UKH

Dear all,

I'm not terribly good at this type of thing but it's fallen to me so here goes.

A development company has applied to build a wind farm on the land over Curtis and Great Wanney crags in Northumberland. Below is a link to the development info. If you scroll to the end you will see a picture of the final result.

http://www.amec.com/uploadfiles/RayNTS.pdf

Great Wanney is one of the finest crags in the area. We have until the 23rd of Janaury to register objections. I will try and return with more details but would appreciate any input from other local groups/individuals.

Curly

In reply to curlymynci:

Why is this wind farm bad?

In reply to curlymynci: That's pretty appalling. Does that date mean 2007 or have we missed the deadline?

In reply to curlymynci:
http://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/t.php?t=164285

though that thread doesn't really add anything useful

In reply to es: Because the Northumberland national park is pretty much the last unspoilt upland area in mainland britain and deserves to be kept that way.

In reply to graeme jackson:

They screwed up the application and we now have until the 23rd to appeal.

In reply to curlymynci: Of february?

In reply to es:

I appreciate the environmental concerns.

This is proposing building around 20 turbines, each three full rope lengths in height, crating massive noise pollution and a visual scar, on top of one of the best crags in the whole of our county.

The only reason it is being proposed is because this is a small patch of private land within the national park.

Curly

In reply to graeme jackson:

Yup.

I heard about it last night.

In reply to graeme jackson:
Mainland England perhaps, though it's already been rather spoiled by the forestry commission. Doesn't mean it's any better an idea though.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

Any idea of who in the BMC should be contacted?

In reply to curlymynci: According to JDal in the other thread, the NMC access officer has been involved.

In reply to curlymynci:

Don't worry i'm not necesarliy in favor of it.

Although I do think we need more wind farms, i don't think everywhere is suitable for them. So if windfarms are a good idea, then we are going to have to say yes to some of them. So what i need is good reasons why not, which is what I was asking? What makes this case special enough to say no?

So it being within a national park would be a good reason, lack of benefit to the local community another(are they getting cheaper energy from it).

In reply to curlymynci: At least it isn't in Yorkshire.

In reply to es:

The birdlife there is amazing. That aside though, I speak selfishly as a climber. Have a look at the picture of the crag on page 21 on the document I posted. It wouldn't just be turbines, it would be roads in to them. Climbing in Northumberland would never be the same again.

In reply to curlymynci:

I was informed in relation to an earlier post that the Wanney's and Ray Crag are actually outside the National Park Boundary. Why they're not part of the park I shall never know, but there it is.

I've many pleasant memories of my early climbing days on the Wanney's, when the forest below the crag was no more than newly planted saplings!

It is a shame that wind turbines are to be sited in that area, but there are many other sites I am glad they will not be in.

Wind power is preferable to fossil fuel or nuclear options, but sadly it comes at the price visual pollution of the countryside. It is also incapable alone of meeting the energy gap we will face in the near future.

In reply to Alan Stark:

Indeed. Just outside. And that's one of the only reasons they'll get away with it.

In reply to curlymynci:

I'm glad to see you have posted a viable alternative site, or did you acidently delete that from the post when your knee jerked.


ps

I reckon they should build a new nuclear power station on the coast instead........

In reply to Ian Wilson:

I posted the accesible version of the information release the development company has published.

Thank you for your valuable and detailed contribution.

In reply to curlymynci: not saying im for or against in this case but... i live about 3 miles froma very pretty windfarm, a few weeks ago there was about 20m of mist with the turbines rising out of it and glinting in the winter sun, stunning. the other point is the bit in the planning about land reclamation. if it was decommisioned after 20 yrs there would be almost no sign it had existed. now lets consider the various nuke stations that are being decommisioned....

In reply to ste:

They're under no obligation to decommission them, even though that is the proposed time period. IMO they'll probably stay up where they go up.

In reply to curlymynci: true but unlike nuclear there is an easy option. maybe not in 20 yrs but when we can run everything on water cow muck and grass the site can be returned easily.

In reply to curlymynci: Wind power companies are trying to pull the wool over our eyes. They're simply in it for the subsidies. Turbines are not going to do anything substantial towards save the planet, even if we were to cover most of our best countryside with thousands of them. Not while we continue to build roads, go on cheap flights and make only pitiful token gestures towards energy saving. But granting these silly-looking windmills on stilts a place in a future energy regime doesn't necessarily have to mean that hitherto unspoilt non-industrialised countryside gets sacrificed. Domestic and community-sized micro generation schemes, offshore mega wind turbines and windfarms on urban and semi-urban brownfield land closer to sources of power demand, and closer to existing grid infrastructure, all have to be preferable to windfarms in more contentious upland areas. It seems a shame that so many beautiful areas are being sacrificed to no particular ecological gain. Given that we'll have to go nuclear in the near future to make up the shortfall from renewables, why are we bothering with yet more controversial upland wind factories and their attendant powerline and road infrastructure anyway? A windfarm beside Great Wanney would be a monumental planning mistake, despoiling a wild landscape of very high amenity value. Very very bad plan. What do the BMC, RSPB and the Ramblers have to say about it? Nice one Curly, don't give in!

