Wind Turbines: A Major New Noise Report

Just a quick post about a new peer reviewed study, published in a leading academic journal on the effects of wind turbine noise on nearby residents. It has been written by three leading academics. (including Dr Chris Hanning - arguably the worlds leading expert in sleep deprivation)

The study (quicklink) is Here

Full Citation:

Nissenbaum MA, Aramini JJ, Hanning CD. Effects of industrial wind turbine noise on sleep and health. Noise Health [serial online] 2012 [cited 2012 Nov 11];14:237-43. 
Available from: http://www.noiseandhealth.org/text.asp?2012/14/60/237/102961

Basically this study reinforces the the now well founded opinion that wind turbines should be no
nearer than 2Km to residential dwellings.

Needless to say, this report will be vigorously ignored and then denied by the money hungry wind turbine cartel and by their brown nosed apologist fashion loving followers. No doubt we will also hear the hysterical slurs and accusations against the researchers in due course. As has happened before.

Do you seriously think there is a difference between the wind cartel and the tobacco industry? Dream on. If there is one, it is as thick as a cigarette paper.

But at least there are signs that these greedy corporate monsters, who are imposing immense misery on an untold number of communities across our country are now meeting some resistance.

Wiltshire County Council has set a minimum setback distance of 2Km (3Km for large turbines).
(See Here). Good for them. Standing up for your community is exactly what local democracy should be all about. Wiltshire County councillors deserve out applause.

But most of all we should salute Dr Chris Hanning and his colleagues for having the courage to publish.

The opinions and scientific findings of Dr Chris Hanning, Dr Mike Nissenbaum and  Dr Jeff  Aramini should cause anyone with the slightest moral conscience to pause in of building these useless monsters anywhere near residential dwellings.

Will that happen?

Don't hold your breath.

Dorset Renewable Energy Strategy Seeks Endorsement

The Dorset Renewable Strategy Update received a mauling when it was first released for Public scrutiny. Particularly it was lambasted for its doctrinaire enthusiasm for covering Dorset with anything up to 360 huge and ineffective wind turbines. (the so-called "realistic" scenario was for 180)

The DEG (now renamed the Dorset Energy Partnership) have supposedly reworked this document. But really little has changed. Even the errors are still there. (more on that later). This reworked version has been released only to selected groups for "endorsement". I have yet to find any publicity for it anywhere for the general public.

So what about the errors?

I will limit myself to the section that is supposedly explaining Capacity Factors, otherwise this post would go on for ever. Below are the correct figures for UK Capacity Factors, taken from the RESTAT Site Here (Renewable Energy Statistics - Dept Energy and Climate Change - see bottom of linked page titled Load Factors there are a set of excel spreadsheets)

The Dorset Renewable Energy Strategy (DRES) is Here See Section 1.5 page 6

 First we have the 30% Capacity Factor Myth
 [quote]
 "wind power technology has a capacity factor of 0.3, or 30%"
 [quote]

 This is WRONG. At best, making such a statement shows a lack of basic research. At worst it is a deliberate attempt at misinformation.

Notice that from the DECC figures, the average CF for the whole of the UK has NEVER even reached 30% let alone become a typical average. For England it is worse. The 10 year rolling CF is less than 25%. The South West (i.e. including Dorset) it is even lower (23.5%) and has dipped to 17.7% in 2010. This document is supposedly about Dorset - right?.

This is not a matter of just  a "couple of per cent".

A 30% CF generator, over a year, will produce 150% of the energy of a 20% CF generator. So essentially this incorrect DRES statement inflates the energy generation we would expect from a Dorset wind turbine by around to 50%. (from high to low the SW CF is inflated by between 17% and 69%)

Some UK turbines DO make it to 30% - but only about 7% of the English fleet manage it. Even then, none are in the South West.

93% of the English turbine fleet have a CF below 30%.  Actually over 70% fail to even hit 25% nationally.  (See earlier post and prof. Jefferson report link Here).

The South West comes third from bottom of a very dismal English CF league.

 The table 1.5.1 in the DRES then uses the UK national CF average of 27%. At least that is an improvement on the mis-truth directly above it in section 1.5, but this is the UK average NOT the English average,  let alone the (worse) South West figure.

Again the figure is WRONG and grossly inflated - especially when related to Dorset.

As an aside, this table also states the off-shore CF as 35%. This is WRONG. In 2008 (the windiest year in the last 12) offshore NEARLY made it to 35% (34.9%). That is as high as it has ever got. Mostly  it has been around the late 20%'s to early 30%'s. Solar PV CF is given as 10% when it is more like 6 -8% in the UK. Then there is biomass and sewage gas. Laudible as these thermal plants are, they are still thermal plant. Even a  new CCGT plant would have difficulty getting a CF over 80% so, with no references,  the quoted 90% CF looks like a bit of extra and unnecessary guilding.

