MOORSYDE ACTION GROUP
HOME PAGE - LATEST NEWS & VIEWS

THE ‘MOORSYDE’ APPEAL

The ‘Moorsyde’ planning application for seven 110m (360ft) wind turbines between Allerdean and Duddo was decisively rejected by Berwick Borough Council’s Planning Committee on 27 March 2008.

As expected, Your Energy Ltd lodged an appeal against that local, democratic decision.

A joint Public Inquiry into the ‘Moorsyde’, Barmoor and Toft Hill turbine arrays finished on 22 June, 2009.

The Inspector, Ms Ruth Mackenzie, will now write her report which will be delivered to the Secretary of State who has ‘recovered’ the appeals for his decision.

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

See the Berwick Windfarms Public Inquiry Website.

APPEAL FUND-RAISING

MAG instructed Michael Druce, a top planning barrister, and Stephen Kirkpatrick, a highly respected landscape expert, to represent us at the public inquiry. Both, with the assistance of our solicitors, Dickinson Dees, did an excellent job in exposing just how poor the appellant’s case was.

However, over and above the costs in instructing the best people, MAG has incurred substantial additional costs because of extra, last minute work incurred due to the Moorsyde appellant’s late submission of documents to the inquiry.

Our friends and supporters have been very generous in helping us raise funds for the defence of our landscape, living conditions and tourist economy. But we are still short of our target.

Please make a donation if you haven’t already done so and continue to support any further fund-raising events that we may put on.

SEE THE DONATIONS AND FUND RAISING EVENTS PAGES FOR MORE INFORMATION.

NCC COUNSEL BLASTS ‘MOORSYDE’ WITNESS

‘[...]’

‘Paul Tucker, counsel for Northumberland County Council was highly critical of landscape witness Kay Hawkins, who appeared for Moorsyde Wind Farm Ltd earlier in the inquiry, and in particular her assertion that turbines would enhance the views of the Cheviots.

‘In his closing submission he said: “The local planning authority would defy anyone, including the most ardent enthusiast of the supposed sculptural elegance of windturbines to conclude that what any of the views to the Cheviots lacks is a big wind turbine.”

‘[...]’

See report by Adam Drummond, Berwick Advertiser, 24 June 2009, on closing submissions at the final session of the Public Inquiry.

YOUR ENERGY FACE LOSS OF SUFFOLK PLANNING PERMISSION

Windfarm bid rejected

PLANNING bosses have effectively pulled the plug on Suffolk's first onshore windfarm after rejecting the developer's latest attempt to get the controversial project the green light.

Your Energy Ltd had hoped to build six 100 metre high wind turbines at Parham Airfield, near Framlingham.

[...]

Ivan Jowers, chairman of Suffolk Coastal's North Area Development Control Sub-Committee, said: “We had little choice but to reject the proposed construction plan for the wind farm as the applicants failed to satisfy the requirements we originally imposed to protect highway safety, visual amenity and the local environment.

“I am disappointed they not only left it until nearly the very last minute to submit their details, but that on closer inspection they had failed to meet our conditions. The details presented to this council were inadequate and incomplete.”

[...]

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

See full story: ‘EADT24’, 25 June 2009.

STILL FUDGING THE FIGURES

“If you fudge an issue to get the result you want you will be exposing yourself to acute professional embarassment, and if people find you have fudged one issue they anticipate you have fudged everything.”
(Bill Richmond, YEL MD. Berwick Advertiser, 11 November 2004).

Throughout the history of the Moorsyde application, there have been problems with the accuracy of the information that Your Energy Ltd (YEL) have supplied and the ‘spin’ that has been applied to the information that has been made available.

This is also true of YEL’s only working turbine array, at Burton Wold, near Kettering.

Your Energy's Burton Wold Power Station
© Mark Wilson (Bucks Lacks Enough Wind)
Viewpoint is 10 miles from the site. The turbines are 100 metres (325 feet) tall,
10 m. smaller than proposed 'Moorsyde' turbines.

Exaggerated output.

We know what the output of this scheme is, because the company are obliged to supply the figures to Ofgem in order to claim Renewables Obligation subsidy certificates.

Using these recorded figures, we know that the maximum averaged output of the scheme (the ‘load factor’) has been c. 21.6% of its theoretical capacity.

However, as of 25 June 2009 (over two years after the scheme started production), YEL’s Burton Wold website, on a page boldly headed “Wind Farm Facts & Figures”, is still claiming an equivalent output figure that assumes a load factor of 26.8%. This was the figure used in their output predictions which were widely ridiculed because of the known low average wind speeds in the area.

Exaggerated carbon savings.

On the same page of their website, YEL give some figures on claimed carbon displacement, stating: “This is based on an emissions factor of 860g CO2/kWh, ...’. The use of this factor has long been discredited and even the British Wind Energy Association (the industry trade body), on the advice of the Advertising Standards Authority, advise that companies should use a factor of 430g CO2/kWh, half the figure that YEL are claiming (see ‘Spinners’ numbers overblown’, below).

So, on their only working turbine array YEL are claiming some 20% more output than the scheme is actually producing and are basing claims for CO2 substitution on both this misleading figure and an emissions factor that is double the recommended figure!

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

See: Burton Wold website.
Listen again: ‘Costing the Earth’, BBC Radio 4, August 30, 2007. Features YEL’s Burton Wold scheme as an example of a low productivity wind power site and questions YEL’s figures.
See: ‘Low Power, High Farce’, below, for the history of YEL’s ‘Moorsyde’ figures.

HOT AIR AND LOW WIND SPEEDS

Which of the following do you believe:

”The fact [that] Felkington is on a low lying plateau means the wind conditions are relatively low”. (Bill Richmond, Your Energy Chairman. Berwick Advertiser, 20 October 2004).

“The excellent wind speed at the site ...” (Your Energy spokesperson, 'Proposed wind farm turbines scaled down', Northumberland Gazette 4 October 2007).

Until recently, YEL boasted of their policy of picking cheap and easy development sites with low wind speeds:

“Historically, wind farm developers have chased the windiest sites to optimise returns... Your Energy believes that the Renewables Obligation [subsidy system] together with technological advances allow a new approach ...”. (Your Energy Ltd., 'Moorsyde' Brochure, 2004)

“The main considerations for us are the access and this site is relatively easy to get to ... It is also reasonably close to Berwick which means the connection into the transmission system is relatively straight forward.“ (Bill Richmond, Your Energy Chairman. Berwick Advertiser, 20 October 2004).

YEL have previously been found to have been "misleading" people over carbon savings by the Advertising Standards Authority. The Gazette statement goes beyond that - it is blatantly dishonest.

(See below for more about the ASA adjudication and YEL's dodgy output figures which recently featured on 'Costing the Earth' on BBC Radio Four).

Wandylaw or Windylaw?

People attending the Wandylaw planning meeting heard a representative of developers RidgeWind Ltd. telling Councillors that the project would have a capacity factor of “40%”. This occasioned howls of derision from the audience as many people present were aware that the highest capacity factor achieved in the North East has been 32-33% at Tow Law and that 40% has only been achieved at some of the windiest sites in the UK, mostly in the North West of Scotland and Northern Ireland. Even turbines at Bowbeat (Peebles), Soutra and Crystal Rig, high in the Borders hills, have failed to reach 30%, despite the exaggerated ‘forecasts’ of 30% plus from their developers.

NPower predicted a yield of 27.3% for the neighbouring site at Middlemoor.

After the Wandylaw meeting we asked the gentleman who had come out with the 40% figure whether he could produce any evidence for his assertion and were told, in no uncertain manner, that the figures were “confidential”. Wind developers can get away with playing this game because they always claim “commercial confidentiality” when they are asked to justify their claims, which, almost without exception, are found to be wildly exaggerated when turbines are built.

Nigel Goodhew, Director of Ridgewind Ltd. was subsequently quoted in the Journal as saying, “During the appeal process, we will continue to work hard to counter misleading information about wind farms we have seen recently which only deflect reasoned discussion away from the genuine merits of the project.”!

