MOORSYDE ACTION GROUP
HOME PAGE - LATEST NEWS & VIEWS

‘MOORSYDE’ & TOFT HILL APPEALS DISMISSED!

The Secretary of State, John Denham, has followed the recommendations of the Planning Inspector, Ruth MacKenzie, and has refused the appeals of ‘Moorsyde’ and Toft Hill. Sadly, Barmoor has been approved.

The SoS and the Inspector accepted the arguments that MAG put forward at the public inquiry in June last year and recognised that:

• noise limits would be exceeded;

• there would be “major” effects on the landscape in general;

• there would be “material harm” to visual amenity;

• there would be unacceptable impacts on key views to the Cheviots;

• the proposal would contravene local and national planning guidance.

Please see the Public Inquiry page for more detail.

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

The decision letter and the Inspector’s Report are available for download here:
Decision Letter (16 pages, small PDF file).
Inspector’s Report (101 pages, large PDF file).
Northumberland County Council, now the local planning authority, have published a statement: ‘Planning decisions on windfarms’, 25 January 2010.

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

Press coverage:
Berwick Advertiser, ‘Government dismisses two out of three wind farm proposals’, 21 January, 2010.
‘Moorsyde plan “seriously harmful to Cheviot views”’, 27 January, 2010.
‘“Serene and remarkable” Duddo Stones saved from turbines’, 27 January, 2010.
‘Hills and woodland would “contain” Barmoor scheme’, 27 January, 2010.
The Journal, ‘Two Northumberland wind farms rejected but third allowed’, 21 January, 2010.

THANK YOU

MAG would like to thank the many people who have supported us during the last five and a half years. Without your support and financial assistance it would not have been possible to mount a vigorous, sustained and successful campaign.

We have faced enormous costs in mounting legal challenges to the then planning authority and in paying for the best possible representation at the public inquiry, where MAG’s team were outstanding.

Unfortunately, we are left with a substantial residual debt that has to be cleared. If you have supported us but have not yet contributed, please make a donation (see the Donations page for further details).

Thank you.

OFGEM WARNS, AGAIN, OF THE IMPENDING ENERGY CRISIS

‘Government urged to step in to stop energy cuts

The Times, February 3, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘[...]’

‘LABOUR PREPARES TO TEAR UP 12 YEARS OF ENERGY POLICY’

The Times, 1 February 2010.

‘The Government is drawing up plans for a wholesale reform of Britain’s energy markets that could wind back the clock on 12 years of deregulation.

‘In an interview with The Times, Ed Miliband, the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, said that Britain’s existing, highly liberalised market regime, introduced under Labour in 1998, was failing to deliver the investment needed to cut UK carbon emissions by more than a third by 2020.

‘A market structure was being designed to boost long-term investment in low-carbon sources of electricity, including wind parks, nuclear reactors and fossil fuel stations equipped with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology.

‘Mr Miliband said: “We are going to need a more interventionist energy policy to deliver the low-carbon investment we need.”

‘Mr Miliband said that changes being considered included: reform of Ofgem, the energy regulator, to improve care for consumers; an overhaul of Britain’s existing new electricity trading arrangements (Neta), which have been in place for more than ten years; and the introduction of “capacity payments” to guarantee returns to developers of low-carbon sources of power.

‘Mr Miliband said that big reforms would be essential to deliver the estimated £170 billion of investment to meet its goals of huge carbon cuts. The Neta system, in which electricity is traded via contracts between buyers and sellers or power exchanges, does not give sufficient guarantees to developers of wind turbines and nuclear plants.

‘He said that one alternative would be a return to “capacity payments” — in which power station operators would be paid for the electricity they generate and also for capacity made available. The idea of such payments is to give greater certainty to investors in renewable and nuclear energy. They would help to bolster the reliability of a grid that was more heavily reliant on power generation from wind farms.

‘He said: “This is very different from the current system, where you get paid for the electricity you produce and are not given any guarantees in advance. In future you could say ‘We need a certain amount of low-carbon capacity’ and generators would say how much they can provide.”

‘Such a move would be one of the biggest changes in Britain’s energy market since the 1989 Electricity Act, which began deregulation. It would also represent a return to some of the principles of the system before 1998. The Electricity Pool, which Neta replaced, had capacity payments but was criticised for being too inflexible. Mr Miliband said that details of the reforms would be in a document to be published in April called Roadmap to 2050, published with the 2010 Budget. He said that the changes were essential to help Britain to prepare for a doubling of electricity demand by 2050, driven by other policy objectives such as a growth of electric cars and a move from gas to electricity for heating.

