Wind turbines (From The Northern Echo)
Send us your pictures, video, news and views by texting NORTHERN ECHO to 80360 or email us
To send a letter via The Northern Echo website, click here
Wind turbines
10:18am Saturday 4th July 2009 in
SEDGEFIELD MP Phil Wilson’s concerns over the “excessive development” of wind farms in his constituency (Echo, June 26) presumably reflect the broad views of constituents likely to be adversely affected?
South Durham, basically rural in character, is to be home to 62 massive industrial turbines, with the Seamer and Hambleton schemes just down the A19.
Government appears to have had no co-ordinated strategy for these developments and no procedure for looking at the cumulative effects of turbine density.
The rush for wind now looks like panic, triggered by fears of future energy shortfalls as North Sea oil declines and the past unwillingness to grasp the nuclear nettle early enough. The inefficient, noisy and intrusive land-based turbines will do little to bridge any future UK energy gap.
Development of turbine sites brings a good return on investment for the mostly foreign-owned developers – UK taxpayer subsidies.
Regional development agency One North East proudly promotes a new regional image targeted at a steadily growing tourist economy – the massed turbines simply reinforce the old “muck and brass” stereotypes.
Mr Wilson is rightly seeking the Secretary of State’s intervention with regard to excessive development. He may have a tough task. Climate “Tsar” Ed Miliband states those opposing wind farms are “as socially irresponsible as non-users of seatbelts”.
R Tempest, Wynyard Estate, Co Durham.
RE your article “Government must enter debate over wind farms” (Echo, June 26), I must take issue with the fact that Great Stainton was not shown on your map of the proposed and operating wind turbine sites.
Being approximately one mile from the nearest turbine of the A1 wind farm to the north, Great Stainton would be greatly affected if the proposals were given the green light.
Even in the application documents, E.ON rarely shows Great Stainton on any diagrams; would those concerned rather pretend we are not here?
They must know that we will fight the accumulation of proposals with every means at our disposal. Some 97 per cent of residents are against the A1 proposals specifically, but also the pending proposals for Moorhouse to the west and East and West Newbiggin to the south, which in combination would create a huge cumulative effect of enormous turbines.
The village will be surrounded.
Our beautiful rural idyll will be utterly ruined. Enough is enough, County Durham has already achieved its 2010 renewable energy targets.
Angela Ridley, Great Stainton, near Darlington.
Comments(21)
Super steve
says...
3:15pm Sat 4 Jul 09
The A1 WF can hardly been seen from Gt stainton as its over in a hollow to the north east of the village,and over a mile away from the nearest homes.
If these self centred nimby communities object to wind farms and locally produced energy they should stop using electricity. the days of having other people put up with the muck so the 50 something middle class semi retrired can live out in the boonies is coming to an end. The inteligent and wise people of Stillington have looked at the facts from themselves, discussed the issues involved and have decided for the future sake of their community and grand children they want a wind farm of their own. Other commmunities in the area are actively seeking out ways of becoming self sufficient ECO villages, but as usual the middle income middle class nimbys who probably use more electricity than anyone else are objecting to anything that may spoil their evening dog walk. I hope the government DOUBLE the numbers of turbines alloted to this area we need eveery kilowatt.
DWilson
says...
9:33am Mon 6 Jul 09
I rarely find myself agreeing with you but I do here.
Excellent point well made.
People can harp on about the relative inefficiencies of wind power and the landscape "blight" but ultimately we wil be left with little or no choice in years to come. We are one of the best positioned countries in the world to get the most out of wind energy and really should be leading the way in terms of R & D as well as reliance upon it
bonzotramp
says...
10:49am Mon 6 Jul 09
Super steve
says...
2:22pm Mon 6 Jul 09
bonzotramp wrote:Wind Power companies simply do not built wind farms in areas where there is no wind, they are there to make a long term profit from wind generation, not as is so wrongly implied from "subsidies". If it is not windy at location A then it will be windy somewhere else, No one is claiming wind is the only answer but it is a major part of the answer to our energy needs. Regarsding the bull **** put out about bird shredding the RSPB has carried out long term investigations into these fanciful claims and found no justification, indeed the RSPB now officially supports wind farms, as does the friends of the earth who have also investaged the claims in depth. the noise issue has also been utterly discrdited by various organisations, to be affected by a turbines noise output in general you need to live within 250 meters of the turbine, background rural noise for day to day living is noisier. Shadow flicker is a rare effect caused by the position of the sun, time of year location and colour of the turbines and the actual wind speed, it is very very rare that it will affect homes, infact most incidents affect motorists not home owners. Ice throw has also been proven to be another non issue spread by the Nimby movement more concerned about the view from the consewrvatory than the nations future energy needs. Yes we do need more nuclear, but not as many as we would need if we did not embrace wind power etc. Pylons offer a greater health risk than turbine do. Naturally many Nimbys lovingly support more nuclear power because they are not located where they live.
