Defending East Stoke

Billothewisp has been in pastures new for a while. Pastures remote enough to completely defeat my trusty 3G dongle, even my mobile barely got a signal.

So I've missed the start of the East Stoke (Alaska Wind farm) planning appeal. So rather belatedly, may I wish the good people of East Stoke all the best in defending their village.

If there is justice in the planning system then the ruling of the Purbeck District Council planning department, the Council and the wishes of the people of East Stoke will prevail, and this travesty of an application for an industrial wind turbine complex will be thrown out (again).

East Stoke is a small rural village.

It is certainly no place for any form of Industrial complex. Let alone an industrial complex with four buildings the height of Salisbury Cathedral.

Doing the Right Thing (Not)

Early today, some poor soul in the planning department at Purbeck District Council made a mistake. They probably typed in the wrong reference number for some abandoned planning appeal. The mistake was soon picked up on and corrected.

But in the short time window where the wrong planning application was re-labelled as "Appeal Withdrawn", one of the many people who live in the shadow of Planning application - 6/2010/0082 (HERE)  noticed it had been changed on the website. Along with many other supporters of the people of East Stoke, I received an email.

Such is their concern, such is their dread.

The local people actually check the planning site on a daily basis in hope that Infinergy will do the decent thing and withdraw their appeal.

But no such luck. No such decency. No such respect for local democracy.

Just a typing error and a little bit of forlorn hope by the good people of East Stoke.

If you read this blog regularly, you know how I rage against the technically illiterate doctrinaire buffoons who prop up this wind turbine farce. Especially those who are willing to sell out their neighbours for their quasi-religious ideology and/or 30 pieces of silver.

You must know how I loathe the carpet bagging money sharks who will trample over anyone to get their hands on the filthy lucre known as the ROC.

Particularly, you know how I rale against wishful thinking. 

But today, wishful thinking or not, I will not be criticising my friends in East Stoke. Especially as they realistically assessed this as a probable PDC error in the first place.

But still, this morning they hoped against hope that Infinergy had actually done something moral. Something that showed respect for local democracy. Especially something that would have shown some regard for the people who live in the shadow of their ugly money making scheme.

But no. It was just some typing error at County Hall.

I do not expect anyone in East Stoke really believed that Infinergy would do the decent thing.

They were not wrong.

Although no doubt, they were dissapointed.

Safer SetBacks

Actually, the Scout Camp at East Stoke would be (much) less than 1000 feet from the nearest turbine of the proposed East Stoke (Alaska Farm) Industrial wind turbine complex.

Yet a leading Wind Turbine Manufacturer (Vestas) recommends in its technical documentation that technicians working on turbines of a similar size stay at least 400 metres away (1300 feet) - unless absolutely necessary.

A residential home for people with Autistic Spectrum Disorder (i.e. some of the most vulnerable in our community)  is about 2400 feet away.

Peoples homes are within 2000 feet.

Meanwhile the Scottish Government requires a 2Km (6500 foot) setback and just about every medical expert who has studied the field agrees with them including:

•  Dr Chris Hanning (the world's leading sleep deprivation expert) 
• The French equivalent of the BMA, 
• Dr Amanda Harry ENT Specialist 
• Dr Nina Pierpont consultant pedriatrician (author of Wind Turbine Syndrome). 

All of these medics have produced devastating reports on the effects of having turbines too close to peoples homes.

Then there are  the environmental bodies, all queuing up to support a setback of around 2Km.

• The United Kingdom Noise Association
• The John Muir Trust
• The CPRE.

The only organisation who thinks having closer setback is a "good idea" is RenewablesUK the cartel trade association representing the wind turbine carpet baggers.

But, seriously folks,  you do not have to worry about the morality and social conscience of the wind turbine fraternity.

They simply don't have any.

Hat tip to my friend Linda at Windtoons ( Here )

A Wind Turbine Capacity Factor Near You.

Billothewisp has decided to have a little competition to see which parts of the UK had the highest and lowest Wind Turbine capacity factors in 2010. Then we can see what the carbon savings are, particularly for the proposed East Stoke and Silton wind farms in Dorset..

Take this document  ( Here ). It is part of a document set called DUKES. (God! how Chris Huhne must hate having to publish this stuff)

In particular take this table.

Clearly the CF winner is (at a paltry 23.9%) is Northern Ireland.

Also very clearly, the CF loser is (at a wholly pathetic 17.7%)  is The South West of England.

