The Public Inquiry into the wind farm proposal at Harrington ran from Tuesday 13^th July to Wednesday 21^st July at DDC offices in Lodge Road, Daventry. The planning inspector appointed by the Secretary of State to listen to the evidence and advise him on whether or not to allow Nuon’s appeal was Mrs. Elizabeth Fieldhouse. An announcement of the result is imminent. 

If the appeal is allowed then, barring an appeal to Judicial  Review that we almost certainly won’t be able to afford,  there is nothing else we can do to stop this development and eventually the cement lorries will start to roll in. 

If on the other hand the appeal is dismissed, Nuon will still have an option to come back with a different scheme on the same Merton College land and we have to go through the whole process again. Whether or not Nuon take this course could depend on the detail of the report, but it is by no means unusual for developers to continue to press for permission, reducing the number of turbines included, until either the scheme becomes uneconomical (even with all the assistance they receive from you by way of your increased electricity tarifs and the so-called ‘Renewables Obligation’) or they get permission. In the long term this lunacy will only stop when government undertakes strategic national action to ensure that wind farms only go where they make sense. 

What happened at the Inquiry

Evidence was taken for four full days with two trips to view both the site and its ‘setting’. On your behalf we in SNHWF participated in a number of ways as what is called a ‘Rule 6 Party’. This meant that we were able to present evidence and cross examine the ‘expert’ witnesses called by Nuon. Our hands were very much tied by Daventry District Council’s decision to fight the appeal solely on the grounds of the potential harm to the remains of the Cold War Thor Missile site and its ‘setting’. It left the responsibility on us  to bring forward all the other evidence related to the harm to other heritage ‘assets’ in the area, the landscape, the damage to bats and bird life, the loss of amenity (especially along the two bridleways that cross the site) and the potential for noise nuisance in neighbouring properties.

This was a huge agenda, which we could only meet with a lot of help and with a lot of sharing of effort. First, we had to produce a short ‘Statement of Case’ outlining the broad basis of our evidence. This was then sharpened into a full ‘Proof of Evidence’, a fairly long document that outlined the detail. Next we had to produce a ‘Comment on a Rebuttal’ that was drafted by one of Nuon’s consultants and finally a ‘Closing Statement’ that formed our last contribution to the proceedings. All three documents are available for inspection and download from our website at www.saynotoharrington.com.

In presenting our case we couldn’t afford to engage a barrister, but we were able to spend an afternoon in London meeting with John Pugh-Smith, a barrister specializing in environmental matters, to receive the benefit of his expert advice. Throughout the inquiry he remained just a ‘phone call and/or an e-mail away and was able to read our documents and provide additional, often very necessary, advice. We are grateful to those of you who made generous contributions allowing us to retain John whose help was invaluable. 

In SNHWF we were also fortunate to be able to lodge proof of evidence from three independent witnesses as follows: 

• Mr. and Mrs. Neil MacMahon (County Birding) : information about the harm to migrant and breeding birds on the site;
• Mr. Phil Richardson (Northants Bat Group) : information about the likely harm to bats;
• Mr. Brian Skittrall (CPRE): noise and cumulative effects in the area. 

Each of these people gave their time and effort entirely freely and each was subjected to vigorous (and ineffective!) cross-examination by Nuon’s legal expert. They were also extremely effective in using their local detailed knowledge gained over many years of effort to expose the many platitudes trotted out by Nuon’s supposed experts in the same fields. 

In addition, the SNHWF team presented the remainder of our case on noise (Dr. John Hickey), landscape (Mrs. Ann Smeaton), heritage (Mrs. Melanie Duke) and amenity and safety (Prof. Dave Unwin). We also took it in turns to cross-examine Nuon’s ‘experts’ in all these same areas of concern.  When you’re heavily involved as we were it’s hard to know how well all this went down, but most observers have told us that we held our own. 

On the Friday of the first week Dave Unwin was involved with others in showing the inspector the detail of the Thor site and its immediate setting using a route that we were able to devise and on the following Wednesday Kate James and Ann Smeaton planned and accompanied the inspector on a four hour tour that looked at the site from some of the more critical viewpoints and also took in the Carpet Baggers museum opened especially for the visit by Mr West.  The inspector was also accompanied on the tour by Mr Stevenson for Nuon, and Dr Robinson of English Heritage for DDC. 

