Navitus Bay Wind Park – The Community Wins.

So finally, the monster is dead.

Navitus bay wind park – nearly 200 massive turbines threatening to scar the Dorset coast is no more.

There is a possibility the developer (NBDL) may try a Judicial Review. But even if they win it is a long way back.

I think it is worth looking at this heroic community defence against a foreign corporate giant. A giant who had effectively limitless resources, yet still failed.

So why was Navitus Bay rejected while most other coast-scarring monsters have had the go-ahead?

A major reason Navitus Bay was rejected had nothing to do with the amount of seabed damage, or the job losses that would ensue in the tourist trade and certainly nothing to do with the extortionate cost and ineffectiveness of the whole scheme. It was in essence rejected because of its unique position.

Navitus Bay, beggaring belief, was going to be built off the World Heritage Jurassic Coast. Arrogant as ever, the NBDL impact assessment estimated virtually a nil impact on this special location.

Luckily for us UNESCO disagreed. The UNESCO report (prepared by the IUCN) comprehensively junked the self serving NBDL documentation.

After the humiliation meeted out by the IUCN report most honourable and decent organisations would have then backed away. But not NBDL.

I suppose they were so used to seeing government assisted wind farm developers trample over local concerns they thought they could ignore a UN agency as well. In most circumstances they would probably have been right.

While the UNESCO report was devastating, NBDL might still have pulled it off.

But then the brick wall of community opposition hit them.

National Records were set. Navitus Bay became the most objected development in UK history.

Thousands of people poured over the mountain of obfuscated and unclear documentation. They exposed howlers, errors and half truths. Many of which may well have been missed by an overwhelmed Planning Inspectorate.

We were particularly blessed by having the “Challenge Navitus” team. A volunteer group who literally took the NBDL documentation apart.

We had the local MP's on-board, and the mainland councils as well. They all made lots of noise about how terrible this scheme would be.

In essence, Navitus Bay was defeated by the community.

Without mass community objection then even this World Heritage Coast scarring monster may have been approved. The solid and long term opposition to this planned outrage is to the eternal credit to the people of Dorset.

So if you are confronted by one of these money hungry coast defiling carpet baggers always remember your community is probably more powerful and resourceful than you think. Encourage community objection.

Developers love to insist that resistance is useless.

It never is.

Navitus Bay Adopt Worst Case Turbine Option

Navitus Bay Development Ltd (NBDL) is the company planning a huge offshore wind-farm sitting directly off the UNESCO World heritage Jurassic Coast and the nearby Bournemouth beaches. 

The planning application is still going through the planning process but NBDL (arrogant as ever) have already ordered the turbines. The turbines they have ordered are the largest within their application. Vestas VT164 turbines. 200m high with a rotor diameter of 170m.

NBDL have ordered 121 of these monsters even though these turbines will maximize visual impact on just about the whole of this coast. This is not just my opinion. It is the opinion of paid NBDL consultants and even NBDL themselves.

There are a number of documents submitted by Navitus to the planning inspectorate that describe the relative impact of these monster turbines on the environment. 

I expect that there are those who are hoping that these documents have been buried in the mountain of planning bureaucracy surrounding this application. But sadly for them at least two of the documents have popped up again. I detail some of the findings from these two below. 

1. Navitus Bay Deadline II appendix 7 (visual RWCS study)

2. Navitus Bay Development Limited - Deadline VI Response

The abbreviation used both by NBDL and their consultants to describe the worst visual impact option is RWCS. That stands for “Realistic Worst Case Scenario” 

Remember, what you read below are not my words. Nor are they the words of any of the many organisations and individuals who oppose this travesty. 

They are the words of paid NBDL consultants and NBDL themselves.

First let us first look at a document paid for by NBDL and commissioned from LDA Design Consulting LLP. It deals specifically with visual impact from the various turbine options.

The document forms an early part of NBDL's planning application and  is available on the planning inspectorate portal via the following link:

Navitus Bay Deadline II appendix 7 (visual RWCS study)

This document presents a summary of RWCS in a table (Wireframe Summary Table ) on page 20 (pdf page 23) 

Of the eleven view points shown in the table, six of them including Bournemouth beach, Sandbanks, Durlston Head (and so the Jurassic Coast) and Milford  have VT164 turbines as the RWCS (Realistic Worst Case Scenario).

