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:
Jins · 17/04/2012 19:34

WhereYouLeftIt - the text is the NOW Charter, National Opposition to Windfarms. Don't blame the OP as she just cut and pasted

www.nowind.org.uk/NOWCharter_150212.pdf

Mopswerver · 17/04/2012 19:56

No point in the Nuclear vs wind argument really. How many wind turbines would it take to produce the same amount of electricity as a Nuclear power station.....er, I don't know but I'm betting it's an awwwful lot! The point is it is not an either/or debate. As ragged said earlier, we have to have a mix of energy sources.

Jins · 17/04/2012 20:09

Exactly. Not so long ago it was Biomass that was going to be the solution to our energy needs. The problem is that fuel availability is going to be a huge issue. Biomass works well on a smaller scale and it goes some way to reducing overall energy consumption. We've been generating energy from landfilled waste for decades but that's going to reduce in the future as inputs change.

All of these methods are only going to chip away at the energy demand but improvements result from experience. You have to get your hands dirty and test the theories at some point. However no permanent harm should result.

Mopswerver - you made my head ache with the thought of calculating the number of turbines required to match nuclear production. Grin

WhereYouLeftIt · 17/04/2012 20:18

Cut & Pasted? Well, that really encourages me to take it seriously as the OP's opinions! Doesn't exactly agree with her claim that "I've spent some time investigating wind farms", does it? I've swallowed someone else's view completely and am regurgitating them in your direction doesn't sound so good I suppose.

YellowWellies · 17/04/2012 20:32

Oh dear - cut and pasted from an infamous NIMBY group with dubious funding sources. So OP when you say "you've" been doing some research - that's balls isn't it? Grin unless cutting and pasting counts as research... btw it wouldn't count as sufficiently robust to put in an ES! Grin. I believe the phrase the kids use is pwned...

ohanotherone · 17/04/2012 20:37

Well, having read all replies to date. Nothing has persuaded me that windfarms aren't a total waste of taxpayers money. Many people say they like windfarms, that's great, we have lots already but not a justification for covering the whole country in them when we have to have backup from coal, gas, nuclear anyway. There have been comments from people in other countries but I'm not sure about the relevance to our country since we have alot of people and a small area and a very intermittent wind source. I didn't know about solar panels being toxic so I've learnt something. I have no beef with individuals who write EIA reports just commented on one I saw which minimised the environmental impact and assumed that the thickie local council would just accept it. As for nuclear, I live near Trawsfynedd so feel okay about that too.

OP posts:
StrandedBear · 17/04/2012 20:56

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

YellowWellies · 17/04/2012 20:59

Ahem, we have the best wind resource in Europe - you can split hairs on lots of grey areas (i.e. whether tax payers should be funding any energy source, the nature of our future energy mix etc etc) but on our resource - you're picking a losing battle there.

You can try to sound balanced and rational now but you basically said that both Jins and I are industry stooges paid to lie - and seem to judge our work on one dodgy ES that you read, that got sodding rejected! You need to read some good ones which illustrate the real depth and breadth of site research needed, rather than judging on one person's shoddy work upon which nothing would ever have been built anyway.

Now you might not agree with subsidies for renewables but they are small beer compared to the subsidies tax payers 'gift' to the nuclear or fossil fuel industries. Globally, fossil-fuel consumption subsidies were $409 billion in 2010 (fossil fuels are hardly emerging technologies so why do they get subsidised eh?), renewable-energy subsidies were $66 billion over the same period. The source for that data is the IEA (try to pick a hole in that): www.worldenergyoutlook.org/docs/weo2011/factsheets.pdf

YellowWellies · 17/04/2012 21:06

I would very much like to thank the poster for starting this thread. It's been so cathartic to be able to rant and say all of the things that I wish I could say to the tools I meet at public exhibitions that I normally bite my tongue from saying (as I'd consider it impolite, on AIBU you're fair game Grin) !!!

Jins · 17/04/2012 21:14

I've found it a very interesting thread. I'm actually really encouraged to see debate on these issues.

entropygirl · 17/04/2012 21:22

Right okay then after a brief but terrifying 5 minutes where I managed to convince myself that tidal generators might be speeding up the Earths rotation sanity has now been restored.

So, the tides obviously already slow down the Earth's rotation as time goes on through friction and turbulence etc. This takes out around 4 terrawatts of power from the Earth - Moon system and (because of angular momentum) is causing the moon to recede.

So installing marine turbines essentially increases the friction of the tides passing over the Earth and will increase the amount of energy lost from the Earth moon system per year.

Current global energy use appears to be around 16 terrawatts so if we took all of our energy from the tides we would be slowing the Earth at 5 times it's current rate.

Apparently this would mean we could expect the day to lengthen by an hour in around 60 million years time or so.