Supersteve somewhat surprisingly seems to suggest that the arguments for and against wind farms are be framed as an old fashioned class struggle.His vision of Stillington as a self contained ECo village is laudable but may not be realised even if every available field in the immeadiate vicinity were to be filled with 125m high turbines.Why ? When there is no wind turbines are useless,when operating they are most efficient as bird shredders.What residents of the village would experience is a significant inrease in levels of booming noise at all times of day and night (dependent upon wind speed)..Long term healh risks are unknown.A phenomena known as shadow flicker which would not effect him unless he ventured outside.Radio and Tv interference and the potential risk of ice throw from the giant blades.Still were Stillington to be alloted 62 turbines other communities less poitive about the benifts would be spared.Perhaps a more logical alternative would be to build the new nuclear stations which will provide the real answer to 21st century power demands.
If you want unbiased informations there is plenty to be found out and around, Friends of the earth produce some excellent booklets on renewables, and there is a DVD produced by FOTE, GREENPEACE, RSPB and the WWF that gives an open and unbiased insight into wind power in the UK.
Fortunately for society there are far more wise peeople thinking long and hard about the security of an energy supply for their childrens needs than those focusing on the distant view of the local dog walk
Whaup
says...
5:36pm Mon 6 Jul 09
1. It might have escaped your notice but FoE, Greenpeace and WWF are not unbiased, they fund the Yes-to-Wind campaign, notorious for its blinkered acceptance of all the windc**p excreted by the wind industry.
2. You do not seem to understand how power is generated.
We can build thousands of turbines but we will still need new nuclear and fossil fuelled power stations, or the lights will go out:
"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."
The need for backup will mean a huge expansion in gas-fuelled power stations. It is well known in the power industry that, "wind fuels gas".
This has already happened in Spain. By the end of 2007 Spain had 14,700 megawatts (MW) of installed wind capacity but they added 6,400MW of gas-turbine power capacity in 2007 alone, taking the total installed capacity of gas turbines to 21,000MW.
According to Enagás, 99.8% of the gas used in Spain is imported.
How does that square with security of supply?
The cost hee will be enormous, especially with the strengthening of the grid to cope with remote WPG plant.
According to consultants Ernst & Young, the investment will add £548 a year onto household energy bills for the next 15 years.
I hope everyone will remember the Windies who were responsible for this lunacy!
Whaup
says...
5:43pm Mon 6 Jul 09
The quote is from an article on the National Grid's investor briefing in 'New Energy Focus', 8 October 2008.
Super steve
says...
6:32pm Mon 6 Jul 09
5:36pm Mon 6 Jul 09
'Super Steve'
1. It might have escaped your notice but FoE, Greenpeace and WWF are not unbiased, they fund the Yes-to-Wind campaign, notorious for its blinkered acceptance of all the windc**p excreted by the wind industry.
2. You do not seem to understand how power is generated.
Those three agencies ARE unbiased what they did was independantly look into all aspects of renewable enrgy, not just the hype and lies put out by Nimbys and decided for themselves, then they joined forces to make that information available for all to see.
And believe me I do fully understand how energy is generated, transported, stored as used, and I know full well that wind, wave and geothermal will help hugely in providing for this nations future energy needs.As I said earlier wind is not the ONLY answer but it will cut hugely the number of other more polluting systems that need to be built. But of course like the Nimbys in Seamer and Gt Stainton they dont care so long as the power stations are not near them. I just wish the energy comnpanies had the will to turn off the power to communities who refuse to do their bit towards the nations energy needs, they were perfectly content sitting their when the villages with coal underneath were bklighted for decades. But now itstheir turn to simply host some wind turbines they object on completely baseless grounds except for pure selfishness.
Super steve
says...
6:43pm Mon 6 Jul 09
"The village will be surrounded.
Our beautiful rural idyll will be utterly ruined. Enough is enough, County Durham has already achieved its 2010 renewable energy targets.
Angela Ridley, Great Stainton, near Darlington."
Firstly the Sadberge proposal is not set in a rural idyl, its set in a muddy flat hollow with no distinquishing features between Sadberge and Gt Stainton, Beautiful and idylic it is certainly not, they even sited the dog pound there because its in a place of little or no value.
And Sadeberge is in darlington not County Durham.
Second they will not be surrounded as the sadberge WF is obnly 4 turbines sat in a small cluster and the A1 turbines number only 10 again in a single cluster to the north east.
Third the A1 wind farm is sited miles to the north east of Gt Stainton in the hollow that is known as the Isles, it can hardly be seen from Gt stainton.