‘A huge expansion of wind power is expected to have a big impact on the reliability of the national grid, which capacity payments could help to offset. Wind energy is intermittent and heavily reliant on back-up power generation for use when it is not blowing.’ [Our emphasis].

COMMENT

The only surprise is that it has taken 12 years, a looming energy crisis and the imminent prospect of loss of (political) power for this government to realise the folly of its hands-off surrender of control to the market - i.e. to the whims of a handful of foreign-owned conglomerates.

Other countries in Europe, with more of an eye to the most basic national priority of secure and affordable supplies of energy, have retained more control of their strategically important energy industries and apply more control on transnational energy conglomerates operating within their borders.

The one constant, through 12 years of dither, 14 ministers and millions spent on consultants, statements, consultations and policy announcements, is the way this government has remained in the pocket of the wind industry.

We have repeatedly seen the Government ignoring criticism by the Audit Office, by Ofgem, by National Grid, by Parliamentary Committees, by academics and by energy experts that the excessive rewards to, and reliance on, wind power generation was jeopardising both security and affordable supplies of power to industry and consumers.

If this government scrapes back into power we have little doubt that Mr Miliband, or his successor as ‘Minister for Wind’, will continue to dance attendance on the British Wind Energy Association and bend to blackmail when big players threaten to withdraw from offshore wind projects.

CLOUD MAKERS

© David J.C. MacKay

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

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

‘UK POWER PREPARES FOR A COLD WIND OF CHANGE’

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

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

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

The Observer, 10 January 2010.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HAPPY NEW YEAR?

New Year tar barrels procession, Allendale, Northumberland.
© 2010 Don Brownlow Photography.

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

THE HEAVY COST OF WIND POWER

Much of the cost burden mentioned above is down to the Government’s wind policy. Instead of spreading our bets on more reliable generators, government renewables policy is still focused on intermittent and unreliable wind power that only substitutes for insignificant amounts of thermal generation. The problems of intermittent surges of power that are not matched to demand and which are produced in areas remote from the end user also require a hugely expensive rebuild and strengthening of the electricity supply system.

It is no coincidence that the strongest critics of wind power generation world wide are the grid utility companies which are forced to deal with the problems it causes.

Temperature down, Demand up, Wind fails

At 5.30 am (11) on the 22 December, as temperatures reached their lowest point, the 1,588MW of wind capacity metered by the National Grid in the windiest part of the UK (Scotland) was delivering 0.8% (13MW) of its theoretical capacity.

Wind forecast and outturn graph from Balancing Mechanism website. Horizontal scale is in half-hours.

The forecasting problem

The graph below demonstrates the problem with attempting to forecast wind output. National Grid runs a wind output forecasting system which attempts to model wind output on a half hourly basis. It is frequently out by 50% or more. This is one of the reasons why large scale wind power still requires a very large percentage of back up power and why Christine Real de Azua, assistant director of communications for the American Wind Energy Association, is honest enough to admit that: "You really don’t count on wind energy as capacity. It is different from other technologies because it can’t be dispatched,".

Wind forecast and outturn graph from Balancing Mechanism website. Horizontal scale is in half-hours.

The need for clean, reliable power

The relative insignificance of the 1,588MW of wind capacity metered by the National Grid is shown by this graph which covers the outturn period in the first graph.

Fuel types graph from the Balancing Mechanism website.

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

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

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

[...]

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

If the government has its way, we peasants will soon be back to staggering through the snow, “gath’ring winter fuel”.

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

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

‘OFFICIALS COVER UP WIND FARM NOISE REPORT’

The Times, December 13, 2009

Jane and Julian Davis had to abandon their home
(Image: Stephen Daniels)

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

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

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

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

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

[...]

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

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

WHY NORTHUMBERLAND SAYS NO

The Journal, 30 November 2009.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Duke of Northumberland

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

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

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

WIND BUILD “WILL UNDERMINE UK’S ABILITY TO MEET CRITICAL 2050 TARGETS”

‘Powering the Future’, a comprehensive report published by international engineering consultancy Parsons Brinckerhoff is the latest of the many authoritative reports to criticise the Government’s energy policy.

This in-depth report agrees with the recent report by The Institution of Mechanical Engineers (see below) in highlighting the dangerous shortfall in energy that we face due to government inaction.

The wind problem

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

Significant report findings - Electricity

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

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

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

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

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

PLANNING PROTECTIONS UNDER THREAT

1. The Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC)

Ed Miliband, the DECC Minister, recently announced to Parliament the draft of new planning guidance: ‘Draft National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-3)’. ¹

This is guidance aimed at the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC), the Government’s new planning super-quango:

National Policy Statements (NPSs) lie at the centre of the new regime. They will be the primary consideration for the IPC when it makes decisions on applications for development consent.

