Today's most viewed
| DALES FOLK |  | | | PICK OF THE PAST | | | READERS' LETTERS | | | COUNTRYFILE | | | | CARTOONS | | |
|
|
|
Quest to find truth about wind farm
One of the more tawdry innovations of modern politics has been the ever-increasing use of obfuscation, a deliberate attempt by politicians and their spin doctors to persuade the public that they are doing one thing when in fact they are doing exactly the opposite.
A good example of this is the so-called "public consultation" over 2,500 post office closures, which - as former Labour minister Kate Hoey has admitted - is a "total sham" because the list of branches due for the chop was agreed behind closed doors months ago.
Over recent years, many of us have leaned a wary ear towards most public announcements, trying to discern the background noise of real intent, but in my long career I have never heard a statement quite as startling as this:
"It was easier to penetrate a gang of international drug smugglers in Hong Kong than it is to find out exactly what is going on in the attempt to build a giant wind farm in Craven."
That would be as easy to dismiss as hyperbole if it did not come from the mouth of retired Hong Kong police chief Christopher Emmett, who did spend much of his career pursuing drug barons and seizing huge hauls of heroin.
When Chris and his wife Stephanie left the former colony on its handover to China, they searched for a picture postcard retirement home in the peace and quiet of the English countryside.
Now, their rural idyll is threatened by the prospect of five or six of the highest wind turbines ever to be built in Britain a couple of miles from their home at East Marton, in the triangle between two of England's busiest tourist traffic routes, the A65 and the A59.
Make no mistake, these machines are giants: over 400 feet tall and - should they get planning permission - they will stand on top of a hill already 600 feet above sea level.
They will be plainly visible from as far away as Penyghent to the north, Malham Tarn to the east, Pendle Hill to the south and across the Forest of Bowland to the west - four of the most beautiful landscapes in England.
Put simply, Chris and dozens of his neighbours wonder why they are necessary in such a sensitive area when Gordon Brown recently announced a series of enormous projects to build a series of such wind farms offshore. This will allow Britain to produce its target of carbon-free electricity - as laid down by the bureaucrats of the European Union in Brussels.
| “It was easier to penetrate a gang of international drug smugglers in Hong Kong than it is to find out exactly what is going on in the attempt to build a giant wind farm in Craven.” | | Chris Emmett |
|
Chris is an active member of the newly formed Friends of Craven Landscape (FCL) and his wife is secretary. He has spent the six months since the plans were announced using his detection skills, combing the internet for every scrap of information he can uncover about wind turbines and British and EU planning laws.
The result: "I am as confused now as when I started. On the surface, this has nothing to do with Government: it is just a straightforward business deal between the landowners and the German energy company that wants to build the windfarm. But there seems to be pressure coming all the way down the line from the EU and Whitehall.
"Craven District Council, which will have to say yea or nay to the planning application, is acting very professionally and with great sympathy - but councillors have been left stuck between a rock and a very hard place."
I have written before about this quandary when, 15 years ago, Sir Bernard Ingham, Margaret Thatcher's fiery ex-press secretary, led a campaign against a rash of windfarms being built around his home town of Todmorden on the other side of the Pennines.
He told me then that any politician who gave planning permission for a massive extension of windfarms would be responsible for the "worst environmental disaster of the 20th century". At the time, there were big Government subsidies to windfarm operators. In year one, they covered virtually all the set-up costs, but the handouts were then reduced by 10 per cent a year until they ran out after a decade.
Although I was never able to prove this, several people I spoke to believed that, when those 10 years were over, operators would stop work. In other words, they were wanted for farm subsidies more than the wind.
I asked Chris Emmett if this curious anomaly still existed and he replied: "No - the Government no longer pays direct subsidies to the operators. But they demand that the electricity utilities take a growing percentage of their supply from wind power. That is expensive - but the cost goes straight on to your electricity bill."
At the moment, that hidden subsidy is running at some £250 million a year and will grow every year until 2015.
As always, it is the customer who ends up paying the bill - but this, of course, has nothing to do with the Government. To me, this sounds like obfuscation as an art form.
6:43pm Thursday 3rd April 2008
Print 
Email this 
CommentPosted by: Paul Jaquin, Skipton on 9:55pm Thu 3 Apr 08
It is excellent to see such a balanced and well researched article appearing in the Craven Herald. Mr Sheard and Mr Emmett obviously have difficultly in understanding the motivation for the construction of wind turbines, and draw links between the heroin trade and climate change in order to increase the journalistic hyperbole.
Mr Emmett's rural idyll, situated as it is between two busy traffic routes, will quite obviously be ruined by the construction of such giant turbines, in much the same way that the view from Skipton to Addingham is ruined by the turbines at Chelker.
Although the turbines will be visible from the top of Pen-y-ghent, if Mr Sheard and Mr Emmett were to walk there on a clear day, they would be able to see two nuclear power stations. I feel this may be a definite case of NIMBYism, we will use the electricity, but please, we have a picture postcard retirement home, don’t spoil it for us. Having formed the single interest Friends of Craven Landscape group, Mr Emmett has taken six months, and used all his detective skill to establish that EnergyKontor and the landowners would like to build some turbines.
Mr Sheard righly points out that during the 1980s and early 1990s, the emerging wind turbine companies were subsidised by the government to enable their growth and development, enabling ever more efficient technologies to be developed (the twin bladed turbines at Chelker date from this time). Now the market is developed, and the public is becoming aware that something must be done to combat climate change (not mentioned by Mr Sheard), firms such as EnergyKontor are able to provide this mature technology such that our reliance on oil and gas may be reduced.