Its just more hype from the usual suspects of Nimbys who will object to anything they may even slightly affect the value of their rural piles.
These are the same communities who came out with objections because they say the Turbines may affect the radar at the airport!!!!!. C'mon in all seriousness can any reader honestly believe that some people sat at home and on learning about a WF proposals suddenly leapt to their feet saying " Oh my god this could affect the radar coverage at the airport" !!!!
Super steve
says...
7:14pm Mon 6 Jul 09
Some people in Seamer / Hilton way objected to Ingbly Barwick being built,and the new line of Pylons from the Enron plant pasing by, and some people in Sadberge objected to the airport upgrades, all for the usual nimbyism, he also commented that those people in those communities who advocate more nuclear power stations do so simply because they unlike the good people of places like Hartlepool wont have to suffer the effects of having a nuclear power station and its lethal legacy.
People like these wants all the benefits of a modern society just so long as they dont have to contribute to its development.
dan29
says...
9:21pm Mon 6 Jul 09
Adam Walker
says...
10:35pm Mon 6 Jul 09
Whaup
says...
11:15pm Mon 6 Jul 09
So wind power generation, "will cut hugely the number of other more polluting systems that need to be built".
You can assert that, but it is not supported by the real world evidence.
We have even seen some leading environmentalists lobbying in favour of nuclear power recently because they recognise the fatuity of the argument you are presenting.
Stephen Tindale, former director of Greenpeace; Lord Chris Smith of Finsbury, the chairman of the Environment Agency; Mark Lynas, author of the Royal Society’s science book of the year, and Chris Goodall, a Green Party activist and prospective parliamentary candidate have noted:
'The long moratorium on building nuclear power plants in Britain came about largely because of intense lobbying by environmentalists in the 1970s and 1980s – a campaign that may have caused more harm than good, Mr Lynas said.'
"In retrospect, it will come to be seen as an enormous mistake for which the earth’s climate is now paying the price. To give an example, the environmentalists stopped a nuclear plant in Austria from being switched on, a colossal waste of money, and instead built two coal plants," he said.'
Germany is an example of the wind miracle:
23,000MW of wind capacity, no power stations closed, currently building 26 new coal-fired power stations.
Germany is still the leading EU CO2 emitter.
People like Greenpeace and FoE are talking 'pie in the sky'. Calling people 'Nimby's' does not alter the facts in other countries that already have very large installed wind capacities.
Even Professor Sir David King, who served as government chief scientific adviser from 2000 to 2007, has criticised the UK’s drive for wind power and its results in causing fuel poverty:
'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." ('Poverty fears over wind power', BBC News , 4 September 2008).
This is one of the architects of the wind policy - another 'Nimby'?
FenBeagle
says...
9:01am Tue 7 Jul 09
The Noise, and Infra Sound issues from Wind Turbines extend out a great deal further than the distance you suggest. The Davis Family of Deeping St Nicholas have been forced to abandon their home as a place to live and sleep, by infrasound problems 930 meters from the nearest Turbine. There are many reports from around the world, of people suffering from sound issues. The UK Noise Association recommends no Industrial Wind Turbine be built closer than 1 mile, to peoples homes. The National Academy of Medicine of France recommends 1.5 kilometres setbacks from Industrial Wind Turbines to Dwellings. Nina Pierpoints study (New York) suggests 2 kilometres. Kamperman and James study 2008 'some residents living as far as 3 kilometres from windfarms complain of sleep disturbance'. Styles et al study 2005 'There is clear evidence that Wind Turbines generate low frequency sound (infrasound) and acoustic signals...' Vibro-Acoustic Disease study (Portugal) 'Wind Turbines in the proximity of residential areas...can lead to the development of VAD in home-dwellers'
...there are many other, independent reports (how many do you want?)
Ice throws (that you claim to be, not an issue) Trapped residents at Whittlesey in their own homes, as 2 feet shards landed in their gardens.
...The Rashleigh family, living 800m from Wind Turbines at Bicker Fen, complain of Light Flicker and Noise Issues.
Super steve
says...
10:19am Tue 7 Jul 09
Whaup wrote:I see you very neatly omit one very important point, Yes Germany has huge numbers of turbines AND still has its power stations quite simply because like every other EU nation the demand for electricty is rising every year, In the UK alone they are building an extra 2.5 million homes, and those properties already built are using ever more power. I know we need extra gas and nuclear stations to keep up with the growing demand but the numbers needed can and will be offset by having more onshore and offshore wind farms. We need more power stations thats an undeniable fact but we also need lots more wind, wave, biomass and geothermal. Thank god the government is correct on this one issue and is pushing ahead with more wind farms. I'm thinking of our childrens green clean secure future energy needs, not the false idylic asperations of the fifty pluses with a place in the country.