‘Time limited’

The IPC is being instructed to further ignore planning protections afforded to landscape, archaeological sites and listed buildings:

2.7.19 The time-limited, non-permanent nature of wind farms is likely to be an important consideration for the IPC when assessing impacts such as landscape and visual effects and potential effects on the settings of historic assets.

We have already seen developers and some planning inspectors seeking to use the argument that wind power development is ‘temporary’ because planning permissions are usually limited to 25 years. ‘Time limited’ is the latest attempt to escape the ridicule that attached to descriptions of 25 years as ‘temporary’.

This document acknowledges that wind power schemes may well be ‘re-powered’ when they reach the end of their working lives (they always are, in our experience). Re-powering applications often go through on the nod, unless they are seeking to radically change the original proposal. So, ‘time-limited’ already means over 40 years for people near Delabole and Blyth , and will mean the same for many more first generation power stations..

Most conventional thermal power stations have a shorter life than this, even with planning permissions that are not ‘time-limited’.

Opposition policy

The Conservatives say that if they come to power they will abolish the IPC, bringing its team under the aegis of the Planning Inspectorate as a ‘Large Projects Team’. They also say that they will return decisions on Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIP) to the Secretary of State and that National Policy Statements (NPS) would be subject to a Parliamentary vote rather than just debate as at present. ²

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

¹ See the consultation on the draft NPS's: DECC consultation website.
² See: Planning Portal, ‘Conservatives spell out their national infrastructure planning reforms’.
See also: Video of Shadow Local Government Minister, Bob Neill - ‘Tory pledge to restore local planning control’, below.

POSTSCRIPT

Taxpayers are funding the IPC to the tune of £1 million per month though the quango is not operative and there is considerable doubt as to whether it ever will be. It was supposed to start work on March 1, but its guidelines will not be subjected to parliamentary scrutiny until May at the earliest, “after which an election is likely to herald the group’s break-up”.

Its Chairman, Sir Michael Pitt, is being paid £184,000 for a four-day working week. It has new offices in Bristol and, “has hired dozens of staff, including seven commissioners on salaries equivalent to £100,000 per year”.

The press claims that quangos cost the taxpayer some £34 billion per year (£60 billion according to the Taxpayers’ Alliance). It is claimed that 40 quangos have been created just since Gordon Brown became PM.

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

See: ‘Nice offices, lavish pay and lots of staff but quango is still waiting to start work’, The Times, 28 January 2010.

2. ‘Permitted development rights’ for small scale renewables

As well as making the largest (50MW or over) planning decisions no longer democratically accountable, by hiving off decisions from the Planning Inspectorate or Minister to the IPC super-quango, Government is also seeking to remove small turbines from planning control.

They are seeking to allow a number of renewable technologies below a specified size to have ‘permitted development rights’. These include domestic wind turbines, with some restrictions on height, size and noise and free-standing turbines up to 15m high, with some restrictions on separation distances and noise.

The encouragement of domestic turbines goes against common sense in view of government sponsored surveys which show that most domestic turbines at most sites in England will not produce enough power in their working life to cover the carbon burden of their manufacture. ¹

It is worth noting that the Government has also chosen to disregard advice on noise limits in consultants’ reports that they themselves commissioned.

Legislation normally observes the precautionary principle, but government proposes using higher thresholds and then monitoring any problems with a view to ratcheting limits back down to what has been advised!

... once a noise level for wind turbines and air source heat pumps is prescribed, the Government will review the suitability of the noise level as soon as reasonably practicable after the legislation has been in force for two years and to examine whether there is scope to reduce it. For example, if the proposed 45dB LAEQ, 5 min limit were to be accepted initially, a future noise limit could be 37dB LAEQ, 5 min. (2.13)

Environmental Protection UK have issued a strong challenge to the claims made by the Housing Minister:

‘Government Spin the Science on Small Renewables’

‘Environmental Protection UK question the announcement yesterday by Housing Minister John Healey that “strong safeguards in relation to noise levels, size and location” are contained in new proposals to give permitted development rights to small renewables. We are particularly astonished that this claim is applied to wind turbines up to 15 metres high and air source heat pumps.

‘The proposal to ‘restrict’ noise levels from turbines to 45 decibels, flies in the face of the advice of experienced specialist practitioners in environmental health and acoustics, and recent World Health Organisation Guidelines published on night time noise and health. Further, claims on the generating potential of these relatively new technologies are exaggerated. Field trials demonstrate that in urban areas they are unlikely to be cost effective, and may even cost money to run. Nuisance research shows that at the noise levels proposed they are 98% likely to cause complaints.