NO SUPPORT FOR ‘MOORSYDE’

Your Energy Ltd (YEL) repeatedly claims that “the silent majority” (who supposedly support their scheme) don’t get heard. *

What they really mean, of course, is that they have difficulty in finding anybody local who supports the ‘Moorsyde’ scheme. Previously, they have been reduced to paying an activist from Yorkshire to run bogus anti-nuclear street stalls in order to get pro forma ‘letters’ of support for their scheme (see the Developer Tricks page).

This lack of support was shown yet again on Wednesday, 27 May, when members of the public had the opportunity to speak at the Public Inquiry.

Not one person spoke in support of ‘Moorsyde’.

In fact, in over seven hours of passionate and well-argued speeches, only a single speaker did not speak against one or more of the three local projects. This gentleman, from Newcastle, clearly stated that he was not speaking about the planning applications before the Inspector, but about climate change and its effects on poor countries.

One of the appellants’ advocates, someone who has attended dozens of public inquiries, told us afterwards that it had been the most impressive public day he had ever experienced.

Thank you

The ‘Passionate people, passionate places’ slogan summed up the day. We heard a succession of passionate speeches about our area, its landscape and communities. There were carefully argued planning arguments, but even these were founded on the passionate attachment we all share for our landscape, our heritage and our communities. It was a day that made one proud to be a Northumbrian and a Borderer, to call these speakers our friends and neighbours.

MAG would like to thank all the people who spoke. We would also thank all the people who took time off to attend and show their support for the speakers.

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

* e.g. YEL’s one and only ‘newsletter’, July 2006.

THE FARCE CONTINUES

The vanishing Cheviots.

For four and a half years Your Energy Ltd (YEL) have done everything they can to avoid showing the Cheviots in relation to the ‘Moorsyde’ scheme. In the past, they have achieved this in photomontages by choosing obscured viewpoints and by taking baseline photographs into the sun at midday (see the Shoresdean example, below).

The more suspicious amongst us think that this is not unconnected with planning guidance that refers to protection of key views to the Cheviots.

YEL have now taken this policy to whole new heights - or depths - by producing a series of last minute wireline diagrams for the inquiry, for properties within 1.5km of the site (the nearest properties for which they have in the past refused to produce photomontages). These are constructed using digital terrain mapping software. The wirelines quite deliberately, but without any explanation or warning, exclude Cheviot and Hedgehope, the highest hills in the Cheviot range.

Wireline from Ancroft Northmoor Viewpoint.

This was only revealed when Mike Maud, MAG’s Chairman, questioned the appearance of the wireframes and lack of any viewing distance information.

The company’s landscape witness now tells us that:

... a study area of 40km x 40km centred on the Moorsyde site was used to generate the wireframes, as this was more than sufficient to illustrate the proximity of the turbines to each property. This included the foothills of the Cheviots but not “The Cheviot” which is over 20km from the site; hence the hills on the wireframe from Ancroft North Moor include the foothills but not The Cheviot itself.

Ordinary mortals might consider that the key issue is the relationship of the turbines to the Cheviots as a whole, not just the foothills that happen to fall within an arbitrary, unspecified limit.

THIRD TIME LUCKY?

After serious errors were found in their photomontages, YEL produced a ‘Consolidated Package’ of revised photomontages and wirelines just prior to the Public Inquiry. MAG has since identified more errors in the most important of the photomontages in this package (see below).

The company have now admitted to these errors and have produced a corrected version of their amended photomontage.

This is the third attempt the company have made to produce a photomontage from this viewpoint.

WANDERING TURBINES

1. Part of the original (December 2006) - turbine positions and sizes wrong, blades and Cheviots whited out.

2. Part of the ‘Consolidated’ (April, 2009) version - turbine sizes changed, turbine positions still wrong.

3. Part of the ‘Amended’ (2 June, 2009) version - some turbines moved to more accurate positions.

CONFUSED

In an ‘Explanatory Note’, Ms Hawkins, YEL’s landscape witness, attempted to excuse the errors and bolster the claims to reliability of the ‘Consolidated Package’ photomontages by including a ‘Method statement’ in her evidence which stated:

... in order to accurately camera-match the photographic panoramas with the wireframes and photomontages, the DTM [digital terrain model], Ordnance Survey maps, aerial photographs and additional fieldwork observations and measurements have been used to accurately locate the turbines in relation to topographical and other distinctive features in the view. (MWFL/2/6, Section 2)

It is difficult to see how this statement can be reconciled with the crude locational errors identified and subsequently corrected in the ‘Amended’ version of figure 9b.

TRESPASS

According to the five figure grid references given on the photomontages, the photographs used to construct the panoramic photomontages above were taken when the photographer was trespassing on private land belonging to a MAG supporter.

The landowner, though annoyed by the company’s behaviour, generously decided to grant them retrospective permission for access.

YOUR ENERGY’S MISLEADING PHOTOMONTAGES

For over four years MAG has been telling the planners and the public that Your Energy’s photomontages are grossly misleading.

Now, the company have belatedly submitted a collection of new photomontages (‘Consolidated Package of Visualisations’, March 2009) for the Public Inquiry. These use the same viewpoints and the same baseline photographs as the photomontages submitted with the original planning application.

These new photomontages show that previous photomontages seriously understated the size of turbines and put them in the wrong places, sometimes by hundreds of metres. YEL were still presenting this misleading material as “final, revised Moorsyde photomontages” as recently as February 2009 (and are still, as of 22 June 2009, continuing to offer a number of the old, grossly misleading, photomontages for download from their website.¹

To put it bluntly, YEL misled the planning authority by supplying misleading information on the visual impacts of the ‘Moorsyde’ scheme. It is suspected that new photomontages have only been produced because independent consultants have produced cumulative impact photomontages for the Public Inquiry which have exposed the “errors” in YEL’s existing photomontages and wireframes.

In March 2008, shortly before the ‘Moorsyde’ scheme was turned down by the Local Planning Authority, the Berwick Advertiser published an article titled ‘Visual impact of wind farm plan misleading, claim campaigners’.² This article detailed MAG’s criticisms of the ‘Moorsyde’ visual impact assessment. A spokesperson for Your Energy Ltd dismissed all criticism and stated: “We use a specialist firm to produce our montages, which are consistantly [sic] produced to a high standard and within the concurrent [sic] guidance.”

Bearing this statement in mind, we ask you to check the side-by-side comparisons we have assembled here. These have been produced by editing sections of the original photomontages and the new versions to approximately the same size, so it is possible to compare turbine sizes and positions. We have not altered anything within these images.

Please note that the photomontages used here are from viewpoints on opposite sides of the site. YEL can’t claim that the major increase in the size of turbines is due to a correction in turbine positions - the turbines are markedly larger from both viewpoints. Indeed, the increase in size is obvious in nearly all their new photomontages, even though they continue to use side-on, indistinct images of turbines against whited-out skies that break the SNH best practice guidelines for photomontages.

In the dark

A careful analysis shows that some of the revised ‘revised’ photomontages presented in the ‘Consolidated Package’, which are now being presented as definitive and reliable, still contain obvious errors that the appellant’s experts have not sought to explain or correct.

Some of these may seem like minor points, but they serve to undermine confidence in the accuracy of the information provided. As an example, the baseline image used for the Berrington Lough photomontage has changed turbine distances and the date when the image was taken between the earlier versions and the ‘consolidated’ version.

There is also the mystery of the time of day when it was taken. The consolidated version (Fig 5b) states, "Date and time of photograph: 14/11/05 16.43". The photomontage (FIGURE 5 REV A) from SEI September 2007 (CD7.12) which were supplied by Burges Salmon as “final revised Moorsyde photomontages” in February 2009, states: "Date of photograph: 1st November 2005" and "Time of photograph: 16.43pm". Even with the earlier date, the time stated cannot be right. If you consult sunrise and sunset tables for the location, date and time, Sunset was at 16:28pm and ‘civil twilight’ ended at 17:07pm on 14 November 2005 (the figures are 16:03pm and 16:44pm for 1 November 2005), yet in both cases the image clearly shows the scene in bright, late afternoon sunlight.³

Location, location

There are also continuing problems with the location of turbines in photomontages. The ‘consolidated’ photomontage ‘Figure 9b, viewpoint 11, Allerdean’ (The Plough, West Allerdean), perhaps the most important photomontage in the package, still has obvious, basic errors.⁴ It shows 6 out of 7 turbines in positions that do not accord with the turbine site plan.⁵

This is immediately obvious, even to the untutored eye, when this image is compared with ‘Figure 40.8, Viewpoint 11, West Allerdean - View D’, in Land Use Consultants. ‘Cumulative Landscape and Visual Information, Volume 2. March 2009’ (CD 1.6).⁶

These are not “minor errors”, in the worst case (Turbine 14) it would appear that the photomontage/wireframe location is hundreds of metres adrift from the site plan location.

