The purpose of this leaflet is to help put aside myths and wrong information so that we can discuss real and important issues and come to informed and unprejudiced opinion. It is based on the ‘10 facts’ put about by those whose aim is mobilising opposition to the wind-farm in the 6 parishes. 10 ‘Facts’ about Windfarms and why these are wrong

‘Wind farms are not efficient’
…………………………………………………

1. ‘Wind turbines are only 25% efficient, therefore they can never replace any power station, whereas biomass could. In Denmark where they have used wind power for 30 years (over 5000 turbines, MOSTLY AT SEA), they are still 80% reliant on coal fired power stations. Therefore not a single power station has been closed through wind power.’

REALITY:
Wind turbines have a capacity factor of 28%. This is not the same as efficiency. When it is windy they generate a lot, when is breezy they generate less. They operate most days of the year and if you add up all the electricity they generated it would be the same as if they had run at maximum power for 28% of the year. They are very cost-effective producers of electricity. On a cost- planning basis, wind farms are cheaper than coal and nuclear. Only gas may be the same or cheaper.

Wind is not the answer to all our energy needs. But it is definitely part of the answer. Wind power is part of a generation mix. The combined system that we have at present (coal, nuclear, gas, renewable) provides for up to 5% failure in the chain of supply (connectors breaking, powerstations or turbines failing etc). We do not need any extra ‘spinning reserve’ to cater for any unpredictability of wind.

Why would Saxon Windpower be prepared to invest £10 million into something that is inefficient?

Denmark has 2880 MW of wind power installed, 88% of which is onshore.

…………………………………………………

2. ‘Under 5 mph wind speed, no electricity is generated and above 56 mph, turbines must shut down (automatically) for safety reasons. If they fail to shut down the dynamo could ignite or the whole turbine could collapse, as has happened in Germany, where whole or part of the blades have travelled up to 400m at great speed before hitting earth. It should be noted that the distance to the nearest house is 400m (Linstead).’

REALITY

Turbines do indeed operate in the range of windspeeds from 5mph to 55mph. If there is a breath of wind at ground level there is probably plenty of wind passing the rotor. This is why turbines operate for 85%-90% of the time, sometimes producing a little power, sometimes their full rating. · As one would expect there are many rigorous safety features on a wind turbine. Most are of the fail safe sort. For example, the main brakes have to be powered to release, so if there is any loss of power to the site then the turbines shut down safely. Modern wind turbines can safely withstand wind well in excess of hurricane force (up to 150mph).

· The layout is not finalised as yet, so no definitive distances from houses can be given. It is highly unlikely that turbines will be closer than 700m to residential properties.

……………………………………………

3. ‘This is not a cheap source of electricity as it is heavily reliant on government subsidies. The Danish government announced a few weeks ago, the withdrawal of all their subsidies to this industry due to inefficiency.’

REALITY
All renewable technologies require guarantees to compete in the UK electricity market. Wind receives no special incentives and is treated the same as small scale hydro schemes, landfill gas generation, biomass and sewage digester plants. The Danish government has withdrawn their subsidy programme because wind energy is so competitive now that they believe developers can sell electricity direct into the electricity market. In the future, the environmental benefit of wind power is only awarded a reimbursement of the CO2 tax of 0.10 DKK/kWh (0.013 EUR/kWh). In addition, a price ceiling limits wind energy prices to 0.36 DKK/kWh (0.048 EUR/kWh). The subsidy has been withdrawn because wind energy is becoming more economic, not less.

……………………………………………

4. ‘In the 25 years of the lifespan of a turbine, it will only produce thirty times the quantity of energy that goes into the manufacture and construction of a turbine. Not a good return on the environmental damage and money spent.’

REALITY
That is a FANTASTIC performance! A coal or gas burning plant has continually to put more energy in to generate more electricity, and as such they never pay back and you get global warming to boot.

Nuclear technology has a good energy balance, but it is more expensive than wind and has the insurmountable problem of being unable to dispose of its waste safely.

……………………………………………

‘Turbines are noisy and flicker’

……………………………………………

5. ‘Despite assurances to the contrary, we will hear them. The appeal at Shipdam and Scarning near Dereham has just been refused on noise grounds – SEE EDP 18th September. Unlike the old turbines, there is no gearing sound but from a distance there is the whine of the dynamo, the deep thump as the blades pass the pole and the low frequency vibration noise which cannot be measured with the equipment normally used. This sound travels at different speeds and distances through a variety of soils, and clay (ours) is the best conductor of this phenomenon. This may be felt inside buildings.’

REALITY
The people who visited the OutNewton wind farm with Saxon know that you have to be close (less than 400m) to be able to hear the machines. The coach stopped about 1km away from the OutNewton site, and even though we were all directly downwind of the site (i.e. noise was blowing towards us) no-one could hear anything.

The Shipdam project was turned down because the developer had not done the background noise level measurements to be able to confirm that there would be no noise nuisance from the project. It is anticipated the project would be likely to get approval if this error was corrected and the project resubmitted. Saxon Windpower will do the proper background measurements to ensure the site is laid out to avoid noise issues.

Any tonal noise such as a prominent electrical whine or mechanical grinding would probably result in the site’s being shut down until such problem was corrected. · The low frequency noise is a characteristic of one particular manufacturer’s early turbines. Saxon won’t use them. There will be no low frequency noise at the St James site.

……………………………………………

6. ‘There is also shadow flicker and shadow disturbance occurring with the rising and setting of the sun. The former is seen inside and the latter outside. Both of which may affect people suffering from epilepsy and migraine.’

