Queen's Speech
Has anyone found reference to a Marine Bill?
Any island has a shoreline so surely all the issues related to the sea must be addressed as they would in a Marine Bill
FYI e-mail from; Campaign Champions at Friends of the Earth
Quote:
We have just heard that the Government has made the unusual move of deciding to send the Climate Change Bill to the House of Lords before the House of Commons.
What does this mean?
We need to act fast and start talking to Lords over the next few weeks. We would like your help so please write a letter to a Lord. Check out the action guide for more information and what to say:
Please write to a Lord about the Climate Change Bill
What about MPs?
Quote:
MPs will debate the Bill after the Lords, in early 2008. Your letters and visits to MPs have been vital, helping to engage and inform more MPs on this issue. Thank you. If you have any more feedback do let us know.
Windwatch posted some information elsewhere which I read but seem unable to find. It said that BWEA had posted on its website that it has wrongly been claiming coal-fired displacement of CO2.
Here are some points we made earlier on just that point.i.e.emission savings claimed !!!!
Durham CPRE did make representations to the examination in
public (EiP) concerning the renewable energy proposals within the Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS), particularly in respect of wind power.
Quote:
These concern the effectiveness of wind power in tackling problems associated with climate change (in particular cutting CO2 emissions) and that wind power will also not produce the amount of electricity claimed.
The Representations were based on a large number of sources, including Reports such as the E.ON Netz Wind Reports of 2004 and 2005 and the National Audit Office Report on Renewable Energy of February 2005 Despite the sources of material cited in the Representations, we note they have been ignored.
Quote:
We consider our Representations will in due course be found to be correct in that the proposals in the RSS, as approved by the Panel and the Government's proposals, will not lead to the cuts in emissions claimed and indeed may well lead to significant problems with transmission of electricity. We believe that evidence from wind turbines already operating in County Durham firmly help to establish our Representation
We are extremely concerned about the number of proposed developments that have received planning permission within the County. In addition a number are under consideration by or about to be submitted to Local Planning Authorities for consideration, many close to residential development.
Durham CPRE accepts that this consultation is to consider proposed changes* but finds it extremely worrying that a significant body of evidence is being ignored in formulating these policies.
also
Quote:
Our Energy Challenge
The Energy Review Consultation responses.
Bwea’s response
read here
This is a 92 page expensive looking, professional booklet. Alison Hill (BWEA) kindly gave me a copy at the All Energy Conference in Aberdeen year. This hard copy was much easier to read than the electronic version on the DTI website and I am grateful to Alison. Otherwise I may have missed what appears to be some controversial suggestions put to Government for consideration These appeared on Page 23 and are copied below for convenience.[/quote]
"Outside of policy measures, there is a lack of incentive for planning authorities to make timely decisions. There are a range of initiatives which BWEA propose the Government should promptly employ in response.
Ø The Government should issue new advice to local planning authorities stressing that the risk of appeal costs being awarded to a developer due to the failure of a local authority to determine an application, will increase over time.
Ø The Government should introduce a range of targets to incentivise decision making even after the 16 week deadline has passed. Under the current system, it is in the interest of local planning authorities to determine as many applications as possible within the 16 week target and therefore once the deadline has passed, it is in their interest to prioritise more recent projects rather than those applications which have already missed the target. New targets could be for 90% of projects to be determined in 30 weeks and 100% in 50 weeks.
> The Government should publish the statistical performances of local planning authorities on a regular basis to highlight non-performers while highlighting improvements in performance over time.
Ø Under Section 36 of the Electricity Act, there is currently no right given to the applicant to appeal for non-determination after 16 weeks. While larger projects arguably require longer periods of assessment, the Government should amend legislation to introduce recommended timescales for the determination of on- and offshore wind farms under Section 36 of the Electricity Act.
Ø Additionally, developers should be given the right to go to a public inquiry (noting here Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998).