One of the things that can impress the inspector is the strength of local opinion, and here some thanks are due to numerous people for putting up our signs and for writing additional letters of objection. The count on these was 31 against, one neutral and six for the development. We also want to thanks those who gave up time and travelled to Daventry, some on several days, to show support, and even greater thanks are due to the 14 people who not also had the courage to speak and be subject to cross-examination: 

Benedict Cadbury, Catherine Cadbury, Kate Calnan, Sue Jackson-Stops, Kate James, Councillor Chris Millar, Kevin O’Connor, Tim Oglethorpe, David Parton, Mary Sanders-Hewitt, Rod Smeaton, Paul Turner, Victoria Turner, and last but by no means least Fred West.

With hindsight and the experience we now have we know there are some things we could have done better, but we ended the inquiry close to exhaustion and, given the resources of money, knowledge and time that we had available, we believe we mounted a good challenge to Nuon’s proposal.

Conditions

If the proposal gets the green light, then it will be subject to a list of conditions negotiated in a round table discussion on the final day of the inquiry. SNHWF participated in this process to the full and to the best of our ability, and managed to extract a few concessions from the developer of which perhaps the most important are some protection to Maidwell residents in case of noise nuisance from the turbines and planting in Draughton to screen the most affected houses. Conditions are officially set by the inspector in her report and it is therefore not appropriate to pre-empt any decision, but, should the worst happen and the appeal be allowed, we encourage you to take careful note of the imposed conditions and complain loudly to your District Council’s planners every time one is breached.  ‘Conditions’ matter. 

A Tour of the Thor Site

All of the effort in assembling evidence didn’t just help us make our case, it also taught all of us a great deal about the wonderfully interesting part of the country in which we live. In particular we were privileged to hear Dr. Ben Robinson of the Northampton office of English Heritage talk about the national heritage importance of the old Thor missile site. Those of us who accompanied the inspector on the two tours were even more fortunate to be with him on the site as he reconstructed the detail of how the entire operation was run. Whatever happens as a result of the inquiry, if we can find a suitable date and get permission from the landowners, Ben has kindly agreed to lead an afternoon’s ‘field trip’ at the site. Watch the parish magazines and notice boards for details of when this will take place, likely to be in September after the harvest and before ploughing.

Local Update (with thanks to Richard Cox, West Haddon)
Status as of 22 July 2010 

The threat of being surrounded by huge wind turbines over 125m (410ft) high is real. It is insane to argue that this concentration of investment in the area of lowest mean winds in the country is a rational response to the threat of global warming.  The current count shown on the map below is 83, with another 10 turbines operational and a proposed extension of 7 at Burton Wold, together with an approved development of 7 turbines at Pipewell, not shown on this map, taking the total to 107.

We have heard from Daventry District Council Planning Department that as expected, Nuon have lodged an appeal against DDC’s decision to refuse permission for the windfarm development.  The appeal form was received by DDC on 19th March.  The appeal process allows 6 weeks from registration of the appeal for members of the public to send any additional information to the Planning Inspector.  It is regrettable that notice of the appeal was sent out on 6th April, with a cut-off date of 4th May for comments to be received, allowing us only 4 weeks to respond.

The appeal will be the subject of a Local Inquiry and the date proposed by Nuon, in agreement with DDC planning department, is 13th July with 6th July offered as an alternative.  Inquiries begin each day at 10:00am and Nuon estimate that the appeal will last 6 days.  Documentation for the appeal can be seen on DDC’s planning website:

http://212.125.73.214/swiftlg/apas/run/WPHAPPDETAIL.DisplayUrl?theApnID=DA/2009/0168&theTabNo=3

The SNTHWF action group is currently analysing all the documentation (including more than 100 emails supporting the proposal which were automatically generated via Nuon’s web site and subsequently rightfully ignored by DDC in their count) and has offered any help needed by DDC in their defence of the decision reached by the Planning Committee.

Daventry District Council Planning Committee tonight (Wednesday 27th January) refused permission for development of 7 turbines on the Harrington Airfield because it breached planning regulations.  The council rejected the application on a majority vote.  Nuon was backed by a host of supporters “imported” from Wales but they were significantly outnumbered by local residents who were against the proposal.  So many objectors attended that many were forced to listen to proceedings from a meeting room downstairs.  It was standing room only in the council chambers.

The SNTHWF committee would like to thank those who have helped them in their action against the ill-conceived development proposal - the hundreds who wrote to the planning department voicing their concens and objections, those who donated funds to help our fight and those who attended Daventry council offices this evening.

Daventry’s planning case officer, Mrs Chuong Phillips, recommended that the application be approved but after statements from this action group, a representative of the Parish councils, and Councillor Chris Millar (leader of DDC) who all opposed the application, two speakers in support, and much debate, the Planning Committee rejected the recommendation.