REALITY
There are ready rules of thumb that ensure sites are laid out to avoid shadow flicker. The site will be laid out to ensure there is no shadow flicker at local residences.

……………………………………………

‘Windfarms affect our environment adversely’

……………………………………………

7. ‘The logistics of getting these turbines to the site are mind blowing as St James doesn’t have an ‘A’ road within 5 miles. The blades are 40m long and they do not bend or arrive in pieces. A telescopic trailer is used to accommodate the 40m length, which will not negotiate the winding lanes and tight bends approaching the proposed site from any direction. We are told that what they need to take out they will reinstate. How do you replace hedgerows, trees and walls which have stood for many decades and longer?’

REALITY
Those people who visited the OutNewton wind farm will have seen the very sharp beds and windy roads that were negotiated to get turbine components to the site. Trailers with front and rear steering can get round remarkably tight corners with very long loads. One brick wall was taken down and rebuilt. · A detailed access plan will be done as part of the Environmental Assessment.

According to Saxon, hedgerows and walls are best replaced by taking them down carefully in the first place. All efforts will be applied to preserve the original building materials and some species of plant.

……………………………………………

8. ‘This land is the habitat for several species of birds and mammals, and this habitat will be destroyed forever.’

REALITY
Typically a wind farm uses about 1.5% of the land it is spread over, leaving the vast majority of the land untouched. · Thorough ecological, ornithological, and archaeological surveys are done where requested by the statutory bodies who protect such interests. If important habitats were under threat statutory bodies such as English Nature and English Heritage would vigorously object. They haven’t.

……………………………………………

‘Windfarms are not ‘green’ ’

……………………………………………

9. ‘The perception that turbines are ‘green’ in every location is misplaced. It is imperative that we do not address one ecological issue at the expense of so many others, when we do have a choice. The government has chosen wind power over biomass because it is a quick fix and very visible’.

REALITY
The government has not chosen wind energy over biomass or solar or any other technology. The incentives in the market are available to all renewable technologies, with additional capital support available for offshore wind and biomass projects.

Biomass projects are not without their problems. Of four schemes that Saxon team members have been involved with, only two were approved. The other two were rejected on the grounds of the perceived risk of air pollution and the very significant traffic volumes required to deliver fuel to the sites.

The reality is that we need renewable energy in all its forms, we need energy efficiency and conservation, and we need bio-ethanol for road use if we are to realise our ambitions for carbon dioxide reduction. It is false to pretend that there is a choice. Fulfilling our energy needs is not a ‘multiple-choice’ menu. Rather it is a shopping list of essentials and we need to do everything.

……………………………………………

10, ‘The site chosen is not the airfield – it lays between the airfield and St James, but nearer to St James, and this is all arable land.’

REALITY · True, nobody said it was anywhere else.

……………………………………………………….

Some other Reality checks about Windfarms

……………………………………………………….

Wind Energy is getting cheaper and more efficient all the time. Last year Denmark took down 1000 turbines, representing some 100 MW of generating capacity, and replaced them with 300 turbines generating 300 MW. So a third of the number of older turbines is now producing three times the original power. In 2000, Country Guardian said: ‘In order to fulfil the 10% of UK need we need to erect 22,700 wind turbines. To keep up with demand we would have to build 7,000 turbines a year.’ Not only were their figures wrong then, but they are even more wrong now: today the estimate is 4,000. Energy technology is changing rapidly. The inherent flexibility of both the construction and the siting of wind turbines enables this change to be easily implemented: contrary to building coal or nuclear power stations, windturbines can be relocated or replaced with relative ease. Their massive improvement in performance over the last decade is expected to continue through the medium-term, making wind energy increasingly competitive, and allowing subsidies, as in Denmark, to be removed.

Ideally we want to develop both offshore and onshore wind generation, (as we would want to develop diverse sources of energy). Not all eggs in one basket. There are two issues with offshore. The main one is cost. Simply calculated, it is twice as expensive. Another issue is migrating birds. Onshore flight paths are observed, but there is little data on offshore migration routes. This obviously needs to be done. With Offshore farms there is no community ownership possibility.

Biomass requires both land and water, which are both projected to become increasingly scarce because of our rapidly increasing need for food. The reality is that it is false to pretend there is a choice. Reduction of carbon dioxide is urgent. We need renewable energy in all safe forms as well as the maximisation of energy efficiency in our homes and in all our activities. Wind is one of those safe and vital options.

……………………………………………

Saxon say: We accept that we will never convince everybody near a project to support it. The landscape you live near is always valuable to you. However, many people who vocally oppose such schemes use out of date statistics and misrepresentation to turn a very simple technology into some sort of horror story. The reality is different, as Councillor Harrington a very vigorous opponent of the OutNewton scheme told Saxon: ‘Everything I said they would be, they aren’t and everything I said they would do, they don’t. House prices have continued to rise in the village, they don’t kill birds, they’re not unsightly, they don’t wreck TV reception and they’re not noisy.’ ……………………………………………

If you want to know more about the co-operative or want to discuss these or other issues, please contact any of us.

Robert Edwards (bobji100@hotmail.com)

Graham Elliott

Marion Gaze

Rachel Kellett

John Sanderson

Gillian and Peter Wells

Ann and Martin Wolfe

Websites:
www.britishwindenergy.co.uk /
www.baywind.co.uk /
www.yes2wind.co.uk

..................................

10 wrong ‘Facts’ Who we are Links Home

Posted 11 November 2003