Monday 28 October 2013

Support for Temple Hill

The application for Temple Hill Wind Farm has  been submitted, validated and is on South Kesteven Council’s website.

Obviously any support is subject to the details of the application so please view those here SKDC planning   application number  S13/2699.

 There is a well organised and vociferous campaign against this project. As with most anti wind groups they complain bitterly about the wind industry "propaganda" but then continue to produce deliberately misleading and spurious "facts" to galvanise local support. 
        
        The Revolt group have this  to say about wind turbine efficiency. http://re-volt.co.uk/the-issues/wind-energy-viability/

"We won’t go into all the details (though if you’d like to know the maths please email us!) but the basic answer is NO. The huge development at Temple Hill would only power around 800 kettles."
I would suggest that most people would consider this an insignificant amount, I mean a kettle is only on for a couple of minutes isn't it?
Well no..is this case they mean 800 kettles on 24 hrs every day 365 days a year, not very helpful comparison really is it? I mean who is going to keep topping up the water and changing the elements when they burn out?:)
 Furthermore their 800 kettles should actually be  nearer 1600 permanently boiling kettles  as they have managed to get even this simple calculation wrong ( no wonder they don't want to go into details).
Here is a guide to calculating possible power output from a wind farm.
Maximum power rating of a turbine = (e.g.) 2.5MW
Anticipated total power produced over a year = 25% of rated capacity (load factor)
Therefore over a year with the turbine sometimes running flat out and sometimes not running at all you can expect to average out 625Kw of electricity produced for every hour of the year. So that's 625 Kw/h multiplied by 8760 hrs in a year = 5,475,000 Kw/h p.a.
If you have 5 of these turbines you could realistically produce 27,375,000 Kw/h p.a.
The average kettle requires 2kw of power so if one was on permanently for a year it would use up 2 x 8760 or 17520 Kw/h of electricity ( incidentally the average UK household uses 4700 Kw/h p.a.)
So if you were daft enough to use up all of the output from the turbines to boil kettles you would power  1562.5 kettles (27,375,000 total Kw/h divided by 17520 Kw/h per kettle) almost double the number Revolt are offering as a "fact".
Please register your support for this scheme. Don't let the scare tactics of a misguided few be the only words the planning department have to consider.




23 comments:

  1. Is this the site run by the guy who spent most his working life in the CO2 chugging automotive industry!

    Question 1: How much CO2 is produced in the manufacture of these turbines?
    Question 2: Why do Pro Wind people support countries like China that are the main producers of turbines. These countries have zero to little commitment to reduce their CO2 emissions! They're quite happy taking money from the deluded people in the west!!
    Question 3: How much CO2 is produced in the transport of the turbines?
    Question 4: If this technology is so fantastic, why can't this renewable be self-funding? Why does the tax payer have to suffer the costs because money is not only given by the treasury, but we also have to pay astronomical costs in our fuels bills.
    Question 5: Is it then right that energy companies are paid more money by government when they have to turn the turbines off due to over capacity? See recent (November 2013) media coverage following the storms last week.
    Question 6: When it becomes absolutely crystal clear - and lets face it, people are waking up to this scam more and more, how will the pro wind lobby put right the mess that they have left this country in, with landscapes decimated and the tax payer robbed blind for technology that is nothing more than another white elephant?
    The only people benefitting from this crock are energy companies, mostly foreign I might add, greedy selfish landowners and the odd few paid off by the above to lobby in their favour.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Anonymous,
      Thanks for all the questions..I've got one for you.
      1 : Who are you?
      I'll be happy to answer all those questions and more, but think it's important
      that we know who you are.
      Regards

      James Pocklington

      Delete
  2. Actually you’re both right, depending on the data you use.

    The planning application is for 1.8MW+ turbines; the ‘candidate turbine’ is 2MW and the optimum is around 2.3MW. So 2.5MW is possible but a bit optimistic. Some in-depth research (the Argos catalogue) suggests that most kettles are 3kW.

    So the average equivalent number of kettles is anything from 749 upwards. I don’t think the kettle analogy is meant literally – any more than you’d actually measure length using double decker buses.

