You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

4 Responses

1. 

   1

   Alan Bland 
   Thursday, 9. October 2008

   How can you claim to help inform views on the desirability of the proposal when you only invited people to speak who were against the proposal ?

   It appears to me that this organisation does not reflect the views of the majority of the people affected by the proposed wind farms, and that the
   main reason for forming an action group is because they are NIMBYS, rather than having a genuine belief about the disadvantages of the the proposed wind farms.

   I know for a fact that I am not alone in wanting more information-UNBIASED
   before making my mind up on this

2. 

   2

   Ann 
   Monday, 20. October 2008

   Alan - Thanks for your comment and apologies for the delay in publishing it. We’ve had some problems with the web site which we hope are now resolved.

   I think it is clear that members of the Say No To Harrington Wind Farm group are against this proposal, for various reasons, but I don’t think any of us are against renewable energy, or wind farms when they are located in locations which generate electricity efficiently and do not interfere with existing local amenities and the beautiful countryside for which Great Britain is renowned. We believe there is ample space offshore for the development of large wind farms, with wind speeds that will create the best use of turbines. Nimby-ism is a very emotive term which has all sorts of negative connotations. But should this really be the case?

   I used to live in the centre of a large town and carefully and deliberately chose a plot of land in the country on which to build a house. My husband and I consulted with neighbours at the planning stage to ensure they did not object to our proposals, and we endeavoured to ensure that the house fitted into the landscape rather than competing with it. We also built a bungalow so as not to overshadow neighbouring gardens. We chose the plot because of the wonderful countryside around, for the wildlife that is abundant here, and for the peaceful lack of noise. I would object if there were plans for a motorway at the bottom of my garden; I would object if there were plans for a housing estate at the bottom of my garden; and I would object if someone wanted to place a factory at the bottom of my garden. And I believe others would too. If I had wanted to live in the midst of traffic noise, industrial noise, and high density housing I could have remained in the town. This is all “Not in my back yard” stuff, but somehow seems to be more acceptable than objecting to wind farm development. But we need housing, and we need better roads, and a factory would probably bring more much needed jobs. I really think wind farms fall into the same category as those other categories of development simply because of the nature of the proposed site. When the development was initially mooted I instinctively thought I should support it - we do need sustainable sources of energy. I was like you and wanted more unbiased information to confirm my views. The more I looked at web sites which contained information both for and against wind farms, the more I became unsettled at this particular development plan.

   I truly think turbines of the height and number proposed will spoil this particular landscape; I truly believe that it will disturb wildlife in the area; I truly believe there will be noise generated which will be particularly evident on calm evenings; and I also truly believe that we should endeavour to maintain the peaceful dignity of the Harrington Airbase site, all of these things particularly since the wind speeds in this area will not give optimum working conditions, where offshore and estuary sites would.

   This web site is in its infancy but we will add links to other sites that have information on all aspects of wind farms, both for and against. I make no apologies for the fact that this site has a bias. But we will give a link to Nuon’s web site and the project details when they are published there. Not sure they’ll do the same for us!

   You are right to make up your mind based on available information. We believe that Nuon will soon hold a consultation meeting in Maidwell where you will be able to get their view of this development and of wind farms in general. (When details are available we’ll post them here.) We will make claims based on scientific evidence. They’ll refute those claims based on other scientific evidence. You will be able to decide who is right and weigh up all the evidence presented by both sides. We hope you will agree with us in regard to this particular development, but if you don’t you will be able to support the development when it goes to planning consent. That’s what a democracy is about.

   Finally, to address your initial point, we had hoped that someone from Friends of the Earth or the local ProWindAlliance group would attend our meeting and we had allocated time for them to make their point of view heard but no one from either group came. We had only 2 invited speakers, Michael Jefferson and Gary Lunt, and Professor Jefferson did speak about the pros of wind farm development as well as the disadvantages in positioning them on the Harrington airfield. Phillip Hollobone had been invited to attend but spoke as a member of the audience and indeed gave the meeting his views on the Burton Latimer wind farm which has been viewed by locals as a positive development, though its siting near the Weetabix factory is very different to the Harrington site.