‘“For those keen to be green and cut their energy costs, small wind turbines are not a panacea at this stage of development of the technology. Allowing permitted development is unlikely to be a cost effective solution to securing our energy future, in view of the likelihood of noise and vibration problems, and low generating potential in any but optimum locations. This proposal shows a blatantly cavalier attitude to the facts,” said Philip Mulligan, Chief Executive at Environmental Protection UK.

‘“With proper advice from specialist practitioners on siting and installation, small renewables can be effective. However, field trials of small wind turbines to date demonstrate that permitted development, as proposed, will make a negligible contribution to carbon reduction targets while having high potential to cause annoyance and disturbance that risk undermining the credibility of the technology.”"

‘To quote the Energy Saving Trust, “Wind turbines do work but only when installed properly in an appropriate location”’.

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

¹ ‘Micro-wind turbines often increase CO2, says study’, The Guardian, 30 November 2007.
See also ‘Why micro wind turbines don't work’, 11 December, 2009, by the BBC’s ‘ethical man’, Justin Rowlatt.
² See Environmental Protection UK website for more on this and supporting references.

See the consultation on these proposals: DCLG Website.

PANIC POLITICS

From: Charles Clover, ‘Wind of deceit drives Labour’s green energy plan’, Sunday Times, 22 November, 2009.

‘[...]

‘The essential thing to understand about the aggressive way the government is behaving, in its new national policy statements and in setting up the Infrastructure Planning Commission, is that this is the outcome of ignoring Britain’s energy needs for so long. Not one brick of a foundation has been laid for the nuclear and clean coal plants which are essential if we are to avoid an 80% reliance on imported gas within a decade. Meanwhile, this government has had an obsession bordering on fantasy with wind power, which is measurably less efficient and, in terms of public subsidy, much harder to justify.

‘It is important to realise there is a political demonology at work here. The Department of Energy and Climate Change claims that its new dirigiste policies — which will plonk turbines and incinerators in the green belts where even housing is discouraged — are needed because the planning system has failed. The clear inference is that the Tory shires have been blocking wind power applications when, in fact, a lot of wind farms have been approved but need financing. The virtue of talking aggressively about renewables is that it transfers the blame for the government’s failure to deliver on its manifesto promises to cut Britain’s carbon dioxide emissions by 2010. It becomes the fault of the Tories.

‘The reality is that the new headline-grabbing wind turbine policy is largely meaningless. Few people are going to want to install wind turbines less than 50ft high because they are expensive and produce little electricity, except in the windiest places. They cost between £11,000 and £42,000 with installation on top and need repairs within 15 years. Healey tells us that this can save a house about £380 a year. You don’t have to be Warren Buffett, the US businessman, to work out that this is a rotten investment. The effect on meeting the country’s electricity needs will be negligible. But by causing friction in the shires the government distracts attention from its dismal record on energy, so in an election year it is a policy touched with cruel genius.’

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

A RELUCTANT ADMISSION

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

This is something power engineers have been telling government for many years. The British Wind Energy Association, however, continues to insist on “the myth of intermittency”).

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE WIND BUBBLE PUNCTURED

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

‘£250BN: THE REAL COST OF WIND POWER’

Sunday Express, 15 November,2009.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UK CLIMATE TARGETS ‘UNACHIEVABLE’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This view is supported by other reports, for example:

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

[...]

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

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

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

‘E.ON CONDEMNS OVERAMBITIOUS TARGETS FOR GREEN ENERGY’

The Times, October 18, 2009.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WIND TURBINE SETBACK DISTANCES

Yet again, concerned rural residents have raised a petition on the No. 10 Website for a 2km separation distance between large commercial turbines and housing, as recommended in Scottish Planning guidance SPP6 (see below).

The petition states:

‘We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Bring English law in line to that in Scotland for a minimum distance of 2kms between wind farms and places of habitation.’

Go to petition.

10 MINUTE RULE BILL

On 3 November, Peter Luff, MP, introduced a ‘10-minute rule bill’ - ‘Onshore Wind Turbines (Proximity of Habitation)’ - in Parliament.

This bill sought to highlight the pressing need for legislation or firm planning guidance (which exists in Scotland and other countries) on setback distances for large industrial wind turbines.

There was overwhelming support for a second reading. Sadly this will not happen, we are told by an MP that, “the naming of a day for a second reading at this late stage in the session is simply a curious part of Commons procedure”.

