; increasing the number and size of transmission infrastructure and cost to the consumer; increasing impact on landscape value.
  1. Subsidies
No developer will build windfarms without subsidies. Electricity companies are compelled to buy this expensive electricity. Both are funded by an extra charge on every electricity bill. This is not a government subsidy, which would be open for scrutiny. We are now paying £1 billion a year.

? Electricity Companies are compelled to buy this expensive electricity using Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs), and put an extra charge on every one of your electricity bills. The cost of onshore wind to the consumer is some £200/MWhr taking into account the ROC subsidy, back up generation and additional transmission costs. This is over four times the cost of energy from conventional or nuclear sources. The cost of off-shore wind is even higher at over £250/MWhr (March 2011 Sir Donald Miller, former Chairman Scottish Power). For industry the cost is incrementally higher making electricity in the UK a very expensive and possibly unaffordable overhead. This may lead to relocation of industry abroad where energy costs are less.

? Subsidies for on-shore wind are higher in the UK than for virtually any other European country with a large wind investment. (EU Report into European Energy Market 2010).

? Even taking into account the minimal 10% reduction in subsidies currently being considered it is likely that by 2020 the cost of ROCs will be £15 billion ? 1% of GDP. The UK is already facing unprecedented levels of fuel poverty and, although not solely attributable to wind power generation, this will inexorably increase with subsidies, the cost of large infrastructure projects from remote locations, the cost of expensive 90% back-up; research and development of storage projects essential for use of wind power such as development of a smart grid.

  1. Employment, business and property
There is no evidence that windfarms bring significant local employment, but they can impact adversely on traditional industry and tourism and on property values, and thus the level of available investment in local businesses.

? Turbine manufacturers use their own trained staff for construction, off-site monitoring and maintenance. The majority of wind farm developers in Britain are non-UK so "for an average £50m wind farm, approximately £35m will go abroad. The employment they bring to a local community is limited. During construction there may be several jobs, but once completed a large wind farm can be run by two or three staff with technicians called in for maintenance, they are certainly not the answer to stimulating the jobs economy." (Mary Scanlon, Scottish Conservative MSP for the Highlands and Islands).

? Site preparation is specialist and few contractors have the equipment available e.g. Cefn Croes windfarm was said to use local labour; in fact Jones and Co, the contractors building roads and turbine bases were from Rhuthin, some two hours away.

? In the case of Fullabrook Down the developers, Devon Windpower, were bought out by the Electricity Supply Board, Ireland's largest utility company. During the construction process nearly all of the ground-works were carried out by an Irish labour force, but Vestas required its own trained Danish workers to erect and commission the turbines. In fact Vestas recently confirmed that they had not employed a single UK resident over the previous 24 months during the installation of their turbines throughout England, Scotland or Wales. They also confirmed that they did not foresee a change in their employment policy over the next three fiscal periods. Other manufacturers responded similarly and confirmed no local labour had been employed during the construction phase as all used their own certified engineers. (Written communication).

? A major renewables study commissioned by the European Commission (Employ- RES research project for European Commission DG Energy and Transport 2009) drew a number of interesting conclusions:

  • The renewables sector has the potential to create many jobs, predominantly in the solar, hydro and biofuels areas;
  • Wind energy is only an important contributor to the labour economy where the country manufactures the turbines;
  • The countries that could benefit the most from the growth of renewables are Eastern European (biomass production);
  • Some countries (UK and Spain are cited as examples) will experience a net loss of jobs.

There is evidence that wind power does not stimulate the economy across Europe:

? "Wind power costs Spain ?1.1 million per job in subsidy and setting minimum prices for renewably generated electricity far above market prices, wastes capital that could be allocated to other sectors. This has resulted in 2.2 jobs being destroyed for every 'green job' created." (Gabriel Calzada Álvarez, et al (2009) Study of the effects on employment of public aid to renewable energy sources. Universidad Rey Juan Carlos)

? Evidence gathered shows that local enterprises are often developed by releasing collateral in the family home by re-mortgaging. The reduction in value of homes where windfarms and associated infrastructure are proposed is impacting upon the money available to develop small local businesses.

? Tourism enterprises, especially but not exclusively where the individual caravans and chalets are owned, have suffered considerably when windfarms and associated infrastructure affect them. For example, there has been a 40% drop in lettings and a collapse in caravan sales at Nab's Wood site in North Yorkshire after construction of a wind turbine site in the vicinity two years ago.

? A survey carried out by the Welsh Tourist Board indicated that the commonest reasons for visiting the country were the scenery, wild landscapes and an unspoilt environment whilst for 71% of respondents the things which most spoilt landscape views were pylons, transmission lines or wind turbines. Remarkably similar results were found from research carried out for a Visit Scotland and here over a quarter of respondents said they would actively avoid areas with windfarms and a further 25% preferred areas without windfarms.

OP posts:
entropygirl · 17/04/2012 15:42

hmm no and no....it was Prof. David Mackay.

he taught me information theory and ROCKED in a major way...

Whatmeworry · 17/04/2012 15:42

The reality is that the best 'power station' is to cut the electricity we use by a tiny bit. We don't have to cut back that much if we all do it to do the equivalent of putting in a new power plant.