In summary, for onshore wind the planning system is delivering wind projects, albeit slowly, using policies that have taken several years to develop. In order to speed up the process so that renewable build can be accelerated, further strengthening of existing policies should be implemented in an evolutionary manner, though care should be taken that in the process of strengthening there is no slow-down in decision making."
Quote:
Note: The following responses were compiled by the Durham Branch of the Campaign to Protect Rural England (A sub region of the North East) and appear as DCPRE
They cost little in terms of finance but an enormous amount of time and effort was put into the research This was peer reviewed and the resulting responses sent to the consultation. These were ALL posted See links below
Quote:
File 33204 was sent after noticing the comments on page 23 of the BWEA booklet
The previous post was of necessity long
However the essential points are explained here
Quote:
I hope you will all read as it shows just who is listening to whom! How do ordinary people compete At least we tried
Plesse read the links in previous post in particular page 23 of BWEA response
Our Energy Challenge The Energy Review Consultation responses.
Bwea’s response
and
Our DCPRE three part reponse.Files 33204/33203/31204
Link for PPS22 and its Companion guide (CG)2004 for your convenience.
Quote:
It sets out the Government's planning policies for renewable energy, which planning authorities should have regard to when preparing local development documents and when taking planning decisions
link here for relevant documents
PPS22CG is The 185 page guide that had no public consultation and is used to support the 20 page PPS22
PPS22CG case studies appear flawed as I have pointed out in detail here pages 37-52
Was it:
1)Desperation to hit renewable energy targets
2)To obtain planning permission whilst the subsidy is certain
3)To sustain Investor confidence
4)To reduce Carbon Dioxide emissions?
Quote:
The answer as seen by BWEA
Countdown to meeting 10% UKrenewable electricity target by 2010
Full report http://www.bwea.com/progressto2010/index.html
then click on 'Progress to 2010 Report’
Extract below
Quote:
The stark reality is that onshore wind energy must contribute 4.5% of our electricity supply by 2010. This equates to around 6,000 MW of installed capacity generated from the installation of approximately 3,600 turbines, around twice as many as are currently operating in the UK
And
Quote:
BWEA on Carbon Dioxide reductions
Link to full report
http://www.bwea.com/pdf/ref_three.pdf Feb 2005
Extracts below
Quote:
Does renewable energy in the UK save on the emissions from coal-fired plant, or are the savings related to the average emissions from all electricity generation?
……………..
To sum up: electricity generated from wind energy (and the other renewable sources) saves around 860g/kWh of carbon dioxide. That figure is consistent with what is actually happening, in the short or long term, and with other international studies
Quote:
Now ASA ruling on CO2 reduction figures
Wind industry to agree new CO2 reduction figures with Advertising Standards Authority Tuesday 15 October 2007
Quote:
The ASA ruling stated "We noted that Npower had followed previously accepted advice and used the 860 g CO2/kWh figure. Although we welcomed their efforts to ensure that their claim was based on an established figure,
The ASA found that BWEA member company npower had breached its rules by using a figure of 860 g/kWh for CO2 displacement for its proposed new Batsworthy Cross wind farm.* This figure had previously been agreed between the ASA and BWEA, and previous ASA adjudications had accepted the figure. In overturning the figure the ASA found that the company had acted in good faith in producing its publicity material. ……. we nonetheless considered that that figure was no longer representative of the UK electricity generating mix
.
………………..
Quote:
Comment Fullabrook Down Wind’ Farm ‘recent approval will no doubt have left the objectors gutted but some good has come out of the approval. Namely:CO2 emissions savings claimed have been stated by BERR as ABOUT half the figure put forward by the developers. This is something we in Co Durham have been saying for years and it has been conveniently ignored by planners,and the emerging RSS in the North East
This can no longer be ignored as it is considered a material planning consideration,in order to combat climate change and meet targets It has often swayed the fine balance of pros and cons to come out in favour of approval So will this ASA ruling, accepted at Fullabrook leave new applications and those ‘consented’ on exaggerated claims, open to challenge
Trying a new thead Forget Gore, We now have BERR...