The exercise has, however, been yet another reminder to government of the growing resistance in the countryside to the construction of large industrial turbines in close proximity to housing.

The bill had cross-party support and Sir Alan Beith, MP, was one of its sponsors.

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

A video of Peter Luff, MP, presenting his 10 minute rule bill is available on BBC Democracy Live.

ONE RULE FOR THE SCOTS ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TURBINES BEFORE PEOPLE

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

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

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

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

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

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

ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

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

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

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

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

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

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

WANSBECK HOSPITAL TURBINE FAILS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MARCH OF THE MONSTERS

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

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

Enercon’s E-126 turbine, which has already been deployed at several sites in Germany, has a height of 198m (649.6 ft)! ²

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

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

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

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

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

‘MOORSYDE’ DEVELOPER LOSES SUFFOLK PLANNING PERMISSION - FAILS TO MEET CONDITIONS WITHIN 3 YEAR DEADLINE

‘Campaigners hope wind farm plan dead’, EADT24, 24 October, 2009.

‘Campaigners fighting to stop the development of an onshore windfarm hope the plans are now dead after the scheme suffered yet another blow.

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

‘But the proposals have been thrown into doubt after Suffolk Coastal District Council recently ruled that they will have to reapply for new planning permission if they want to push ahead with the development, which would also have included part of a 310 hectare farm in the parishes of Parham, Great Glemham and Marlesford.

‘Your Energy had to begin work on the site by July 6 this year otherwise their existing permission - granted in July 2006 - would expire.

‘However it was not supposed to start until a number of conditions had been met, including concerns over the construction of the foundations and the safe delivery of turbine blades.

‘[...].’

An article in The Coastal Advertiser, of 25 June 2009, noted:

‘[...].’

‘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.

‘[...].’

MINISTER FOR THE WIND INDUSTRY?

Ed Miliband, the DECC Minister, reveals the narrowness of the ministerial mindset (and his plans for the English countryside) in the header for his campaign website, ‘Ed’s Pledge’.

‘MINISTER OPENS SOUTH EAST’S LARGEST ONSHORE WIND FARM’

Ed Miliband formally opens Little Cheyne Court wind farm.

New Energy Focus, 14 July 2009.

Energy and climate change secretary Ed Miliband has welcomed the opening of South East England's largest onshore wind farm ahead of the publication of the government's Renewable Energy Strategy tomorrow (July 15).

Mr Miliband was in Kent yesterday (July 13) to formally launch the 59MW Little Cheyne Court site near Romney Marsh, which has been developed by npower.

[...]

COMMENT

The scheme was opposed by the local MP, Kent County Council, Shepway District Council and local Parish Councils on the grounds that it would severely damage the unique landscape of Romney Marsh, its countryside and its heritage; and on the grounds that it would be in breach of its UK and European special wildlife protection status.

The scheme is also notable for the huge amounts of concrete (one of the major causes of CO2 emissions) used in building foundations that were over 100 ft deep, necessitated by building on marshland.

The RSPB and English Nature joined forces to oppose the scheme at a Public Inquiry.

“It would be ludicrously imprudent to allow the development of a full scale wind farm just metres away from a wildlife site of extraordinary natural importance. I cannot see the justification for the probable execution of large numbers of Bewick Swans. I register my most ferocious opposition to this development.” Chris Packham (Ornithologist and BBC TV wildlife broadcaster).

“Behind the appalling wind farm threat to the wonderful wildlife of Cheyne Court and Romney Marsh lies muddled thinking and deception. Muddled thinking by those responsible for renewable energy policy and deception by the developers.” Lord Barber (former RSPB Chairman and former Chairman of the Government’s Countryside Commission).

The scheme was passed by ministerial diktat (a Section 36 decision) and its approval was announced by then Energy Minister Malcolm Wicks in his keynote speech to the 2006 British Wind Energy Association Conference, in the now traditional act of announcing a major wind power station approval to the conference — a bone thrown to the slavering dogs of the wind industry.

It is no coincidence that this scheme now figures in another political stunt by a Minister, giving a V-sign to all the local people and organisations that opposed it.

Postscript

At least 7 of the 26 wind turbines ground to a halt just one month after the power station was officially opened.

A spokesman for RWE npower renewables, part of the German-owned RWE (Rheinisch-Westfälisches Elektrizitätswerk) power conglomerate, said that faulty transformers at the base of the turbines have been removed and returned to their Belgian manufacturers.

The company hope to have the German Nordex turbines working again by mid October.