The quotes regarding these six view points from the NBDL consultants document are detailed below. They are  taken verbatim from the summary for each viewpoint:

Remember RWCS: – Realistic Worst Case Scenario.

Durlston Head

[quote]

Due to the closer proximity of this viewpoint, it is easier to distinguish between the heights of turbines than the density of turbines. It is considered that the 8MW layout is the RWCS for this viewpoint.

[unquote]

The statement for this viewpoint driving this conclusion about 8MW turbines states the following:

[quote]

The turbines appear noticeably taller than in other layouts.

[unquote]

Sandbanks Beach

[quote]

Additional height of the 8MW turbines, especially in proximity to neighbouring landform, suggests the 8MW layout to be the RWCS from this viewpoint.

[unquote]

The statement for this viewpoint driving this conclusion about 8MW turbines states the following:

[quote]

Turbines are relatively clustered and irregular;the additional turbine height is visible.

[unquote]

West Cliff, Bournemouth

[quote]

The additional height of the turbines and the lack of visual consistency leads to the conclusion that the 8MW layout is the RWCS for this viewpoint.

[unquote]

The statement for this viewpoint driving this conclusion about 8MW turbines states the following:

[quote]

Turbines are relatively dense and irregular. The additional turbine height is judged perceptible

[unquote]

Milford Promenade

[quote]

The additional height of the 8MW turbines is particularly noticeable due to the proximity of the Needles as a visual reference point. It is considered that the 8MW layout is the RWCS for this viewpoint.

[unquote]

The statement for this viewpoint driving this conclusion for 8MW turbines states the following:

[quote]

Particularly dense along much of the horizon, turbines broken into sections, additional height perceptible

[unquote]

The Needles, Isle of Wight

[quote]

Difficult to differentiate between the layouts but marginal leaning towards the 8MW layout

on account of perceived greater depth and greater proportion of turbine extending above the horizon line.

[unquote]

The statement for this viewpoint driving this conclusion for 8MW turbines states the following:

[quote]

Increased turbine height registers. Layout appears more chaotic.

[unquote]

St. Aldhelm's Head

[quote]

Overall, there are few meaningful differences between the layouts from this viewpoint but site work suggests a leaning towards the 8MW layout.

[unquote]

Then, showing they have taken this fully on-board, we have references to visual RWCS within later NBDL submission documents.  As an example take this document published in January 2015. It concerns the so-called mitigation option.

Navitus Bay Development Limited - Deadline VI Response

Section 15.2.3

[quote]

…..it had been judged appropriate to identify the fewest, tallest turbines as the RWCS. There is no reason to deviate from this given the reduced variation in turbine numbers for the Mitigation Option.

[unquote]

Section 15.2.7

[quote]

Experience derived from many other offshore wind developments and feasibility studies has also confirmed that it is turbine height rather than turbine numbers that most usually determines the RWCS ….

[unquote]

Clearly, even by the developers own analysis the visual impact of VT164 turbines on just about the whole of this coast equates to the worst possible option. To be fair all the options are pretty horrendous. But even so, the chosen option judged by the developers own documentation  is the worst and most destructive.

But one hundred and twenty one of these coast-line scarring monsters is cheaper for the developer than one hundred and ninety or so of the their ugly, shorter cousins. So a greedy foreign multinational might well consider cutting costs at the expense of the local environment a "good idea".

The arrogance, the willful desecration and the mindless pseudo-science that defines this travesty has yet to meet a match anywhere within the planning process.

It is not that they don't understand the damage this scheme will impose.

It is more like they just don't give a damn.

Parliament Votes to Abolish Wind Farm Subsidies

A Ten Minute Rule bill introduced by MP Nigel Adams to abolish subsidies to on-shore wind farms was passed by a small majority today in the UK Parliament. This means that the bill will go forward to a second reading on the 6^th March. ( See This Link )

The turn out for this vote was small with 67 supporting it and 65 opposing.

Where were the other 480 or so MPs? 

Your guess is as good as mine. 

But due to the nature of the bill I expect most of them decided that cowardice was the better part of valor.

While it would be very good news if this bill made it into law, at this stage this Ten Minute Rule bill is non binding. Ten Minute Rule bills are usually used to test the political water.