In reply to Ian Wilson:

Yes! ---- I nominate The Yorkshire Coast, or the coast of one of the more heavily populated southern counties where the bulk of demand for power comes from.

But then again if it is to be built up north, why not have it near an area of historically high unemployment so it's construction and operation can generate a bit of wealth for the area, instead of everything being concentrated in the South.

In reply to dan bailey:

Thanks forthe support. I can't find anything on the BMC site and the NMC site appears to be down. Is anyone from there around to comment?

In reply to dan bailey:

Whenever wind farms come up the response is that the government/powers that be have been duped and they are a complete waste of time. Can this really be true, and have the 'powers that be' in Denmark/Holland/Garmany/Spain etc also been conned?
Not after a bust-up but certainly interested.

Chris

In reply to Chris Craggs:
I thought the powers that be in Denmark etc had realised the error of their ways and were moving away from wind power?

In reply to Chris Craggs:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/04/04/wwind04.xml

In reply to dan bailey: Agreed 100%. It's a stitch up. No-one can seriously suggest that renewables are going to supply ALL of our power needs in the medium term, so we need something else and the only feasible solution on the table is nuclear.

Add that to the fact that the landowner, Lord Davenport, has large tracts of land around the Wanneys which are worth very little, due to the declining profit margins on timber. (The very timber plantations which he first trashed the area with)
Then we have AMEC looking for work anywhere.

I will never believe that this development benefits anyone other than AMEC and Davenport, except maybe a public servant or two.

Anyone go kiting or windsurfing at Druridge Bay? Ironic, isn't it, that the windswept sands of Druridge on the Northumbrian coast will probably be the home of a new Nuclear Power Station. And we'll still bloody well finish up with both the power stations and the windfarms.

In response to a recent AGM vote, the NMC is sending in a formal letter to the Secretary of State on behalf of the Club objecting to windfarms sited at inappropriate areas in general. I'll be getting hold of all the addresses where you can send objections

In reply to Chris Craggs: Chris, I think its us who are being duped. The powers that be are happy to go along with it as a sop to the more vociferous pro-wind-at-all-costs element in the green lobby, and as a way to seem all fluffy and be seen to be doing something (however ultimately ineffectual) to meet emissions targets. If they were really set on saving the planet they'd take some serious energy saving measures on board, tax aviation fuel, and hit the British driver where it hurts. But who could do all that and remain electable? As it is they're trying to please almost everyone. The easiest way to do that is to sacrifice a few rural hilly bits. The lobby to protect beautiful places for future generations is far less powerful than the renewable industry and their Greenpeace and FoE bedfellows. That there are plenty of better suited sites in city outskirts and offshore just seems to be passing people by. I can't account for this!

When all's said and done though, I'm pretty certain we'll be going down the nuclear road at some point soon. If so, why not stop sticking these turbines up in unsuitable remote locations and replace the planned windfarm developments with an extra nuclear power station? Considering we'll be building a few anyway, windfarms or nay...

That's my take on it

In reply to JDal: Please keep me posted, and let me know who to send letters to

In reply to Chris Craggs:

The efficacy of turbines is one matter. Building twenty near (and two on) one of the most stunning crags in the county is quite another. There'll even be a road network which will run along the side of the crag. It's a scandal that the land isn't protected.

In reply to dan bailey:

Likewise - we have until the 23rd Feb.

In reply to Chris Craggs: No it's not true Chris. The anti wind lobby has been very successful at exploiting misunderstandings about power generation, and half truths. There are some serious issues that exist around wind power, not least of which is the visual one, but they certainly are not useless and a complete waste of time.

Some of the common ones:

"Wind power replaces no coal (or nuclear etc) fired power stations due to the need to maintain a "spinning reserve""

A spinning reserve large enough to cope with 20% of our power coming from renewables exists already, to cope with vagaries in the current system. Only once we exceed 20% of our power coming from renewables would we have to think about how to cope with the intermittent nature of wind power. (this is from the Sustainable development commission on wind power I think, I'll find link if people interested).


"Current UK renewables targets will only make a 0.007% difference to global greenhouse gas emissions"

What a completely useless statistic (as published in the editorial of Climber a few months back!!!). It is like saying "I'm hungry, but this piece of bread will only contribute 0.007% of the calories I need in a year, so there's no point in me eating it"! Obviously national efforts to tackle global environmental problems need to be part of global efforts in order to be successful. A more useful statistic therefore would have been to see what % difference it would have made to the greenhouse gas emissions from electricity genaration in the UK.