As far as we can see, only one turbine is correctly positioned in this corrected photomontage which is one of 24 supposedly supplied to remedy the errors discovered in previous photomontages that we have discussed above.

Turbines 9 and 11 (sectional enlargement of Consolidated package image 9b).
T9 is too close to the intervening hedge and too far down the downslope facing the viewpoint. T11 ought to be much further back as is clearly evident from scale of T9.

Turbines 10, 12 and 14 (sectional enlargement of Consolidated package image 9b).

T10 is clearly in the wrong position, according to the submitted site plan - it is close to the lonnen and the wrong side of the north-south hedgeline that is clearly visible in the image.

T12 and T14 are shown on the same east-west axis as turbine 10, just beyond the lonnen, this is clearly wrong as shown by comparative sizes and the comparative positioning of T13 [not shown in this excerpt] which is located between T12 and T14 in terms of distance from the viewpoint.

Wireframe errors.

On several occasions the inquiry has heard from witnesses that the wireframes supplied with photomontages are the important tool for the professional in judging visual impacts. It is worth noting that the wireframe for this viewpoint (‘Figure 9a, viewpoint 11 Allerdean’) is consistent in sharing the same locational errors as the photomontage.

Mistakes matter

In this new photomontage, it is clear to anyone who knows the site plan and the viewpoint that only one turbine is correctly positioned.

It might be thought that this doesn't matter much if the revised sizes of the turbines are now approximately right (which we would not dispute); but, the considerable errors in locations in this image give a misleading impression of the visual impacts, especially for the residents of Ancroft Northmoor. If the turbines are shown much closer, but the correct size, that downplays the visual impact.

It must also be the case that if turbines are not located in the correct positions and on the right height contour then they do not present accurately in relation to the Cheviots, a key issue in assessing the visual impacts of this scheme.

Postscript

MAG has been consistently questioning the quality and accuracy of YEL’s visual impact assessment and its associated visualisations since the planning application was lodged four and a half years ago. Only Ironside Farrar, whose audit of the Environmental Statement was published in November 2006 have recognised the problems. We, and Ironside Farrar, have largely been ignored by Scott Wilson/Ferguson MacIlveen who carried out appraisals that were supposed to examine the adequacy of the VIA.

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

¹Your Energy website
² Berwick Advertiser
³ Calculated using U.S. Naval Observatory Astronomical Applications Department one day calculator using inputs for Berwick).
⁴ Figure 9b (large 2.2Mb PDF file), as supplied by the appellants.
⁵ Turbine site plan.
⁶ Public Inquiry ‘core documents’, available for inspection in the Inquiry Library.

See ‘We Can Do It, Why Can’t They?’, below, for some of our previous criticisms of YEL’s defective visual impact assessessment.
See: ‘Anger at ‘revised’ turbine proposal’, Brian Daniel, The Journal, 15 April 2009.
See also: ‘Berwick wind turbine plan either a blunder or hazard’, Brian Daniel, The Journal, 1 June 2009.

YEL’s STORY

Alexandra Bowers, Your Energy’s Development Manager, states in response to a query about the change in turbine positions in the photomontages: “We have not moved the turbines.” She attaches a document which states:

‘Evidence of Ms Kay Hawkins [YEL’s landscape witness for the Public Inquiry] MWFL/2/6: Consolidated Package - Explanatory Note. March 2009 ’

YEL can’t even be consistent in their failure to present worst case images. Ms Bowers claims, “it is normal practice for turbines in montages to face the same compass direction at all viewpoints, normally towards the prevailing wind direction.” This is immediately disproved in the Berrington Lough photomontage where prevailing wind seems to have changed since 2006. There is, however, one consistent factor in the entire chequered history of YEL’s visualisations that has long been apparent to even the casual viewer: their continual attempts to play down the visual impacts of the scheme.

At the last possible moment (29 April) before the Inquiry began, YEL responded to the chorus of demands for an explanation of the previously unspecified “errors” in the photomontages which were submitted with the planning application. Their landscape witness has provided a ‘Rebuttal proof’ which attempts to explain away the mistakes and qualitative defects of the originals as minor technical details. We would disagree.

“Minor differences”?

Are location changes of several hundred metres and a change in height of up to 50% and scale of up to 30% “minor”? The residents of Grievestead and Berrington Lough certainly don’t think so.

There is also the minor matter that the judgements of everybody from official consultees, the planning officer who recommended approval and the authors of reports that YEL is relying on in its planning evidence to the Public Inquiry, have all been based on misleading information on the visual impacts of the ‘Moorsyde’ scheme.

“FERMAC HAS SPOKEN!”

Part of FerMac’s final,‘ Final Report’ cover (March 2007).

(This photomontage is now acknowledged by the ‘Moorsyde’ appellant’s landscape witness to be the worst of the error-strewn photomontages provided to planning officers. Sadly, FerMac notes, “It was [...] not found necessary to comment on this photomontage”).

FLAWED EVIDENCE

When MAG received the the ‘Moorsyde’ appellant’s planning evidence for the Public Inquiry we were surprised to see that they were still relying heavily on ‘FerMac’, Scott Wilson and the Officer’s Report.

All of these are deeply flawed and had been the subject of serious criticism even before YEL finally admitted to the errors in their visualisations which had misled planning officers and others.*

Disowned but not withdrawn

A little over a week after the abortive planning meeting on 12 December 2006 that was supposed to decide the 'Moorsyde' application, Scott Wilson/Ferguson McIlveen wrote a letter to the Berwick planners making excuses for their 'FerMac' report (Ferguson McIlveen. 'Moorsyde Wind Farm Planning and Visual Impact Appraisal, Revised Draft, November 2006').

The report consists of a rudimentary review of some of the planning policy with reference to the application and a brief review of some of the photomontages. Comments were based on an "independent fieldwork assessment" which consisted of a single visit to the site area.

This is a report that MAG only managed to get after 5 written requests and a Freedom of Information Act submission. The Borough had first assured us that a "Final Draft", dated "October 2006", which appeared on the public file in late November 2006 was the final report, stating: "[we] checked that the report in the public file is the final version. It is however entitled "draft final report", which both we and they [Ferguson McIlveen] accept should simply state 'final'." The Borough, and the report's authors, seem not to have noticed that this report referred throughout to 14 turbines when the scheme had been amended to 10 turbines in July 2006.

In January 2007, the Borough reluctantly supplied MAG with a "Revised Draft" of the report dated "November 2006" which had corrected the numbers of turbines but still managed to get things like the date of the 'Moorsyde' planning application, the capacity of the revised proposal and the names of local villages wrong. We were assured by the Borough Solicitor that this was the 'Final Report'. However, the report was only finally 'finalised' in March 2007 when Ferguson McIlveen/Scott Wilson rewrote the introduction to try to justify their handiwork.

The final 'Final Report' still contains the ludicrous and unevidenced "initial thoughts" of its authors that: "It is considered that 2-3 medium sized wind farms (up to 15 turbines each) could be accommodated within the landscape of the wider Berwick-upon-Tweed area." The report's authors were, of course, labouring under the misapprehension that the 'Moorsyde' proposal was for 14 turbines, and their "thoughts" fit that figure nicely.