From the lack of the attendance at this debate, it appears the political water surrounding unpopular wind turbine subsidies is very, very cold.  

Hopefully though, the wind turbine Carpet Baggers will get the message Loud and Clear.

It is going to be abolition of subsidies first. 

Then we start talking about compensation for those so badly affected by these useless follies.

Navitus Bay - Deadline 5 looms

If you are an interested party in the Navitus Bay Wind Park Planning Examination - take note.

Right on the last examination deadline (11th Dec - Deadline 4)  Navitus Bay Development Ltd dumped over 30 new documents on the Examining Authority for inspection. Included within the this pile is one which purportedly even replaces their original Appendix 43 for their now infamous and laughably named "Mitigation Option".

The next deadline to which comments on these new documents must be made is January 7th.

So if you want to make comments on any of these documents - time is tight. You only have a few days left.

They are available on the Examining Authorities site Here

Wind Corporation Games

Go back to 2009. That was the year Vestas closed their wind turbine blade manufacturing plant on the Isle of Wight.

It was an ugly messy affair. 

Hundreds of people were thrown out of work. A group of the work force occupied the factory. Some redundancy payments were refused and folk were reduced to severe economic hardship. (Telegraph Report Here) (On the Wight Report Here)

Why did all this happen? The company stated that there was no market for wind turbines in the UK. (Business Green report Here)

Remember this was right in the middle of the government sponsored planning orgy that allowed massive wind turbine deployment across the UK. This calamity has effectively industrialised large areas of previously rural or wild land.

So Vestas' stated reason was (how should we say...) economical with the truth. Perhaps they knew that the government was so in-thrall to the wind industry that closing down their Isle of Wight factory would have little effect their market share.

The same year they went on to employ another 5000 people in China, the USA and Spain. But it was not just the Isle of Wight that took a hammering. In Scandinavia (including Denmark itself), 3000 loyal employees (properly paid and working in unsubsidised factories) were made redundant.

Factories and employees that had built up the Vestas business were cast off like used Kleenexe. Meanwhile Vestas slavered over cheap labour, subsidies and the political leverage of bringing “employment” to hard hit areas.

In a ruthlessly globalist and morally repugnant way Vestas actually expanded its work force in 2009.

Now come forward to the present day.

All of a sudden, in a great fanfare of Green Roo-ha-ha Vestas are back.

With a perverse sense of deja-vu they plan to set up a manufacturing facility on the Isle Wight and in total bring 800 jobs to the UK specifically to manufacture offshore wind turbine blades.

The exact number destined for the Isle of Wight is unclear.

So why is this corporate monster so keen all of a sudden to kiss and make up with the unemployed on the Isle of Wight?

I think the answer comes in a single ugly coast scarring phrase. Navitus Bay.

Navitus Bay is the name given to a huge wind farm planned to lie just offshore of the Jurassic Coast and the golden sands of Bournemouth Bay. By “sheer conincidence” it is currently going through the planning approval stage

Navitus is in trouble. They were hoping to steam-roller their money making scheme though the planning process but they have met stiff opposition from everyone from local councils, international environmental organisations (Unesco), local MPs and rank and file local residents. The number of written objections to this proposed calamity is now a national record.

Navitus plan to spend around £800 million on turbines. So wouldn't it be rather convenient if at this point in time local jobs were hostage to offshore turbine orders, and those orders were in turn dependent on getting approval for this ruinous industrial wind complex?

I have three predictions:

Prediction One:

If things get tough for Navitus (which I sincerely hope they will) all of a sudden you will get rumblings from Vestas about “unwilling to invest in jobs in a hostile environment” or some other such bullshit.

Assorted political lackys will then line up to warn how rejecting Navitus will “destroy Green jobs”. Even though Vestas has been quite effective at doing that on the Isle of Wight already.

Prediction Two:

God forbid. If this monstrosity were ever to be built, then its going to be Vestas turbines all the way.

Prediction Three:

Finally as to the “new” Vestas jobs:

Navitus Bay threatens to destroy a huge number of jobs and seriously impact the tourist industry all along this coast. The jobs brought to the Isle of Wight by Vestas will be but a drop in the ocean compared to those lost.

But I predict the jobs building turbine blades will be safe. That is until they are needed elsewhere in the world to exert some political influence or, in true ugly globalist fashion, the Isle of Wight workforce can be undercut and their jobs exported.