    As the figures offered by local residents are at least as valid as your own, you may wish to withdraw your accusations.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Anonymous 2
      If we are to have a grown up debate about this important topic I believe it
      is vital that we know who we are talking to.
      So first things first,
      Who are you?
      Regards
      James Pocklington

      Delete
  3. I think we are having a grown up debate.

    btw I'm not anonymous 1 or 2 (above) but agree with the maths. My name is Paul Miley. I am nothing other than a member of the community that lives near Temple Hill. I am prepared to speak out against proposals such as this one because I have bothered to read into the facts of the matter.

    reVOLT may appear vociferous purely because we respond with up to date, researched and referenced responses to the materials that are put out by the developers. The communication with the community by RWE npower renewables was so poor I would deem it inadequate. Many local people attended some recent meetings with measured and well thought through questions. They were met with two security guards, four people from a PR company that had managed to fail to send invitations to the closest affected villages (but somehow a member of Friends of the Earth from Stamford got an invite), two employees only there to discuss the 'Community Fund' (quite the most hypocritical piece of spin that even a politician wouldn't use to try to scam the electorate) and two RWE folk who actually knew anything. One Robin Basten had a PR minder next to him who cut in when answers were forthcoming and one, Sara Lee, is very good at and I suspect enjoys the verbal jousting, knowing the whole process is a tick box exercise to try and tell the council that the community has been involved. If you would like to see 'propaganda' I could send you the statements RWE made after these consultations, compared to the facts (we conducted entry and exit polls).

    So tell me - have you ever checked out the wind industry statements? I've never called it "propaganda" but I have punched holes in it.

    A few more simple questions for you to consider:

    1. Do you believe renewable to be the same as low carbon? Are these terms interchangeable?
    2. Do you believe that to invest in (and subsidise) renewable energy, we should put money into those projects that bring the best return i.e. most energy generated (or saved) per pound of subsidy?
    3. Do you factor in a) the cost of grid and b) the cost (in CO2 and ££) of back up for a renewable energy source that is both intermittent and widely dispersed?
    4. If the cost of adapting to climate change were less than the cost of preventing climate change, which would you back?
    5. Do you accept that some of the wind turbine projects that are proposed or underway are purely due to business economics and have nothing to do with "saving the planet", simply because the returns are guaranteed and healthy?


    By the way, why do you have a problem with anonymity if the question is valid? I don't know who you are or why you do what you do. I don't really care. In our democracy I believe people should have the facts and be left to form their own views. Equally most people have no idea who I am nor need to know. But in posing a question or rebutting an incorrect statement, I may encourage someone who is neutral to read a little more widely on the topic, beyond the materials that are put out by the renewable energy industry, and form their own opinion. I'm an engineer by profession and was trained to question never assume. I've done so and formed an opinion that wind is not the answer.


    regards

    Paul

    PS it isn't about kettles - I think as 'grown ups' we all know such illustrations are so that the majority can get some fix on the scale of the issue at hand.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Paul,
      Thanks for posting a response.
      You're right it's not about kettles, but it is about how we communicate important information. The wind farm developers have already stated that the turbines would generate enough electricity for between 5,000 and 7,000 homes, based on average UK consumption and the capacity of turbines used. Is that something you find difficult to agree with?

      The "Community Fund" is not spin, it is a commitment to reward communities for supporting a wind farm in their locality. Do you have any grounds for suggesting that the fund will not be paid?

      I'd be pleased to read any wind farm statements that you have "punched holes" in.