3. 

   3

   David Unwin 
   Sunday, 26. October 2008

   Are we NIMBY?

   Thank you for posing two questions that, as Chair of the SNHWF action group, I think I should answer at some length. It raises two issues that several others have suggested we should address. In addition I’d be very happy to meet and to talk over the pros and cons of this proposal with you.

   You note that both the website and the greater part of the public meeting we held in Maidwell present the case against the proposed wind energy industrial development at ‘Harrington’. This is fair comment and I’m happy to be found ‘guilty as charged’ but plead the following in mitigation. First, rest assured that, as and when they undertake the mandatory public consultation exercise, the proposers will present you will a carefully argued case for wind energy, backed in publicity terms by many times the resources that we in the opposing action group can command. However, what I’d ask you to do is look carefully at the nature of these arguments. Almost certainly they will be about national ‘green’ concerns to do with replacing carbon-releasing fossil energy sources by an allegedly ‘free’ renewable, the power of the wind. Almost certainly too, the claims they will make about how many homes can be powered will use the most optimistic scenarios they can find. As a retired, but still fairly active, academic environmental scientist specializing in meteorology and climatology I used to accept these sorts of argument. That was until I started to examine the case for on an on-shore wind energy industry in more detail. If you look harder you will see that the case for such developments simply vanishes when the sites are in low average wind speeds areas such as Midland England, and in a county (Northampton) that has already exceeded its various government targets for renewables. The nearby site at Burton Wold struggles to exceed a load factor of 21%, which is well below the threshold for economic operation. The plain fact is that without massive subsidy gained from the nation’s energy bills virtually no on-shore wind energy industrial development in the English Midlands can ever be really gainful.

   Second, you suggest that in opposing this development we in the group are being NIMBYs (‘Not-In-My-Backyarders’). Again, I’m happy to be found ‘guilty as charged’. In opposing THIS proposal, with THIS technology on THIS site in my backyard, I am being a NIMBY. What I would ask you to do here is again to look carefully at the specifics, asking yourself two questions. First, who gains and who loses from this development? My view of this is that the massive profit to be made from it, from the subsidy structure government has chosen to implement, will all flow into a few (oddly enough, mostly into OFF-shore) pockets, whereas the cost will be borne by all of us through our energy bills. It will be borne massively by those ‘backyard’ people whose lives, and those of their children, will be blighted by the nuisance generated in making these profits. Not only will those of us who live in this backyard have to subsidize the developer’s profit, we’ll also have to bear the nuisance during the construction, the noise and nuisance during their operation, the loss – probably forever — of a quiet unspoiled part of rural England, and the well-documented loss in the value of our homes. Chances are, too, that in 25 years time we’ll also have to bear the cost off cleaning up after these developers have long gone away to their off-shore tax havens. The second question is why this particular backyard? Why so many developments in such a low wind area as the Northamptonshire/Leicestershire border? At the last count it was, believe it or not, 19 in the very small corridor astride the A14 between Kettering and Cathorpe. In virtually every case the land owner lives nowhere near and has only limited connection with this part of rural England. It may simply be that the A14 makes it easy to bring in the turbines, but apart from this I can see no technical or economic logic, just some sort of ‘wind farm mania’ directed at an area that is seen to be some sort of ‘soft touch’ for getting the required planning permissions. Make no mistake, if even a fraction of these developments are approved and go ahead the cumulative impacts will be utterly staggering. Faced with this specific attack on the particular ‘backyard’ in which we live, I see nothing at all wrong in being NIMBY.

   Dave Unwin
   Chair, ‘Say No to Harrington Wind Farm’

4. 