Do you want me to carry on? There's a useful (but biased, read it as such, just as you should anti wind sites) Q and A on the "yes to wind" site: http://www.yestowind.org.uk or for a more in depth view you could order a copy of the Sustainable development commissions report on wind power in the UK
http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/pages/media/list/wind.html

In reply to curlymynci:

I don't have much doubt that whatever we do in the UK will have little effect on global warming when compared to the likes of India and China (and the USA) - though I guess we gotta try! And oddly enough though, I wouldn't object to a line of turbines along the crest of Stanage - though I guess there are plenty that would!

Chris

In reply to Chris Craggs:

What do you think the chances are of still hearing climbing calls?

In reply to curlymynci:

Have you ever been near a windfarm? I can remember visiting the Soutra Hill wind farm a few years ago and made a point of trying to hear the noise they were making. Even 100 yards away from the nearest turbine, I couldn't hear a thing - all the sound was drowned out by road noise. Somehow we manage to live in a small country with horribly intrusive road noise, but cannot cope with the low volumes generated by wind turbines. I think you need to find rather more convincing arguments.

In reply to curlymynci: Read an article in the Sunday Times that said something along the lines that the costs (specifically monetary, though we all know there are many other sorts of costs too) of having to build power lines to connect all the disparate windfarms springing up all over Britain's hills isn't factored into a lot of cost-benefit analysis. Especially not the consultations carried out by power companies. The National Grid have to ask for multi-million pound security bonds from windfarm developers before commencing work on the pylon lines to connect windfarms located miles from current transmission infrastructure. These costs are proving too high for many of the smaller renewable power companies. It might be this that puts a cap on windfarm spread. Unless that is the taxpayer rides to the rescue yet again to ease the burden on these poor private enterprises.

It's made me wonder about what i think is an interesting point: during the planning process for any given windfarm, is the issue of pylons taken into account? Or is each windfarm and pylon line treated as a separate project? I know for a fact that the Lewis monster wind factory scheme and the Beauly-Denny mega-pylon line (and onward connection to Ullapool) are being treated as entirely separate entities even though the farm couldn't operate without the pylons running the length of Scotland, while they'd be no point building the power lines if the windfarm application were rejected. Clearly generation and transmission are always inextricably linked, yet different people might be carrying out the work and different bodies deciding on approval/disapproval for the schemes. All seems a god awful mess if you ask me, with no overall strategy. But I guess if you sell off the power industry piecemeal to a multitude of private companies then this is what you get.

On a related note: questions are currently being asked about the impartiality of the Scottish Parliament Renewable Energy Group. It seems it is stuffed with renewable power company representatives, and engages in some rather sharp lobbying practises that verge on a breach of parliamentary procedures with regard to not benefiting outside commercial interests. With stuff like this going on, it's hard to see how power companies won't end up bulldozing most of their schemes through the planning process whether we like it or not.

I'd be surprised if the situation in England and Wales were not similarly rotten.

In reply to Chris Craggs:

We do have to try. If we don't, we cannot expect anyone else to. As you say, the effects from China, India and the USA far outweigh the emissions we produce in the UK, but we cannot expect them to change their behaviour if we're not going to change our own behaviour too.

In reply to dan bailey:
You're seeing conspiracies everywhere. SPREG has no powers whatsoever - just look to see how many MSPs actually go to the meetings. Stuffed with renewable power company representatives? Well there's a surprise! Given that anyone can join SPREG, it could just as easily be stuffed with well-organised anti-wind lobbyists if they got organised.

In reply to tony: Not conspiracies tony, just actualities. Shame the windpower sceptics don't join Spreg though, eh?

In reply to dan bailey:

So why don't they? As I say, it's open to anyone to join. If you don't like what they're doing, join and go to their meeting and express your concerns. What's stopping you?

In reply to tony:

It was a question.

I'm just trying to bring it into the public consciousness. We deserve to have a say. To have a say we need to be told about it before it happens.

The "kneejerk reaction" comment above was a bit crass maybe, but a good point. Really think people need to consider the bigger picture. We all drive cars, use a lot of electricity, heating, plastic packaging, etc. Most people i've heard complaining about this so far drive 2 litre cars to work every day. I dont know how inolved they are in recycling at home, and making sure they turn lights off etc, but i suspect most people could make a bigger effort.

We have to take responsibility for the way we live our lives, and realise that compromises/sacrifices have to be made. Personally i would much rather that sacrifice be temporary, easily removable wind farms than a nuclear plant producing waste that will never be got rid of. To be honest I, and most i've spoken to dont find windfarms particularly offensive to look at, and i've certainly never noticed any noise from them. Especially as they (obviously) tend to be in windy places!! I appreciate new road will have to be built, but isnt it a bit hypocritical to criticize this when we all drive round the little country roads every weekend anyway to get to a crag. And how many times could you have car shared better to reduce the number of cars actually going out.

My point is, i'm not really for or against the development being here. Ideally they would be somewhere further away from a nice rural area, but then people living there have just as much right to complain about that. Fact is they have to go somewhere. Fair enought people want to complain about them, but take a step back and look at the bigger picture.