Below is the link to the BERR website
Renewable Energy: It's Only Natural for Schools - BERR
An introduction to the Renewables for Schools area of the Renewables section of the Energy community of BERR's website.
dti.gov.uk/energy/sources/renewables/renewables-schools/index.html - 16k
You have a point Lizabeth. These are quotes from BERRs fiction for schools. The first relates to the 1.5MW turbine, the second to the 1.8MW turbine.
Quote:
The turbine’s annual electricity production of some 3GWh per year accounts for about one third of the electricity consumed by the homes in Swaffham.
Quote:
Its annual electricity production is in the region of 4GWh per year, and along with the Swaffham I turbine, will supply around 70 per cent of the town’s total household electricity requirements.
According to Swaffham Town Council, there are 3500 households in the town.
Typical UK annual household energy usage is 4700KWh. Based on the claimed percentages and outputs, the Swaffham 3GWh turbine will only support 638 households … 18% NOT “about one third”.
The claimed combined turbine output is only sufficient for 1489 households … 42.5% NOT “around 70 per cent”.
The wind developer Ecotricity’s website claims “Together the two Swaffham wind turbines power 75% of the town with wind energy”.
So even this carefully selected, unrepresentative example doesn’t tell the truth. And when it comes to education, is it too much to ask for the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
It’s time for this whole, corrupt wind farce to be consigned to the dustbin of history. When will it sink in that industrial wind turbines are rubbish? President Sarkozy is at least heading in the right direction.
Windwatch says
"So even this carefully selected, unrepresentative example doesn’t tell the truth. And when it comes to education, is it too much to ask for the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?"
Blair/Brown have misled the public on wind energy for too long. Too late for what they thought should could might be. Now is the time to see what actually is The wind blows when where and as strong as it will and the government cannot alter that!
To pass such misinformation to schools is unforgiveable
Quote:
Re Scroby Sands case study
30 turbines x 2 MW
So the study SHOULD read
"The wind farm is expected to produce an average of about 18 MW of power *with an occasional maximum of 60MW "
(In reality even less - the 2006 ROCs show 24.4% l..f. which would give less than 15 MW.
However perhaps the endemic gearbox and cable problems may be resolved in which case it is likely to improve to about 30% *).
Education Education Education
Isn't it time for people with children /grandchildren to write to BERR and ask they tell the truth?
Details on the IRFand theIPC are posted on the "Monday Night at Eight" thread
Brown and Blears have great plans to put the North East at the fore-front of the global market place.......
Three applications,all refused on valid grounds,contrary to policies of the local plan.
The developer can afford a costly appeal if the development is refused yet there is no third party right of appeal for the objectors if the development is approved!
Press Article Friday, 16 November 2007,
Skydivers in wind turbine victory A County Durham parachute centre has won the latest round in a battle to prevent wind turbines being built close to its base.
A7 Energy wants to erect two 100m-high structures at Edder Acres in Shotton Colliery - a mile from the Peterlee Parachute Centre drop zone.
The centre claims parachuters would be at risk from the turbines' blades.
Quote:
On Thursday, Easington Council refused a third planning application on safety grounds. A7 Energy plans an appeal.
The publication of the Planning Reform Bill is expected this week,’
Planning decsions are their consequences are important to us all. I am concerned as many are that the planning system could be undermined when by attempts to 'buy off' communities to accept energy developments.
Eon were told at Sedgefield, Blair's constituency at that time, by those who would be affected by the Butterwick/Walkway wind farms ( 17 turbines 110m to tip)
Quote:
"We do not want your money".In fact is is our money in the first place ,the ROC subsidy, on our electricity bills
Still no reply from DTVA. Just another scoping study for 11 more 100m to tip but nearer to the airport
Bothered and Bewildered am I regarding National safety and Security as:
The following information is from recent presentations at the Aviation/radar technical workshop All-energy conference in Aberdeen May 2007
Yet DTVA Manager today assures me there is no problem.
The onus is on the Developer who did expect the technology in development at the time of the approval to be proven/effective by now.