It also shows that the "wonder" of offshore windpower only managed a CF of 29.6%.

Hmmm. There is something wrong here isn't there?

RenewablesUK, the wind industry trade association drone on and on  about the overall capacity factor being about 30%.

But last year not even off-shore managed the illusionary 30% CF. Dismally, not a single on-shore area came anywhere close to 25% let alone 30%.

If you believe in these things, then I expect you think that even though the output may be crap, they still help reduce carbon emissions

Unfortunately the truth is somewhat less rosy.

Billothewisp has to quote another governmental/academic document to offer some clarity as to exactly what carbon saving will be made.

The document was actually brought to my attention by a Guardian article last week written by Polly Curtis.

This Guardian article itself was the usual half-baked pro-wind  "investigation", and lacked even a semblance of even handedness. (See this comically one-sided  "Reality Check" ).

But it did refer to a very interesting report by the UKERC concerning wind turbine intermittency.

The document is available here -  The Intermittency Report

The Intermittency Report points out that due to their intermittent output, wind turbines need carbon emitting backup.

Because this backup is is trying to track the wind and compensate for the turbine vagaries, it is running inefficiently at sub optimal output.

The extra carbon emissions from this inefficient operation statistically gets compensated  by the wind turbine - but only when the collective turbine output reaches  a CF of about 20%.

So, if you have a capacity factor of 30% you are in saving carbon emissions..

But, that means that turbines in places like the South-West, (CF of 17.7%),  do not even cover the inefficiency they force on their carbon based backup generators. This carbon based backup generation  emits more carbon due to having to backup these ineffective turbines than it would if they didn't exist and was providing the power on its own.

In the South West, more CO2 is emitted not less. All thanks to the pitifully ineffective wind turbines.

These turbines cost carbon while producing intermittent expensive and unreliable energy.

You could actually reduce carbon emissions by shutting down all the South-West's turbines. (rather than paying them a subsidy).

Even for offshore wind, the carbon savings are pitifully small and horrendously expensive..

Particularly, for the proposed East Stoke and Silton wind farms in Dorset, the most environmentally sensible thing to do is exactly what the local councils have voted for - rejection.

Unfortunately the lure of the filthy lucre means that both of the corporations involved are going to appeal against the democratic decisions of the democratically elected local councils.

It is going to be the usual sad scenario  of money, power and greed versus local democracy.

The cost in national resources and finance, along with the environmental damage so outweigh any possible environmental gain  that we would be massively better off both financially and environmentally by consigning the whole white elephant wind turbine fleet  to the dustbin of history.

Debunking the Myths

OK. This is a long post. To sweeten the task there is a windtoons cartoon at the end. No cheating.

Perhaps the most obscene aspect to the whole of the wind turbine fiasco is the way the carpet-baggers make up the "facts" to fit their own tawdry little aims. Especially when the truth is somewhat inconvenient. Wide eyed they then go into rant mode in an attempt browbeat everyone into believing their propaganda.

Take this site HERE for example. It is funded by the EU. But look at the bottom of any web page and notice it proudly states it is "co-ordinated by the EWEA" That is the European Wind Energy Association in case you did not know.

To me that sounds a bit like like having NHS Direct run by Glaxo-Smith-Kline-Beecham. Although to be fair to GSKB, I think they would be far more honourable than the average carpet-bagging wind-turbine cartel. But I digress.

On this site they have that favourite set of web pages you find on any of the carpet-bagging websites these days, proudly labelled  "Myths". Evidently our carpet-bagging friends want to enlighten the public by "Debunking the Myths" and show us all how wind energy is not only cheap reliable and non-intermittent but will probably cure cancer and teach you child to read as well.

What you actually get is the usual sad self serving deception and hypocrisy one has come to expect from the bureaucratic elite that runs this farce. When Sir Robert Armstrong used the phase "Economical with the truth" during the spy catcher trial of 1986 he really had no idea how the wind industry would take the meaning of the phase to a much higher level.

So let us look at the first myth they want to debunk. The myth which we all so mistakenly believe i.e.
"Wind power is expensive". Their answer to this "myth" is: (exactly as written:)

[quote]
Wind power ... can compete with other power generation options at good sites.
[unquote]

Now I suspect that a good site to the average carpet-bagger is anywhere they have got planning permission. To the rest of us I suspect a good site would be a windy site. One where, say, the turbine output would meet their often hyped 30% average capacity factor.