We have had long experience of RWE npower in the North East. They ruthlessly pursued the Toft Hill proposal, despite a refusal by the LPA, following the Planning Officer’s and County Archaeologist’s recommendation to refuse because of the damage that would be caused to the setting of Duddo Five Stones, a Scheduled Ancient Monument. The proposal was eventually thrown out by the Secretary of State, following a Planning Inspector’s recommendation.

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

See: ‘Power fault halts wind turbines’, BBC News, 13 August, 2009.

TORY PLEDGE TO RESTORE LOCAL PLANNING CONTROL

Shadow Minister says Conservative Government will legislate “in first year” to restore local control over planning applications.

The Conservatives’ Shadow Local Government Minister, Bob Neill, has told protestors against a Holderness, Yorkshire, turbine proposal that he will change the rules to give local people more say on planning applications such as wind farms.

He was visiting the area at the invitation of Graham Stuart, the local MP, in response to complaints from the East Riding of Yorkshire Council and local people that the powers of decision are being removed from local people by the Government.

In a taped interview, the Shadow Minister pledged that in the first year of a Conservative government legislation would be introduced, “to severely restrict the ability of the [Planning] Inspectorate and of central government to overturn the decisions of local councillors”

Mr Neill continued to say that a Conservative government will be, “abolishing the regional planning apparatus, the regional spatial strategies”, stating that, “The decision making unit should be the local council”. They would also require that, “much greater weight is given within the process to consultation with local people at an earlier stage”.

Meanwhile, the Labour government seems determined to steamroller what remains of local control by ‘recovering’ decisions - including the three local proposals at Barmoor, ‘Moorsyde’ and Toft Hill - from the Inspectorate to the Minister and by attempting to weaken what planning protections there are by issuing new planning guidance for the Infrastructure Planning Commission (IPC), the Government’s new, unaccountable planning quango for large scale projects, including wind power stations of over 50MW (like Middlemoor).

HECTOR AND BLUSTER

We also have the unedifying spectacle of a government minister and the ex-Deputy Prime Minister hectoring and insulting members of the public who have the temerity to oppose a planning application.

“The government needs to be saying, ‘It is socially unacceptable to be against wind turbines in your area - like not wearing your seatbelt or driving past a zebra crossing’.” (Ed Miliband, DECC Minister). ¹

Followed in typical fashion by John Prescott:

“The first Age of Stupid award goes to Bedford, which follows the Isle of Wight - even when there were many people employed [a confused reference to the recently closed Vestas factory], they’d refused to have it [a wind power station].

“Stupid planning committee in Bedford, stupid planning committee in the Isle of Wight - I hope they get upset about it. ²

This sort of insulting and aggressive language is not befitting for a Minister of the Crown and an ex-Deputy Prime Minister. And they wonder why politicians are not respected!

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

¹ See Guardian article, Tuesday 24 March 2009.
² see 24dash.com.
See also the website of Graham Stuart MP for further detail and links to this video.

‘ENERGY BILLS COULD RISE 60%, CUSTOMERS WARNED’

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

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

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

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

‘[...]

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

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

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

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

[...]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘[...]’

COMMENT

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

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

DANES HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF WIND POWER COSTS

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

Copenhagen Post, 21 September 2009.

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

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

‘[...]’

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

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

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

THE WIND JOBS DELUSION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘INDUSTRIALISE’ COUNTRYSIDE WITH WIND FARMS OR FACE BLACKOUTS BY 2016

‘Large swathes of the British countryside will have to be “industrialised” to generate enough alternative energy to prevent blackouts by 2016, according to a key Government adviser.

‘John Bingham, The Telegraph, 11 Sep 2009.

‘Prof David MacKay, the newly appointed chief scientific adviser at the Department of Energy and Climate Change (Decc), warned that the UK is on course to begin running out of power within seven years because new energy sources are not being built fast enough.

‘The Cambridge University scientist blamed public opposition to new wind farms and nuclear power stations for the looming crisis which he said could force Britain to rely on buying in electricity from abroad.

‘His admission throws fresh doubt on the Government's assertion that renewable energy sources will be able to make up the difference as old coal fired power stations are closed for environmental reasons and the number of nuclear plants also dwindles.

‘The Daily Telegraph disclosed earlier this month that up to 16 million homes could experience power cuts by the middle of the next decade, raising the prospect of rolling blackouts.

‘A European directive has set a deadline of 2015 for older coal-fired power stations to close, and all but one of Britain's nuclear power plants will have shut by the early 2020s.

‘Government targets which aim to see 40 per cent of Britain’s energy needs met by wind, solar and other green sources by 2020 have been dismissed as hopelessly over optimistic by commentators.