Quote:
MOD Air Defence Radar mitigation
Military threat to UK significantly reduced following demise of Soviet Union and end of Cold War Contribution to NATO Integrated Extended Aia Defence System (NATINEADS) still vital to ensure NATO airspace integrity preserved
Defence Estates MOD safeguarding policy and wind turbines
Both appear to have potential for further development
Neither suitable for the safe control of aircraft near/above wind turbines
Quote:
Post Clatter ATC trials DTI
Both products showed potential but were not yet able to fully mitigate the effects of wind turbines
Quote:
The ADT watchman mitigation BAe systems
MOD has declared that performance on any product is not good enough to completely mitigate safety concerns
A recap of press comments made in 1998/99 and relating to the proposed Barningham High Moor Wind 'farm'
Was this the start of an attack on the planning system?
Comments re Barningham emphasised how important this application had been for the Wind Industry The future of wind power development was uncertain. What would happen next?
Quote:
It seemed the Industry was to make a determined effort to weaken the planning system.
Independent on Sunday 6/12/1998 Keith Henry, chief executive of National power has written to John Prescott, Deputy Prime Minister, saying his firm which owns Britain’s* biggest wind power company may
have to pull out. Since 1993 planners have refused 16 out of 18 wind farm applications
Quote:
Last month Mr Prescott backed a planning decision to stop what would have been Britain’s largest windfarm, near Barningham,* Co Durham.
Windpower Monthly Dec 1998) Reflecting the mood of crisis, NWP’s* Peter Musgrove argued that if the planning inquiry inspectors decision not to give planning permission to NWP’S project at High Moor in County Durham was not legally challenged ‘then we and others might as wellquit developing wind farms in he UK’
The Times 9/1/99 “Since 1994, planners and inquiry Inspectors have been giving progressively less weight to the clean energy benefits of wind farms and progressively more to their negative and subjective assessment of visual impact ” said Dr Peter Musgrove from NWP
Windpower monthly September 1998 A Planning Victim tells his tale
As a result of planning delays and siting permit refusals David Williams of Cambrian Engineering saw his home market slipping away. He wrote to the Welsh press to John
Prescott, Deputy Prime Minister, to Energy Minister, John Battle and to Peter Hain, Under Secretary for Wales. This same David Williams appears to be a member of the
Renewables Advisory Board (RAB)
Quote:
He called for a mechanism that obliges planners to accept a proportion of wind energy developments in their local authority areas
.
Alan Moore, Managing Director of NWP not only wrote but acted. Enough now to say he is the new Chairman of BWEA and a member of the Renewables Advisory Board.
*National Wind Power, Yorkshire Electricity and Regenesys are owned by the npower offshoot, Innogy, iself taken over lasy year by the German utility RWE
I have posted links on the "How Important is The Environment to YOU?" thread These relate to exaggerated CO2 emission claims, already mentiioned there, and misleading advertising material
This the foreword to Force 10 written several years ago
Please read it and see how it compares with what is happening now.The ROC subsidy,which replaced NNFO has fuelled the exponential rise in wind power applications
Turbines have become much larger over the past years, are closer to homes, there are still conflicts with aviation and exaggerated carbon saving claims have now been officially
recognised* Yet these facts are it seems being ignored in the race to meet 'targets'
Quote:
A direct result of pressure to increase renewable energy capacity to help combat accelerating climate change has put our countryside under threat as never before.
In particular proposals for the commercial exploitation of wind energy are threatening the special character and qualities of areas valued not only by British citizens but also by people throughout the world.
Obviously a wider range of renewable energy sources combined with energy conservation, energy efficiency and reducing the need to travel all need to be considered.
However “The Long Fight to Save Barningham High Moor” was the story of a fight to protect a valued landscape against an inappropriate and damaging wind power station. To protect it not only for its wild beauty but those intrinsic qualities, difficult to quantify but once experienced
never forgotten. It is the only true account and I personally wrote it to correct the misinformation recorded elsewhere.