Now as you know there are some clever blokes about who love to debunk the debunk. One is called Professor Jefferson who did some research on the whole of the English turbine fleet that was operational for all of 2009 (See pdf Here).

He found that an annual 30% capacity factor was only reached by 7.6% of the turbine fleet. While 74% of the fleet failed to even reach 25% capacity factor. In fact the same percentage (7.6%) of turbines failed to manage 10% as managed to reach 30%.

So, the first deceit here in our "Debunking the Myths" is the "good site" deceit.

If you limited Wind turbines to only "good sites", and assuming that means a site that reaches the often quoted "30%" capacity factor then perhaps they could compete. They forget to mention that this would junk 92% of the turbine fleet in England straight away. Clearly MOST (almost all)  wind turbine power generation cannot compete with other power generation.

But it gets worse. They want to elaborate. (Ugh!)

First off they state the bleeding obvious
[quote]
Wind cannot compete with the cost of producing electricity from an existing power plant that has already been depreciated and paid for by taxpayers or electricity consumers.
[unquote]


Uh yes I would go along with that. Unfortunately though wind will never be free of its subsidy. It needs it to survive. If you did away with the ROC all wind farms would close down over night. Consequently wind will never be able to compete on a level playing field. It will always be cash hungry and require subsidy.

Then they contradict their first statement about how competitive wind is and admit that even at "good windy sites" is is not fully competitive, opting for a half way house "increasingly competitive".

[quote]
At good windy sites, however, it is increasingly competitive with other new-build generation technologies, especially given the dramatic rise in oil and gas prices. Oil, which influences the price of gas, has increased from an average of $14 in 1998 (in real terms) to around $100 in 2008.
[unquote]

Whatever you think about fracking we do now know that in the USA gas is now trading at a 50% discount to Europe. So even the spiteful little hope of other energy source prices  rising so high they make wind competitive is history.

But that's just the start. I could go on... and on... But you would get bored as would I.

When you hear about Wind turbine carpet baggers and their brown nosing friends ranting on about "Debunking the Myths" you know that what they really mean to do is ply you with their own deceptive propaganda and half truths.

Always listen to the arguments then ask yourself what is in it for them.

With Professor Jefferson, the CPRE, the John Muir Trust, Country Guardian and many others the answer is a desire to protect countryside and the people who live there.

With our deceptive band of turbine carpet-baggers the answer is money - your money.

Anyway after that rather depressing analysis lets finish with another excellent cartoon from windtoons.com

Wind Turbines: Dilbert and Windtoons say it all

So my grubby little Englanders, it looks like Infinergy have lodged an appeal. They are keen to overturn the democratic decision which rejected their dirty little money making plan for 4 industrial wind turbines at East Stoke in the Purbecks.

While  the average two year old understands that No means NO clearly the ugly corporate monster that is Infinergy cannot do without their filthy lucre, irrespective of the consequences for the local people.

Anyway, as you would expect this blog will be carrying a number of articles regarding windpower, greed and fanaticism over the next few months.

But tonight lets enjoy a few little gems from Dilbert and Windtoons.com

Oh So true... So True!

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.

Wind Turbines and Silver Spoons II

Apologies to my fellow grubby little Englanders. I think my first post on this was a bit obtuse. In brief, using wind turbines to generate electricity to reduce carbon emissions is like trying to bale out a dinghy with a set of silver spoons.

I want to explore this analogy a little more, because the more I think about it the more accurate this analogy is.

Going back a couple of months I sat in a meeting where a planning application to build four huge wind turbines was being given a public hearing.

Objections were raised by worried residents. The turbines were close to a care home for children who suffer from autistic spectrum disorder. The site was right next to a scout camp and also very near residential housing.

Half way through the speeches, one supporter of the turbine scheme declared that the turbines were too important. The scout camp, care home and if necessary the residents should be relocated to allow the development to take place. He got a flicker of applause from other supporters.

His view was plain. Global warming was such an emergency that any crumb or morsel of relief was to be grasped at. Irrespective of the consequences for those immediately affected.

You may well think he was just some fizzing little eco fascist, and perhaps you are right. But I suspect that really, he was just another willing victim of the wind industry's propaganda.

The wind industry loves to push the naive theory that we must do something, anything and at any cost. For them the eco warriors support was simply more money in the bank.

This guy was, I regret to say, fanatically wedded to his silver spoons. He wanted to see them thrashing about in order to calm his nightmares. He didn't care if they got in the way of the guys with the dirty bilge pumps and was even less concerned at those who would get thrown overboard to give his spoon wielders some arm room.