      Not sure what you're driving at with question 1.. all renewables are low carbon...but some are lower than others, is that what you mean?
      On question 2 ..we need a comprehensive mix of renewables and energy reduction to replace fossil fuel consumption. The government is tasked with encouraging all technologies, which is why tidal schemes currently qualify for 5 times the subsidy per unit of electricity generated than onshore wind.
      On question 3. Not sure I understand correctly, but if you're asking me if the National Grid and the government are aware that there is a additional cost to replacing fossil fuel power with renewables then I'm sure that at the moment they would say yes, but would qualify that with the increasing future costs we will face if we do nothing.
      Question 4 implies that we have a choice between adapting or preventing climate change, I'm afraid that is a false assumption. Climate change is already happening, we have already pumped enough CO2 into the atmosphere to virtually guarantee a 2 deg rise by the end of this century. We are locked into climate change, the best we can hope for is to mitigate the worst effects by serious and substantial cuts in CO2 emissions.
      On question 5: Are you suggesting that wind farm developers and landowners should act out of altruism? The challenges that we face have to be answered in the present not in the future, and in the present "money talks". I'm under no illusions about how the economics of our society works and it is the short termist view that we should let the free market prevail that in my opinion is our biggest failing and one which our grandchildren will live to regret.
      Regards
      James

      Delete
    2. OK - just a few examples. It's been fun but you really are buying it.

      "The wind farm developers have already stated that the turbines would generate enough electricity for between 5,000 and 7,000 homes, based on average UK consumption and the capacity of turbines used. Is that something you find difficult to agree with?"

      Yes - inaccurate use of actual achieved load factors, quoting figures based on turbines of a different capacity to that in the scoping document etc. Standard practice to quote UK load factors which includes offshore and Scotland that has higher wind assets than the actual site under consideration etc etc etc.

      "The "Community Fund" is not spin, it is a commitment to reward communities for supporting a wind farm in their locality. Do you have any grounds for suggesting that the fund will not be paid?"

      Yes - there is no definition of locality for a start. It represents a few pence per week per affected household. The community would be in a better position if the tax/subsidy on their own energy bills was channelled back into energy consumption reduction projects in their own homes.

      "I'd be pleased to read any wind farm statements that you have "punched holes" in."

      Where do we start - how about the figures on local job creation, how about the retractions on the impact on property values, how about the selective quoting of the Scottish tourism report?

      Delete
    3. contd

      "Not sure what you're driving at with question 1.. all renewables are low carbon...but some are lower than others, is that what you mean?"

      No they aren't - the terms are not interchangeable. Do your research into total carbon lifecycle. Same deal with electric cars by the way.

      "On question 2 ..we need a comprehensive mix of renewables and energy reduction to replace fossil fuel consumption. The government is tasked with encouraging all technologies, which is why tidal schemes currently qualify for 5 times the subsidy per unit of electricity generated than onshore wind."

      I think you are answering it yourself. The dithering and then the rush for wind has distorted the market. Last time I looked the tide came in and went out twice a day. If that ever stops then energy will be the last thing we worry about. There is sufficient energy through the tidal movement in the Severn Estuary to replace all the wind turbines in the UK (I'm quoting the DECC study of the 10 mile barrage). Interestingly the RSPB amongst others opposed the idea using arguable debates on wading birds - but a barrage doesn't create a lagoon; it needs flow to work. But the same RSPB is investing in wind turbine projects as an income stream (funny that) citing that the losses from bird strikes are negated by the risk of climate change. Distorted market? Friends of the Earth are in a dither over estuary schemes - save a wading bird or save the planet. Blast tricky one that.

      Delete
    4. contd

      "On question 3. Not sure I understand correctly, but if you're asking me if the National Grid and the government are aware that there is a additional cost to replacing fossil fuel power with renewables then I'm sure that at the moment they would say yes, but would qualify that with the increasing future costs we will face if we do nothing."

      This is getting tiresome having to spell this stuff out. I can see why people end up pro-wind. Easy - compare the cost of a wind turbine based grid (especially one where the turbine network is being erected in a wholly unplanned manner, dotted here and there around the country) versus a grid based on dense energy generation facilities and/or energy generation close to energy use.

      Oh another btw. The back up for wind is requiring cycling on and off of fossil fuel stations that is less efficient than running them at steady load.

      "Question 4 implies that we have a choice between adapting or preventing climate change, I'm afraid that is a false assumption. Climate change is already happening, we have already pumped enough CO2 into the atmosphere to virtually guarantee a 2 deg rise by the end of this century. We are locked into climate change, the best we can hope for is to mitigate the worst effects by serious and substantial cuts in CO2 emissions."