Remember especially with this last point, Vestas already have a track record.

Texas Offshore Turbines: 50% total loss in 20 years?

A article from the New Scientist (Here) reports on a major modelling exercise done by Carnegie Mellon University. This report aims to predict how offshore turbines would stand up to the weather off the Texas coast.

The modelling predicts 50% of the turbines will be destroyed within a 20 year period. Remember that is total loss. It is not going to cover the known gearbox reliability problems (See Here) or simply the massive maintenance costs faced by any offshore structure.

Over here in the UK assorted wishful thinkers dream of huge offshore wind farms far out in the North Sea, or crammed into the shipping lanes around our coast.

Galveston Bay is of course in Hurricane Alley, but it lacks the unremitting hostility of the North Sea. For comparison, the cost of oil extraction in the North sea is among the highest, if not the highest in the world. (Wikipedia Here). This high cost is mainly due to appallingly high maintenance and support requirements.

Meanwhile over in Galveston, they have been routinely extracting oil both on-shore and off-shore (especially in shallow water in the Gulf of Mexico) since 1924. It is only since they have ventured into deep water that they have had major technical problems as displayed by the Deep Water Horizon disaster.

This North Sea maintenance penalty is going to apply to any North sea offshore structure. Even in the less hostile environs along our south coast the cost is going to be prohibitively high (that is, without massive government subsidy). It is difficult to see that offshore wind farms anywhere around our coast are going to be any more practical than that Carnegie Mellon University  have found for Galveston Bay.

We have already seen one severe problem where most offshore turbines in Europe have actually shifted dangerously on their foundations (See Here) Although the wind industry has managed to (by and large) keep this major problem quiet, it bodes ill for the long term survival of these structures.

These offshore turbines, wherever they are built, are going to require enormous amounts of maintenance. This maintenance cost will far exceed the practical economic viability.  Offshore turbines, like their on-shore counterparts stand no chance of ever being free of massive government subsidy.

But offshore turbines take the cost and subsidy fiasco to a totally new level.

Without doubt, the minute the subsidy stops, so will they.

Fiddling Wind Turbine Images

I had to smile when I read a comment from a local windy on one of my posts accusing the local action group (DART) of inflating turbine image size on one of their flyers. ( Comment 5 on this post )

Here is part of what the windy's comment:
[quote]
I've seen the leaflets that DART circulated, with an image of turbines we estimated were 4 times bigger than the proposed ones. Who wouldn't be horrified by that and sign a petition?
[unquote]

Yes. I agree. But actually, I would bet that what the windy really meant was 4 times bigger than the propaganda images produced by their beloved developer .

As reported in ( This Article ), a prominent Scottish architect along with Stirling University has been conducting research into how various wind farm developers have been cleverly fiddling images to make their wind farms appear less intrusive.

Take these two example images taken from the same location (see the above article) that show the deception. Notice both images are the same width and you can see all of both images.

The top image uses a wide angle lens to give a panoramic view that is well outside the real  field of view of an observer. This is then presented as an image at close range, so then all of the panorama is seen by the observer. The consequence is that the turbines (and buildings for that matter) are reduced and appear much less consequential than in reality. The bottom image shows the view more realistically with a field of view similar to that of a real observer.

There are rules governing these photo montages, but there are loopholes. These loopholes are ruthlessly exploited by the carpet baggers, leading to results similar to that achieved in the top image.

Now, when I look at the example images above, to me, it looks like the bogus pro-wind like propaganda image presents the turbines at about a quarter size of the more realistic bottom photograph.

I don't know if the DART flyer actually did present the turbines a four times larger than the Infinergy images. I didn't see it. But if they did it looks like DART probably got it about right.

So maybe, in the future, perhaps my windie commentator should do as they suggested and "be horrified and sign the petition".

You know it makes sense.

Love & Kisses
Billothewisp

Wind and the Myth of Fossil Fuel Subsidies.

One of the latest little scams our wind turbines aficionado's are trying to pull is to justify their obscenely expensive and ineffective Wind Turbine generators (WTG's) by inventing fictional subsidies to fossil fuels and nuclear. The latest and greatest of these has the carpet baggers claiming that that the massive ROC subsidy received by wind is on par with or even less than that received by gas, oil and coal.