His huge, hopelessly ineffective turbines would be an icon, a talisman for a world no longer dependant on filthy mathematics or high technology. Essentially they would be a large eco fashion statement thrashing about for all to see and marvel at. The "selfish Nimbys" could go to hell.

Needless to say, the vested interests, the landowners, the silver spoon makers and those who would be handsomely paid to do the paddling, all purred with support and praise.

One day I hope this guy sees past his own neurotic demons. I do hope that he realises that he has a moral obligation to the people affected by these monstosities and this obligation trumps his fashionable desires.

If he wants to really cut carbon emissions (or even plain old pollution) he needs to see past the propaganda and look to effective methods for energy reduction and energy generation. Wind farms and all their paraphernalia are simply a massively expensive dead end.

A silver spoon has its niche. But it is a truly hopeless way of baling out a boat.

Wind turbines also have their niche, pumping water on remote farmsteads, even producing electricity in remote off-grid locations.

But they really are a hopeless way of supplying our daily electricity demands.

Predicting the wind - update

Just an early morning comment. This is the latest NETA data

Notice NETA almost got it right. But the wind arrived late, about settlement period 7 ( 3.30am) on the 23rd when nobody wants it. NETA had estimated that the wind would arrive during peak household demand period in the evening of the 22nd.

Luckily, the amount of power (even from new higher wind) is so inconsequential it would not have caused any issues. But if we had been relying on wind for 30% of our power there would have been mayhem.

Look at the graph.  When I say the "wind arrived" I actually mean the total metered wind turbine output rose from 2% of the much lauded turbine rating to a peak of 18.5%.

Just as an example. If this was the planned Alaska windfarm at East Stoke in the Purbecks which has a projected boiler plate rating of 9.2MW, the actual output would have risen from 0.184MW through to a peak of 1.7MW. That of course ignores the amount of power used internally to heat the turbine blades and gear box to stop them freezing.

Don't forget, these are nationally based statistics, and it has been like this (or worse) for days

A Strange Wind Turbine Morality

 Well, the night was lost. The council planning department had originally recommended rejection. But the councillors, after a barrage innuendo, superstition and false moral outrage decided to allow the wind turbine application to proceed.

The supporting groups had a clever coordinated and focussed mantra. There was running theme through the whole of their speeches.  A bogus child centric theme was pushed and pushed. Non-existent moral high ground was claimed again and again. The moral turpitude of the massive subsidies was brushed under the carpet. No mention was made of the sheer incapability of these things to meet our needs. Only rosy and hopelessly inaccurate figures on carbon reduction and noise output were made. Landscape impact was denied or glossed over.

The average common folk who actually lived in the area were outnumbered and out spoken. Unaccustomed to public speaking their defences flowed uneasily. Other speakers against the turbines tried to show how ineffective wind turbines are. Others showed that they were incapable of addressing  our real energy needs. But all to no avail. The motion was passed 6-3.

One small victory for stupidity

One more step on the slippery slope.

More of the average folk, their homes and families, sacrificed to the false god of Green.

A Final Note:

NIMBY?

Actually it will not affect me. I don't live in East Stoke. So why do I bang on about this?

Because I care.

I care about our environment and I care that we should not fall into stupid dead end traps that will deprive our kids and grand kids of a decent life. Neither do I want to line the pockets of the shysters who push these things. Outside of certain niches, wind turbines are a hopeless dead end. In years to come this will become painfully apparent, but by then it will be too late for the people of East Stoke.

As for being a NIMBY. If you like labels, then sure. Not In My Back Yard. Not In My Neighbours Back Yard and certainly Not In My Kids Back Yard.

Wind Turbines: The Subsidy

Few people realise the extent or extravagance of the subsidy given to the large corporate operators of wind turbines.

A recent article in “Private Eye” and reproduced on the DART website here displays the sheer amount of money (your money) being sloshed about.

First, a little seed capital gets slopped in the direction of the land owners.

The traditional reward of 30 pieces of silver for selling out your neighbours is somewhat less generous than what is currently on offer. Today the payment amounts to about £10,000 per turbine per year. So for four turbines, over 25 years, this amount to a cool £1 Million.

While this yearly payment has sometimes reached £17000 per turbine, it is pathetically small when compared to the money that gets funnelled in the direction of the corporate owners of these monsters.