      Er no - you just said "we are locked into climate change". We are not going to reduce global CO2 emissions with the rising world population for the next half century. Do the maths. Adapt to survive. By the way I also think you miss the subtlety of some of the points - putting up wind turbines in inappropriate locations is a triple whammy I) it takes subsidy away from a project that could generate more energy 2) it gives a lower return, in many cases negative Carbon footprint in that the poor performing turbine farm doesn't pay back the carbon impact of making and installing it 3) it contributes to a dispersed grid that in turn creates higher transmission losses. Little 'pocket' wind farms are the worst example of opportunistic development in the absence of a co-ordinated implementation plan. I see no move from the pro-wind movements to analysis the region, country or world for that matter to determine where is the best place to erect the appropriate renewable technology in tune with the local economies. Why this obsession with the simplistic view that every turbine is good. You seem content with this scatter gun approach. Well I'm sorry some of us are thinking this through.

      "On question 5: Are you suggesting that wind farm developers and landowners should act out of altruism? The challenges that we face have to be answered in the present not in the future, and in the present "money talks". I'm under no illusions about how the economics of our society works and it is the short termist view that we should let the free market prevail that in my opinion is our biggest failing and one which our grandchildren will live to regret"

      Different regrets my friend. They will look back and see that in the typical political cycle of 5 or best 10 years, the apparent quick fix solutions are the ones the politicians go for. We don't have a fully worked up energy strategy - we have a gold rush of developers. It is this that will harm our infrastructure in the medium term and still fail to produce the CO2 reductions that you hope for. Your blind lobbying of pro-wind has led you to assume every project is a good one.....start asking the deeper questions.

      Delete
    5. "Yes - inaccurate use of actual achieved load factors, quoting figures based on turbines of a different capacity to that in the scoping document etc. Standard practice to quote UK load factors which includes offshore and Scotland that has higher wind assets than the actual site under consideration etc etc etc."

      For onshore wind, the unchanged configuration load factors range from 23.0% in the East of England to 32.0% in London with Wales occupying the median region at 25.1%.
      https://restats.decc.gov.uk/cms/regional-renewable-statistics#LoadFactors

      Are you saying the above report from DECC is false?

      "Yes - there is no definition of locality for a start. It represents a few pence per week per affected household. The community would be in a better position if the tax/subsidy on their own energy bills was channelled back into energy consumption reduction projects in their own homes."

      If there's no definition of locality how do you know how many affected households there are?

      In 2010/11, domestic and industrial electricity consumers paid around £440 million for onshore wind. For households this equates to just £6 a year on their electricity bill. In 2012 we proposed a 10% reduction in RO support to minimise the impact on consumer energy bills and reflect falling costs. https://www.gov.uk/onshore-wind-part-of-the-uks-energy-mix

      Onshore wind cost the householder on average 11p per week, that's not much in the way of energy efficiency measures is it?

      "Where do we start - how about the figures on local job creation"

      Which figures?

      "How about the retractions on the impact on property values"

      Which retractions?

      "How about the selective quoting of the Scottish tourism report?"

      Which quotes did they omit?

      "Do your research into total carbon lifecycle."

      Are you referring to the Civitas report?

      "There is sufficient energy through the tidal movement in the Severn Estuary to replace all the wind turbines in the UK"

      But at what cost? I thought you were concerned about householders bills?

      "a tidal power scheme in the Severn estuary could cost as much as £34billion, and is high cost and high risk in comparison to other ways of generating low-carbon electricity; a scheme would produce clearer, calmer waters but the extreme tidal nature of the Severn estuary would be fundamentally altered. This means that some habitats including saltmarsh and mudflat would be reduced in area, potentially reducing bird populations of up to 30 species; fish are likely to be severely affected with local extinctions and population collapses predicted for designated fish, including Atlantic salmon and twaite shad. This could mean the loss of twaite shad as a breeding species in the UK as 3 of the 4 rivers where
      it breeds run out into the Severn estuary "
      https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/50064/1._Feasibility_Study_Conclusions_and_Summary_Report_-_15_Oct.pdf

      "Easy - compare the cost of a wind turbine based grid (especially one where the turbine network is being erected in a wholly unplanned manner, dotted here and there around the country) versus a grid based on dense energy generation facilities and/or energy generation close to energy use."

