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.

Wind Turbines: The Ghost in the Gearbox

I first came across this shocking industrial wind turbine (IWT) gearbox problem some time back and posted about it (Here) and originally (Here). The basis of these posts was this article (Here)

This long running problem is so serious that since 2007, the US Government has been coordinating research into it through the NREL. (More on that further down.)

By the looks of it nothing has got better, although there is a lot of industry spin claiming the fix is just over the hill. Some of it quite recent  (See Here)

So what is the problem and why is it kept so quiet?

Industrial Wind turbines (IWT's) have a generic, long standing and apparently intractible problem with gearbox reliability.

Many gearboxes need a rebuild within 5 -7 years instead of lasting 25 years as designed. Many suffer catastrophic failure within the 5-7 period or even earlier. Depending on the age of the turbine, a gear box failure may effectively write it off. Even when repaired, these gearbox failures are highly expensive and often take out the turbine for months.

Replacing the gearbox adds massively to the overall cost of the IWT. Manufacturers increase the cost to cover warranty repairs in the first 5 years. When out of warranty, the cost of a maintenance contract sky-rockets, eventually to a point where the operation of the IWT becomes untenable.

Why does this matter? After all it is the operators/manufacturers problem isn't it?

It matters because IWT's are capital intensive. That means that most of their operating cost is mostly soaked up in purchasing the thing - and maintaining it. If the IWT has a much shorter life (or a much higher maintenance cost) and so produces less money than anticipated, their ability to ever live without massive government subsidy becomes an even bigger illusion than it already is.

So, you may say, "It is only a technical glitch ...it 'll all come right in the end."

Well, maybe. But first of all this is a glitch that has lasted since the 1980's

Unfortunately the evidence suggests that nobody actually knows what to fix yet let alone how too fix it. So possibly the answer is - maybe not.

We need to get an idea of how bad this problem is but for obvious reasons the wind industry isn't telling and they are certainly not releasing any meaningful figures

But there are a number of alarming markers out there.

The  US Government (in association with the wind industry) formed a little known group called the "Gearbox Reliability Collaborative" (GRC) (See Here) ** The GRC is no less than a section of the USA government NREL. (That National Renewable Energy Laboratory).

** [2017 - This website is no longer publicly available and returns a 404. The advertising brochure for the GRC is still publicly available at This Link. It appears the research papers linked to below are also still available]

In other words the problem is so bad the US Government is having to tackle the problem.

The leading sentence on the GRC website blandly states...
[quote]
Premature gearbox failures have a significant impact on the cost of wind farm operations.
[unquote]

To quote from the latest finding report from GRC testing...(Here)
[quote]
Despite reasonable adherence to these accepted design practices, many wind turbine gearboxes do not achieve their design life goals of 20 years—most systems still require significant repair or overhaul well before the intended life is reached. 
[unquote]

These guys in the NRC are (to put it mildly) clever people. But they have been at this since 2007 and so far they are still, by all appearances, quantifying the problem. In otherwords on a scale of ten, the intractibility of the gearbox issue probably rates a nine.

The NREL does not allocate such significant resources lightly. This is a bad problem.

The GRC are trying to build a failure database as well as running a series of tests on prototype gearboxes. Unfortunately this failure database is not for public consumption and is subject to a strict NDA so we will probably never know the full facts.

Manufacturing members of the GRC can (and mostly do) remain anonymous. One exception is Vestas. While I have little time for any wind industry company at least Vestas appear to be willing to stand up and be identified rather than just pretend their is no problem like the rest.

Of course, while we do not have full access to the database we do have some access to data held within it from the research papers published by GRC

For example, from an early sample set from 2010 and This Paper  covering 37 failures we have this:

Notice that while this early table covers 37 failures there were many more problems found in the strip downs. It looks like the problem is poorly localised and is probably caused by a number of different issues.

So what is the point of this post?

Simply to show that the current fleet of IWTs (yes - whole fleet ) are really not fit for a production environment. They are still suffering intractible and major operational problems and are highly unlikely to ever be able to operate without a huge government subsidy. To suggest they have a lifespan of 25 years is laughable.

This is bad enough for land based turbines.

But anyone who suggests that we can successfully and economically place these things out in the North Sea and English Channel for long term energy generation, is in need of medication.

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 Turbines: The 30% Capacity Factor Myth

I don't know about you, but I am getting really tired of large corporate bodies continually peddling half-truths and even outright lies in order to service their own greed.

Take the wind industry for example. Especially with the way they try to big up the ludicrous ineffectiveness of their money machines.

Truly, if it was not for the fact that they get paid (at least) twice for their intermittent and unreliable production of electricity, these ugly white elephants would be abandoned and left to rot.

Whenever the wind industry talks about the capacity factor (that's the actual averaged output over a year compared to the maximum turbine rating) the wind industry always try and pretend that this capacity factor is 30%.

While this may sound low, it is actually a massive exaggeration on the real figures.

Unfortunately, the wind industry have repeated the lie so many times it is often taken as" a given" by organisations that should know better.

So what is the capacity factor for on-shore wind turbines?

Luckily there are people like Professor Michael Jefferson who has has done an analysis of the exaggerated claims of the wind industry.

His presentation is available Here

While his presentation truly demolishes the mythical 30%, it is just one of the many false claims he debunks. His presentation is well worth a read.