A wind turbine, rated at 2 MW (which averaged over a year actually only produces about 0.5MW/yr) will be paid about £250,000 for the electricity produced . But on top of this there is a subsidy of £220,000. So for a 4 turbine installation, over the 25 year lease period, the operating company will get no less than £22 million in subsidy alone.

Currently, with only a fraction of the planned insanity in place, we are paying over £1 Billion a year in subsidies. (See Here)

That is a guaranteed profit. Paid for by the government. As to the true operating profit, that will be little, nothing or even negative. The operating margin on the electricity produced alone would never be sufficient to finance these turbines.

Truly, the apple on the tree is the subsidy.

The emphasis will not be on producing useful electricity. The emphasis will be on maximising the amount of electricity produced irrespective of whether it is needed or not.

Electricity generated at 3 am (when nobody wants it) gets the same subsidy as electricity generated during peak times. So do not expect the operators to be doing their maintenance other than 9-5. If a turbine breaks down in winter when wind speeds are low, do not expect it to be repaired in a hurry. The chances of noisy turbines ever being replaced with quieter, less environmentally unfriendly versions is nil.

In real power stations the maintenance and repair schedules are ruthlessly based around getting generation back on line to support periods of maximum use. Do not expect this from wind turbine operators, there is no incentive.

For the luxury of feeling “Green” we are actually fuelling inefficient power generation and rip-off electricity utilities. The stupidity of those who queue up to support the likes of Aon, NPower, Centrica and Scottish & Southern beggars belief.

But truly the real evil in all this is the foolish concept that we can force our way to a greener environment by simply throwing money at a technology that has already proven that it is simply not up to the job.

East Stoke Wind Turbines, Dorset

If you drive from Weymouth towards Wareham you pass a pub called the Red Lion at Winfrith Newburgh. Just after passing the pub, keep a look out to your left. About a mile back from road you will see a square pale-blue building mostly hidden by trees. This inconspicious building, in need a a paint job, is the remains of Winfith Atomic Energy Establishment. This was a research reactor (or reactors as there was more than one). It was not designed primarily to provide electricity to the National Grid but still, it regularly and routinely provided 62MWe. It was shut down early few years ago essentially due to the unfashionability of nuclear power at the time.

Continue on your journey to East Stoke. You will pass a beautiful 19th century church on a corner. Just near here a large corporation is planning to build three huge wind-turbines. Each one would be higher than Salisbury Cathedral and would produce a derisory amount of power (just over 2MWe each, and thats at full stretch). In fact in order to provide anything like a reliable source of power you need three wind turbines scattered across the country to provide the continuous rating of one. Even then you do not get anything like a guarantee of continuity.

But lets be kind. East Stoke would essentially provide, in total, on average, 2MWe continuous. To say that these things would be more intrusive and less productive than the old Winfrith nuclear plant would be the understatement of the decade. To match the power output of Winfrith (which was a tiddler, remember) East Stoke would need no less than 30 turbines of a similar size all running at full tilt.

Don't forget though that this never happens. You would need another 60 wind turbines scattered across the country to try and provide a semblance of continuity.

But it gets worse. Wind turbines, like all rotating machinery break down and need to be repaired and serviced. But unlike steam generating plant, they operate in an uncontrollable and chaotically variable environment. Consequently they will break down and need to be serviced more often than equivalent steam generating plant. You will always have a significant number out of service (even if the wind is blowing). It is easy to see the total number of windturbines (each the height of Salisbury Cathedral) needed to replace the very small nuclear reactor at Winfrith would number at least 100 (maybe many more)

The abortion they plan to impose on the people of East Stoke would essentially provide approximately 3% of the power produced of the old redundant research reactor at Winfrith.

This is lunacy.


The above is only one of many the arguments against the mass employment of wind turbines generally and specifically at the little village of East Stoke. I will come to many, many, more in future posts.

Wind turbines do have their place. Remote communities far from the grid may well benefit. But seriously, to try and use them to provide a significant proportion of energy to the National Grid is absurd. The only people gaining are the power companies (nice subsidies eh?) and the the political zealots. The people of East Stoke will be left to go to hell. Not only that they will end up subsidising this madness in their electricity bills.

You can find out more information about various campaigns against these pitiful modern day follys here at DART (Dorset Against Rural Turbines).

I hasten to add that while I fully support DART I am not a member or otherwise associated with them and these are strictly my thoughts. (Although I may decide to join up soon!)