Quote:
Now it seems the pressure on planning authorities to approve applications for wind power stations is growing. Therefore it is necessary to write this sequel since certain events not recognised as material-planning considerations must be aired. This in the interest of democracy
*WICKS AND THE PRESS RELEASE REGARDING FULLABROOK DOWN
Reform sparks fear over public's input Catherine Early, Planning, 30 November 2007
Quote:
Doubts were raised over the public's right
to be heard on major infrastructure schemes
despite government reassurances in the Planning
Reform Bill published this week.
Full report and a summary of key points on Planning Reform Bill http://www.planningresource.co.uk/news/ByDiscipline/Environment/770508/Reform-sparks-fears-publics-input
"I fail to see why an abridged version in PPS22 Companion Guide can be accepted particularly in the light of the ASA adjucation on abridged quotes " 21st Feb 2007 also posted on the'I'm an Energy Minister' thread
Guardian Report Link on 'Tilting at Windmill' thread
Reality not a desk top study!
Extract
Jane and her farmer husband, Julian, claim that persistent noise from the wind farm is making their lives unbearable. Their case has featured in the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph, both of which put preserving the countryside above erecting 60-metre-plus turbines. She is in touch with others who claim to be suffering noise pollution, speaks to groups such as that in Marshland St James which oppose planning applications, has made a DVD setting out her case against them, and has debated the issue on Radio 4 with Alistair Darling, secretary of state for trade and industry
There was a 6 page supplement in the Sunday Times 2/12/07 on Climate Change and Sustainability, in association with Siemens. I have not as yet found a link but did find this article
Siemens bribes reached around worldSiemens, the engineering group at the centre of...totaling about 12 million (8.6 billion). Siemens accepted responsibility for the misconduct...2004 connected to Reinhard Siekaczek, a Siemens employee who was a manager in a telecommunications...
Angela Jameson
16 November 2007 Times Online
Will continue to try to find a link for this and the supplement
Still no link to the supplement but the two page article by Jonathan Leake mentions:
Quote:
Burbo Bank offshore wind farm
Brown's hint that a 60% cut in greenhouse gases by 2050 could be increased to 80%
China is building 2 power stations a week, with India not far behind
If Britain,(producing just a few per cent of the world's green house gas emissions)we could replace all our power stations with wind farms,it would have little impact globally
Quote:
The folowing article is relevant linking Burbo and Siemens
World's largest offshore wind farm
In September Siemens signed a reservation agreement with Greater Gabbard Offshore Winds Ltd. (GGOWL) for the construction of the world's largest offshore wind farm off the British coast. The agreement, by far the largest ever reached for offshore wind turbines, involves 140 Siemens 3.6-MW turbines for delivery in 2009 and 2010. Once connected to the power grid, the Greater Gabbard Offshore wind farm, located 25 km off the coast of Suffolk in the Outer Thames estuary, will produce green electricity with a maximum capacity of more than 500 MW. It will be the first UK offshore wind farm to be built outside territorial waters and will provide power for more than 415,000 homes.
Since the acquisition of Danish wind-turbine manufacturer Bonus Energy at the end of 2004, the Siemens wind business has been growing rapidly. The total employee headcount of the Siemens Wind Division has quadrupled to more than 3,200 employees worldwide today. The number of its wind turbine installations has tripled since 2004.
In 2007 Siemens expects to install 1,500 MW of new capacity worldwide, of which 200 MW will be offshore.
Offshore wind energy plays a key role in the Siemens strategy and the company can look back on many years of experience within this sector. In 1991, the first offshore wind farm in the world was installed by Siemens in Denmark. The 165 MW Nysted wind farm, erected by Siemens in the Baltic Sea in Denmark in 2003, is still the largest offshore wind farm in the world.
In the future the importance of offshore wind power will increase even more for Siemens. In 2007 alone, the company is realising two major offshore projects.
Quote:
In July, Siemens successfully completed installation of 25 wind turbines for the Burbo Offshore Wind Farm in Liverpool Bay. The turbines, with a capacity of 3.6 MW each, were erected in less than 1.5 months, well ahead of schedule. Commercial operation will commence at the end of the year.