Cheers
Ged

In reply to GDes:

I'd agree with most of what you say, other than this statement!

In reply to tony:

Quite true, lots in mid wales and I don't think I have ever felt they intrude on the landscape much. Whats the betting that in 20 years time there will be complaints about removal?

David

In reply to Simon Caldwell:
so you'd suggest doing nothing, and just crack on using fossil fuel waiting for something to happen that will sort everything out? surely its better to at least make an attempt to use an alternative, especially when its one that is completely non-permanent so that when a better solution does come along, they can be taken down leaving no trace? (which i'm confident they will. this notion of the wind farm developer being some evil Lex Luthor type character who wants to destroy the world is just stupid).

and it seems they're actually a lot more effective than most people would have you think...

In reply to tony:

Its not really that strange that a cross party group on renewable energy (SPREG), attacts organisations intrested in renewable energy. The Oil and gas cross party group, has representatives from shell, Amec, total, Chevron texaco and BP.

In reply to curlymynci:

http://www.webbaviation.co.uk/industrial/drax-6631.jpg


or, once the technologly improves, the industry matures and the economies of scale increase

http://www.geograph.org.uk/photos/01/33/013369_194c7423.jpg

In reply to John Rushby:

I'm just playing publicist because no-one else is. I would be very sorry to have this crag taken over. I do not disagree with wind power but think it would be better to not have it on top of a crag.

In reply to curlymynci: Don't let the self-styled hard nosed 'realists' put you off Curly. They are happily ushering in a major environmental disaster of their own even as they seek to save us from ourselves. It's a swizz!

In reply to tony: Tell you what's stopping me Tony: time/money. Power company representatives will be being paid to be there. The same would likely not be said of anyone coming from the anti (or should that be cautious/sceptical/non-bandwagon) camp. It's easy to buy power if you've got the dosh. But that's democracy for you.

In reply to dan bailey:

Crap excuses. It's free to join. Make the time. If it's that important to you, you don't fall back on easy excuses. Don't blame the pro-wind lobby for your inactivity. You have the same rights as anyone else to participate, and the only person preventing your participation is you.

In reply to curlymynci:

but, issues about the landowner selling his otherwise valueless land for a hefty wedge aside, that statement is basically a definition of NIMBYism.
if you think wind power is a worthwhile alternative then you have to accept that they should go somewhere. I can't honestly see that the top of a crag is such a bad place.

In reply to sg:

would you object to wind turbines on top of almscliff or stanage

In reply to malk:

no

In reply to malk:

not particularly, but then I live in a suburb of oxford. if they put a wind turbine at the end of my road it would greatly enhance the attractiveness of the area.

In reply to tony: You're right Tony

In reply to sg: Why not have them in everyone's back yard instead? As someone said to me the other day, I'm a YIMBY. Many good reasons for doing so...

In reply to dan bailey:

And meetings are usually in the evening, so you don't need to take time off work.

In reply to dan bailey:

I suppose they're quite expensive to make so who pays? if the government compelled people to pay or at least part pay I wouldn't say no, but then I guess some people would benefit more than others depending on their geographical location. the tops of crags are generally going to be better places than back gardens cos they get more wind. of course, you can shell out 25k for a solar panel these days. the government would probably do better to just start making people pay a sensible price for air travel though.

In reply to curlymynci:

Thanks for the heads up Curly.

Just a few points having taken the time to read the planning application in full.

- From the plans it's clear the windfarm is not built on-top of the crag rather to the North-East of it with one or two structures in close proximity.
- It isn't clear that the crag would be taken-over, access may be un-hindered AND the developed service road could provide easier access with appropriate negotiation.

Personally I don't find wind farms ugly or intrusive, I actually quite like the like the aesthetics and symbolism of the rotors and turbines in the environment. On balance though with the current crop of aggressive profit-orientated 'green' businesses exploiting subsidies for profit it takes a lot to influence me to accept a wind development. So I'll support a campaign against this particular application. If you get involved with this get in touch I might be able to help refute a few specific details of their application?

Have you considered a request to re-site the development nearest to the crag? (the 4 turbines South of the existing road up to the old quarries). After all the remaining area (North of that road) is aready 'scarred' by forestry... less of a visual impact there.

Anyway if you get involved with this or know who is at the NMC get in touch (to save me some time hunting them) and I'll try and dig up anything I can to help. I'd've emailed you, but I've misplaced your addy since archiving stuff and giving my PC to my Dad...

thnx Paul.

In reply to The Pylon King/sg: is there anywhere you would not like to see a wind turbine?

In reply to malk:

on the edge of an airport? somewhere where it might genuinely cause significant problems for wildlife in that area?
I'd honestly prefer to not see wind turbines in most completely wild places in the world. but at the same time I realise that there need to be alternative energy resources coming on stream and I'm not so bloody precious as to worry about whether removable wind turbines will harm my aesthetic sensibility, in the medium term. I do think that the ease with which they can be decommissioed is a major plus point at a time when nobody is really sure where we should be going.