So you are probably thinking HA entropygirl you said the moon will crash into the Earth and actually it is receding you fool....etc etc.

BUT once the Earth has lost all of its spin and is facing the moon, frictional losses due to dust etc. will then proceed to drop the moon onto the Earth. Of course the Earth may have fallen in the Sun by that point...or been burnt to a crisp but hey THE PRINCIPLE IS PROBABLY SOUND!

Sprogged · 17/04/2012 21:36

Do we have lots of wind farms because lots of rich people, like the Queen and David Camerons dad make lots of money from them? I think the Queen owns the coast of Britain, and David Camerons dad gets £1k per week subsidies for having them on his land.

SaggyOldClothCatPuss · 17/04/2012 21:38

I live within the 'all thats left is a shadow on the pavement' zone if Bradwell power station went into meltdown! I'd rather any number of ineffective wind turbines personally!

Jellykat · 17/04/2012 22:04

Expect the population of Sendai and surrounding area would agree with you there Saggy!

YellowWellies · 17/04/2012 22:08

No Sprogged - the Queen owns the seabed and leases it out to offshore wind developers the revenues go TO us the taxpayers so try not to look a gift horse in the mouth. Landowners shaft us in innumerate ways, some of them are going for renewables but its by no means the largest source of income for them - if you want to get really cross about that read more on CAP subsidies from the EU. Taken fresh from your tax money. I almost feel like saying 'yes the only reason we have wind farms is so David Cameron's Dad can make money', but I think you'll find as a retired stockbroker he's not short of a bob or two.

entropygirl · 17/04/2012 22:11

yes but what about the MOON! you wind farmers have no consideration at all for people who dont want the moon to land on their heads!

Jellykat · 17/04/2012 22:21

In around 60 million years time you say entropygirl? Don't think they'll be much life left on earth by then..

Just seen a bit on the news about Fracking, now THAT sounds like some scarey shit!

entropygirl · 17/04/2012 22:23

Oh no it will take much longer than that...muuuuuch longer.

YellowWellies · 17/04/2012 22:26

entropy you are right - we need a 'the sky / celestial bodies is falling down' chapter in our ES - it's just ridiculous that at present this data is only provided by opponents of wind farms in their marvellously informative pamphlets. Grin

StrandedBear · 17/04/2012 22:28

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

LineRunner · 17/04/2012 22:30

the thickie local council

Stand for election.

Sprogged · 17/04/2012 22:30

Thank you YellowWellies, it's nice to know that about old Queenie. I have no strong feelings on wind power and if I had time to read op I'd be reading a book instead but whether it's good or not, the ruling classes are very unlikely to stop doing anything which makes them lots of money without very good reason, which is why they're not adverse to fiddling their expenses, blah, blah, blah, especially the ones that are already millionaires, but I digress I know :o

YellowWellies · 17/04/2012 22:31

I do both. I can send you a good outline structure to get thinking about if you like? It would be the skeleton that I'd use for a typical onshore RE ES. The most important thing to think about really is the NTS and how you structure that as that will be the most read document and it's vital it summarises the findings clearly and concisely and clearly signposts the reader toward where to find more information (i.e. specific chapters and appendices in the larger document).

MissMarjoribanks · 17/04/2012 22:49

Oh, I've missed a planning row on MN, by being at Planning Committee.

Part of my job managing a Council planning department is to read Environmental Statements, and using my knowledge and with the assistance of technical experts (like Jins and YellowWellies) assess whether they are worth the paper they are written on.

The Scoping Report for the EIA for the current wind farm proposal in my authority stretches to over 300 pages. A Scoping Report merely sets out what should be in the ES. It is not an ES. That will be far longer and more detailed. Our response to it was more than 20 pages long. The combined response from all interested parties was more than 200 pages long. It's all online and open to public view.

I agree that rich landowners make money from them and that the money should go to the local communities. I don't agree that they are not properly scrutinised by the authorities involved.

Now, if only there was a planning fee for major infrastructure projects our authority wouldn't be bankrupting itself to do the work... (but that's another issue).

SJisontheway · 17/04/2012 23:08

This thread has been an interesting read. OP - you seem very hung up on the backup required from conventional plants, but I think you're missing the point a little. While windfarms cannot replace conventional plants in terms of capacity they can reduce significantly their use.
Essentially the net load (to be met by conventional plants) becomes less predictible and has a larger range. Ensuring supply matches demand becomes more challenging, but it really only becomes a big issue at really high penetrations of RE. There are also many solutions - storage, interconnection, improved forecasting, more flexible plants, demand side management.
While wind is an expensive source of energy at the moment, this will not always be the case. Relying on fossil fuels alone would be foolhardy. A good mix is essential, and I agree with other posters that nuclear should be considered also.