   4

   Elizabeth MANN 
   Tuesday, 23. December 2008

   I offer this article which has been published as a ‘comment’ in the transcript of the Uk Renewable Energy Strategy, Westminster Energy Environment and Transport Forum Nov 26th
   I cannot copy the transcript as I would llke to as it has a password reserved for attendees

   Comment
   Campaign to Protect Rural England, Durham Branch
   Our main concern has been the progressive weakening of the planning system with the ‘fashionable’ idea that there are no dis benefits from wind energy. The UK protocol for wind and the BERR guidance for onshore wind seemed to “appear” with no prior warning Planning has become draconian. The IPC currently appears undemocratic but we hope it will eventually prove fair, and truly independent of Government and industry interests.
   Resurrecting HOC Committee of Public Accounts report is essential
   2005, The House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts (CPA) reported that: “The Renewables Obligation is currently at least four times more expensive than the other means of reducing carbon dioxide currently used in the United Kingdom…” and “By 2010, the cost of the Renewables Obligation, which does not appear on electricity bills and is not explained to consumers, is expected to reach £1 billion per annum”. Additionally, the CPA drew attention to the lack of democracy in the RO arrangement stating the Department [DTI] had not consulted consumers or their representative groups, about their willingness to contribute to the cost of renewable energy”.
   In setting its 2010 target, the Government stated that the cost of renewable energy should be acceptable to consumers and in 2003, the DTI’s Energy White Paper, EWP said:… The cost of a Renewables Obligation for England and Wales introduced in April 2002 is met through higher prices to consumers “.
   2008 June, E.ON’s new energy manifesto, warned the UK would require 50GW of renewable energy to meet the EU target, (20% from renewable sources by 2020) but that would require up to 45GW of backup capacity from coal and gas-fired plants to ensure energy supply when renewable energy supplies are not available.
   The EWP stated that benefits of wind power and emissions saved are a material planning consideration. Comment (If emissions saved and electricity generated are to be as claimed the LF needs to be about 30% )
   HL Paper126 at 3.1 Hugh Sharman an independent energy consultant working in Denmark cast doubt on this 30% UK load factor “Danish turbines had operated at a load factor of only 21%. If this happened in the UK, half as many turbines again would be needed to deliver the same target output. Potential investors would face dramatic reductions in their income from wind farms”
   Advertising Standards Agency ASA found that BWEA member company npower had breached its rules by using a figure of 860 g/kWh for CO2 displacement for its proposed new Batsworthy Cross wind farm
   An agreed figure by ASA with BWEA was to be available early 2008
   A letter from the Energy Minister stated there were no problems in the North East yet the following figures show the reality:
   Load factors as % (compiled by E Mann monthly, over six years, from official figures on Ofgem website)

   Wind power station 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
   ________________________________________
   Blyth Harbour Wall 12 11.6 13.2 10.5 9.57
   Great Eppleton 11.2 15 zero zero zero
   Kirkheaton 25.3 26.8 23.2 27.6 25.74
   Tow Law 26.2 31.7 30.8 28.6 21.64
   High Hedley Hope 27.4 32.2 33.8 28.6 31.89
   GlaxoSmithKline — — 8.9 8.2 10.07
   *Holmside — — 19.1 14.2 16.7
   *Holmside nffo — — 19.8 16.2 22.03
   *Hare Hill — — 14.6 16.2 21.94
   *Hare Hill nffo — — 18.3 21.1 18.29
   *High Volts — 15.7 18.4 15.5 21.38
   *High Volts nffo — 30.1 20.1 6.6 21.74
   Blyth offshore WTG 1 16.2 26.5 8.8 2.1 zero
   Blyth offshore WTG 2 (LF zero 2002) zero zero zero zero zero
   *. DTI case Studies ‘Its Only Natural Campaign’
   Claimed as the most modern technology

   end of article

   The information on this private site and the 3 books there for free download may help you by providing some facts regarding the methodology used to promote renewables http://www.wind-farm.co.uk

   CPRE is skeptic not anti wind but look at the right devlopment in the right location. My personal favourite is ‘Solar panels on KMilimanjaro’