 2. Then we have "Full Power" myth:
 [quote]
 "a wind turbine will typically be generating electricity for 80% of the time, but will only be generating at full power for a smaller % of time, say 10- 15%."
 [quote]
 These are the power output curves for a Nordex turbine (P graph) and a GE (formerally Enron) 1.5MW turbine.

 A turbine only produces full power when the wind reaches about 12 m/s -  Beaufort Scale Force 6-7. A Force 8 is a full Gale.

 This is a graph of typical UK wind speed distribution over time from Here

Can anyone tell me when and how we manage to  get 10-15% at full power out of this? (i.e. 0.12 at 12m/s?)

Now the Bit that is almost (but not quite) a Myth

[quote]
"producing power for 80% of the time"
[quote]

There is a grain of truth in this - although it is a very small grain and that grain relates mostly to windy areas. It is almost certainly inflated and untrue for less windy areas - like Dorset.

But the real problem with this statement is that it obfuscates the simple and wholly damning fact that wind turbines operate at considerably below their CF for MOST of the time. This is because they only produce significant amounts of power during periods of high wind. MOST of the time they are producing very little (if any) power. This is accentuated in low wind areas - like Dorset.

This section in the DRES on Capacity Factors is  totally dissociated from the true figures you would expect in Dorset. The section grossly inflates the capabilities of Wind turbines that would operate in this area and so promotes potentially incorrect assumptions on the viability and practicality of building turbines in Dorset.

Essentially these figures in the DRES obscure the true worth (or lack of it) of potential Dorset Wind farms.

The DEP analysis of the data appears to extend solely to what they are told by their peers in RenewablesUK.

Any formal Strategy, especially a strategy that could promote a massive level of industrialisation of a rural area MUST be based on accurate figures and MUST remain impartial.  Unfortunately this document fails on both counts.

Yet it is supposedly good enough for "endorsement".

It will be interesting to see whether our councillors allow themselves to get railroaded by this travesty.

The Ghost of Winfrith

Today it is hard to believe that just outside Winfrith, a small village in Dorset, there used to be one of the most dynamic and technologically advanced locations in the world. All there is now is a fading building, some rusty sidings and a halting and occasional de-commissioning exercise.

The decommisioning is run by RSRL, or to give it it's full name - Research Sites Restoration Ltd - See Here. The old Winfrith site is set among trees and is well back from the road. Today most drive past without even noticing it.

Winfrith was a nuclear  research facility but it never held a large reactor. The largest was a mere tiddler with a maximum power rating of 63 MW.

Even though this was designed specifically for research purposes it still provided a useful, regular and reliable output to the grid of 50MW.

While it was in operation, Winfrith was serviced by many small companies all based in the surrounding area. These companies were in turn serviced by other small companies providing everything from stainless steel to sandwiches.

Today the remains of the once dynamic industrial site between Winfrith and Wool, now renamed Dorset Green, is a mere shadow of its former self. Most of the jobs, along with the carbon free power generation from the Winfrith reactor are long gone.

It is interesting to compare the effectiveness of the 60 year old Winfrith research reactor to recent plans for so called "renewable" energy in Dorset.

Last year the Dorset Energy Group were bragging about a "reasonable scenario" of building 180 2MW turbines in Dorset. Frustratingly for the zealots in the DEG this number has evidently now been trimmed down, or at least obfuscated so not to frighten the locals.

Let's say the 100 turbines would now be their dream target.

We know that in 2010 the wind turbine capacity factor for the South West was a measly 17.7% (the lowest in the country). But let us round it up and say that these turbines would be over 10% better than their peers elsewhere in the South West.

That gives us a capacity factor of about 20%.

So the output of these 100 turbines would actually amount to 100 x 0.2 x 2 = 40MW.

These turbines would bring very few jobs and no technologically based business park. Virtually nothing would be added to the local economy. The only real local gains would be made by the already rich land owners who, to be fair, would make a killing.

These 100 turbines would utterly ruin the ancient county of Dorset. Every village would be blighted. Every viewpoint would be polluted.

All for 40MW.

Reduce the number of turbines and you also reduce the already ridiculously poor power output. So they get even more ineffective. Though collectively somewhat less ugly.

Now compare that to the old Winfrith site that provided many good jobs and singlehandedly provided the power equivalent to 120 huge wind turbines. Remember also that the tiny Winfrith reactor also provided consistent on-demand output unlike the intermittent and unpredictable wind turbine output.

Most of the people who designed Winfrith have not only retired but many have now died of old age. Yet 60 odd years ago they produced plentiful carbon free electricity that was, at the time, generated by the very leading edge of technology.