The best energy saving device consumers can invest in is a wooly jumper, and turn the heating down in the winter.

Its not very sexy technology though....

entropygirl · 17/04/2012 15:43

what does window licking tendancies mean?

entropygirl · 17/04/2012 15:43

David Mackay used to wear sexy jumpers.....

YellowWellies · 17/04/2012 15:49

Ahem by window licking, I meant they do tend to attract those with a looser grip on reality. The last one DH went to, he met a chap who informed him that marine turbines will stop the motion of the earth (wtf?! this guy is allowed to vote and was considering standing for councillor!!!!). Heehee to the Prof lust entropy you can't beat a brainy man Grin with a fine knitwear collection (?!).

Jins you have my sympathy. Coordinating an ES is a world of pain and cat herding. It infuriates me that folks thing these things just get given planning permission willy nilly - having worked on renewable EIAs I was stunned that any renewables have been built in Britain, EVER. There are so many hurdles to their development that the big boy power stations just don't have to think about and just bluster through with money and corporate influence.

entropygirl · 17/04/2012 15:51

hmmm but erm marine turbines would eventually stop the earth...and also possibly cause the moon to crash into us....

the key word there is eventually

entropygirl · 17/04/2012 15:52

I hate that everything I have to say about the moon has to be qualified by possibly....screw angular momentum and screw the horse it rode in on.

One day I will actually sit down and work out the fucking physics...actually now that I have a DD this may never happen

YellowWellies · 17/04/2012 15:54

Also with regard to ohanotherone's point about tourism - well Orkney has managed to combine both and to be honest, I think many islanders have come to realise that renewables are the lesser of two evils as the industry provides decent paying jobs (not just minimum wage waitressing and bed changing jobs) that mean their kids can stay on the island - it also doesn't revolve around second and holiday home ownership which prices locals out of the market. So saying that tourism = good and renewables = bad is a vast oversimplification. Of course the incomers to the islands make the most noise about the renewables industry usually because they can see a wind farm from their idyllic croft (which they live in for the warm months of the year only before buggering off south), and because they didn't buy into the community turbine schemes so aren't receiving the income the local cooperatives are.

YellowWellies · 17/04/2012 15:57

entropy if you could elaborate on that argument I would love to terrify the DH with it this evening hahahahaha. I'll tell him I'm a convert. This wingnut believed that one turbine would be enough to still the earth within it's 20 year operating life so I'm not sure he had your training in physics it rather sounded like a Google warrior again...

Mopswerver · 17/04/2012 16:04

Wind has to be part of our energy future but I am opposed to these Mega turbines being sited in AONB and on the edge of villages. It shouldn't be all or nothing. Each application should be assessed taking into account a variety of factors. Impact on communities should be very high on that list. It is insulting to label anyone with concerns a NIMBY which is how the argument is being framed so far. Lavenderbongo by "wife of renewables expert" I take it you mean "wife of someone with huge vested interest". The Germans are moving away from these things and not wanting to racially stereotype but when German engineers say something is inefficient then I think we would be wise to listen.

YellowWellies · 17/04/2012 16:10

Each application is already assessed taking into account a variety of factors. Impact on communities is considered from a noise, landscape and visual, traffic disruption (during construction), shadow flicker, ice throw, TV and radio interference and health and safety perspective. What other approaches do you feel are missing in the assessments? Apologies for flinging NIMBY around but having worked on EIAs for all manner of developments (including but by far exclusively wind farms), it really does seem to be the nub of the argument when you get down to brass tacks with opponents. I play catch phrase bingo in my head at public exhibitions and the phrase 'I'm not against wind farms in the right places, but this isn't the right place' usually gets ticked off hundreds of times a day. When asked why it's the wrong place, bar because the opponent lives nearby and doesn't like them - there is no real reason. We have no right to our private views in the planning system.

Jins · 17/04/2012 16:27

I place community impacts very highly. I recognise that major developments are usually opposed by representatives of a local community but sometimes the opposition isn't sustainable. The whole point of my job is to assess the various impacts, see where mitigation may be proposed and to assess residual impacts. If the residual impacts are still significant then it's the wrong site.

I tend not to use the Nimby word because to be honest the people that know the most about the local community are those that live there. I take note of every comment and look to see if adjustments can be made to the scheme.

AONBs are tricky. More often than not they are the ideal location. The problem with AONBs is that they are valued highly by more than the local population. They are national assets. However sometimes development can be accommodated and it can bring benefits to the area in terms of employment.

YellowWellies · 17/04/2012 16:39

Yes I would stress that I wouldn't use the term NIMBY or BANANA at a public exhibition, but privately when venting - god yes I'm afraid. Anyone with low blood pressure who needs it raising, may I suggest a stint in the industry?

Mopswerver · 17/04/2012 16:39

Yes but there are also those with wind turbine zeal. If what they contribute outweighs all other factors then fine but lets not install and be damned. Reneawbles is thr current buzzword snd I think that many are getting carrird away. Just because something is a good idea doesnt mean it is always the right answer.