The Burbo Offshore Wind Farm has a total capacity of 90 MW and will be operated by SeaScape Energy Ltd., a company owned by the Danish utility DONG energy A/S.
Burbo is the first offshore project using the Siemens SWT-3.6-107 turbine, the largest serial wind turbine available on the market for offshore applications.
The SWT-3.6-107 was specifically designed for offshore applications, but works equally well onshore. A rugged, conservative structural design, automatic lubrication systems with ample supplies, climate control of the internal environment, and a simple generator system without slip rings provide maximum reliability with long service intervals.
Power conversion is implemented with Siemens' NetConverter system, ensuring compliance with all relevant grid codes and offering high flexibility in the turbine response to voltage and frequency control, fault ride-through and output adjustment.
The 52m blades are made of fibreglass-reinforced epoxy in Siemens' proprietary IntergalBlade manufacturing process. In this process, the blades are cast in one piece, leaving no weak points at glue joints and providing optimum quality. Major components, such as the rotor hub, the main shaft, the gearbox and the yaw system are all of particularly heavy dimensions and the safety systems are fail-safe.
The installation of the Siemens 3.6-MW wind turbines at the Burbo Offshore Wind Farm was not only a technical but also a logistical challenge. For onshore operations, Siemens leased a 45,000 square-metre area in the Port of Mostyn, located in North Wales.
The 65 m high steel towers of the wind turbines were assembled upright and all internal and electrical systems were tested before they were loaded onto the installation vessel. The purpose-built vessel carried towers, nacelles, hubs and blades for three turbines per trip to the site area, which is located approximately 12kms from shore. At the site, each wind turbine was erected in five heavy lifts with a maximum weight of approximately 185 tons. The average erection time per turbine, weighing almost 500 tons each, was less than half a day.
The Burbo Wind Farm is the first in a series of offshore projects to be built by Siemens. In August, erection of 48 turbines of the SWT-2.3-93 type commenced offshore at Lillgrund near the Swedish city of Malmö. With a capacity of 110 MW, this will be the largest wind farm in Sweden. The Lillgrund project will be operated by the utility company Vattenfall.
Quote:
In 2008, Siemens will start erection of the Lynn and Inner Dowsing Offshore Wind Farm on the East Coast of Great Britain. The project comprises 54 SWT-3.6-107 wind turbines and will have a maximum capacity of 180 MW. The wind farm will be operated by the British gas provider Centrica. Once finalised, the Lynn and Inner Dowsing wind farm will be the largest offshore project in the world - until the Greater Gabbard Offshore Wind Farm goes into operation two years later.
Quote:
In 2009, Siemens will also install and commission 25 of its STW-3.6-107 type turbines for the Rhyl Flats Offshore Wind Farm off the Welsh Coast. The customer is RWE npower plc, the UK arm of RWE AG.
Siemens
Apologies for the long post but could not get the link to work
Reference just received:Burbo "Big Lottery" funding etc.
Quote:
Current State of UK Offshore Wind
Antony Froggatt
Bridget Woodman
Catherine Mitchell
Warwick Business School
May 2005
Burbo Bank 90 MW
Original partner Seascape. Current partners Elsam/EdF.
£10 million grant [* from Big Lottery Fund]
Consent: Yes
Commissioning date end 2006
Cost £100 million
The cost to public funds of grants to companies for the construction of offshore wind farms in the last five financial years is as follows:
£ million
Financial year Project Developer Cost
2004–05 North Hoyle National Wind Power 7.5
2004–05 Scroby Sands EON UK 7.5
2005–06 Kentish Flats Kentish Flats Ltd. 8.7
2005–06 Barrow Offshore Centrica and Dong A/S 6.5
2005–06 North Hoyle National Wind Power 2.3
2005–06 Scroby Sands EON UK 2.2
Total 34.7
No capital grants have been paid to companies for the construction of onshore wind farms in the last five financial years.