      Who said anything about a wind turbine based grid? Wind turbines are part of the mix of renewable technologies not the only one. Localised energy generation makes complete sense, but it doesn't exclude wind turbines does it? What dense energy generator have you got in mind?

      Delete
    6. "Are you saying the above report from DECC is false?"
      No - developers are selective

      "If there's no definition of locality how do you know how many affected households there are?"
      By doing the sums for my community

      "In 2010/11"
      Bit dated James. Numbers have gone up since then. Predicted to rise are they not?

      "Where do we start - how about the figures on local job creation"
      Local is termed to be a three hour commute by RWE. Think that covers the Netherlands by way of East Midlands airport at a push.

      "How about the retractions on the impact on property values"
      Mis-quoting RICS and ASA ruling

      "How about the selective quoting of the Scottish tourism report?"
      "Which quotes did they omit?"
      All of the key ones referring to visitors to Scotland not wishing to see turbines.

      "Do your research into total carbon lifecycle."
      "Are you referring to the Civitas report?"
      No

      "But at what cost? I thought you were concerned about householders bills?"
      I thought you weren't concerned about household bills.
      The wind figures don't include the cost of back up and the grid.

      "Who said anything about a wind turbine based grid?"
      It's an effect of putting up wind turbines in an unplanned decentralised manner to feed into the national grid. Show me the overall plan for wind turbines for the next 10 or even 20 years.......I'm still waiting on that from the industry with an ROI to support it.

      "Localised energy generation makes complete sense, but it doesn't exclude wind turbines does it?"
      No, on that we agree. But should we not also agree that different areas should have different solutions appropriate to that community. Wind is not right everywhere and it is dishonest to use general arguments on specific projects. Are you as clued up on Temple Hill as you are on the twaite shad?

      "Dense energy generation"
      Well tidal barrage is one suggestion already made.

      Delete
  4. Why have the option for anon then?

    You're a public figure, I'm not and don't publish my name on the Internet. I fail to see why my identity prevents you from answering questions. Or maybe you can't .....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The reason that I won't respond to your questions is not because I can't answer them but because I believe we should be responsible for what we say in public,
      particularly when what we say is designed to influence opinion.

      We're all public figures, we all have the capacity to change things that we don't agree with, but we can't do it behind a veil of anonymity.

      Delete
    2. So you won't answer the question "why have the option for anon then" because someone used that option. I haven't, so do - before I get any more confused by quite the most bizarre logic I have ever come across. Then maybe you can move onto Paul's points. Thank you.

      Delete
    3. I've left the anonymous comment on so it's easier to leave a comment.
      But all I'm asking is that you disclose who you are and your connection to the debate. I know Paul through the contributions he's made to the media,
      I seems bizarre to me that people are so lacking in the courage of their own convictions they resist revealing their identity.
      I'm sorry that you don't understand why this is important.
      If you'd rather post an email to me personally, rather than publicly then
      you can use jpocklington@fastmail.fm


      Delete
  5. Thanks James for putting up my piece.

    I think you've got hung up on the anonymity point - the world of the internet is such that for every accurate name there are probably many more pseudonyms. Prove who you are...no, I will trust you are someone called James and you can believe I am someone called Paul.

    So back to the questions. And do have a go at my earlier ones too.

    Question 1: How much CO2 is produced in the manufacture of these turbines? Their transportation around the world? The construction of their access roads and bases? The recycling of the carbon fibre blades when they are decommissioned? The additional dispersed grid connections? The energy losses due to transmission from remote areas?

    Question 2: Why do Pro Wind people ignore the industry that is manufacturing these wind machines is anything but green? China, India, er even Germany is busy building coal fired power stations. We are busy exporting jobs to grow economies that are not signed up to any green commitments. Tell me how that works please. Out of sight out of mind. Bring a big wind turbine to Lincolnshire to feel worthy but miss the global sums that take this planet backwards?