Half of the 'FerMac' report is a "planning appraisal" of the application. The rigour and accuracy of this is revealed in its authors' misinterpretation of Policy 42 of the RSS Draft Submission regarding capacity. This misinterpretation, shared by Your Energy Ltd. and the detached case officer in Darlington, had already been explicitly contradicted by the findings of the Examination in Public of the RSS that were published by the North East Assembly in July 2006:

"some renewable energy companies believed that this policy [42b] implied that the designated areas could accommodate a number of 'medium scale' developments ... the definition of medium scale set out in paragraph 3.141 (20-25 turbines) and carried forward into Policy 42 related to the total capacity of an area and should not be regarded as an appropriate scale for individual proposals."
(NEA. 'RSS Examination in Public March-April 2006, Panel Report, July 2006').

So, FerMac's findings directly contradict the Regional Spatial Strategy and, more recently, the findings of the Arup Report which set an overall limit of 15 turbines and a maximum individual proposal size of 6 turbines.

It seems astonishing that professional consultants can, in a report that sets out to review planning policy affecting the proposal, come up with such a result.

The letter from the authors of the 'FerMac' report effectively disowns it - see the second paragraph:

"As you are aware, we were required "check" the validity of the both the [sic] Farrar report [Ironside Farrar's Audit Report on the Moorsyde Environmental Statement] and the original landscape impact elements of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and as an outcome of this we endorsed some of the comments on landscape impact or visibility , and queried others, recommending production of additional photomontages. Hence that section of our report [Ferguson McIlveen Report, Final Draft, November 2006] was called a "visual impact audit" and contrary to what Dickinson Dees [MAG's solicitors] state, it does not "purport to constitute a visual impact assessment." Indeed, a full Visual Impact assessment would have been unwarrented considering the existence of the two previous reports. Accordingly our report is quite short because it is effectively an "assessment of an assessment." By contrast you will find that our report on the Barmoor application is more substantial.

"Nonetheless we have to say that had we been made aware as soon as the amended scheme (from 14 to 10 turbines) had been received, the likelihood is that we would have recommended a full re-assessment (visual impact assessment, photomontages, ZVIs [zones of visual influence] etc). Learning of this change only after we had produced our report has left us in a somewhat invidious position."
(Letter from Scott Wilson (Incorporating Ferguson McIlveen) to John Hayward, Head of Development Services, Berwick Borough Council. 22 December 2006).

It has to be asked why Scott Wilson did not demand "a full re-assessment" when there was a second amendment to the scheme.

The evidence for approval

In spite of the fact that the authors of 'FerMac' were trying to distance themselves from their own report, the consultant at BHP in Darlington, appointed to act as case officer for all wind power station applications in the Borough, admitted that he had recommended approval of the 'Moorsyde' scheme on the basis of this discredited document. He admitted that he had done this without properly studying the Ironside Farrar Audit Report on the 'Moorsyde' Environmental Statement which 'FerMac' claimed to build on. The Ironside Farrar report contains major criticisms of the way the visual impact assessment was handled by the applicants and underlines the major adverse visual impacts of the scheme.

The 'FerMac' report states: "The findings of the Ironside Farrar audit in relation to the Baseline Conditions are, in our opinion, correct.", and continues, "The findings of the Ironside Farrar audit in relation to the description of the Predicted Impacts are also, in our opinion, correct."

The 'FerMac' report states that its authors agree with Ironside Farrar, but then contradicts itself by concluding with unsupported recommendations that are totally at variance with those of Ironside Farrar, a report that they claim to uncritically accept.

Unfortunately, the detached case officer relied on the unevidenced conclusions of the discredited FerMac report when he recommended the approval of the Moorsyde scheme, and failed to consider the conclusions of the Ironside Farrar report or the detail of the applicant's own Moorsyde Environmental Statement, claiming:

"My understanding had been that the FerMac report was requested to address issues arising from the Ironside Farrar report and that it had done so. In preparing my report back in November, and owing to time constraints, I had concentrated on the FerMac report as regards visual impact and had only skimmed the IF [Ironside Farrar] report."

"This had led me to the conclusions as previously stated when I considered that the application could be taken forward to determination with a favourable recommendation." (Our emphasis).
(Email from Rod Hepplewhite, Blackett Hart & Pratt LLP, Darlington [case officer for all Borough wind power applications] to Liam Henry, Borough Solicitor, 25 January 2007.)

Disturbingly, as late as 28 June 2007, in spite of all the evidence to the contrary, the detached case officer was still continuing the Borough's attempts to discredit Arup and was claiming that the 'FerMac' report should be given more weight than the Arup report:

"I think we will have to be very careful in deciding what weight to place on the Arup report, Scott Wilson is likely to be more significant and they have already spoken on Moorsyde!"
(Email from Rod Hepplewhite, Blackett Hart & Pratt LLP, Darlington [acting as case officer for all Borough wind power station applications] to Joan Rees, consultant acting as Development Services Manager, 28 June 2007.)

Still in the game

MAG was very concerned that the ‘FerMac’ report continued to be used as the keystone of the so-called visual impact assessment of the 'Moorsyde' application. From the evidence of the case files, the consultant acting as case officer continued to ignore Ironside Farrar’s independent Audit Report, the Arup report and, indeed, the evidence on visual impacts in the applicant’s own Environmental Statement.

The consultant’s reaction to Northumberland County Council's (NCC) response to the belated consultation on the July 2006 amendment to the ‘Moorsyde’ scheme to 10 turbines is all too typical. This was written prior to the Arup report which states (section 5.5) that, in just 2 other potential ‘W’ areas in Northumberland, there are at least 31 places in which wind farms would cause less visual blight than in the South and West Berwick area and which found that the area could accept a maximum of 10 to 15 turbines:

"I also note form [sic] recent emails that the County Council are still being awkward - however the issues they still raise have been addressed and both John Hayward [former Development Services Manager] and I were and still are happy with regard to the photomontages and visual/landscape impact."
(Email from Rod Hepplewhite, Blackett Hart & Pratt LLP, Darlington [acting as case officer for all Borough wind power station applications] to John Hiscox, planning officer, Berwick , 24 January 2007.)

NCC's response seems to have upset the consultant because it again recommmended refusal unless the proposal could be shown to accord with Policy M4 of the Structure Plan:

“To advise Berwick-upon-Tweed Borough Council that planning permission should not be granted unless it has been demonstrated to their reasonable satisfaction that:

1. having regard to Policy M4 of the Structure Plan, the scale of development proposed and its proximity to nearby dwellings would not result in significant and adverse impacts arising in terms of its effect on landscape character and capacity, visual amenity and living conditions nearby;”

The photomontages that the detached case officer was so happy with were the subject severe criticism in the independent Audit report by Ironside Farrar which complained of unrepresentative viewpoints, "obscured or partial views" and a size that is, “well below that recommended by the SNH guidance”, and which,“does not yield an accurate impression of scale”. Ironside Farrar also criticised the Environmental Statement (ES) for its visual impact conclusions and recommendations:

The conclusions are very misleading, i.e. that there are major landscape and visual impacts that cannot be mitigated. The emphasis is on how the landscape can accommodate the proposals and how distance will reduce impacts to negligible levels. (Ironside Farrar, 3.5.2).

Exactly the same criticism can be levelled at the Officer’s Report to the planning committee in December 2006, where the detached case officer misrepresents the RSS, misquotes Arup, uses blatantly incorrect information on turbine distances that is not in any of the application documents, misrepresents consultation responses from tourist bodies and even downplays the findings on visual impacts on local communities in the applicant’s own ‘Moorsyde’ ES!

MAG subsequently (December, 2007) submitted an analysis of Scott Wilson’s ‘ Moorsyde Wind Farm Addendum: Issue Report, August 2007’ to the planning authority (see the Planning Response page). Though it is doubtful whether anybody ever bothered to read it.

This and all MAG’s other detailed submissions were last seen jammed in the back of the written response file, and most seem to be missing from even that file as submitted to the Public Inquiry.

1. Ironside Farrar. 'Moorsyde Windfarm ES Audit Report, Final Draft (November 2005)'.(Word doc.).
2. 'Fermac' Report, 'Revised Draft' (November 2006). (PDF file).
3. 'Fermac' Report, 'Final Report' (March 2007). (PDF file).
4. 'Moorsyde Wind Farm Addendum: Issue Report, August 2007'. (PDF file).