We don’t at this stage know what the next steps will be, but this web site will continue to be updated with any statements from Nuon.

Folks

Here, at 4.0pm on a cold still day is a Christmas thought. If you go to:

http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp.php#generation_by_fuel_type_table

… you will see that the 2,000 or so wind landscape ruining turbines built so far are at this very moment contributing just 0.2% of the country’s electricity.  On days like these, we’d need just a million to power all our needs and even to get to the renewables target we’d need 300,000 of them. In short even if we could build them, we’d need to make the entire country one giant wind farm and even then it would be a bit tight on space.

Would you want to rely exclusively on these guys to provide the energy to cook the Christmas dinner?

Happy Christmas!

The Say No to Harrington Wind Farm action group.

Nuon’s website now refers to a ‘delay in deciding’ that ‘also provides a better opportunity for finalising potential community benefits linked to the wind farm’, but neglects to tell you that the delay is at their instigation.  They say:

‘We had been expecting the Council to decide before Christmas which I reported in the newsletter I sent you last month.’

The implication here is that the delay had nothing to do with Nuon when in fact our understanding is that the postponement of the determination meeting that was to be held on December 16th was a direct result of Nuon asking Daventry District Council Planning Department for more time in which to conclude their discussions on matters of what they chose to call ‘community benefits’.  Even if discussions are going on, it has long been understood that, for obvious reasons, matters of ‘benefit’ of this sort related to planning decisions should not influence them.

Just what are these ‘community benefits’?  Nuon’s website now lists them as:

1) ‘An exciting wild life habitat project in fields near the Brompton (sic) Way’.  Presumably this is to offset the massive environmental damage their project will inflict elsewhere?

2) ‘A circular walk taking in the wind farm and the history of the air field and missile base’.  This is a walk that most of us have being doing for years!

3) ‘A Community Fund of £50,000 a year for local projects and potential initiatives in local sustainability such as micro generation and energy efficiency’.  Well, you will find that our District Council already do a great deal to promote energy efficiency in the home.  £50,000 each year sounds a lot, but who would administer it, and anyhow it is a very small fraction of the profit they stand to make at our community’s expense.

As a community, through our Parish Councils, we have repeatedly told both Nuon and Daventry District Council that the great majority of us do not want this monstrous development.  These ‘community benefits’ do not, and should not, change this in any way.

The other matter reflected on Nuon’s website that we have issue with is their unashamed recruitment  of

‘supporters to join us at the committee meeting (likely to be 6.15 on Wed 27 Jan. at the Council Offices, Lodge Road) to be a part of a positive wind energy lobby and encourage a yes vote.” 

This is combined with a facility automatically  to  generate an email to DDC planners, with no postcode checker to ascertain that the supporters are local to the development or have genuine addresses.  The Say No to Harrington action group is similarly asking for support in our endeavour to have the application defeated at the Planning Committee meeting, but we have done this via a newsletter distributed locally to those who have a genuine interest in the detrimental implications of the proposed development.

Finally, Nuon’s website lists summaries of the various Consultee Responses but omits the response from English Heritage which is firmly, and importantly, against the proposals, and says that Brixworth Parish Council support the application when in fact that is absolutely untrue.

By Christopher Booker

Daily Mail

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1210569/CHRISTOPHER-BOOKER-Green-zealots-muddled-ministers-condemning-blackouts.html#ixzz0PwgxhSGM

Power-cut Britain, to anyone who remembers it, will seem utterly antediluvian. It predated home computers and mobile phones, and colour televisions were only then beginning to appear.  Those who were young in the early Seventies will remember poring over their homework by candlelight, and there was a clear division between people who liked the reek of paraffin lamps and people who didn’t. Then, along with the three-day week and crippling industrial disputes, powercut Britain disappeared into the past, never to return. That is, until now. Once again we are being warned that within a few years this country could be facing its worst wave of power blackouts since those far-off days more than three decades ago - and that even the Government itself now admits these might be inevitable. For seven years it has been glaringly obvious to energy experts that Britain will soon be facing a colossal energy gap, as the ageing power stations which currently supply 40 percent of our electricity are forced to close down. Eight of our nine nuclear power plants are coming to the end of their life. And half of our coal and oil-fired power stations are rapidly running out of the hours they are allowed to keep running under the EU’s Large Combustion Plants directive, designed to stop the pollution blamed for acid rain. By 2015, or even earlier, we shall thus begin to lose two-fifths of our present electricity supply, and the question energy experts are asking is: how do we propose to fill this yawning gap?