    Question 3: How much CO2 is produced in the transport of the turbines? I left this one in for Anonymous 1.

    Question 4: If this technology is so fantastic, why can't this renewable be self-funding? Well therein lies the heart of the debate that brought me to this point. If you really do the maths, wind turbines are not a good way to spend money to reduce CO2. You do the work - list the most effective use of £1m or £1b for that matter, to reduce CO2 production. I think you will find it isn't wind - it doesn't even come close to the top.

    Question 5: Is it then right that energy companies are paid more money by government when they have to turn the turbines off due to over capacity? Oh and what about the scam to run a turbine at 0.5MW when it is rated or capable of twice that? Something to do with our leaders setting FITs more generously below 0.5MW than above. Now tell me that wind turbine subsidies work to reduce CO2. No they exploited by some very smart international companies that have seen the subsidy rates in the UK are a great return for their shareholders or equally smart farmers who realise sticking up a turbine will make them more money than farming. What's a bit of flack off the neighbours in return for £216k per year?
    My FITs example from last year (if this has changed by all means criticise the sums, but I think you are getting the picture): A privately owned 0.5MW turbine, Load Factor 25%, using 50%, selling 50% to the grid. The owner makes £216,262 per year. £24,638 from the sale of the electricity (12% of his income) and £191,625 from the FIT (or 88% of his income).

    Question 6: How will the pro wind lobby put right the mess that they have left this country in, with landscapes decimated and the tax payer robbed blind for technology that is nothing more than another white elephant?

    Not my words but I will leave it in for anonymous 1 ......let's call him Bob Smith.


    These are all very valid questions that the wind developers refuse to answer.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Chaps, this economic stuff is getting a bit complicated. I'm sure that James and his friends are decent Lincolnshire folk and wouldn't be backing a German energy giant and the hedge-fund manager who owns the land unless they were familiar with the area and all the details of the situation and had carefully weighed up all the pros and cons.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just to make it plain, this is the last comment that I will publish that offers no indication of who the real author is.
      It is important to me that everyone who leaves a comment remains accountable for the statements made.

      Delete
  7. James, let's call him Bob Smith then and move on.

    A simpler one - do you pro-wind folk back EVERY SINGLE WIND TURBINE project as being a good thing?

    If you answer YES then I think this debate is over

    If NO then why are you backing a German energy giant and a hedge fund manager when you don't appear to be familiar with the details of the situation around Temple Hill and have not weighed up the pros and cons of this project to determine whether it is suitable? .

    ReplyDelete
  8. James.

    I'm going to stop commenting now, because it is just you and I having a conversation. Your 14 followers seem silent and all this chatter might just fool Google into thinking this is an active site.

    thanks

    Paul

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Paul,
      One of the aims of your group is
      "To oppose the proposed wind farm through constructive and rational debate."

      I'm not sure that aim has been fully realised, but thanks for
      giving me an insight into your view on the challenges we face and the action we should take.

      If you'd like to continue the conversation privately then please use my email address.

      Regards
      James

      Delete
  9. What a lot of words you guys use! Let's cut to the chase, To stand a sporting chance of avoiding catastrophic global warming we have to leave ~80% of the coal, oil and gas that has already been discovered underground and unburnt. That means a very fast decarbonisation of the world economies. In the UK every single unit of electricity generated by wind is directly matched by not burning some gas. That's why every bit of wind power is part of the solution rather than part of the problem. It may matter to investors but it matters not a jot to the planet's climate (or me) what the finances of a windfarm are. Buying a second planet, which is the externalised cost of fossil fuel, is not an option.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Perhaps the objectors to wind farms should ask farmers their preferences of which technology to use? I don't see any valid argument in costs, CO2 emissions, financial interests, subsidies etc,. - these never came up before wind turbines appeared. And please tell me why the rights of landowners to spend their own money on their own land should require approval by others; (see John Stuart Mill, on freedom).

    ReplyDelete

We are happy to publish comments constructive to the debate, particularly ones that are implicitly factual. To speed up the comments process the anonymous user facility is available but I will only publish and respond to comments if I know who you are :) That way we shall all remain accountable for what we say.