WE CAN DO IT, WHY CAN'T THEY?

[This was written in March 2008]

Ancroft Southmoor is one of the closest settlements to the proposed ‘Moorsyde’ array of 110m (360 ft) turbines. Your Energy Ltd (YEL) have failed to provide a photomontage from this settlement.

© 2008 Don Brownlow Photography
'Moorsyde' from Ancroft Southmoor, an artist's impression.

('Stitched' image using 5 full height images [joins marked], using Canon Eos 5D DSLR camera and 55mm lens. Turbines scaled to measured landscape features).

YEL have also failed to provide photomontages to illustrate the impacts on the other settlements that are closest to the site: Ancroft North Moor, East Allerdean and Felkington. They have also failed to show the impacts on Duddo Tower (a Scheduled Ancient Monument and key local landscape feature) and Duddo Church (Grade II listed and very close to turbine sites). They have also failed to supply any photomontages to demonstrate the impacts on users of the B6354, Berwick to Etal road, as requested early in the planning process by Northumberland County Council.

(See The Journal, 18 March [2008], for an article on Ancroft Southmoor. Reg and Tamsin Watson's plight was also featured on BBC Radio - 7 min 45 sec in).

THE ‘EMPEROR’S NEW CLOTHES’

(Your Energy’s Visual Impact Assessment).

Your Energy Ltd (YEL), over 3 years after the first version of the “Moorsyde” application was submitted, have failed to carry out an adequate visual impact assessment, as demanded by planning guidelines.

An independent audit of the ‘Moorsyde’ Environmental Statement commissioned by the Borough from consultants Ironside Farrar in 2005 supported us in our original critique of the application, finding that:

"Guidance recommends that chosen viewpoints should be of both key locations and representative locations and that limited value is gained from repeated displays of obscured views" (IF 3.3.2).

This report also criticised the contradictory conclusions in the very limited visual impact work that YEL carried out and also criticised the accuracy and scope of the cumulation work they had undertaken.

After the Audit Report, there were further criticisms from Ferguson McIlveen in 2006; this report was a very limited appraisal of the visual assessment which suggested that more relevant photomontages needed to be prepared and also suggested that further work on cumulation and landscape capacity needed to be done.

The applicant reluctantly supplied a few more photomontages, most of which were not from key viewpoints or from what are now the closest receptors. All their photomontages continued to break the SNH guidelines on size and quality.

Further revisions of the application have rendered the few visualisations within 3km of the turbine positions even less relevant.

Despite repeated criticisms of the gaping holes in the visual impact assessment, the Borough propose judging the ‘Moorsyde’ application on the basis of a number of photomontages that:

• do not show the impacts on the closest receptors;

• with a single exception, do not show impacts on “key views” to the Cheviots, which planning policies demand are safeguarded (the single exception is of such poor quality that it fails to show either turbines or hills with any clarity);

• do not show the impacts on Duddo Tower, a Scheduled Ancient Monument within 2.5km of turbines;

• do not show the impacts on Duddo Church, a Grade II listed building very close to the site;

• do not meet the minimum technical standards set out in the guidelines;

• are of such poor quality that it is not possible to see many of the turbines they purport to show, and

• do not meet the ‘worst case’ requirements set out in the guidelines.

YOUR ENERGY'S DODGY PHOTOMONTAGES

[This was written in 2007 and revised in March 2008]

Your Energy Ltd. (YEL), reference guidelines in their ‘Moorsyde’ Environmental Statement for the production of photomontages and for the assessment of visual impacts which are produced by Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) and the University of Newcastle. These are the industry's standard. YEL then produce photomontages such as the one below (downloadable from YEL's website) that break every single referenced guideline.

Copyright Your Energy Ltd.

Failure to meet technical standards.

The SNH guidelines referenced by YEL state that:

• The limitations of photomontage should be recognised and acknowledged, especially a tendency for photomontage to consistently underestimate the actual appearance of a windfarm in the landscape

• A natural viewing distance of 30-50 cm should dictate the technical detail of their production

• A full image size of A4 or even A3 for a single frame picture, giving an image height of approximately 20 cm is required to give a realistic impression of reality. [our emphasis]

The photomontage above is 8cm in height and uses - entirely unecessarily - multiple stitched images to form a wide panoramic image. You will see that the highlighted section is the only bit of the image with turbines.

Note that this photomontage uses houses in the foreground to mask and diminish the scale of turbines. In fact, two turbines cannot be seen because of the house on the left hand side. YEL could have used any number of different viewpoints that give an unobscured view of the site. The independent Audit Report commissioned by the Borough noted that, "limited value is gained from repeated displays of obscured views."

SNH guidelines also state that:

“The quality of photographs and photomontages is very important. Photographic work should be carried out in good weather conditions, offering clear visibility. The worst case scenario of turbines seen against a strongly contrasting sky (e.g. Bright blue or dark grey) should always be shown.”

Nearly every single one of YEL's photomontages fails to meet this requirement. They also break the rules by not presenting a ‘worst case’ view of a turbines face-on to the viewer. In YEL’s photomontages, the closer the turbine is to the viewpoint, the more likely it is to be shown side-on.

THE EMPEROR’S NEW CLOTHES

Invisible Hills.

You might have noticed that the Cheviots have ‘disappeared’ in the Shoresdean photomontage. The base photo was taken into the glare of the sun at midday with the result that the hills are almost invisible.

The more suspicious among you might possibly think that this is not unconnected with planning guidance that appears in everything from landscape appraisals to local and regional planning documents; all refer to the protection of views to the Cheviots.

For example: “In the north of the Borough turbines should be sited so as not to impinge on principle [sic] views of the Cheviots.” (Regional Renewable Energy Strategy); “Development should not impinge on key views where the distant rounded hills (The Cheviots) form a dominant focus.” (Newcastle University Landscape Appraisal); ) “...The area’s simple undulating form…allows fine views across to the Cheviots from the network of straight roads.” (Arup Report); “the intention will be to ensure that development proposals will not have a detrimental impact on the long range views important to the character and quality of the Borough landscape.” (Local Plan).

Invisible turbines.

At MAG’s fete we held a ‘spot the turbine’ competition to find the turbines listed in 3 of YEL’s photomontages. Nobody succeeded in claiming a £5 reward despite the provision of magnifying glasses and other visual aids.

MISLEADING PLANNERS AND PUBLIC

Both the images below have been taken with a standard camera lens. The top image shows how developers use multiple images stitched together to produce wide angle images that understate the visual impact of turbines. Your Energy Ltd. have done exactly this with the 'Moorsyde' photomontages.

The second image shows a single image reproduced to the same recommended A3 size. Remember: “A full image size of A4 or even A3 for a single frame picture, giving an image height of approximately 20 cm, is required to give a realistic impression” [Our emphasis].

See: 'The Visual Issue' - Architech Animation Studios (UK) Ltd. (April, 2007) for a full explanation (PDF download).

© Architec Animation Studios Ltd.

Independent Audit Report criticises ‘Moorsyde’ images.

An independent Audit report on the ‘Moorsyde’ Environmental statement by environmental consultants Ironside Farrar stated, “Guidance recommends that chosen viewpoints should be of both key locations and representative locations and that limited value is gained from repeated displays of obscured views” (IF 3.3.2).

We can do it, why can’t they?

MAG, a community response group depending on donations from local people, can manage to produce clear photomontages that meet the guidelines. Why can’t YEL?

© 2005 Don Brownlow Photography.
'Moorsyde' scheme from the Plough Inn, West Allerdean.

(Artist’s impression using single, cropped background image, taken with 6 x 7 cm SLR camera using standard 105mm f/2.4 lens with a 46° angle of view. The 110 metre (360 ft.) turbines are scaled to measured landscape features.

Consultants ‘borrow’ our images

The lack of clear images of the 'Moorsyde' scheme in the application documents is demonstrated by the fact that Scott Wilson ‘borrowed’ MAG’s photomontage for the cover of their ‘Moorsyde Wind Farm - Addendum: Issue Report’.

They have since issued a written apology and compensated MAG for the unauthorised use of this image.