Of course, this is a load of tosh. Just as it is a load tosh that wind is cheaper than nuclear (See this Post).

Here is a fine example of this bufoonery at The Guardian - Here  (where does the Guardian get their reporters from?). You have to ask: Do Guardian journalists ever read the documents they supposedly quote from? Or do they just do as they are told? 

According to our Guardian scribbler, poor hard done-by wind (which at best produces 1% total energy supply) "only" got £700M subsidy in 2010. Whereas (shock horror probe) the demon spawn of Satan (aka fossil fuels) received a whopping £3.63 Billion. 

He supposedly derives this from an OECD document available Here. Pity the journalist didn't read it first. I have to ask if Guardian journalist are just naturally lazy or so dedicated to spewing out propaganda they willingly subvert the truth to aid their carpet bagging friends in the wind industry.

At the end of this document from the OECD are three tables that summarize the subsidies received by coal oil and gas (produced at the end of this post)

Each of these tables itemise the folowing:
A "Producer subsidy" i.e. the subsidy received by the energy producer.
A "Consumer" subsidy which relates to the reduced VAT rate charged on all electricity and heating (however generated) 
Finally, a subsidy for inherited liabilities. (£8.5M - coal only)

These are the producer subsidies:
Coal: Nil (Coal provides approx 14% total energy)
Gas: £233M (Gas provides approx 40% total energy)
Oil: £301M (Oil provides approx 38% total energy)

These subsidies though are acknowledged by the OECD as for specific purposes, not like the ROC which simply lines the pockets of the shysters running the WTG scam.

What this ridiculous article includes in to order to get to £3.63 Billion is the Consumer subsidy. This of course, applies to all energy providers including wind and relates to consumers NOT providers. Wind (whose energy is also subject  to the same consumer VAT reduction from 20% to 5%) still gets an another £700M. All for their measly 1% annual contribution to the UK energy mix.

I can only see this as a fundamentally dishonest and decietful misuse of data in order to promote a mistruth. The fact that this appears in a supposedly  upstanding newpaper is absolutely unforgivable.

 You can guarantee ther wind industry and their pals will try and pull this trick again.

Just remember, even if you consider the consumer VAT tax reduction a subsidy, then it is a subsidy to consumers. It is a subsidy to people who use the energy NOT the producers. The reduced VAT tax on energy makes no difference to the wholesale sell-out price for that energy whatever it is derived from. It relates to fossil, nuclear, wind, hydro,  and any other energy generation technique.

This non existent fossil fuel subsidy just comes down to another self promotional myth from the wind industry and their sycophants.

One day they may start telling the truth. Just don't hold your breath waiting.

(tables follow)

The Defence of Silton

So it begins.

The Silton Planning Inquiry starts on Tuesday 28th February.

On the one hand we have the good people of Silton.  They have pledged their hard earned cash to defend their village from the carpet baggers and wind turbine fashionista's who threaten it.

The villagers have to pay for the legal council they need to defend their village. Money they can ill afford. The local council will also be defending a democratically arrived decision to refuse planning. Also at great cost to the community.

On the other hand we have a ruthless and laughably pretentious wind farm operator which greedily seeks to overturn the councils planning refusal.

So on one side we have a perfectly valid and democratic planning decision to refuse the erection of an industrial wind turbine complex at Silton.

On the other we have a vain and ruthless developer who will now attempt to defeat local democracy.

This is outrageously unfair and undemocratic.

But fairness and democracy never were the strong suites of the wind turbine fraternity.

But still, the good people of Silton are defending their patch, and good for them. Their moral stance, backed up by their admirable resolution and social responsibility are an example to us all.

The Save our Silton Website is HERE
The Dorset Against Rural Turbines Site is HERE

If there is any justice left in the planning system, the Silton villagers will win hands down.

Today I just want to wish my friends in Silton all the best. May your village remain as beautiful as it is today, unspoiled by pointless industrial development.

Good luck to you.

The Elephant In the Turbine

Sometimes when Billothewisp is reading through papers on the foolishness that is wind turbinery, he comes across a paper or article which makes him feel a bit Queasy. A bit like he has read something that is not for general consumption, but has inadvertently been put into the public domain. Something that makes old Billothewisp feel like a spy in a foreign camp.