In reply to sg:

you can't get much wilder crags than the great wanney in england. have you been there?

In reply to Python:
would you be happy to see a turbine on castle crag in borrowdale?

In reply to the pro wind lobby who haven't been to GW:
go there before making judgements

In reply to malk:

no, but I have been to some quite wild places (not just the chiltern hills). a debate like this can't just be about wildness etc. the wildest places in the world are not anywhere in england, if we're honest.

I think for some people wind farms are just too much of a reminder that humans have already trampled over and f*cked up a lot of the planet and they think that by putting massive turbines on the wild and windy moors, mountains or whatever, we're ruining the last remaining unspoilt areas. the reality is very different and global warming will be no respecter of national park boundaries.
I am no expert on the relative merits of fossil fuel alternatives but a lot of people are kidding themselves if they think we can carry on life as normal and not expect something in our lives to give and I can handle a change in the view. nuclear notwithstanding.
BTW - did anyone see that megastructures programme about the islands off dubai last night?!

In reply to curlymynci:

The photomontages in the NTS paint a pretty picture, shame they dont show the reality of modern windfarm construction ....... for some reason the developers dont seem to use pictures such as:
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~hills/cc/gallery/aerial.jpg
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~hills/cc/gallery/towers02.jpg
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~hills/cc/gallery/base3.jpg
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~hills/cc/gallery/road03.jpg

oh yes ....... the scene before it all began!

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~hills/cc/gallery/

Plenty more at http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~hills/cc/gallery/

In reply to sg: each country has to sort out its own energy policy
i don't think wind turbines in semi wildnerness areas like this is appropriate- i would rather see new reactors fitted to existing nuclear stations
ps turn off your standby appliances tonight

In reply to sg:
Just to put this into perspective, there is also an application for a 28 turbine windfarm between Alnwick and Belford, 4 miles from the heritage coast. This one has 125 metre turbines. There are plans for six more in this rough area of the county. 3 in thea rea around Lowick and Duddo in the north of the county, one between Chillingham and Old Bewick (Hepburn Crag), one on the moors at the back of Corby's Crag and one just north of Belford. That's 6 more, and we're not counting ones in the other areas of the county.

One of the main things about Northumberland from an aesthetic perspective is the huge vistas. These will be SEVERELY damaged in the most beautiful areas. It will not be possible travel from one north Northumbrian town to another without seeing these turbines. Get up the Cheviorts and look at the fantastic views to the coast and then imagine 6 large windfarms on it. You'll see three of them from the top of Bowden as you look over towards Holy Island.

And don't start throwing the nimby tag around. We already have large areas wasted by forestry, opencasting and gravel removal and are soon to get a Nuclear Power Station.

<unbridled rant>
There is a deinite feeling up here (in our house anyway) that the people who make these decisions don't give a flying fck about what happens in the North of England, they think we're proud of having had the landscape trashed for hundreds of years to produce energy for the rest of the country. Lets have one turbine on the South Downs for every one on wilderness areas up here, then we'll see who's a f@k@ng nimby.
</unbridled rant>
And I haven't even been to the pub yet.

In reply to JDal:
>Lets have one turbine on the South Downs for every one on wilderness areas up here, then we'll see who's a f@k@ng nimby.

I would happily see turbines running the length of the south downs, the north downs, the berkshire downs, the chilterns, the cotswolds, the mendips and every other feeble range of bumps across the south. especially if it meant that places like northumberland, the highlands, the western isles were able to have one or two fewer. and I'm sorry if you feel that your county is being used as a local solution to a global (or at least national) problem.

however, I can assure you that there is nothing pretty left in the south of england now anyway, so you'll still win in those stakes. the fact remains, people in particular areas will always feel that the solution should be found elsewhere.

In reply to JDal:
Just got some more info through in my mail regarding where to send stuff. It's from a fairly rational 'disgusted of wanny' kind of letter to the local rag, the addresses are ok. The letter notes that there is ANOTHER application in, this for an 18 turbine windfarm at Green Rigg, on the road 1 mile west of Sweethope Lough - ie just over a mile SW of Great Wanney. FFS, they'll be everywhere you look.

"Anyone wishing to object to the Wanney Hills development should write to the Secretary ofState for 'Trade and Industry, c/o Bay 2121, 1 Victoria Road, London SW1H OET marked for the attention of Gary Mohammed or email
gary.mohammed@dti.gov.uk. The closing date for submissions is February 24.
Representations can also he made to Helen Winter, director of planning, 'Tynedale Council, Old Grammar School, Hexham, Northumberland NE46 lXA.
Objections to the Green Rig development need he sent only to Tynedale Council at the same address, but to planning officer Jenny Green."

