Residents meet Minister over plans for England's biggest windfarm (From The Northern Echo)
Send us your pictures, video, news and views by texting NORTHERN ECHO to 80360 or email us
Residents meet Minister over plans for England's biggest windfarm
8:00am Friday 17th June 2011 in News
RESIDENTS are confident of defeating a bid to build what could be England's biggest wind farm on their doorstep, after meeting a Government minister yesterday.
The bullish message came after the campaigners - faced with living in the shadow of the giant development, on farmland east of Newton Aycliffe, in County Durham - met local government minister Bob Neill, at Westminster.
The meeting was arranged after Phil Wilson, the Sedgefield MP, asked David Cameron to intervene in the controversy - warning the planned farm was "just too big".
As The Northern Echo revealed in April, energy firm E.on is considering a farm boasting between 25 and 45 turbines, on land stretching from Preston-le-Skerne to Chilton.
The company has subsequently said it has no firm plans and it is too early to say how big any proposed wind farm could be.
Turbines could be built within a mile of Newton Aycliffe and Chilton, and close to Woodham, Bradbury, Mordon and Preston-le-Skerne, either side of the A1(M) and close to the A167.
During the meeting, the residents were told that a case could be mounted if a wind farm was too close to a major road, such as the A1(M), or if there was a "cumulative effect", of too many farms in one area.
The residents believe they can win on both counts, when E.on puts in a detailed planning application to Durham County Council within the next 12 months.
John Clare, from Great Aycliffe Town Council, said: "We are very hopeful, following the meeting. We were put in the right direction, but this is just the start of a war of attrition.
"We are not against wind farms, but this one would be bigger than Newton Aycliffe and just across the road. It would be seen from everywhere in the town - it's the only thing people would see above the trees."
And Jean Gillespie, from Bradbury, said: "We are concerned that it will distract drivers, because it will be either side of the A1M and three times the size of the Angel of the North."
Mr Wilson has already called for a suspension of all new wind farm projects until a region-wide policy has been drawn up, amid fears the North-East is being swamped.
Following the meeting, the MP said: "We put a robust case that this farm should not go ahead, on the basis that County Durham has a very good record on renewable energy developments."
Also at the meeting were Vince Crosby, a Newton Aycliffe town councillor, Paul Gray, a Chilton town councillor, and Maureen Errington, Chilton's Mayor.
The application is likely to be decided by Energy Secretary Chris Huhne because of the scale of the potential develompment.
From next year, such bids will go to a new Infrastructure Planning Commission.
In April, the Prime Minister hinted that people living close to wind farms would be rewarded with council tax discounts and cheaper electricity - but no details have emerged.
Comments(10)
Nlys
says...
6:56pm Fri 17 Jun 11
The only problem is that this turbine park - and all the others that are planned offshore and onshore - will not prevent any nuclear, or gas power stations being built.
Don't take my word for it, read what National Grid have to say on the subject:
http://www.nationalg
rid.com/uk/Electrici
ty/SYS/
In the unlikely event that all the planned wind build were to be built, NG say that we would still need 30.5GW of new nuclear and some 36GW of new gas-fuelled capacity.
Wind is essentially an alternative system. We need real power stations when, as has happened for the last four winters, demand soars and the wind dies.
ilpoppet
says...
10:49am Mon 20 Jun 11
Your 'only problem' is not even a problem. Wind turbines are not replacements for existing conventional powerstations and their end of life replacement, wind turbines reduce the need for burning fossil fuel in those power stations. CO2 emmissions are the problem, not the existance of the power station. If no wind turbines are built, we will still need those nuclear and gas plants from your reference.
Wind power reduces CO2 emmissions and lowers spot prices for electricity. More please.
Nlys
says...
11:29am Mon 20 Jun 11
The evidence is against you on both counts.
Levelised generation costs from Parsons Brinkerhoff and Mott MacDonald both show that wind power generation is more expensive than conventional. In the case of offshore, hugely so.
And this is without factoring in the costs of re-engineering the grid to cope with large amounts of intermittent power generation in places distant from the consumer, and without taking into account backup and curtailment costs which National Grid now admits will add substantially to consumer bills.
Wind does not contribute much to emissions reductions, as is clearly seen in countries with large wind capacity.
The wind industry states that, "Every unit of electricity from a wind turbine displaces one from conventional power stations". BUT, that is meaningless if the conventional power stations are still fired up because... wind power is not visible to the grid/can't be relied on to be there (margin of error in forecasting wihnd speeds)/"because the electricity system must always have access sufficient controllable and flexible electricity generation sources to ramp up and down in order to maintain system frequency" (NG).
ilpoppet
says...
11:52am Mon 20 Jun 11
Onshore wind is cost competative as coal. And that is without any consideration of the externalities of coal. Spot prices, look them up, adding wind to the grid reduces spot prices because the generator has a lower marginal cost than something burning fuel. As for emissions reductions, If your 'other countries' refers to Denmark, look at the whole trans national grid, not just the Danish part of it. Wind power does reduce emissions. No need to look abroad, we can see it working here anyway.
'conventional power stations still fired up' The spinning reserve capacity we have tends to be dictated by the largest generator on the grid - usually Sizewell B. Adding a wind farm does not change this requirement. We need generators to provide frequency response because demand is variable. Your suggestion that building a wind farm requires new spinning reserve or frequency response on the grid is often made but is false.
Nlys
says...
4:18pm Mon 20 Jun 11
Mott MacDonald: DECC, 'UK Electricity Generation Costs Update: A report by Mott MacDonald': www.decc.gov.uk/asse
ts/decc/Statistics/P
rojections/71-uk-ele
ctricity-generation-
costs-update-.pdf
Parsons Brinkerhoff,'Powerin
g the nation, 2010 update': www.pbworld.co.uk/in
dex.php?doc=528
National Grid are now forecasting major costs in operating with large wind capacity managed in a compensated 'curtailment' regime:
"2.18 During periods of minimum demand, renewable generation output is likely to reflect prevailing weather conditions rather than price signals. Whilst the coincidence of high wind output during minimum demand periods will be infrequent , it will become increasingly necessary to restrict the output from wind generation onto the system to ensure sufficient thermal capacity is synchronised to meet the technical requirements of operating reserve. Under this scenario it is estimated that it may be necessary to curtail wind output on about 38 days per year by 2020...
"2.19 The amount of reserve required may be reduced as forecasting abilities improve and some response holdings are allocated to wind, however the cost of constraining wind will become increasingly significant, assuming costs reflect foregone Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROC) revenues."
(NG, 'Operating the Electricity Transmission Networks in 2020 – Update June 2011'):
http://www.nationalg
rid.com/uk/Electrici
ty/Operating+in+2020
/
You, quite deliberately, misrepresent what I wrote - I did NOT say 'requires new spinning reserve'. I was explaining why wind output does not necessarily result in equivalent emissions savings.
The quote was from National Grid who explain why they have been shutting down Scottish wind power (at huge expense to the consumer) in the last two months in preference to shutting down coal- or gas-fuelled generation for free.
Re. spot markets. I suggest that you look at how Denmark is using the Nordpool spot market to curtail wind output by imposing negative tariffs. This is no doubt where we will end up, as wind now has a proven record of providing most when least needed and least when most needed.
Re. wider markets: check what Dena are saying in Germany about operating with 25,000MW of weak load in their system.
Even before the nuclear shutdown, they were saying they needed 26 new coal/lignite-fired power stations to stabilise their system.
ilpoppet
says...
1:35pm Tue 21 Jun 11
As for compensation - Grid opperators will only compensate where that is cheeper than upgrading the line. Programmed line renewal will upgrade to meet the demand on the line. If the grid opperator can do what the generator pays it to do it will compensate the generator - only NIMBYs could concoct this as an argument against wind power.
As for me deliberately misrepresenting what you wrote, why then did you bring up backup for wind power? Turbines arnt the only thing twisting in the wind here.
Negative spot prices in Denmark, yes they can happen and boy that is cheap electricity. Wind farms still generate at this price as they collect the incentive, awarded to promote new renewable development (not just wind) The Danes -ve spot prices are also influenced by their combined heat and power plants that have to keep generating power to keep supplying heat and hot water to cusomers. This low cost power is snapped up by neighbors with Hydro power allowing them to conserve water for higher demand. Everyone wins, what was your point?
As for the Germans, they are not building extra fossil fuel plant, they are renewing what they have because their renewables displace the fuel burnt and CO2 released, not the actual plant itself.
Now, for clarification, what do you think is wrong with adding new wind plant and other renewables to our grid?
Nlys
says...
10:59pm Tue 21 Jun 11
I leave readers, if any, to check what National Grid have to say and make their own minds up.
ilpoppet
says...
1:38pm Wed 22 Jun 11
From what I have read from you, I see no evidence that you have been bothered to try to make sence of any argument. How much simpler to stick to your predudices and not even appraise the evidence that you regurgitate. But hey, good spelling Nlys, way to go!
Jen204
says...
11:34am Thu 23 Jun 11
I drove from Consett to Middlesborough yesterday, and saw loads of wind turbines around Tow Law and Sedgefield. They looked beautiful, and they were all providing clean energy, and all working for once.
We need more of them.
The cost of waste is never factored in to the cost of nuclear. Another earthquake in Japan yesterday.
Jolly Roger says...
5:16pm Fri 17 Jun 11
As you just have to look what happened in Japan, and if the sea rises due to Global warming, it does not bear think out what could happen.