‘[...]’

COMMENT

See the Wind Power page for more on David Mackay’s analysis of how much of the UK’s countryside may be sacrificed to wind power generation.

This remains the elephant in the room of government energy policy and exposes the British Wind Energy Association’s consistent, and persistent, deceit in misleading the public on the scale of the wind build: “Myth: Tens of thousands of wind turbines will be cluttering the British countryside.” (BWEA ‘Top Myths about Wind Energy’).

RENEWABLE ENERGY STRATEGY MET BY STORM OF CRITICISM

See the Press Page

WIND POWER PLANS ‘FLAWED’ SAY CRITICS

Hundreds more wind farms than those already planned will have to be built to meet “flawed” Government targets for renewable energy, it was claimed last night.

The Telegraph, 18 Jul 2009

Little Cheyne Court Wind Farm near Romney Marsh - Photo: John Taylor.

Critics say the Government's Renewable Energy Strategy fundamentally underestimates how many wind turbines will be needed to meet its ambitious targets for a reduction in the use of fossil fuels.

[...]

WHEN THE WIND BLOWS, JOBS WILL FALL

“A future administration will have to say in public what ministers and their officials already admit in private, that the renewables target is neither practical nor affordable. Outsourcing our emissions is not a solution to a global problem. Politicians need to understand that unilateral action will come at a terrible cost in terms of UK manufacturing jobs, investment and export revenue, for no discernible environmental gain - is that really what they want?”

Dominic Lawson, The Sunday Times, July 19, 2009.

You may recall the Beyond the Fringe sketch in which Squadron Leader Peter Cook tells Jonathan Miller, the doleful pilot, that he must set out on a doomed mission because “we need a futile gesture at this stage. It will raise the whole tone of the war”.

[...]

DONT BLOW OUR £100 BILLION ON WIND POWER

By Dieter Helm, The Times, July 17, 2009.
Dieter Helm is Professor of Energy Policy at the University of Oxford and a Fellow of New College.

Instead of pouring money into renewable energy, we should invest in technology that will really tackle climate change.

[...]

ECOTOWNS AND TURBINES ARE A POLITICAL SLAP IN THE FACE OF THE LANDSCAPE

Simon Jenkins, The Guardian, 16 July 2009.

Climate change is like defence during the cold war, wrapped in hysteria of envy, class, greed and commercial interest.

The British government is to permit the desecration of upland and coastal Britain in the hope that this will shift the climatic balance of Planet Earth. All past plans and protections are being torn up. Markets are being distorted. Local democracy is to be abandoned. Extraordinary sums of money are given to private firms and individuals. The issue is not national security or prosperity but a hope somehow to prevent a long-term rise in the level of the sea.

Where huge sums of public money are at stake, reason is shoved aside and arguments degenerate into crude politics. Climate change is like defence during the cold war, enveloped in hysteria of fear, envy, class, greed, commercial interest and intellectual chicanery. As big anti-carbon replaces big carbon in the lobbying stakes, statistics become gibberish, millions become billions and megawatts become gigawatts submerged in tonnes of CO2.

[...]

LESS WIND, MORE NUCLEAR NEEDED FOR UK ENERGY FUTURE

By Kwok W. Wan, Reuters, London, Jul 13, 2009.

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain needs to build more nuclear reactors and cleaner coal plants while putting less emphasis on wind power if it wants a secure low-carbon future, business lobby group CBI said on Monday.

The CBI said in a report that current government policy, which favours wind power, is making energy security and climate change targets harder to achieve because it will lead to less investment in other forms of low-carbon electricity generation.

[...]

---

TILTING AT WIND FARMS

The Government’s plans to concentrate on wind power at the expense of other renewable energy sources could prove to be a costly mistake

The Times, July 13, 2009.

If hot air could be harnessed and fed into the National Grid, the environmental rhetoric emanating from Westminster could power London. As an alternative energy source, climate change hot air would be cheap and limitless. Wind power, the great renewable energy hope of the Government, is neither cheap nor bountiful.

The Government’s aspiration to increase the amount of energy supplied by renewables from 2 per cent at present to 15 per cent looks increasingly fanciful. To meet its pledge, which will be restated in its Renewable Energy Strategy on Wednesday, the UK would need some 7,000 extra wind turbines. Critics already believe that these are dark Satanic turbines, blighting England’s green and pleasant land. Only a few hundred have been built in the past year, as projects have become mired in planning complaints. The great switch to wind power is a victim of a not-in-my-backyard mentality.