If you really wanted to reduce carbon emissions from coal and gas plant then even the old Winfrith research reactor would be a step forward from the wind turbine fiasco.

But today far more effective nuclear technology is available. Exciting new developments with MSR or LFTR technology promise massively plentiful yet utterly safe and secure power generation.

The next generation nuclear reactors will be developed by dynamic establishments - like Winfrith used to be.

Unfortunately Winfrith will no longer be one of them.

The Ship in Wool

It is not often that Billothewisp has been impressed by pub food, but tonight was a rare exception.

A chance encounter entailed a visit to the Ship public house in Wool. Billothewisp was presented with the best pub curry he has had in a very long time. Not only that, the bar staff were friendly, the beer good and the ambience very pleasant.

Previously, on my last visit,about a year ago it felt a bit like eating in Tesco's. But not any more.

The landlord was a great host (sounded like a Brummy... no doubt from the Dagenham mould). Certainly worth another visit. Thursday is Curry night, and it is cheap. I'll be there.

Here is a challenge:

Billothewisp, in true Kolly Kibber style (you haven't read Brighton Rock? Shame on you!) will buy the first person to correctly identify him a pint of Badgers.

But it has to be done correctly. Aka:

"You are Billothewisp, and I claim my free pint"

Of course you risk making a complete Pillock of yourself and getting punched in the face. But even so you will still have had a good curry.

If the person you challenge bursts into tears at the thought of having to pay for someone else's drink, then you know you have the right man.

Regrettibly Billothewisp is significantly over the drinking age limit so cannot claim to be too young, or too poor. Neither can he claim membership of the Salvation army. (although he will try)

Just make sure you stand between him and the door. He is, when asked to pay, quite fleet of foot.

Whatever way he tries to weedle out of paying, take no prisoners.

But make sure you get the right guy (or gal, or pit-pony).

Or you might be spending a night in the cells.

One Hundred and Eighty Onshore Turbines for Dorset

This post is about a strategy document, quietly being pushed through by Dorset County Council. This document seeks to industrialise virtually the whole of rural Dorset by building 180 on-shore wind turbines.

The DorsetForYou webpage holding the documents: 

http://www.dorsetforyou.com/402620

The Draft Document : 

http://www.dorsetforyou.com/media.jsp?mediaid=163477&filetype=pdf

The Technical Appendix:

 http://www.dorsetforyou.com/media.jsp?mediaid=163936&filetype=pdf

The good people of Dorset have had some success defending their communities against useless Industrial Wind Turbine Complexes. Two such plans (East Stoke and Silton) have been successfully fought off. But the corporations  are certain to go to Appeal, as has happened elsewhere.

Especially now, as the prize would be a planning precedent that would allow them to cash in all over Dorset with Dorset County Council's blessing.

If you think this is a storm in a teacup and only concerns two villages, I have some very bad news for you. This is only the thin end of the wedge.

Over sixty communities and maybe as many as one hundred and twenty will be lined up for industrialisation. Like dominoes they will be picked off one after the other. Sixty rural villages, towns and hamlets in Dorset. All lined up for having Industrial Wind Turbine Complexes imposed on them. How many (if any) Dorset communities will be left un-scarred?

The Bournemouth Poole and Dorset Renewable Energy Strategy, has been prepared by Dorset Country Council. It is now nearing its final draft stage and has been quietly (silently?) released for public consultation. I have yet to find anywhere that tells the public it is available for comment or what it contains.


In this document, the recommendation is that Dorset should install 180 turbines. Each of these white elephants would be higher than Salisbury Cathedral. This 180 on-shore wind turbine plan is promoted as the "realistic" option. But the report does not rule out their preferred option which would be 360 turbines.

Why 60 villages? Look at a map of Dorset. Rule out the main conurbations. Rule our AONB's. What is left?

If one village is affected by 3 turbines (or two by six), that is 60 communities blighted for 180 turbines. 120 communities ruined for 360.

I repeat this is NOT Off-Shore. This is On-Shore. Next to where people live. The planned Poole Bay off-shore turbine complex is extra to this.

Which bit of Dorset gets ruined the most? Here's some screen shots from the PDF of the Technical summary. (Notice they even sell these figures as including noise mitigation -prior to this the figure was over 1400 turbines!)

First the "Maximum Scenario"

Now the Medium (or as they say, "more realistic") Scenario

I half expect you not to believe me about this. It is so utterly outrageous. So go to the links at the top of this post and see for yourself.

Please post a comment if they "disappear" I have copies and I'll publish here..

When you read about the gallant defence of villages of East Stoke and Silton, remember their planned (and resisted) industrialisation is the thin end of a very ugly wedge.

If we allow their desecration; Your community is next.