THE TRUTH ABOUT TURBINE HEIGHTS

[This was written in December 2007]

SOUL (Save Our Unspoilt Landscape, the Barmoor Anti Wind Farm Group) and MAG got together on Tuesday 11 December [2007] to fly three large blimps in order to demonstrate to members of Berwick Borough Council's planning committee the height of turbines at the three wind farm sites in the north of the Borough.

© 2007 Don Brownlow Photography
Dawn launch next to 'Moorsyde' site.

Members of the planning committee were undertaking a site visit to the area of all three proposals. The 'Moorsyde' scheme is for seven 110 metre (360 ft.) turbines on both sides of the Etal road between the Plough Inn at West Allerdean and Duddo; Toft Hill would see seven 112 metre (367 ft.) turbines between Grindon and Shellacres; the Barmoor proposal is for six 110.5 metre (362 ft.) turbines in the area between Barmoor Castle and Roughting Linn.

© Crown copyright 2005.
Reproduced from OS 1:250 000 mapping (Licence No. 100044197).
1 grid square = 10 kilometres.

We thought it important that Members and Officers of the Council had an opportunity judge the height of turbines from something else than photomontages. Best practice guidance on visual impact assessment states: “The limitations of photomontage should be recognised and acknowledged, especially a tendency for photomontage to consistently underestimate the actual appearance of a windfarm in the landscape”. (See article below).

© 2007 Don Brownlow Photography
‘Moorsyde’ blimp from the Plough Inn, looking south to Ancroft Northmoor and the Cheviots. The blimp was flown from a site 400m. east of the actual turbine sites and close to the average height above sea level of the actual turbine positions (and several metres lower than the higher ones).

It took considerable effort to book the blimps, arrange permissions from the authorities to fly three blimps at very short notice and arrange for their safe launching and security, but we were heartened by the numbers of local people who volunteered their time and money to make it possible. We are especially grateful to the local farmers who made it possible to fly from their land, close to the actual turbine sites. Developers make it legally impossible for turbine site landowners to agree to blimps being flown from the actual turbine sites; they think that showing the real height of modern industrial turbines is damaging to the prospects of an application!

Developers are required to undertake Environmental Impact Assessments. The more naive amongst us might think that they ought to be required to fly balloons from the actual turbine sites. This would help the planning authority and the public to judge the potential visual impacts in the real landscape rather than from artificial constructs such as photomontages which need expert interpretation and which are known to understate the impacts.

That this is so is shown by the fact that the case officer who was accompanying members attempted to cast doubt on the height of the ‘Moorsyde’ blimp, not understanding that YEL’s photomontages are of particularly poor quality and severely understate the visual impacts unless held at an unfeasibly close viewing distance, at which it is impossible for the average person to focus! He thought the Toft Hill blimp looked “about right” - probably because their photomontages are of much higher quality than YEL’s!

Case Officer admits ignorance of SNH guidelines.

Astonishingly, the detached 'Moorsyde' case officer, who prepared the Officer's Report for the abortive 12 December planning meeting, has admitted to his ignorance of the SNH guidelines which are the industry standard for visual impact assessment and the preparation of photomontages. They are referenced as such by Jacobs Babtie who prepared the Moorsyde ES (even though they then proceeded to ignore them!).

In an email to an officer at the Berwick planning unit he writes:

“... the SNH guidelines mentioned by Babtie (Glasgow based consultants) [Your Energy's consultants for ‘Moorsyde’] are, I presume, referring to ‘Scottish National Heritage’ - if so, what relevance to [sic] they have for Berwick-upon-Tweed? (If SNH means something else, please advise as the initials do not mean anything else to me.)”

(Email from Rod Hepplewhite, Blackett Hart & Pratt LLP, Darlington; 29 January 2007. Copy in 'Moorsyde' case file).

© 2007 John Ferguson
‘Moorsyde’ blimp from Coldharbour, looking NNW over Bowsden Moor to Shoresdean and Old Shoreswood.

Both groups have flown balloons on previous occasions but this is the first time that we have got together to fly several balloons at the same time.

© 2007 Don Brownlow Photography
Toft Hill blimp with some of the launch crew.

A spokesman for SOUL said: “The very short warning we had of the site visit prevented us from flying the Barmoor blimp as close to the turbine sites as we would have liked, but we hope that Councillors will get an idea of the scale of turbines in this unspoilt landscape.”

© Don Brownlow Photography
Barmoor blimp with some of the SOUL crew.

Both groups made every effort to ensure that Councillors were not disturbed on their visit. We did not publicise the visit or the balloon flights in advance, fearing that some of the people whose lives and property have been blighted by these applications might seek to voice their anger directly to Councillors while they were trying to go about their work.

All three blimps were flown again on Saturday 15 December. Unfortunately, visibility was fairly poor.

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

Clarification

Mr Rod Hepplewhite no longer works for BHP.

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 appealed proposals would be unacceptable under Scottish guidance.

There is no up-to-date guidance on separation distances in England and Wales, where ministers repeatedly state in answer to written questions that it is up to local planning authorities to protect residential amenity. Unfortunately, when they do so they frequently see their decisions overturned at appeal or by ministerial fiat.

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:

Crystal Rig warning sign.
© 2008 Don Brownlow Photography.

            2003 - ‘AREA OF GREAT LANDSCAPE VALUE’ (AGLV).
            2008 - ‘WINDFARM LANDSCAPE’.

© 2008 Don Brownlow Photography.
One of sixteen 125m turbines being built at Aikengall, Nr. Oldhamstocks, Lammermuir Hills. Looking towards Fast Castle Head.
Enlarged section of the image shows workmen in the nacelle; the fluorescent green dots at the base of the turbine are more workmen.

The 16 turbines at Aikengall were consented against the Planning Officer's advice on the casting vote of the Convenor of E. Lothian Planning Committee. The site is next to the original 25 Crystal Rig turbines (100m) that we can see from the ‘Moorsyde’ site area, 35 km away. Another 61 turbines (110m and 125m) are under construction on extensions to the Crystal Rig site.

Before the Aikengall turbines had even been completed the developers were proposing an ‘expansion’ of thirty more 125m turbines! As this proposal is over 50MW capacity, they will not need to trouble the local planning authority - it will go to the Scottish Executive for a ‘Section 36’ decision.

There are now 124 turbines built or consented in the Lammermuirs with a decision on another 48 awaited after the Fallago Rig public inquiry.

All of them are being built in an Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV) and on peatlands which are nature's carbon sink. Calculations for a 2MW turbine built on peat moorland 1 metre deep vary from 8 to 16 years to pay back its CO2 cost. The latter figure exceeds the normal life of industrial turbines that are currently being constructed.

Another 61 turbines are operating or consented at Dun Law (Soutra) with applications in for another 15 close by. With a huge capacity of intermittent wind power generation consented in Southern Scotland, some power engineers are questioning the capacity of the the grid to handle the erratic and intermittent power surges that will result when all this consented capacity is built.

The ‘developer led’ free-for-all, with politicians holding the ring, means that engineers have had little say beyond trying to reverse engineer the supply system to cope with large concentrations of intermittent electricity generators. The experience of other countries suggests that there will be major problems with stability of supply when all this wind build comes on stream (see the Windpower page).

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

(See the Windbyte website - ‘Tracking the Klondike Wind rush in NE England & SE Scotland’.
See also, ‘Hot Air and Low wind speeds’, below, which discusses the problem of wind power generation in lowland, low wind, populated areas.
See also, ‘The Hidden cost of Wind Power’, below, on the costs of trying to strengthen the grid to cope with wind power generation.)

‘GENTLE FOOTPRINT’ OR JACKBOOT?

SNH Windfarms in Scotland (April 2008). Footprint map.
(NB This is a very large (8Mb) PDF download)
© Crown Copyright 2008. (Licence no. 100017908, SNH).

“... 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.

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:

© Danish Energy Authority.

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

MGT Power. ‘Biomass Power Station, Teesport: Final Scoping Report’, April 2008.
Danish Energy Authority website.