Britain faces a colossal energy gap

The seriousness of this cannot be overestimated. Cosy images of candlelit Britain in the Seventies are all very well, but since then we have been through a revolution which makes our society almost wholly dependent on computers. It is no longer just our lights, cookers, fridges and televisions for which we rely on electricity, but pretty well our entire working lives, from offices, banks, petrol pumps and supermarket tills to traffic lights, railway signals and virtually all our transport system. The tragedy is that for seven years, politicians of all parties have refused to face up to Britain’s fast-looming energy gap because they have all been bewitched by the great ‘green dream’, that we could somehow save the planet by generating much of our electricity from ‘renewables’, such as building thousands more wind turbines. In reality this is just makebelieve. The 2,300 turbines so far built in Britain supply barely 1 per cent of our power, less than a single medium-sized conventional power station. The Government talks about spending £100 billion on building 10,000 more windmills to meet our EU target that within ten years we must generate 32 per cent of our electricity from

‘renewables’. But, first, there is not the remotest chance that we could build three turbines a day between now and 2020. And, second, even if there were, they would do virtually nothing to close our energy gap, not least because we would need to build a dozen or more conventional power stations just to provide back-up for when the wind is not blowing. Almost the only politician who realised this was John Hutton, the former energy minister, who last year reversed Government policy by announcing that we needed at least a dozen new nuclear and coal-fired power stations to fill the gap.

As he starkly declared to the 2008 Labour conference: ‘No coal and no nuclear means no power, no future.’ Two weeks later, however, Hutton was moved to another department, and Britain’s energy policy was handed over to Ed Miliband, a ‘green’ zealot in charge of a new ministry ominously named the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC). Mr Miliband still makes noises about allowing the French and German companies which now dominate our electricity supply industry to build a new generation of nuclear power plants. But under EU rules they cannot, unlike the wind industry, expect any subsidies, and the chances that any new nuclear plants could be built before 2020 are virtually non-existent.

Wind turbines won’t solve the problem

As for new coal-fired power stations, he has decreed that these cannot be built without socalled ‘carbon capture’, piping off their CO2 to bury it in holes in the ground.

Not only would this double the cost of the electricity, but the technology to do it hasn’t even been developed yet. In other words, Miliband is so obsessed with the need to halt ‘climate change’ that his concern with the ‘energy’ half of his brief - keeping Britain’s lights on - so obviously takes second place that it is scarcely evident at all.

This was glaringly obvious from his recent policy statement on making the ‘transition to a low-carbon economy’: hundreds of pages about how we are going to build windmills and achieve imaginary cuts in our CO2 emissions, but notably short on any practical suggestions as to how we are going to keep our economy running. From a statement put out by Mr Miliband’s ministry this week, it has become even more obvious that the one thing they hope will save Britain’s electricity supplies from disaster is a scramble to build dozens more gas-fired power stations - just when our own North Sea gas reserves are fast running out. This means we shall be looking to gas to provide anything up to 80 per cent of our electricity, and the gas will be largely imported from politically unreliable countries such as Russia and Algeria at a time when world gas prices are likely to be soaring. It is exactly the disastrous scenario which Mr Hutton warned against last year. Even if, by this extremely risky gamble, we might manage to close the energy gap now fast approaching us, it could only mean a further massive hike in electricity prices, driving millions more into ‘fuel poverty’.

Not for nothing is Mr Miliband also proposing that we should spend £7 billion on fitting every home in the country with what are called ‘smart meters’. These are two-way devices, connected electronically to our supply company, which would not only allow us to see how much electricity we ourselves are using but would enable the firms to ‘manage demand’ by controlling how much power we receive.

A massive price hike is inevitable

If the power cuts come, this ‘Big Brother in the cupboard’ would allow the firms to ration our electricity use. And it is revealing that instead of looking to that £7 billion to be spent on two or three new nuclear power stations, the Government prefers a system which would allow the misery of electricity cuts to be spread around in a ‘managed’ fashion. It is ironic that this week’s stories about the Government admitting that we face the possibility of blackouts should have originated with the Tory Party, whose own energy policy has long been indistinguishable from the Government’s - windmills, ‘carbon capture’, ‘smart meters’ and all. The truth is that, if David Cameron comes to power in nine months’ time, there will be no bigger headache confronting him than how to avoid precisely the disaster which his spokesman was yesterday warning about. If there is one issue to which he and his colleagues should now be giving their fullest attention it is how to keep Britain’s lights on without prices going through the roof. And that will mean abandoning a lot of that childish Milibandian make-believe which now threatens us with as great a crisis as any our politicians have ever landed us with.