Cut and paste is all I can cope with at present after typing the list of load factors on the 'I'm an Energy Minister thread so:
email received from a friend is copied below
She is so right. Developers never give up .. its big money, both in the UK and globally
Quote:
One down Angus application down at least nine more to go???!
Sadly developers never give up....they return and waste precious local authority resources and blight the lives of local people If the money was spent insulating homes, improving energy efficieny of buildings,reducing our energy requirements it would be prudent use of taxpayers money. Eight years ago (1999) a group called NOAH said this but, who was listening then who is listening now? The wind industry antics makes the Wendy Alexander and Donald Trump debacles look like childs play.
Dusty Drum at Carmyllie By Arbroath was sent for appeal by A7 Energy Ltd against failure of Angus Council to determine the application for planning permission 07/00495/FUL dated 19 March 2007.
The reporter for The Dusty Drum decision Scotland is Scott M Ferrie
Extract Sufficent information has not been provided regarding wireframe diagrams or visualisations..........the appellant failed to demonstrate that the site selected is capable of absorbing the proposed developemnt in terms of landscape fit , as required by policy ENV8
Landscape and visual impact of the proposal have not been adequately assessed.
The reporter states ' I agree with the council and SNH that the methodology adopted in the addendum is unsatisfactory and I cannot place any reliance on its assessment of cumulative impacts'
Cut and paste is all I can cope with at present after typing the list of load factors on the 'I'm an Energy Minister thread so:
email received from a friend is copied below
She is so right. Developers never give up .. its big money, both in the UK and globally
Quote:
One down Angus application down at least nine more to go???!
Sadly developers never give up....they return and waste precious local authority resources and blight the lives of local people . If the money was spent insulating homes, improving energy efficieny of buildings,reducing our energy requirements it would be prudent use of taxpayers money. Eight years ago (1999) a group called NOAH said this but, who was listening then..who is listening now? The wind inustry antics makes the Wendy Alexander and Donald Trump debacles look like childs play.
Dusty Drum at Carmyllie By Arbroath was sent for appeal by A7 Energy Ltd against failure of Angus Council to determine the application for planning permission 07/00495/FUL dated 19 March 2007.
The reporter for The Dusty Drum decision Scotland is Scott M Ferrie
Extract Sufficent information has not been provided regarding wireframe diagrams or visualisations..........the appellant failed to demonstrate that the site selected is capable of absorbing the proposed developemnt in terms of landscape fit , as required by policy ENV8
Landscape and visual impact of the proposal have not been adequately assessed.
The reporter states ' I agree with the council and SNH that the methodology adopted in the addendum is unsatisfactory and I cannot place any reliance on its assessment of cumulative impacts'
For information
Coal mine go-ahead reverses local veto Oliver Evans, Planning, 7 December 2007
Quote:
Plans for an opencast coal mine in the North East have been given the go-ahead by the government in spite of local opposition.
The DCLG said the 300ha scheme for Shotton, Northumberland, would be environmentally acceptable, appropriate to the green belt, add to the economy and enhance the landscape in the long term....
Full story re North East Opencast
Coal mine go-ahead reverses local veto
Oliver Evans, Planning, 7 December 2007
Plans for an opencast coal mine in the North East have been given the go-ahead by the government in spite of local opposition. The DCLG said the 300ha scheme for Shotton, Northumberland, would be environmentally acceptable, appropriate to the green belt, add to the economy and enhance the landscape in the long term.
The scheme had been refused by Northumberland County Council because of its impact on the landscape and its non-compliance with the local plan.
But communities secretary Hazel Blears said the scheme meets all but two policies - it is in an area where mining is constrained and it would have a moderate impact on the landscape. But she ruled that it broadly complies with the local plan.
Quote:
The decision has angered campaigners, including pharmaceutical firms that fear the project will damage sensitive production systems at their facilities.
Council divisional director for planning Gordon Halliday said he is disappointed by the decision.