Kladdkaka · 17/04/2012 16:44

What's a BANANA? (obviously I know what a banana is :o)

Jins · 17/04/2012 16:49

BANANA = Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone Grin

YellowWellies · 17/04/2012 16:54

Mopswerver I'm zealous about renewables because my background is in climate science. Having spent years playing with the models - I soon decided that RE was the lesser of two evils. Rest assured that the vigour of our local planning system and the 'demographic' of your typical councillor (think that's the politest way of putting it) means that any RE zeal is usually squished under sensible shoe as soon as it enters the planning system.

Also You didn't clarify what areas of community impact are not being assessed accurately? We can't assess public opinion in planning as that would lead to Joe Blogg's getting all of his mates to object if his business rival tried to set up an alternative shop etc. Equally we can't assess house prices as these fluctuate due to so many reasons (like economic armageddon!) and are not a formal planning consideration (other than in cases of compulsory purchase).

Mopswerver · 17/04/2012 17:10

Proximity to housing (no...not mine!). Until very recently (like a week ago) in our area the planning guidelines around wind turbines have been very vague and not very strict. Happily a new set of guidelines have just been published and they do appear to have been well thought through, have taken the majority of concerns into account and address each issue in depth. We'll see how they work in practice.
yellowwellies the turbines are built elsewhere and brought in. The idea that a substantial number of local jobs are being created is a myth.

YellowWellies · 17/04/2012 17:18

Yes because we bailed out the banks but yet our UK turbine manufacturer (Vestas) go under (well done Gordon). There are lots of jobs here in the marine industry in the surveying, design, construction, testing and O&M phase - for onshore wind yes I agree there are fewer jobs, but those that there are (primarily O&M and in the planning stage) are much better paid than tourism jobs.

You're right there was never a formal guideline on proximity to housing but siting did have to observe minimum topple distance (literally what it sounds like Grin) and the noise criteria meant in reality that you would really struggle to get a turbine closer than 700m to housing (unless there was a feck off great motorway or other really noisy thing close by). I do agree formal separation distance guidelines were much needed and have been championed for by the industry for a long time, as no one wants to waste half a million on a scheme that is never going to get planning permission.

ohanotherone · 17/04/2012 17:42

Yellowellies - okay so you are employed by a renewable company to do EIA's. I've read some of the EIA's for the windfarm that is going to be built 20 miles from me. They describe a river as a stream with no significant impact. This river gets to grade 5 in winter, tons of water flow down it and puttiing 38 turbines near to it will displace tons of water and will cause significant flooding downstream in an area highly suspectible to flooding anyway. The local planning officers have thrown out the application as the EIA was so badly written and missed out many issues. But hey, you are paid to say stuff by huge companies who are set to profit from your words.

OP posts:
Mopswerver · 17/04/2012 17:44

A recent application in our area for a 100m turbine (and if you haven't seen these things they are colossal, not only in height but in girth) was recommended for approval despite there being one house within 500m and one just outside. In the end there was so much opposition that it was turned down.

Most people do understand the need for wind but what really inflames people is the lack of realistic guidelines and the perceived "Gravy Train" that many of the landowners are on. One comment from a local farmer about the prospect of £60k per yr for him to locate three on his land (that he doesn't live on) "it beats farming"...

Jins · 17/04/2012 17:55

ohanotherone I agree. There can be a variation in the quality of the Environmental Statements put forward. But don't tar everyone with the same brush. Just because you've read a poor ES doesn't mean they all are.

As you've already seen, the LPA can refuse to accept an ES if it is inadequate. I have never had an ES returned. I'm also bound by a professional code of conduct and my words can't be bought.

Thanks for the confirmation that you are directly affected by an application by the way. It puts your OP in context.

ohanotherone · 17/04/2012 17:55

Here is the extent of what is planned for the UK

www.renewables-map.co.uk/default.asp

OP posts:
YellowWellies · 17/04/2012 17:59

No ohanotherone I work for myself and my clients are as likely to be the planning authority objecting to a development as they are to be the developer. My words are not tailored to represent what my client would like to hear as the documents are public domain, have to abide by strict legal standards and regulations, are scrutinised by opposition vested interests who have the legal right to object to a single word that they disagree with, legally have to represent an objective balanced view and ultimately will be debated in a court of law if the case goes to appeal, so only a tit would put in stuff that wasn't true! EIAs get thrown out if they are crap - and the development cannot proceed. As you have seen. So what is your point? If that development had gone ahead with a shoddy ES I could understand your anger. But the system appears to be working and the development has been rejected. What more do you want? YABVU and it is nice to see that my original suspicion was confirmed (you care about this issue because of a local 'threat').

I'm actually really chuffed to hear that both examples cited of poorly sited turbines / poorly written ESs were refused planning - that is how it should be.

It's not only huge companies or rich farmers who profit from wind, local communities can too - check out these inspiring cases news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8574330.stm
www.westmill.coop/westmill_home.asp

ohanotherone · 17/04/2012 17:59

I'm not directly affected as such by house prices or proximity or noise etc... but really when you look at what is planned in mid/north wales everybody will be affected. There will be windfarms stretching all across wales. Wales will just be one big inefficient power station.

OP posts: