Wind turbines

On Wednesday I posted about supplementary planning guidance on wind turbines, and subsequently was asked whether the idea of a bond to cover the eventual decommissioning of  wind turbines was a good idea - do you front load the costs?

My answer no, and let me explain why not.

I think we are in danger of deciding that all wind turbines are bad, and then looking for all reasons why they should be bad.

So one thing that could go wrong is a slight possibility the operator could abandon the wind turbines....and who then pays for the decommissioning and return of the land back to its original state?

And some would point to Hawaii as an example of 'When Wind Farms Go Wrong', where I think a number of 1st generation wind turbines lay rusting and abandoned because they became uneconomical following the discovery of shale gas in the USA.  But the Americans do make a habit of having spectacular boom and bust enterprises, just visit Baltimore.

In the UK with the feed in tariffs I don't see the risk, you know it's a licence to print money isn't it? ... and I have a feeling that a growing business will be the salvaging of old wind turbines...for the copper alone it may be worthwhile.

On Ynys Môn we are talking of individual wind turbines mostly erected by the landowner, mostly farmers, albeit in agreement with an operator. Whether the landowner wants the operator to provide a bond to cover the eventual decommissioning is I think a matter for them. The final responsibility should lie with the landowner.

It shouldn't be of concern to the Planning Authority, as I take the view that the Planning Authority deals with the principles of land use and not the mechanics of land use....i.e. say you've applied for planning permission for a new house, you don't need to satisfy the Council you can afford to build the new house.

And the 'before you ask' disclaimer - I am not a farmer, nor do I have plans to erect a wind turbine, nor do I know of anyone planning to do so either. Personally I cant see what the fuss is about, I think them quite elegant, and in my opinion a small turbine in the wrong place is less green than a large turbine in the right place, and if it helps say make farmers more carbon neutral more the better.

To pylon, or not to pylon....that is the question..

The winner: T-Pylon by Danish company Bystrup Architecture

A report in the Daily Post - 'Pylon plan will damage tourism on Anglesey, say council on Thursday says National Grid plans to erect towering electricity pylons across Anglesey will damage tourism, warn council chiefs.

As we know the National Grid is consulting on proposals for new grid connections for the Wylfa B and the offshore wind farm array, and there is an ongoing debate as to whether the new connections should be subsea and underground. Not unsurprisingly the preferred option is new overhead lines, which got me thinking whether they will be the new T-Pylon design, shown above. You can follow the progress of the new design at the National Grid T-talk blog.

And if you want to read about the options considered for the new connection, costs and other factors: National Grid - North Wales Connections Strategic Options Report. (pdf file) - You will find that the subsea option is at least twice as expensive than overhead lines.

For at the end of the day it will be mostly down to cost, irrespective how desirable the more expensive option may be to all of us.

Section 9, Electricity Act 1989 says:

9 General duties of licence holders.

(1)It shall be the duty of an electricity distributor—
(a)to develop and maintain an efficient, co-ordinated and economical system of electricity distribution;
b)to facilitate competition in the supply and generation of electricity.

(2)It shall be the duty of the holder of a licence authorising him to transmit electricity—
a)to develop and maintain an efficient, co-ordinated and economical system of electricity transmission; and
b). . ., to facilitate competition in the supply and generation of electricity.

And in Schedule 9:

1(1)In formulating any relevant proposals, a licence holder or a person authorised by exemption to generate, transmit, distribute or supply electricity—
a)shall have regard to the desirability of preserving natural beauty, of conserving flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features of special interest and of protecting sites, buildings and objects of architectural, historic or archeological interest; and

(b)shall do what he reasonably can to mitigate any effect which the proposals would have on the natural beauty of the countryside or on any such flora, fauna, features, sites, buildings or objects.

The National Grid’s commitments when undertaking work in the UK is set out in their stakeholder, community and amenity policy - to download

And if your thinking what does 'have regard to the desirability of preserving natural beauty etc' mean, the following is an extract from the Court of Sessions -Judicial Review of a decision of the Scottish Ministers made on 22 December 2011 granting detailed consent under the Electricity Act 1989, section 36 for an application by Dorenell Limited (UK) for the construction of a wind farm on the Glenfiddich Estate, Morayshire, which was dismissed on all grounds:

....[4]In the summary of the report of the inquiry, the reporter explains that the wind farm would be around 8km to the south of Dufftown, and 2km from the northern edge of the Cairngorms National Park. The application proposes 59 turbines on a site extending to 21.5 square kilometres. The wind farm would be operational for 25 years. The reporter proceeded upon the basis that the determining issues in relation to the section 36 application were (i) the need for the wind farm and national energy policy and guidance, (ii) its environmental and other impacts, including tourism and recreation, and economic benefits and impacts, and aviation safety, and (iii) the development plan, other planning policies, guidance and advice, the Cairngorms National Park plan, and the requirements of schedule 9. The determining issues in relation to the decision on whether to direct that planning permission should be deemed to be granted were the same, under exception of the reference to schedule 9. 

[5] Overall the reporter concluded that the proposals would make a significant contribution towards meeting and surpassing national renewable energy targets. The site benefited from a good wind resource. The proposals would result in landscape and visual effects of substantial adverse significance, but these would be localised and limited in extent. In his judgment, the landscape in the area has the capacity to absorb the proposals. The landscape and visual effects, including the cumulative effects and the effects on the National Park, were acceptable. He was satisfied that an appropriate layout had been achieved. There would be adverse effects on recreation, most notably on walkers and hillwalkers in the local area. However these did not justify rejection of the proposals. The effects on the key industries of tourism, food and drink, and their brand images, would not justify rejection. The economic benefit arising would be small.

 [6] With regard to the proposed mitigation measures, the reporter was satisfied that the effects on birds and other wildlife inhabitats would not be sufficiently adverse to justify refusal. He was satisfied that the integrity of the River Spey Special Area of Conservation and the interests of the two European protected species on site (otters and bats) would not be adversely affected.

 You can read the full judgement at  the Scotland Courts website.

So if those opposed to the pylons want National Grid to consider the alternative subsea and underground options they need to show that the National Grid is not following it's own community and amenity policy and/or the Halford Rules. Also that the proposals will be worse than what exists currently, in that....there is already a connection to the grid across the island, which I assume will be taken away when Wylfa A is finally closed. And a reasonable question is what evidence is there that the existing pylons put off visitors from visiting Anglesey - and how much worse would the new pylons make the situation?

Of course there will be an adverse effect, especially locally near to the pylons, but will this in monetary terms be more than the additional cost of the alternative subsea and underground options?

The National Policy Statement for Electricity Networks Infrastructure (EN-5) says.."The Planning Inspectorate should, however, only refuse consent for overhead line proposals in favour of an underground or subsea line if it is satisfied that the benefits from the non-overhead line alternative will clearly outweigh any extra economic, social and environmental impacts and the technical difficulties are surmountable."

See also National Policy Statements for Energy Infrastructure.

And there you have it, the crux of the matter, that until national policy is changed we will be having pylons.

A new grid connection across the island.

The National Grid is consulting about proposed routes for a new grid connection to serve Wylfa B (if built) and the offshore Celtic Array.  The consultation can be seen on their website.  The preferred option is a  overhead line along one the following corridors:

There was a subsea HVDC option, but that would have cost more. I'm always surprised when those who support the construction of Wylfa B and associated infrastructure, then turn round and oppose wind turbines on land, normally on the grounds it may keep the tourist away. Or those who oppose wind turbines on land but think that the more expensive off shore wind farms are better, forgetting that a grid connection would also be needed for them.

As for Wylfa B, whilst I have no problems with nuclear power, it seems it's now too expensive as a viable option if we want to keep the cost of electricity down, and not forgetting the line of new pylons buzzing away as they cross the landscape.

Ynys Môn Planning Policy - now set by size of mob?

This Wednesday between 200 and 300 protesters stood in the cold outside the Council Offices to voice their concerns about wind turbines, an anaerobic digestion plant at Mona and also proposed biomass plant at Peboc, Llangefni - how many where present  from each group we may never know.

According to some "The large turnout on a weekday furthermore proves that Ynys Môn residents are far more concerned about wind turbines than they are about Wylfa B."

Or in other words it's claimed Ynys Môn residents are more concerned about the erection of 'monstrous and industrial' wind turbines than they are about Wylfa B (supposedly therefore not monstrous or industrial)

So its planning policy decided by size of mob, that draw out the greater support on a weekday, including those that can afford to take time off from work.

Currently the Council is consulting on its Supplementary Planning Guidance - Onshore wind energy. The consultation ends 10 February 2012.

This will replace and build upon the Supplementary Planning Guidance Wind Energy Development (1994)

The statutory planning guidance with greatest weight currently on the island is the Local Plan, and the policy on renewable energy is:

Renewable Energy.

45. Renewable energy projects will be permitted where it can be clearly demonstrated that there will not be any unacceptable impact on

i.   Landscape character.
ii.  Sites of international, national, or local importance for nature conservation.
iii. Species which are of nature conservation importance.
iv. The standard of amenity enjoyed by the resident and tourist population.
vi. Essential public services and communications.

All arrived at by due process, but does the above matter ? - no because up to 300 people turned up on a weekday, we need to set aside everything else and bow to the pressure of the greatest mob.

Now putting aside the arguments about wind turbines, ask yourself this question, would you as a potential investor thinking of starting up a new venture on the island (the island that likes to say 'No')  really do so, if you knew that all it would take is for little more than 300 people to turn up outside the Council Office at Llangefni to scupper your plans and any monies you may have already spent in conducting surveys, environmental impact assessments etc, etc....I think not.

In 2010 the electorate on Ynys Môn was 49,721 therefore the number of protesters who turned out on Wednesday opposed to wind turbines, anaerobic digestion plants and biomass plants was only 0.6% of the electorate.

Remember, that's the new target 300 people, that's all you now need to allegedly change council policy and make some Councillors jump.

Here is a potential future call to the Council "So what do you think of my idea for investment in the island."

Council official replies "Hold on there is a big angry mob outside, I don't think they like the idea."

Onshore wind turbines - most are good some are wrong

This Wednesday the action group Anglesey against wind turbines are holding a demonstration against onshore wind turbines outside the Council Offices at Llangefni.

According to their website their mission is:

'Anglesey Against Wind Turbines is dedicated to preserving our island landscape. We exist to oppose any further erection of commercial on shore wind turbines on the grounds that they are unsightly,damaging to our fragile economy, uneconomic, noisy and damaging to our wildlife.'

Sadly such a broad brush; that seems to rule out any onshore wind turbines irrespective of their individual merits, dilutes the case against specific sites where the erection of wind turbines should be refused.

Are wind turbines unsightly? - well that is a matter of opinion. Of course a large number of wind turbines in an area of outstanding natural beauty could be damaging to the landscape for many reasons. Then there is a case that wind turbines should be a safe distance from properties, with adequate planning conditions to limit noise pollution.

But to rule out all wind turbines onshore is plainly wrong.

I find it ironic that some people claim to be against wind turbines on the island because they say it would be damaging to tourism, but on the other hand fully support Wylfa B -  you've got to laugh haven't you?

Talking of tourism I found the following appeal decision from last August quite interesting reading.  Its an appeal against the decision of the Isle of Wight to refuse planning permission for the erection of wind turbines on land at Cheverton Down, Cheverton Shute, Shorwell, Newport, Isle of Wight.  You can read the appeal decision at the Isle of Wight website.

The planning appeal  was dismissed for specific reasons as set out by the Inspector. However, on the subject of tourism this is what the Inspector had to say:

94. ThWART and many others in written submissions and evidence to the Inquiry, consider that the proposal would adversely affect tourism, which is so important to the economy of the island. Various surveys, studies and questionnaires were submitted in this regard. Those studies which are prospective are easily criticised on the grounds that there is no guarantee that opinions would equate to actual responses to any change. In retrospective studies, it is not usually possible to say what would have happened had the change not occurred. Methods to try to quantify the effects of turbines on tourism in monetary terms are particularly fraught with difficulty. None of the studies presented to the Inquiry provide useful insight into the likely effects of the proposed turbines on tourism. The harm I have identified to landscape character and the AONB might detract from the recreational experience of those who come to the area to enjoy these attributes, but there is nothing to demonstrate that this would deter them from coming in numbers that would significantly impact upon the tourist economy.

95. I appreciate concerns about the effects on specific local enterprises. Uncertainty about the likely implications of change to this landscape is understandably a matter of some anxiety for those making investment decisions about tourism infrastructure and local businesses. However, for this to weigh significantly against allowing the proposal there would need to be some evidential basis for finding that the turbines would materially affect tourism, and the evidence presented to the Inquiry falls short of doing so.

96. Limerstone Down is a favoured location for hang gliding and paragliding. It is a good take-off point for cross-country flying, allowing for a wide range of wind directions, with lower fields for landing if required. However, I am not convinced that the proposed turbines would necessarily mean that flying from this site ceased. No doubt such high and moving structures would add to the safety risk. But experienced flyers use Chillerton Down, notwithstanding the existing television mast. Those who considered the risk to be too high would be forced to use other, perhaps less desirable, locations, but it seems to me that the financial effects of doing so would be unlikely to have a significant impact on the island’s tourist economy. This is not a consideration which weighs heavily against allowing the appeal.

97. The effect of the turbines on equestrians was raised. The nearest bridleway that is a public right of way would be some 250 m from the turbines. This would exceed the 200 m exclusion zone advocated by the British Horse Society, and cited in PPS22CG. The permissive bridleway would run close to T2 and T3. But these could be closed, albeit at a cost to the landowner.90 Whilst this might necessitate the use of other routes, it is not a consideration of much significance in determining this appeal. The scheme would not be likely to pose a significant risk to those nearby by reason of ice throw or blade failure. I do not consider that the likely effects of the proposed wind farm on equestrians would weigh significantly against the proposal.

Now whilst this appeal decision alone does not set a precedent, I think its an useful reminder that for objections to stand up against any planning application they must be based on some rational argument that you can  justify and back up when challenged.

And finally returning to AAWT mission statement, landscapes are a living entity, that over generations  reflected the growth of humanity. Even in the last hundred years, the landscape of Anglesey has changed due to i.e larger farms, growing towns. You cannot preserve a landscape, for without allowing it to change to reflect the needs at any one moment in time, you will only eventually succeed in destroying the very thing you are trying to protect.

My perspective on wind farms and why we need them.

There is it seems a growing concern about wind farms on Ynys Môn,  the island of whom most visitors I know comment on how windy it is.

A related concern is the apparent lack of debate around the issue of wind farms - well let me contribute some of my thoughts.

First all you need to think about the wider picture - One day we shall have used most of the planet's natural resources be they oil, coal or gas.

And in their burning we produce carbon dioxide, which evidence suggest is causing global warming.

Much is made about future generations - i.e the need for austerity now, so that we don't burden them with our debt.

I for one believe we are very lucky, that we (if a small percentage of the world population) live in the golden age of mankind. The future if we continue on the same irresponsible consumer driven madness is a bit bleak to say the least.

However, we should at least try and make the future better for those yet born.  One big step we can take is to reduce our dependency on carbon fuels.

Climate change is real, is accepted by most countries of the world, and is something we need to tackle as a matter of urgency. You may say what's the point of the UK cutting our carbon emission if China emits more - a bit like saying it's OK I only smoke 20 a day, the bloke next door smokes 40, then dying of cancer.

We need to consume less and reduce our reliance on carbon based fuels. Think about the electricity we use, we need a balanced mix of electricity generation.  Now, one day there may be new means of generating electricity such as thorium power, but until then we have to use what we have.

That would be nuclear power in the first place, then gas (the most 'friendly' of carbon based fuels) and then renewable sources.

I don't think the Conservative led Coalition Government is under any impression that renewable power can provide a majority of our electricity, although some might disagree. The latest government policy aims for 15% of our electricity to be supplied from renewable sources, a major component of which is wind power.

That means 85% of our electricity needs has to produced from either nuclear, gas or coal. One day soon we might develop a commercially viable carbon capture system, which would make gas or coal more environmentally friendly. But even then that's still burning it, and gas and coal wont last for ever - sorry kids we used it all, at least we've made it warmer for you!

Let's be realistic whatever we do has an impact on the planet, but we are not talking about the planet's future; its destiny is already mapped out in the stars - we need to STOP, and think about the future of HUMANITY.

If we didn't have wind farms, then we would have to build more nuclear, gas or coal power stations. Offshore wind farms being more expensive, whereas wind farms on land provide a relatively cheap and short term solution to our need to reduce our dependency on carbon based fuels.

A major part of the government's policy for reducing carbon emission is a switch to electric cars. That's going to be a lot of batteries, and the next major breakthrough is likely to come in battery technology. In theory electric cars could be a source of storage, after all not going out for the day, battery full why not sell it to the national grid.

We could also build more hydro power station like the one at Llanberis, which is a storage unit. It was build to utilise spare capacity from Wylfa and Trawsfynydd, to pump the water to the top reservoir, and then quite quickly give a boost to the national grid when the nation say had a cup of tea during a commercial break in Coronation Street.

I finish by saying that in my opinion onshore wind farms are the short term answer to our urgent need to reduce our dependency on carbon based electricity albeit as part of a mix of generating sources. Who knows in 20 years time we might have new means of generating clean and green electricity, but until then we would be foolish to totally rule out onshore wind farms as part of the solution.

See also

Does wind power reduce carbon emissions?

Select Committee on Economic Affairs - The Economics of Renewable Energy

Councils consult on windfarms in 'Gwynedd'

Wind farms especially the new generation of wind turbines; which are much larger than those we currently have on Ynys Môn, have of late become a contentious issue. The pressure group Anglesey against wind turbines "exist to oppose any further erection of commercial on shore wind turbines on the grounds that they are unsightly, damaging to our fragile economy, uneconomic, noisy and damaging to our wildlife."

Large non-commercial wind turbines being OK I assume?

I myself have previously stated the in my humble opinion wind farms are the short term answer to our electricity needs, as part of a sustainable national grid.  However having said that I think 'Anglesey against wind turbines' are doing a good job in that wind turbines "has recently become a hotly debated topic".

As Paul Williams (aka The Druid) points out, even the Council has taken notice. Last week Anglesey and Gwynedd Joint Planning Policy Unit published a draft Supplementary Planning Guidance document which you can download from Ynys Môn Council website.

The consultation period runs till Friday 10th February 2012.

Update: With thanks to Mairede Thomas (see below comments) who makes reference to the following documents:

Electricity Market Reform (EMR) White Paper 2011 (July 2011)

and

Written ministerial statement by Chris Huhne on Electricity Market Reform: technical update. (December 2011)

or Press release by Chris Huhne, Energy and Climate Change Secretary.

Windfarms in Irleand.

In a recent flyer from the protest group Anglesey against wind turbines they claim:

"Similar developments in Scotland and Ireland have permanently damaged their tourist industry."

I have posted before about the impact of wind farms on tourism in Scotland, see Wind farms and tourism 'compatible'.

But what about Ireland?

Research in 2008 undertaken by Lansdowne Market Research which involved face-to face interviews with 1,300 tourists, both domestic (25%) and overseas (75%) (1,000 in the Republic; 300 in Northern Ireland, for Fáilte Ireland’s Environment Unit says in summary:

Almost three quarters of respondents claim that potentially greater numbers of wind farms would either have no impact on their likelihood to visit or have a strong or fairly strong positive impact on future visits to the island of Ireland.

Of those who feel that a potentially greater number of wind farms would positively impact on their likelihood to visit, the key driver is their support for renewable energy and potential decreased carbon emissions. Those who are negatively disposed are more likely to cite that wind farms look ugly, are noisy and can frighten or damage wildlife. A small number also claim they have preference for other forms of renewable energy.

In terms of the size and composition of wind farms, tourists tended to prefer farms containing fewer turbines. If both produced the same amount of electricity, tourists also preferred wind farms containing a small group of large turbines (55%) to a large group of smaller turbines (18%).

You can download the leaflet from Fáilte Ireland’s Environment Unit.

Wind farms and tourism 'compatible'

A report in the Daily Post today speaks of 'High Stakes' as Ynys Môn Council considers a number of applications for new wind farms. The most controversial perhaps is an application for three 100 metre high wind turbines at Penymynydd. This application was the reason that the protest group Anglesey Against Wind Turbines was set up.

As the (now defunct:Jan 2012) Photon Blog explains:

Despite my overall support for renewables, I have to say I was glad that a protest group has sprung up to protest at the several wind turbine applications now in the pipeline, some being decided upon this week. Different views are a healthy thing, and are especially welcome on an island that, traditionally, is reluctant to protest or speak up against anything at all.

I too am a supporter of renewables, we have wind farms already on the island, albeit not as tall as some of those proposed at Penymynydd. To the north of the island there are many existing wind farms, which from certain viewpoints can be seen as a continuous strip across the landscape. Maybe because I have got used to them, but for me they blend in, they do not stand out, they have become part of the landscape.

A spokesman for Anglesey Against Wind Turbines said to the Daily post "After a bumper year for tourism, what a pity to ruin it by spoiling our island. A decrease in tourism would have a widespread effect, not only on those directly involved in providing accommodation, attractions, shops, cafes and restaurants, but also a knock-on effect on all the other places where those business owners then spend that money."

Yes, this year Anglesey, as result of a number of factors; including the royal wedding, cost of the pound, and staycations  - had a bumper year for tourism. Or to put it another way, the existing windfarms that can be seen quite predominately from the A5025 coast road doesn't seem to have deterred the tourists.

If anything is likely to deter the tourist from returning it's the delays on the A55.

But what written evidence is there about the effect of wind farms on tourist?

The title of this post Wind farms and tourism 'compatiable' is from the Scottish Government press realise on their website.

And Three quarters of tourists surveyed for the study into the Economic Impacts of Wind Farms on Scottish Tourism felt wind farms had a positive or neutral effect on the landscape. 97 per cent of tourists in the sample said wind farms would have no impact on their decision to visit Scotland again.

The full study into the 'Economic Impacts of Wind Farms on Scottish Tourism' can be downloaded from the Scottish Government website.