'Super steve'. So wind power generation, "will cut hugely the number of other more polluting systems that need to be built". You can assert that, but it is not supported by the real world evidence. We have even seen some leading environmentalists lobbying in favour of nuclear power recently because they recognise the fatuity of the argument you are presenting. Stephen Tindale, former director of Greenpeace; Lord Chris Smith of Finsbury, the chairman of the Environment Agency; Mark Lynas, author of the Royal Society’s science book of the year, and Chris Goodall, a Green Party activist and prospective parliamentary candidate have noted: 'The long moratorium on building nuclear power plants in Britain came about largely because of intense lobbying by environmentalists in the 1970s and 1980s – a campaign that may have caused more harm than good, Mr Lynas said.' "In retrospect, it will come to be seen as an enormous mistake for which the earth’s climate is now paying the price. To give an example, the environmentalists stopped a nuclear plant in Austria from being switched on, a colossal waste of money, and instead built two coal plants," he said.' Germany is an example of the wind miracle: 23,000MW of wind capacity, no power stations closed, currently building 26 new coal-fired power stations. Germany is still the leading EU CO2 emitter. People like Greenpeace and FoE are talking 'pie in the sky'. Calling people 'Nimby's' does not alter the facts in other countries that already have very large installed wind capacities. Even Professor Sir David King, who served as government chief scientific adviser from 2000 to 2007, has criticised the UK’s drive for wind power and its results in causing fuel poverty: '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." ('Poverty fears over wind power', BBC News , 4 September 2008). This is one of the architects of the wind policy - another 'Nimby'?
bonzotramp
says...
10:59am Tue 7 Jul 09
Whaup
says...
1:19pm Tue 7 Jul 09
Your argument is not logical.
You say that, "Germany has huge numbers of turbines AND still has its power stations quite simply because like every other EU nation the demand for electricty is rising every year".
But, while admitting that demand is rising here also, you are claiming that wind power generation will, "will cut hugely the number of other more polluting systems that need to be built".
Why should wind power generation here be totally different from the experience of other countries?
Super steve
says...
5:34pm Tue 7 Jul 09
Whaup wrote:Its simple, Germany would need even MORE power stations if it was not for the capacity of the german wind farms. In the UK building wind farms will not stop the need for more conventional plants being built, but it will reduce the AMOUNT of extra plants. Every Megawatt generated by wind is one less needed to be generated by iother means. Its simple.
'Super steve' Your argument is not logical. You say that, "Germany has huge numbers of turbines AND still has its power stations quite simply because like every other EU nation the demand for electricty is rising every year". But, while admitting that demand is rising here also, you are claiming that wind power generation will, "will cut hugely the number of other more polluting systems that need to be built". Why should wind power generation here be totally different from the experience of other countries?
Super steve
says...
5:42pm Tue 7 Jul 09
Berwick = West Ancroft.
Sadberge & Gt Stainton = East Newbiggen
Wynyard = Butterwick.
But of course we all are sure that these same people would be just as vocal if the wind farms were not in their back yards......., but they are not Nimbys.... Yeah really.
Whaup
says...
6:40pm Tue 7 Jul 09
Calling people names will not distract from the weakness of your argument.
You say:
"Every Megawatt generated by wind is one less needed to be generated by iother means. Its simple."
No it's not, it's simple minded and typifies wind industry misinformation.
E.ON Netz (Germany) say of their real world experience that:
"the capability of wind energy to replace conventional power plant capacities is diminishing in percentage terms. If some 8% of wind energy output contributes to Germany’s secured total output today, this figure is set to fall to 4 % by 2020 if the predicted expansion of wind power goes as forecast. In concrete terms, this means that wind power plants with a 48,000 MW output will only replace a secured 2,000 MW of thermally generated power – the equivalent of just two new-generation coal blocks."
Whaup
says...
6:49pm Tue 7 Jul 09
No doubt you think the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research is wrong when they explain that:
"We observed that wind generation has a relatively small capacity credit. At lower levels of wind penetrations the capacity credit of wind generation is found to be about the same as the average load factor of wind. However, as the level of wind penetration rises, the capacity credit begins to tail off. That is why in order to maintain the same level of system security a significant capacity of conventional plant will still be required.
However, these conventional plants will be required to run either occasionally and/or at part load when shortages of supply are likely to occur due to a low total wind power output. Considering that conventional plants at full load are the most efficient and generate the lowest amount of CO2 emission (per electricity produced) such occasionally and/or part-loaded plants will be less utilised and/or produce more CO2 per electricity produced."
(Conclusions. 'Security of decarbonised electricity systems,
Technical report 30.')
More Letters stories
Most popular
Local Information
Enter your postcode, town or place name
dolanp1 says...
11:35am Sat 4 Jul 09