“Oxendon, Kelmarsh, Maidwell …. Square Norman towers with arrow slits, thatched pubs, tiny Victorian railway stations, nesting in a bosky countryside of high hedges and dense copses. It was enough to make you want to break into a chorus of  ‘There’ll always be an England …’ ”

Robert Harris, ENIGMA, (Arrow Books 1996), p. 273

Through the industry’s mouthpiece, the British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) we are often told that public opinion is on the side of onshore wind farm development. For example the FAQ section of the BWEA’s website states:

 “Opinion surveys regularly show that just over eight out of ten people are in favour of wind energy, and less than one in ten (around 5%) are against it.”

How you interpret this ‘fact’ depends on the detail of how the questions were framed, how informed the respondents are about the issue, and the way the ‘population’ of people was sampled.

First, it is very easy to ask questions that solicit the answer you want and then misrepresent the results. It might well be that when asked a straight question if wind energy is a good thing, nine in ten will tick the ‘yes’ box. It’s ‘motherhood and apple pie’ isn’t it, who could possibly object? What there is abundant evidence to show is that when a reasonably informed public are asked a more direct question such as “Do you want commercial wind ‘farms’ in the countryside?” the large majority always answer with a resounding NO.

Second, asking somebody who has no experience of living close to a wind farm is really asking what for them is a ‘hypothetical question’ about something of which they have no knowledge. One way to ensure that respondents are aware of the nuisance that winds farms create is to look at the results of the all-too-frequent attempts by developers to extend already ‘up and running’ wind farms or where there are proposals for new winds farms close to existing sites. In such cases local residents and their councilors have a good idea of what to expect. The evidence here is that people who know about them are overwhelmingly against them. Ages ago in 1999 a survey of polls by Angela Kelly of the Countryside Guardian summarized a number of such expressions of opinion, for example:

•  A Summer 1997 Windfarm Poll by the County Times about wind farms in Mid-Wales had 781 responses resulting in a 79% ‘no’ to more wind farms in Mid-Wales. Two years later, at Easter 1999, the same newspaper reported that over 90% of responses said ‘no’ to more wind farms in Montgomeryshire;
• Also in 1997 at  Cold Northcott, Cornwall, showing a dramatic change of attitude, councillors rejected a planning application for an extension to an existing wind farm by 25 votes to 9 and had 780 letters against with not even one in favour!
• In the same year at nearby Davidstow an application for a wind farm was overwhelmingly rejected with 813 letters against and only 3 in favour.                                                                                                                                                            

These reactions were over a decade ago, so perhaps as the alleged threat from global warming has become greater, opinion might have swung the other way? Again, the evidence is pretty conclusive, the more people know about them the more they are opposed:

• In Scotland, where there are many operating wind farms, the Lochaber News  in August of this year (2009) reports that in response to the question “Should councillors approve NBW’s plan for four wind turbines above Corpach? The results was 10% in favour and a wacking 90% against;
• At the other end of the country but again where wind farms scar the landscape, the Cambridge News for 27^th March 2009 asked the simple question “Do you think we should build more windfarms?” with a ‘yes’ vote of 29.4% and a ‘no’ vote of 70.6% ;
• In Wales surveys by the Western Mail (December 2008) and S. Wales Evening Post (November 2008) with much the same question gave ‘nos’ of  86% and 71% ;
• Even more amazing was the submission of objections to the recent Isle of Lewis proposal where the voting with 11,456 submissions was 0.5% in favour and 99.5% against.

Quite how this can be translated into ‘eight out of ten in favour’ escapes us!

Third, any professional in surveys of public opinion will tell you that what also makes the results hard to interpret is ensuring that the sample of respondents is in some sense ‘representative’. This cuts both ways. For example, if a newspaper or website asks people to vote on some proposition or other, chances are that only people who are engaged with the issue will do so, with a resulting bias in the percentages either for or against. We are well aware, for example, of carefully orchestrated campaigns elsewhere in the county to bias opinion polls in favour on local wind farms by the ‘green’ lobby without considering any of the local circumstances or arguments.