Look at this for 2009: (taken from Professor Jeffersons presentation)

In 2009, the real capacity factor for on-shore turbines was 21% NOT 30% Only 7.5% achieved the mythical 30% capacity factor. In other words 92.5% of on-shore turbines in 2009 failed to reach the 30% capacity factor that is promoted by the wind industry. Remember, since 2009, it has got even less windy.

Even in 2008, which was an abnormally windy year,  over 81% of on-shore turbines failed to chalk up a  30% capacity factor. In fact in 2008, the windiest year in recent history, the real on-shore average capacity factor was 23%.

So when is the wind industry going to stop telling lies?
When are they going to confess that the real output from these monstrous money making machines is much less then the figures they ritually push?

If you are waiting for the truth from the wind industry, I wouldn't hold your breath.

But even this farcically low capacity factor hides the true hideously ineffectiveness of these white elephants.

Always remember when comparing capacity factors of generating equipment that wind power is intermittent. With wind, most of the energy arrives in infrequent, irregular and unpredictable bursts. Most of the time their actual output is much less than even the real dismally low capacity factor.

But more on this in a future post.

Windfarm Wars: Last Chance To See on iPlayer

It is your last chance to see Windfarm Wars on BBC iPlayer. The four episodes expire tomorrow and I have a dark suspicion that the BBC will then find the deepest and darkest cupboard in their vaults and bury this series forever. Such must be their embarrassment at portraying the ugliness of the corporate wind developers.

This documentary series concerns a proposed Industrial Wind Turbine Complex, planned to be built in the middle of a Devon beauty spot.

If you have not read my previous posts on this documentary series, which went out over 4 weeks at 7pm on BBC2 on Fridays then, if you like, there is a more detailed description of three of the episodes Here, Here and Here .

The series started out with a typical BBC portrayal of the decent people of Den Brook as a bunch of out of touch, middle class, aged buffoons.

But by episode 3 something had happened.

I can only guess that the production crew got tired of the ugly multinational, their propaganda and secret data.

Or maybe they realised that the people of Den Brook were not just some cartoon charactitures, but real people trying to defend their countryside and way of life.

Or perhaps they were just sickened by the horribly greedy land owner.

The ritual pastiche portrayal of the common folk as selfish Nimby yokels went to the wall.

We all saw (and started to cheer on) the protesters, led by Mike Hulme - An ordinary bloke, living a low impact life with his wife. He got pushed just a bit too far by the intransigence of the developer.

Oh Boy! I bet they regret taking him on.

Episode 4 is Here , Episode 3 is Here, Episode 2 is Here and Episode 1 is Here

But only for the day!

If you are time limited I recommend episode 3 as the best. But then, after that you will really want to watch episode 4.

Episode 2 is interesting as it is where the production team appear to start distancing themselves from the developer.

Episode 1 shows the initial condescending attitude of the BBC to the people of Den Brook. Watch out for the crumbling icebergs and smoking chimneys. But it is still worth a watch.

While you are on the BBC page(s) look at the Windfarm Wars base webpage Here Notice the promoted websites on the right. Not a mention of critical sites like Renewable Energy Foundation or The John Muir Trust or even the Campaign to Protect Rural England.

Just one by a no-name company, allegedly offering you "Green Energy Guide: The Pros and Cons of Wind Energy and Wind Farms".

But what you get is a condescending and  ill informed propaganda  piece that trots out all the usual ludicrous claims made by the wind lobby.

The BBC should be truly ashamed the this website gets such a promotion.

 I wonder why it is there?

Maybe to try and kiss and make up with their  truculent friends in Renewables UK?

Who knows.

But certainly such an unbalanced page, masquerading as impartial information should never get an airing.

By all means have a page (or even two) from the wind lobby.

But then we would know who and what we are dealing with.

Wind Turbines: The Tide is Turning

The Klondike gold-rush to industrial wind generation continues, but the cracks are beginning to appear.

The most authoritative renewable energy body, the Renewable Energy Foundation has been scathing about onshore wind generation. It has also heavily criticised the catastrophically awful subsidy scheme that enables the greedy to cash in at the public's expense.

Here's are a couple of quotes and links to the fuller articles from the REF

[quote]
"Such figures confirm theoretical arguments that regardless of the size of the wind fleet the United Kingdom will never be able to reduce its conventional generation fleet below peak load plus a margin of approximately 10%"   (Link to full article here)

[quote: Dr John Constable, REF’s Director of Policy and Research]
“The government needs to face the facts: the Renewable Obligation is enormously costly to the consumer, and is delivering high profits to developers even for underperforming and environmentally damaging on-shore wind.”  (Link to full article here)

The time to stop all further on-shore industrial wind generation especially near homes is now. In Denmark there is now a blanket ban on all further on-shore industrial wind generation. In France the equivalent of the French BMA have directed that no turbine should be placed within 2Km of a dwelling. The data on the health affects of being forced to live on top of these things is building. I have read some of the initial peer reviewed work that has already been done. The authors credentials are impeccable. Their findings are devastating.

This will be a scandal.

In the future, those now buckling a knee to the avaricious developers and their stupidly naive supporters will have to publicly account for their acquiescence.

There will be a fuller post on the health effects and the research papers in a (near) future post. Believe me, initially I thought that damaging health affects were illusionary but now I have totally changed my mind. Nobody should be forced to live near these things. Especially as on shore industrial wind turbines are next to useless in generating electricity.

There are many groups around our country who are defending their homes and the countryside from a modern day rape and pillage by greedy developers. Tonight I wish them well and hope they taste success in the their fight for their homes and country this year.

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.