In reply to JDal: Forgot to mention, that Green Rigg one is half a mile from Curtis Crag. What happens if you throw the rope down the crag, it catches in the easterly gale (there must be a good chance of wind, I guess) and it blows onto the turbine. I suppose you'd be catapulted into Kielder Reservoir (don't get me started on the Belling)

In reply to malk:

no

In reply to curlymynci:

Haven't read the whole thread, but why aren't the Government subsidising the installation of off-shore wind farms instead of littering the countryside? These are loads more expensive to install, but put your money where your mouth is, surely? Nice laminar winds, almost always blowing, sounds perfect? The sea off the East coast is shallow too, a few miles off shore and who'd notice? I believe the Benelux countries (or thereabouts, can't remember) are installing some big 'uns.

In reply to curlymynci:
Just had a (very) quick scan of the OP document, very interesting. IMO the staggered, non regular layout of the turbines makes it look bloody ugly. The few farms I've seen where they appear in regular clusters can look quite aesthetic and elegant. This looks like a dog's dinner.
I was also interested to see that 'shadow flicker' is a design consideration - now I've read it it is obvious (something like driving along tree lined roads with a low sun on the windscreen). Imagine having the sun flickering through your windows at sunset/sunrise when previously you enjoyed the splendour unadulterated? Cue eplileptic fits.

In reply to sg:

It's not that bad, actually. It's about 3-5k If the information I read is accurate. With that you get a 5-8 m mast with a wee turbine on top. Performance are not great you'll be able to power your shed and a couple of appliances but its a step and if you coupled that with solar pannels for hot water and a combined power/heating boiler you probably wouldn't be far of from self sufficiency (appart from the gas of course). The rub is more to do with a) planing b) acceptance from the neighbours, c) layout of the site (trees etc.). I can't see it being very practical in a suburban setting, but in more rural situation, why not.
In France there is a trend towards this and home power generation in general. The fact that EDF pays for the extra power to join the grid helps, there are also insentives in terms of taxes etc (which are very high there). The main hurdles come from planing permission and all the admin side of things (and EDF pays for the electricity but reluctantly. So they've set up enough paperwork to put off anyone who isn't on a mission to save the world).

A.-

In reply to JDal:



Thanks for that info.

Curly

In reply to curlymynci:

The tail on the E-mail address given in JDal's post should be @dti.gsi.gov.uk, though it may work without the "gsi" bit; I'm not sure.

In reply to curlymynci:
Surely the best way to meet our energy problem is to reduce our consumption of energy. this isnt as hard as it sounds. time and money is better spent on considering: simple changes including more energy efficiency in homes, buying local food, not buying brand new cars, sensible consumerism, not flying etc. Rather than spending more and more time and money trying to meet escalating energy demands.
www.myfootprint.org

nakedave

In reply to curlymynci: One thing for the environmentalists to chew over is the very real cost to the environment of actually building these things. They have to be mounted on a huge raft of concrete which in itself is incredibly costly (in 'green' terms) to make and can't be easily got rid of. The northbound services at Tebay has a very informative stand protesting about the windfarm that was built on the M6 north of Kendal. The impact to the environment was pretty horrendous.

In reply to GDes:

Wind farms can only generate when it is windy. However if the wind is too strong they are turned off.

There needs to be enough generation capacity to provide for peak demand (Christmas lunch/ world cup final etc) but what if it isn't windy that day?

Hence there needs to be enough capacity without wind farms so why build them.

The real answer is BECAUSE the are visable intrusive!

Without the grants no one would consider building them.

In reply to Steve Crowe:

Steve - you must be in the know. What are people locally doing about this?

In reply to Steve Crowe: My point, and nobody seems to pick up on it, is that we ARE going to get nuclear power. Renewables are only currently targeted at 20% of our needs, where's the rest coming from? In the long term most of it can't be carbon based therefore most of it MUST be nuclear. So if we have to handle all of the problems surrounding nuclear power in any case, why not let it soak up that 20% which we are arguing about here? How many extra power stations would that be - in total I bet it would have a lot less environmental impact than the renewable alternatives.

I just don't see what, in the long term, is gained by this focus on gigantic devices to provide renewable energy. I'd rather see the money spent on efficiency & small scale renewables like a turbine in your garden and solar tiles on the roof.

In reply to JDal:

Approximately none.

In reply to curlymynci:

Unfortunatly the BMC area meeting last month did not discuss this. The NMC have sent in objections. However I believe these cases are often influenced by the sheer number of letters so every individual that should express their concerns to the appropriate department ASAP.

In reply to JDal:

Of course we are. If Iran and North Korea are increasing their nuclear capacity then the UK must try and keep up/ahead.

Even from an electricity supply point of view we must have a reliable source for 100% supply capacity. Wind = 20% but only when it is windy, it has no storage capacity.

Sent off my letter in support of the development today, that should keep the NIMBY's quiet for a bit

In reply to toiletduck:
I'm more of a YIMBY, I'd far rather these things were sited near to me than in the middle of nowhere. Though I'm still unconvinced they're that good an idea anyway.