You know - a bit like overhearing a crimmo secretly confess to a crime while the press and the cognoscenti are baying about a miscarriage of justice.

Or hearing one of "His Majesty's" entourage quietly whisper: "Yes! the King really is wearing no cloths".

Recently I had two of those almost meta-physical moments. And they were related and did not involve any cider.

The first concerned a new  piece of posh propaganda released by the zealots in Centre for Sustainable Energy (CSE).

Who are the CSE?

Yet another "charity" (and I wonder where the cash comes from.). While they are no doubt, a bona-fide charity, I don't think any-one there is going short on the pay and perks front.

Anyway, I digress. The CSE have released a document called "Common Concerns about Windpower"

It is without doubt a truly wonderful piece of propaganda.

It is so good Billothewisp awards it the Joseph Goebbels Truth Economy Award for 2011. (First Class)

To be fair, it doesn't tell many lies (although there are some) but it does vigorously, wholeheartedly, and with serious malice afore-thought, twist the truth into its own perverted little vision.

Not since some guy in the CIA described the 1975 failure in Vietnam as a "sub-optimal victory" has there been such a shiny spin put on such a dismal subject.

There is so much that is wrong in this document it is difficult to know where to start, so as Julie Andrews once said "I'll start at the very beginning" (a very good place to start).

There will, no doubt, be several posts about this as I cut my way through this "charitable work" of the CSE.

Anyway part one show us all how wonderfully greeeeeeeen the average turbine is, and how is repays its energy deficit in the wink of an eye.

In fact, according to our charitable friends at the CSE  (billothewisp assumes a straight face here) the average turbine repays its energy cost within 3 months - 6 months at the outside.

The CSE then go to tell us that in its lifetime, a turbine will return at least 20 times the energy used to manufacture it.

Now we come to the first "spy in the camp moment"

3 months x 20 = 5 years. Does a "productive" wind turbine really wear out in 5 years? Or maybe 10 years for the ones that hardly produce anything - aka The Wind Turbine in Reading

Or maybe the figures are..... (dare I say it) Wrong.

Oh, I can hear the indignation.
I can see the trembling bottom lips.
The tears of of outrage welling up in the average windies eyes.

That was "at least 20 times". At least means more than. 5 years is the minimum.

Hmmm let us have a comparison.

I buy a new car. It will be good for at least 100,000 miles. Most though won't get to 120,000 let alone 200,000. 300,000 will be a freak exception.

As a comparison it would (sort of) indicate that hardly any turbines (if any) will ever make it to the much vaunted 20 -25 year life span.

But that of course is just an old engineer making a dodgy comparison.

How about some inside facts?

Here my grubby little Englanders we come to the second document and the second "spy in the camp" moment.

This second article was so well named  I stole the title for this post. It is available Here.

The document is the June 2010 cover story for the August journal: "TRIBOLOGY & LUBRICATION TECHNOLOGY" The article is obviously written by an "enthusiast" i.e. one who thinks wind turbinery can do no wrong.

But the basis of the article, which the author  does comprehensively expound on, is that the gear box blows up every (wait for it) 5 to 7 years. Actually, although it is written by an enthusiast, the article lacks the self serving  deceit of the CSE document. The guy is obviously an engineer. He just needs treatment.

Here is a cut and paste of highlighted paragraphs...

Oh Dear! but then... (Ugh!) there is this....

The author informs us that gear box reliability has been a known problem for well over ten years, without yet even coming close to being solved.

So today the problem of gearbox reliability is NOT solved.

One day it maybe solved. One day. but not today. Maybe tomorrow, maybe never.

We are building these things and plan forcing the Grid to rely on them, even though have a known ( and terrible) reliability issue.

Let us go back to the transport analogy.

Say you operated a a fleet of lorries. Would you replace your existing old but "known to work" fleet with a fleet of shiny new lorries which were known to have a massive reliability problem?

If the salesman came up and said to you, "Oh that'll (probably) be solved in a few years" would whip out your cheque book or kick him out of the door?

Not only are these things ugly, inefficient, intermittent and uneconomic. they are also hideously unreliable.

Other than that (besides the health issues, the subsidy and landscaper damage) I suppose they are (to paraphrase the CIA propagandist) sub-optimally OK