‘SOLAR POWER SHOULD REPLACE WIND ENERGY, SAYS JACK STEINBERGER’

The Times, 27 May, 2009

Europe should scrap its support for wind energy as soon as possible to focus on far more efficient emerging forms of clean power generation including solar thermal energy, one of the world’s most distinguished scientists said yesterday.

Professor Jack Steinberger, a Nobel prize-winning director of the CERN particle physics laboratory in Geneva, said that wind represented an illusory technology — a cul-de-sac that would prove uneconomic and a waste of resources in the battle against climate change.

“Wind is not the future,” he told the symposium of Nobel laureates at the Royal Society. Instead, he said, technologies such as solar thermal power — for which parabolic mirrors reflect the Sun’s rays to generate heat and electricity — represent a more promising way of supplanting fossil fuels. “I am certain that the energy of the future is going to be thermal solar,” he told The Times. “There is nothing comparable. The sooner we focus on it the better.”

[...]

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

See Times article

‘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 WaldermannSpiegel 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’

LORDS ECONOMIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE QUESTIONS DASH FOR WIND

The Government’s efforts to meet its EU 2020 renewable energy targets, even if successful, may encourage the UK to adopt an unnecessarily costly and risky approach to reducing carbon emissions, according to the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee.

In its Report, ‘The Economics of Renewable Energy’, the Committee accepts that the Government has committed the UK to increasing its use of renewable energy and does not propose that they go back on that, although it is sceptical as to whether the proposed EU target for the UK, of 15% renewables by 2020, can be met. It also cautions that an over-reliance on intermittent power generation, in pursuit of the target, could prove both costly and risky.

The Committee understands that for the Government to meet its EU target, under current policies the share of electricity generated from renewable sources would need to rise from 5-6% to 30-40%. It calculates that the higher costs associated with renewable generation, in comparison to conventional or nuclear, would increase electricity generation and transmission costs by £6.8bn a year, or 38%. This translates into an £80 annual fuel bill increase for the average household.

The Committee also raises concerns about security of supply. The report points out that the scope for significant increases in the most reliable sources of renewable electricity supply - hydro-electric, domestically produced biomass and solar - is limited in the UK and that we have little experience of tidal barrages or wave. This leaves wind turbines, in particular, as the most readily available source of increases in renewable electricity. But the turbines only operate intermittently, when the wind blows, and cannot be relied upon to generate electricity when it is needed. Meeting the Government's targets is likely to result in a dependence on intermittent renewables for electricity supply unprecedented in Europe.

Because of intermittency, a significantly greater capacity of wind based generation is needed than for conventional or nuclear generation for any given output of electricity. Furthermore, without major technological advances in electricity storage and increased interconnection between the UK and Continental grids, renewable generation will have to be backed up with conventional generating capacity to guarantee undisrupted supply. The Committee argues that wind generation should be seen largely as additional capacity, rather than a substitute for the substantial number of old coal and nuclear plants which are scheduled to be replaced by 2020.

Based on the costs and difficulties the Committee identifies in achieving rapid expansion of reliable, renewable electricity generation, the report calls on the Government to give a firm lead in maintaining a stable investment environment for alternative forms of low carbon power generation. The Committee points out that nuclear energy presents a viable, low-carbon alternative that is not intermittent and can be produced at a significantly lower cost than renewable energy; and that fossil fuel generation with carbon capture and storage, if and when it becomes available, could be another option. The report argues that it is important that:
“Incentives to promote those renewables which offer only intermittent supply do not divert attention from, and deter investment in other low carbon generation options and thereby risk power shortages...the most reliable low-carbon alternative to renewables is nuclear power.”

The Committee goes on to consider the possibility of renewable heat providing a greater contribution to increasing the UK's level of renewable energy usage. It points out that 2/5th of the UK's energy usage goes on heat as opposed to only 1/5th on electricity. The Committee argues that some options for renewable heat such as biomass and heat pumps can be cheaper than renewable electricity and do not suffer the same risks of intermittency of supply. The report calls on the Government to put as least as much emphasis on encouraging the development and use of renewable heat as they do on renewable electricity generation.

Other recommendations in the report include:

• The Government should not seek to increase the use of biofuels until the costs of carbon abatement associated with its use as an alternative energy supply are reduced.
• The Government should consider establishing a substantial annual prize for the best technological contribution to producing economical renewable energy and promote research into electricity storage technologies to overcome the problems associated with intermittency.

Commenting, Lord Vallance, Chairman of the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee, said:

“We accept that the UK Government, along with others, must take steps to reduce carbon emissions. However we are concerned that the dash to meet the EU's 2020 targets may draw attention and investment away from cheaper and more reliable low carbon electricity generation - such as nuclear and, potentially, fossil fuels with carbon capture and storage. Equally, the Government's focus on renewable electricity generation should not be allowed to overshadow other, more promising roles for renewable energy, such as renewable heat.”

“The UK is most likely to adopt wind power as its main means of producing more renewable electricity. This has an inherent weakness in that it cannot be relied upon to generate electricity at the time it is needed. Current policies would take the UK into uncharted territory, with a dependence on intermittent supply unprecedented elsewhere in Europe. To guard against power shortages, wind turbines would need to be backed up with conventional generation. Together with the requirement to replace almost a quarter of the UK's older generating capacity by 2020, this represents a massive investment programme. Whether it is achievable in the time available is open to doubt.

“In addition, the Government should not allow its pursuit of the immediate 2020 target to take its eye off the longer term. Much more research needs to go into more effective and economical forms of renewable energy, and into electricity storage technologies which could mitigate the inherent problems associated with intermittent supply.”

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

For full report, see: House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee, ‘The Economics of Renewable Energy’, (HL Paper No. 195-I), 12 November 2008.

A press release and video of the press conference is available on the Economic Affairs Committee News page.

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.

REPORT EXPOSES INFLATED JOB CLAIMS

A report for the British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) by Bain & Company seriously undermines claims that ministers and the industry have been making for the numbers of jobs that would be created by wind power station construction.

Ed Miliband, Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, said very recently that the offshore wind sector alone had “the potential to provide up to 70,000 new, green jobs” in the next decade. The Government’s Renewable Energy Strategy, published this summer, claimed it would create 160,000 new jobs by 2020.

The new study predicts that only 36,000 jobs would be created in the wind sector. Considering the scale of the proposed wind build, its effectiveness and costs, in subsidies and infrastructure costs, this is probably the most ineffective and expensive job creation scheme in British history.

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.

Once a power station, always a power station.

‘WIND POWER EXPOSED; THE RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCE IS EXPENSIVE, UNRELIABLE AND WON’T SAVE NATURAL GAS’

‘ ... wind infrastructure has come at a steep price. In fiscal year 2007-08 U.K. electricity customers were forced to pay a total of over $1 billion to the owners of wind turbines. That figure is due to rise to over $6 billion a year by 2020 given the government's unprecedented plan to build a nationwide infrastructure with some 25 gigawatts of wind capacity, in a bid to shift away from fossil fuel use.

Ofgem, which regulates the U.K.'s electricity and gas markets, has already expressed its concern at the burgeoning tab being picked up by the British taxpayer which, they claim, is “grossly distorting the market” while hiding the real cost of wind power. In the past year alone, prices for electricity and natural gas in the U.K. have risen twice as fast as the European Union average according to figures released in November by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. While 15 percent energy price rises were experienced across the E.U., in the U.K. gas and electricity prices rose by a staggering 29.7 percent. Ofgem believes wind subsidy has been a prime factor and questions the logic when, for all the public investment, wind produces a mere 1.3 percent of the UK's energy needs.’

© Energy Tribune

WIND FARMS FAIL TO DELIVER

‘Wind farms are failing to deliver value for money and distorting the development of other renewable energy sources, a report claims.’

Patrick Sawyer, The Telegraph, 14 Sep 2008.

‘Excessive subsidies make them an expensive and inefficient way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, a study by the Renewable Energy Foundation (REF) think-tank says.’

‘The report comes amid mounting disquiet over the number of wind farms planned for Britain.’

‘Energy companies want to erect more than 3,000 turbines over the next five years, leading to fears that hundreds of acres of rural landscape will be blighted.’ [Thousands of square miles: the ‘Moorsyde’ site alone (7 turbines) covers 300 acres. Ed.]