I can’t help feeling that the 'object it because they are going to build access roads debate' is somewhat hypocritical. When approaching from the North do we not also walk along a forestry commission road with 'a width of 5 m and would be constructed from stone sourced on site or from local quarries', before the last 100m bog dash to the crag? Has anyone protested about the forestry commission’s work in that area, including the large road near Curtis crag? Or that the only access to Padda crag is on such a road.

Just a thought

In reply to dan bailey:

I don't have time to read all the posts on here, but it's ill-informed opinions like yours that only add to the confusion over these issues. I don't like the idea of wind turbines in beautiful places either, but you can't just make stuff up about them that has no basis in fact!

"Turbines are not going to do anything substantial towards save (sic) the planet" : maybe not the planet, but to suggest Britain has nothing to gain from wind power is simply incorrect. We have some of the best wind resources in the world. The predictions at the moment are that in the UK we will run out of oil in 2015 and gas in 2016. If we don't want to import large quantities of fossil fuels after this date there are two solutions: nuclear on its own or nuclear and renewable. The only viable form of renewable energy at the moment is wind power. The target is to generate 10% of our electricity with wind turbines. No, of course wind power cannot 'solve' our energy problems but 10% is a massive contribution (4.5GW for anyone who wants to know). To generate this we would need about 3500 large (5MW) turbines, most of which would hopefully be situated offshore in the Thames estuary, the greater Wash and the Irish sea. This would cost about £24bn, which interestingly can be compared to the £56bn required to decommission our existing nuclear power stations, which account for 18% of the UK's power.

Unfortunately, it is not going to be possible to put enough turbines offshore quickly enough to meet the demand - the engineering required for offshore turbines is obviously more difficult than land ones. This is why there is a need for land turbines in the interim, and it's very unfortunate that the best places for them tend to be some of the most beautiful landscapes in the country.

Finally, these companies are not "in it for the subsidies". Do you really think that a coal or gas-fired power station is profitable? Have you even thought about it? Offshore turbines are soon going to become commercially viable, probably a lot more so than any power station ever has been!

Now turn your computer off and stop wasting electricity! And take public transport home - it'll make the fossil fuels last longer

In reply to jimbo g:

All well and good, but you never said what the problem with all nuclear was. This French station http://rennhack.nukeworker.com/pictures/displayimage.php?album=21&pos=1... has 6 reactors 910 MW each Correct me if I'm wrong, but is that not 5.46GW. So ALL of the wind turbines could be swapped for 1 Nuclear station. I know they're not pretty, but that sounds a better deal to me.

Anyway, I don't really understand your figures. Do 3,500 5 MW turbines not produce 17,500 MW, i.e. 17GW? Why do you have to produce 17 GW to supply 4.5 GW?

In reply to jimbo g:

The rest of your argument becomes irrelevant, since we quite clearly do want to import fossil fuels after (and before) this date.

I can't quite believe how disgracefully narrow minded some people's views on this issue are.

It galls me when people moan on about the way such developments are going to do "irreversible" damage to the "wild" landscapes of the UK.

Its quite clear to me that if wind farms end up being the white elephants that many think, then their removal will be quite easy, and the damage to the environment? Nil.

Its all to easy to become disconnected from issues like global warming, but we really have to change the way we think and live.

Every time you get in you car and drive to work / the crag YOU are having an effect
The clothes you wear, the food you buy, the packaging you bin, the useless bits and bobs you own; all these things have global consequences, both humanitarian and environmental

If we all spent half as much time considering such things, as opposed to issues like fox hunting and wind farms, then I'm certain we could be making a difference right now

In reply to The Flying Giraffe: agreed

In reply to JDal:

>Anyway, I don't really understand your figures. Do 3,500 5 MW turbines not produce 17,500 MW, i.e. 17GW? Why do you have to produce 17 GW to supply 4.5 GW?

Simple sometimes there is no wind, some times there is just a little wind, some times there is too much wind and approximately 27% there is enough wind. Wind turbines generation is fundementally intermittant ........ for example in the week or so about the weekend of 19th November there was virtually no wind anywhere in the UK (and certainily not enough to generate meaningful electricity)

In reply to grumpytramp:
Ah, obvious really.

So that's it then. The equation, at a target of 10% for renewables, is 1 power station somewhere on the coast = 3500 turbines, most in wilderness areas (that's where (a) the land is cheapest and (b) there's most wind)

So I'll ask again, shouting this time, WHATS THE OBJECTION TO 100% NUCLEAR SINCE 90% IS GOING TO BE ANYWAY

Just a thought 3,500 turbines at an average of 20 per site would be only 175 sites. Anyone got the figures for how many more we need to reach the quota? I know the existing sites aren't as big as this, but how many more are needed?

In reply to JDal:

Don't forget the 3,500 new road/tracks to provide vehicular access to each and every turbine. The additional over head lines (which are never included in the wind farm applications) to connect every remote site to the National Grid.

In reply to Steve Crowe:

Can you not read or are you deliberately choosing not to accept the facts?