I worry that Mr Sheard is using Mr Emmetts inability to penetrate a business deal between the landowner and a German energy company to obfuscate his own campaign against wind turbines.
Yours
Dr Paul Jaquin
It is excellent to see such a balanced and well researched article appearing in the Craven Herald. Mr Sheard and Mr Emmett obviously have difficultly in understanding the motivation for the construction of wind turbines, and draw links between the heroin trade and climate change in order to increase the journalistic hyperbole.
Mr Emmett's rural idyll, situated as it is between two busy traffic routes, will quite obviously be ruined by the construction of such giant turbines, in much the same way that the view from Skipton to Addingham is ruined by the turbines at Chelker.
Although the turbines will be visible from the top of Pen-y-ghent, if Mr Sheard and Mr Emmett were to walk there on a clear day, they would be able to see two nuclear power stations. I feel this may be a definite case of NIMBYism, we will use the electricity, but please, we have a picture postcard retirement home, don’t spoil it for us. Having formed the single interest Friends of Craven Landscape group, Mr Emmett has taken six months, and used all his detective skill to establish that EnergyKontor and the landowners would like to build some turbines.
Mr Sheard righly points out that during the 1980s and early 1990s, the emerging wind turbine companies were subsidised by the government to enable their growth and development, enabling ever more efficient technologies to be developed (the twin bladed turbines at Chelker date from this time). Now the market is developed, and the public is becoming aware that something must be done to combat climate change (not mentioned by Mr Sheard), firms such as EnergyKontor are able to provide this mature technology such that our reliance on oil and gas may be reduced.
I worry that Mr Sheard is using Mr Emmetts inability to penetrate a business deal between the landowner and a German energy company to obfuscate his own campaign against wind turbines.
Yours
Dr Paul Jaquin
Posted by: Graham Smout, Nr Skipton on 10:55am Fri 4 Apr 08
The reality is that the government is encouraging wind turbine development in order to claim it has reached targets for zero carbon emissions. However this is highly questionable; the turbines will produce some power but at an exorbitant cost to the taxpayer. Not only that, but the turbines will be only partially efficient, at most 25% of their stated capacity. Wind farms are not suited to onshore development due to the turbulence created by the r landscape. The taxpayers money spent would be better used ensuring every home and business in the area was equipped with the latest energy saving products, insulation and heating systems, including heat recovery.
As with all grid connected generation, the transmission losses on the national grid are in the region of 30%-50%which would bring the effiency of the turbines down to less than half the stated value! So what's the point? I think the answer is profit.
The reality is that the government is encouraging wind turbine development in order to claim it has reached targets for zero carbon emissions. However this is highly questionable; the turbines will produce some power but at an exorbitant cost to the taxpayer. Not only that, but the turbines will be only partially efficient, at most 25% of their stated capacity. Wind farms are not suited to onshore development due to the turbulence created by the r landscape. The taxpayers money spent would be better used ensuring every home and business in the area was equipped with the latest energy saving products, insulation and heating systems, including heat recovery.
As with all grid connected generation, the transmission losses on the national grid are in the region of 30%-50%which would bring the effiency of the turbines down to less than half the stated value! So what's the point? I think the answer is profit.
Posted by: Paul O'Brien, Glasgow on 3:25pm Fri 4 Apr 08
Sorry Mr Smout, cannot let you get away with such a cavalier statement on grid losses. Its in the region of 6%-8% depending on how far away the generation is from the place of use.
Sorry Mr Smout, cannot let you get away with such a cavalier statement on grid losses. Its in the region of 6%-8% depending on how far away the generation is from the place of use.
Posted by: Graham Smout, Nr Skipton on 6:47pm Fri 4 Apr 08
[quote][bold]Paul O\'Brien[/bold] wrote:
Sorry Mr Smout, cannot let you get away with such a cavalier statement on grid losses. Its in the region of 6%-8% depending on how far away the generation is from the place of use.[/quote] Mr O'Brien is correct, & I would not wish to mislead on such an important issue. His figure for transmission losses at high voltages are correct.
As I see it, there is a vital need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and reduce our CO2 footprint locally nationally and globally. I do not think building the proposed wind turbines in our locality is the most sensible, efficient or economical means to do this. The best way is to reduce consumption first, by using power more wisely and more efficently.
Paul O\'Brien wrote:
Sorry Mr Smout, cannot let you get away with such a cavalier statement on grid losses. Its in the region of 6%-8% depending on how far away the generation is from the place of use.
Mr O'Brien is correct, & I would not wish to mislead on such an important issue. His figure for transmission losses at high voltages are correct.
As I see it, there is a vital need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and reduce our CO2 footprint locally nationally and globally. I do not think building the proposed wind turbines in our locality is the most sensible, efficient or economical means to do this. The best way is to reduce consumption first, by using power more wisely and more efficently.
What are these links for?
If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content we've made it easy for you to do it.
At the bottom of all articles, you'll see links to six sites. These sites - commonly called 'social bookmark' or 'social news' sites - have large communities of web users who share and rate interesting, useful and fun things on the web.
Clicking the links will automatically add the address of the story you are reading to one of these sites, letting you share it with others. Each site will ask you to register to share stories. Registration is free and once a member, you can store, recommend and search for stories that interest you.
More on Digg
More on del.icio.us
More on Furl
More on reddit
More on NowPublic/
More on Yahoo!