‘Critics insist that wind energy is too inefficient to replace the creaking network of fossil fuel power stations. Even with modern turbines, wind farms are unable to operate at full capacity because of the unreliable nature of Britain's wind.’

‘The industry admits that for up to 30 per cent of the time, turbines are idle because wind speeds are either too low to turn the blades, or too high, risking damage to the machines.’

[...]

‘Critics have estimated that by 2020 the cost of the Renewables Obligation could rise to more than £3 billion.’

‘The Department of Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform is reassessing the Renewables Obligation scheme. Proposed changes could mean that bands are introduced for different sources of renewable energy.’

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

(Christopher Booker, ‘Windfarms: One of the great deceptions of our time’, Telegraph, 13 September, 2008.
John Constable (REF) and Bob Barfoot (CPRE), ‘UK Renewables Subsidies: A Simple Description and Commentary’, Renewable Energy Foundation (REF), 5 September 2008 [PDF File].
Renewable Energy Foundation website.)

‘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).

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

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.

‘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.
See also: Simon Cox, ‘When the wind doesn’t blow’, BBC News Magazine, 5 September 2008).

‘MINISTERS IN POWER STRUGGLE OVER POWER’

Christopher Booker focuses on the politics of the UK energy crisis.

‘IS WIND POWER A REALISTIC SOLUTION TO OUR ENERGY WOES?’

Money Week, 4 July 2008.

Engineer Jim Oswald told the Energy Tribune that relying on wind power would result in major power failures across the UK and up to 50% increases in electricity bills ... Demark is the world’s most wind-intensive state with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity. ... Not one conventional power plant has been closed in the period that Danish wind farms have been developed. In fact, the Danish grid used 50% more coal-generated electricity in 2006 than in 2005 to cover wind’s failings. The quick ramping up and down of those plants has increased their pollution and carbon dioxide output – carbon emissions rose 36% in 2006.

‘Why the scramble for wind power?’

‘Pressure from Europe. Last year, Britain made a commitment to meet 15% of its total energy consumption from renewable energy by 2020. But with all but one of the UK’s ten remaining nuclear stations facing closure over the next 15 years, Britain will also have to replace 40% of its generating capacity over the next six to eight years.’

‘So the Government is hoping to stave off blackouts by boosting British wind generation from four gigawatts (GW) to 25GW, doubling the entire current global fleet of wind turbines in the process. Prime Minister Gordon Brown said his ambition is to build a wind industry that would be “the equivalent for wind power of what the Gulf of Arabia is for the oil industry”.’

Wind power: what does the plan entail?

‘The centrepiece of the Renewable Energy Strategy is a plan to build 7,000 new wind turbines over the next 12 years; 4,000 to be located off the coast and 3,000 more dotted around the country. The 4,000 offshore turbines, each the size of Blackpool Tower, will have to be lowered into the seabed at a rate of more than one every working day between now and 2020 – that’s a turbine for every half mile of coastline. More than £100bn will need to be invested for the plan to come to fruition.’

‘Wind power: how will it be paid for?’

‘To come up with that £100bn, the Government is laying out a slew of incentives to the private sector. So far, the main mechanism for encouraging wind generation has been through subsidies. Under the Renewables Obligation scheme, electricity suppliers are obliged to buy a set percentage of renewably generated electricity each year. In 2004/05, this stood at 4.9% of the electricity they generated, but this will rise to 10% by 2010. This allows wind farm developers to sell the electricity they generate at double the market price.’

But the extra cost will ultimately be passed onto consumers through higher electricity bills, says energy analyst Tony Lodge. The Renewables Obligation scheme, he says, is “a hidden tax on all electricity consumers” and a “huge hidden subsidy” to renewable energy providers. This subsidy currently amounts to “£1bn a year” and will have “totalled some £32bn” by the end of the scheme. Meanwhile, engineer Jim Oswald told the Energy Tribune that relying on wind power would result in major power failures across the UK and up to 50% increases in electricity bills.

[...]

Wind power: will it work for Britain?

‘The most obvious concern just now is how the plan will be carried out. As Ambrose Evans-Pritchard points out in The Daily Telegraph, there are only three major manufacturers in the world able to make the large turbines needed offshore – and one of them, German engineering giant Siemens, has already sold out until 2012. On top of that, the world has only one ship able to place these 200-ton turbines.’

‘But even if we solve the logistical problems, we will still need to build at least 20 new conventional power stations to back up the grid when the wind isn’t blowing. While the wind farms will be spread over a greater land mass in Britain than in Denmark, increasing the chance that the wind will always be blowing in one area or another, the system will still be unreliable.’

‘A Renewable Energy Foundation study of wind speeds in 2005 found that they varied so much that the back-up demand on conventional plants would have varied from 5.5GW to 56 GW in a single month. That would mean switching a 1,000 MW coal plant on and off 23 times to make up for the shortfall.’

‘The introduction of a national computerised system (or ‘intelligent’ grid) to manage the power load could improve reliability. But the best hope for Britain may be to eventually hook our grid up to Europe’s network, enabling excess wind in one country to compensate for slumps in another. Until then, Brown’s lofty ambitions may remain a pipe dream. ’

‘Is wind power as green as it seems?’

‘Demark is the world’s most wind-intensive state with more than 6,000 turbines generating 19% of its electricity. But this figure is misleading, says Tony Lodge of the Centre for Policy Studies. Not one conventional power plant has been closed in the period that Danish wind farms have been developed.’

‘In fact, the Danish grid used 50% more coal-generated electricity in 2006 than in 2005 to cover wind’s failings. The quick ramping up and down of those plants has increased their pollution and carbon dioxide output – carbon emissions rose 36% in 2006.’

‘Meanwhile Danish electricity costs are the highest in Europe. The Danish experience suggests wind energy is “expensive, inefficient and not even particularly green”, says Lodge.’

(For full article see: Money Week, 4 July 2008).

WIND DEVELOPERS DEMAND YET MORE SUBSIDY

The fatuity of the latest version of the Government’s ‘Renewable Energy Strategy’ with plans for 7,000 new wind turbines over the next 12 years, 4,000 offshore and another 3,000 onshore, has been underlined by the wind industry’s response:

‘Energy firms want wind farm billions’

‘Energy groups are to demand billions of pounds in extra subsidies from the Government to build the wind farms needed to hit the UK's environmental targets.’

‘The EU says 15% of all UK energy must come from renewables such as wind by 2020, but sharply rising costs are making some of these projects uneconomic. [even with a huge subsidy from the Renewables Obligation (RO), Ed.]’

‘The budget for the biggest scheme - a wind farm in the Thames Estuary ... has doubled to £2bn in the past two years. Other wind farm projects are also likely to face spiralling costs.’

‘[...]’

‘E.ON chief executive Paul Golby said: “The current economics of the project are marginal at best - with rising steel prices, bottlenecks in turbine supply and competition from the rest of the world all moving against us.”’

‘The energy groups will outline their demands in coming months as part of their response to the Government’s Renewable Energy Strategy published in June. This outlines plans for wind, wave and solar projects costing at least £100bn. The groups have until September 26 to give their views.’

‘Power industry sources warn that without assurances of more financial support from the taxpayer, major renewable developments could fail to attract investors and be axed.’

‘[...]’

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

(For full article see: Financial Mail, 17 August 2008).

The last Energy White Paper proposed increasing the RO for offshore generation to 1.5 times that for onshore turbines - thus giving offshore generators two and a half times the normal commercial price of electricity. This, before any further massive handouts from the tax payer are awarded to the wind industry by government.

Another CONsultation (Deadline 26 September, 2008)

Government is ‘consulting’ on this latest round in their so-called ‘energy policy’ - see the BERR website for consultation forms and background papers. One suspects that this ‘consultation’ will be much like others - listen to what the public say and then ignore it.

THEY PROFIT - YOU PAY

‘Hitting EU's energy targets will cost Brits at least £2,000’

‘It will cost every household in the UK at least £2,000 to comply with the new European Union target of producing 15 per cent of all energy from renewable sources by 2020, according to a report commis