Something called 'geographical averaging' takes place. Basically, it is meterologically impossible for it to be calm across the entire UK simulataneously and national variations in windpower generation are highly damped meaning there is always a basline level of power generated. Usefully this 'minimum' level is higher in winter when consumption is highest. The UK already has an existing large requirement for standby generation for the coldest winter days in addition to two major pumped storage power stations which are used to average demand through the day.

Therefore due to all these factors, as has already been explained on this thread - Sufficient flexibiltiy already exists in the UK generating system for 10% of capacity to be REPLACED by renewables with no structural changes.

The IEE Review publishes regular articles relating to Power Generation/Distribution and this is a widely accepted fact refered to in numerous recent articles. It is industry knowledge based on various detailed studies and extrapolating the expereince of other EU countries commissioning large amounts of wind power.

The government has a long way to go to meet its target of (guess what!) 10% renewables by 2010. It is only then that this issue arises and even then the ratio of standby power required is considerably less than unity.

HTH

In reply to JDal:
>WHATS THE OBJECTION TO 100% NUCLEAR SINCE 90% IS GOING TO BE ANYWAY

Uranium. The UK does not have any.

2004 world production was 40,000 tonnes. Assured reserves at current prives levels are just 1.7 million tonnes. Basically that is just 42 years worth! Even estimated reserves at $130/kg (i.e x4 increase in current price) are just 4.5 million tonnes (112 years). Even before the UK builds any more nuclear power stations world demand is predicted to increase.

You still think nuclear is a good way to ensure the long term security of the UK energy supply?

In reply to Mark Stevenson:
"Sufficient flexibiltiy already exists in the UK generating system for 10% of capacity to be REPLACED by renewables with no structural changes."

Note that there may have to be severe delays to the opening up of large areas of the British north to this type of industrial development, due to the infrastructure upgrades;

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2090-2025989,00.html

In reply to GDes: with you that before complaining too much we should all try and reduce teh amount of energy we personally use.

Living and working in scotland wind farms up here are a big issue- for me comes down to not putting them on the very few bits of remaining wild land we have left- so lets have some down the side of the A1, maybe a big one in scotswood- I hear the 'boro are putting one in their car park with teh loss of 4 parking spots and in return will get more than all the energy they need to power the stadium....

The Waneys are beautiful and wild lets keep them that way
kate

In reply to Etak:

Etak - would you be the Kate whom I am aquianted with? Jolly good climber type who might have lived in Gosforth?

Curly

In reply to curlymynci: arrr you have my secret identity rumbled- suppose there is no need to keep wareing the false beard and glasses while I post on UKC any more (does make my boss suspiciouse of what I am doing.

catch up for some cragging in the county one of these days

kate (aka Etak)

In reply to Etak:

Good stuff.

Can't be bothered trotting out a list of references to EON_Netz Wind Reports, Danish grid operators, Government committees, Tyndall Centre for Climate Change, Hugh Sharman, even the TNEI report on Renewables Strategy in the North East 2005 (see the bit on grid capacity) - all of which raise questions about security of supply, substitution for fossil fuelled capacity and hence carbon saving and supply management in an island system.
If anyone is interested check out our Northumbrian website at www.moorsydeactiongroup.org.uk/windpower for some sensible articles and links (by the way, we support small embedded wind, as at Nissan, Sunderland, where it has some logic).

In reply to Mark Stevenson:

Further thought on Mark Stevenson's so-called facts - averaging is only a significant argument if turbine sites are spread evenly - they are not. 70% of UK wind power production is in Scotland (and rising).
For 15 days in the last month (check Met Office Archive) we have had high pressure systems over most of Scotland - on these days very low amounts of power would be generated.

Sinden, the author of the DTI 'research' you base your argument on, is notoriously partial and has been made to look an idiot because he pitched his argument on there only being one day in eleven years when there was no wind anywhere in the UK sufficient to generate any electricity. He admitted to a Lord's committee that he had not provided a spread of results. Was unable to justify why.

Problem is anyway not too little power generated, but rather how we cope with too much. See Hugh Sharman's paper for the Civil Engineering journal based on Denmark's experience.

In reply to curlymynci:

Just a reminder to everyone that objections have to be raised by this Thursday. For more info, check out the news item here http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/ or at climb online http://www.climbonline.co.uk/news.htm .

Pick up a pen and write to Secretary for Trade and Industry, Energy Resources and Development, Licensing and Consents Unit, Bay 2121, 1 Victoria Street, SW1H 0ET marked for the attention of Gary Mohammed or email gary.mohammed@dti.gov.uk.

Curly

In reply to curlymynci: Curly, have you posted all this on Scottishclimbs.com? A lot of us north of the border use Great Wanney

In reply to curlymynci: And object on planning grounds - things like visual impact, impact on tourism, problems with protected species of bird (2 pairs of peregrines nested on the crags last year)etc.

In reply to dan bailey:

Just have - thanks Dan.