At Harrington, Nuon have tried to play the same game and have persistently misrepresented local opinion. In their Statement of Community Involvement they have used extremely lax social survey methods to justify ludicrous and entirely incorrect claims about the community response to their proposal. For the record, a survey conducted by Maidwell and Draughton Parish Council in 2008 distributed to every household in the two villages most affected received responses that were 84% against the proposal. A further poll after a public debate in the same parish held on 30^th March 2009 at which both sides of the argument were presented and gave a similar proportion against. A similar public meeting in Harrington on 6^th April 2009 was even less equivocal, with all (100%) present being opposed to the scheme.  

Perhaps the BWEA’s statement should be amended to read:  

“Reasonably well-sampled and carefully worded opinion surveys regularly show that eight to nine out of ten people are against wind farms being built in their locality, and less than one or two in ten are for it.”

DU.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8206615.stm

BBC News Tuesday, 18 August 2009

Profits fall at protest-hit firm

Vestas says many customers are unable to fund turbine projects

Protest-hit Danish wind turbine firm Vestas has seen profits fall on the back of job cuts and falling orders.

Workers had staged a sit-in protest at its site in the Isle of Wight this summer, as Vestas closed its factory
there with the loss of 425 jobs.

The firm, which also axed 1,142 jobs in Denmark, said net income dropped 34% to 43m euros ($60.8m; £37m) in the second quarter from the same period last year.

Vestas also said that it shipped 618 turbines, 12% fewer than last year.

But the firm did see its revenue increase by 11% to 1.2bn euros.

“Since the autumn of 2008, the credit crisis has impacted the wind power industry, causing limited order intake during the past nine months,” Vestas said.

“Many customers have been unable to finance scheduled projects either due to increasing funding costs or an actual lack of funding.”

The company maintained that it expected revenue to rise this year by 20% to 7.2bn euros.

And it said it was expanding heavily in China and the US because those markets were among the fastest growing.

Senior vice president Peter Wenzel-Kruse told the BBC that the protest at the Isle of Wight was a “very sad episode.”

“When we see a strong, stable onshore market in the UK we will definitely reconsider going back,” he said.

But he blamed the attitude of the general public for the company’s lack of progress in the UK.

“The ‘nimbys’ need to be more open [minded] and acknowledge that wind turbines would be good for the UK.
The government is doing a lot but the final decision makers are the local councils and boroughs.”
———————————————————————-
BBC Radio 4   18th August 2009

“Today” Programme  6am – 9am

Listen again on:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/default.stm

and at 8.45am you can hear that Vestas shares have plummeted by one third in recent months.

The Swedish director of Vestas blamed it on “nimbyism” and said that the opposition to wind turbines was stronger in the UK than anywhere in Europe and beyond.  He did  not blame the government - just we NIMBYs !  I felt really proud to know that we still have enough  fighting spirit in this country to protect our land from those who would wreck it from sheer greed.  Unfortunately, we still have to contend with “the enemy within” - i.e. many of our own elected representatives, as well as the unelected ones in Europe ! 

Our political masters, by forcing the consumer to subsidise the wind folly, are just adding to the millions already threatened with energy poverty due to the credit crunch. 

The director of Vestas said that they could not set up  a manufacturing base in the UK unless a strong market for onshore wind turbines could be established.

Of course, there was not a mention of offshore wind turbines. The developers know it is far too difficult and risky to build them and that dependable conditions for access for service  and repair are about as predictable as the wind itself!  The insurance costs are astronomical.

Denmark has reached saturation of onshore wind and the Danes are making it very clear that they’ve had enough.   They only tolerate them because they know their huge export market is the main  plank in their economy and provides employment for thousands. To this end their country has been sacrificed to about 6.000 wind turbines as a huge shop window to sell their wares.

As Howard Hayden, Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of Connecticut, wrote in 2001 :-
“In recent years, the little country Denmark has gained a certain amount of fame with its wind turbines.
No, they don’t get much electricity from them. They sell them to suckers.”

So, NIMBYs unite and  keep up the fight! 

Join the NIABYs  - Not In Anyone’s Back Yard !

And Google :- “VESTAS Swedish director Hansen Isle of Wight” :-
To read a very different story just one year ago !

Angela Kelly

Countryside Guardian

The wind farm industry always claims that the main reason why they have to cover the country with turbines is for security of supply. They argue that if the wind stops blowing in one place, chances are that it will be blowing in another and that anyhow such low wind conditions don’t correlate with high levels of demand. Both arguments are dangerous myths that proper data analysis can disprove. When the wind stops it often stops over the entire country and this occurs frequently during the winter peak in energy demand. This note by John Webley provides the details.

Onshore wind turbines the myth the reality and the bottom line