The cost of the move to wind is an even more serious issue. The Confederation of British Industry today says that the cost of meeting Britain’s 2030 carbon-emissions target will take the average British household bill from £1,243 today to £1,615.90. This contradicts yet another fanciful target — the pledge to eradicate fuel poverty entirely by 2016. A pensioner’s not-in-my-wallet defence against even higher fuel bills is compelling.

Britain’s energy needs must be addressed. Years of underinvestment mean that our energy supplies are in crisis, even without the threat of climate change. About 40 per cent of the UK’s power stations were built before 1975 and need to be urgently replaced. Renewed investment in the UK’s energy sector must address carbon emissions. But the setting of increasingly quixotic and contradictory targets is hampering a sensible debate on how to tackle the energy crisis. Besides, where is the evidence that wind works?

[...]

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

See the Press Page for other articles.

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.”!

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

© 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.

RAPE OF THE LAMMERMUIRS

Within sight of the four current proposals in the Berwick area, the Lammermuir Hills are being turned into what one developer calls, “a well established wind farm landscape”.

The area is still officially classified as an area of ‘Great Landscape Value’ (AGLV), but it is still under threat despite having had 124 turbines, 100 to 125 metres high, built or consented in the ecologically sensitive peatland of this upland landscape.

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

We were misled. The Lammermuirs are being cynically pillaged by speculative developers who think they have an open ticket on the wind power gravy train. Applications for another 52, then a further 9 turbines soon followed, extending the Crystal Rig complex.

Against planning advice

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

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

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

Were this proposal to be approved we would have 154 turbines spilling out from the original Crystal Rig site and, against all planning principles, towering above the surrounding ridgelines.

A spreading cancer

Nor is this large concentration of industrial turbines in the heart of the Lammermuirs the end of the story: 22 small (78m) turbines are already operating at Black Hill, near Longformacus, and 48 more 125m turbines, further west, are awaiting the final rubber-stamp from the Scottish Executive. There are also numbers of proposals, consented or in planning, in the areas surrounding the Lammermuirs.

Recent applications, and Fallago Fig in particular, have provoked growing disquiet at the way the planning system is being manipulated by developers and politicians. Fallago Rig was comprehensively rejected by local people and their representatives, then, we understand, recommended for refusal by the Reporter (Planning Inspector) following a Public Inquiry and objections by the MOD due to its effects on defence radar.

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

Finally, with threats of legal action being voiced, a full re-opening of the Public Inquiry has been announced which, we are assured, will examine all fresh issues, including cumulation.

At times, with feuding aristocratic landowners, carpet-bagging speculators and talk of pork barrel politics, it has felt like we are living in the southern states of America circa 1920 rather than the Scottish Borders in the 2000’s.

Enough!

Local people have had enough. A new community response group - Save the Lammermuirs (STL) - has now been formed. Please visit their excellent website and give them your support.

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

See the Windbyte website for details of the Klondike wind rush in the Borders and Lothians and the North East of England.

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

‘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. ¹

Wind industry propaganda

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

© Danish Energy Authority. ²

Belated Recognition

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

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

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

‘Developing sustainable biomass feedstocks

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

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

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

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

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

[...]’ ³

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

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

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

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

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

[...]

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

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

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

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

(See full article on Yahoo, Finance).

FROM GREEN DREAM TO GRIM REALITY

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

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

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

WIND TURBINES IN EUROPE DO NOTHING FOR EMISSIONS-REDUCTION GOALS

Anselm 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).

BBC PROGRAMME EXPOSES THE GREAT ONSHORE WIND SWINDLE

'Costing the Earth' BBC Radio 4, 30 August 2007.

This programme goes right to the heart of the onshore wind problem, looking at the Renewables Obligation subsidy that has fuelled the frenzy of onshore wind development and the basic failure of onshore wind to perform to the forecasts that the industry sold to Government prior to the 2003 Energy White Paper.

A Your Energy spokesperson makes an inglorious appearance, trying to explain why their only working wind power station has a capacity factor of only a little over 18%, while trying desperately to avoid telling the interviewer what the measured wind speeds on the site are (having just told her that they have been monitored for years and justified the choice of site).

The broadcast also features Malcolm Wickes, the Energy Minister, telling us how the subsidy system is now "more sophisticated" although Ofgem, the industry regulator, and the Carbon Trust have condemned it as ineffectual and a huge waste of consumer's money (see the Wind Power page). The Minister also delivers the most blatant whopper that has been heard on Radio 4 in many a year: "In the UK we have achieved average load factors of 40 to 46% in terms of wind turbines." (Check the Government's own load factor figures on the Wind Power page!)

Essential listening.