Some points for the officials who were not there are that time page 87
here There is much more for those who were there and seem to be suffering from amnesia
Innogy
Their parent company RWE emits more carbon dioxide than the whole of Spain. RWE is German. Eon is German and owns Powergen. EDF is French.
The EU connection, covers the subsidies to companies generating wind power. TREC was an Altener bid and Blyth Offshore windfarm was supported by the European Commission’s Thermie Programme.
Are these wind turbines doing what they promised?
Quote:
No wonder the Regional Economic Strategy for the North East, (RES) submitted to the Minister in 1999 described the North East as “Europe’s ‘we can do it Region”
We are our own region not Europe’s!
An official from One North East (ONE) told me at the start of the Regional Economic Strategy (RES)* that the wind industry had asked them to help weaken the planning system. ONE was obviously sympathetic as was seen when they hosted the Wind Energy /Planning at Chester le Street in 1999 (page71) However they had no power to influence the planning system, but suggested the RPG for the North East could be the best way.
The result after implementing draconian planning regulations ,government backed failed campaigns to promote the technology, government backed workshops to green planners, councillors and even MPs can all be read in the book
Quote:
They are simply,in the NE not generating the electricity promised and throughout the UK are not *reducing emissions promised *This is official and has been vindicated by Wicks in the press release on Fullabrook Down,Devon
Email received from a friend in Wales is copied below for interest:
TURBINES TURNED DOWN BY PLANNERS [email protected] 08 December 2007
Wind farm plans which generated huge controversy in the Afan Valley have suffered a massive blow. Neath Port Talbot planning officers have advised councillors to throw out Eco2's proposal to put four giant turbines on Mynydd Corrwg Fechan overlooking Glyncorrwg.
At 125 metres, they would have been some of the biggest in Wales, around 34 metres taller than those already in place at Ffynnon Oer in the same valley.
The authority's planning committee is due to make a final decision on the 12MW scheme on Tuesday, but, sensing victory, delighted campaigners have welcomed the officers' stance.
"This is a great Christmas present," said Glyncorrwg Action Group chairman Lindsay Milsom.
"I'm over the moon. Hopefully this will send out a message to other companies wishing to bring wind farms to the area not to bother."
The turbines would have been just 110 metres from a public right of way and about a kilometre from the nearest home.
Apart from the turbines, Cardiff- based Eco2 also wanted to put up a wind monitoring mast, lay new access tracks, and construct a substation and control building.
Each turbine would have had 45- metre blades and would have generated up to 3MW.
But in a report, head of planning Geoff White said: "The benefit of providing 12MW of renewable energy at this location does not outweigh the impact that it would cause to the local landscape."
The Eco2 plans had sparked widespread protests from the surrounding community.
Neath Port Talbot Council received 291 letters of objection listing 51 reasons for opposition, as well as a petition signed by 1,238 people.
Local politicians including Aberavon MP Hywel Francis and AM Brian Gibbons came out against the plans.
"I fully support the action group's stance on this development," said Dr Gibbons.
"I have said from the outset that this development is far too close to people's homes - well inside a mile in some instances.
"In light of the concerns, I hope the local authority gives full consideration to the numerous valid concerns of the local community, and rejects this application."
For attention though conveniently ignored In the last decade, onshore turbine capacities have increased progressively from around 300kW to 600kW to 700kW to 1300 kW to 1500 kW and now 2750 kW and 3000 kW whilst overall heights have increased from around 41.5m to 100m to 110m and now 125m
Not just bigger, but applications are being approved which are closer to homes than previously
"If the next generation say to us 'daddy, what did you do about climate change' the answer we should give is that we stopped it, any other answer is unacceptable."
Is this part of the aggressive campaign that has been proposed? I only hope they teach their childrer some simple sums. I thought at best we could delay it but in any case Onshore wind is not reducing CO2 emissions as expected
Quote:
Wicks press release recently on Fullabrook Down wind farm,though sad news for the residents,did at last vindicate out concerns re the future energy mix and the consequence that reductions would be about half the figures predicted by the developers. BWEA's website does not yet 9/12/07 show this
