Louth Canal Wind Energy update

Partnership for Renewables have submitted amended plans for the siting of the sub station for this
project.

This has been agreed by ELDC who acknowledge it  reduces any negative impact on the warehouse at Thoresby Bridge.

Louth Canal Wind Energy update

The Public Inquiry is scheduled for 21st January 2014.

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.

Louth Canal Wind Energy Project

Partnership for Renewables have lodged an appeal against ELDC's decision to deny planning permission for the Louth Canal Wind Energy Project Partnership for Renewables

The Public Inquiry is scheduled for the 21st January 2014 and will take 6 days to complete.
The planning application can be viewed here: East Lindsey District Council
and details of the appeal here: Planning inspectorate

The project involves three wind turbines up to a maximum of 2.5MW capacity for each turbine.

Partnership for Renewables have followed recent government recommendations and increased the package of community benefits to £5000 per MW per annum. This means the local community could receive up to £37,500 every year for the anticipated 25 year life of the project,  £937,500 in total.

It is extremely important for supportive local voices to be heard by the Planning Inspector if this appeal is to be upheld so please do what you can to ensure the "silent majority" is encouraged to register their support.

Accept the change

This is a two page A4 flyer designed to be distributed to all households within sight of a current wind farm planning application. The government's recent guidelines emphasise the need for local community support toward wind farms and have recommended higher financial payments for the communities affected.

If you'd like a pdf file of the flyer please email jpocklington@fastmail.fm

Quote for the Lincolnshire Echo re: Hemswell Cliff wind farm public consultation

"Despite recent headlines in the media the government hasn't changed the national policy on the need to deploy onshore wind farms to meet our commitment to supply 15% of UK energy demand from renewable sources by 2020.

"The UK has some of the best wind resources in Europe and onshore wind is one of the most cost-effective large-scale renewable energy technologies. We are committed to using onshore wind as part of the UK’s energy mix."  www.gov.uk/government/policies/increasing-the-use-of-low-carbon-technologies/supporting-pages/onshore-wind

What the government have clarified is that current national planning guidelines should be more closely followed by both the developers and the local planning authority. The developer must fully consult those affected by their proposals and take action to reduce any adverse impacts. Local planning authorities should identify sites which would be suitable for large scale renewable projects as well as those that are not and include them in their development plans. Local authorities should not sit back, wait for the applications to be submitted and say no to every proposal.

There is no veto against wind farms although there is an acknowledgement from the government that the national demand for renewable energy should not automatically trump quantifiable local impacts.

The government are challenging those who might instantly dismiss wind farms to actually consider the facts and the seriousness of the issues behind their deployment. There are plans for additional training seminars for local authority representatives and "evidence tool kits" which will provide peer reviewed, factual data about onshore wind turbines for communities to consider.

There are proposals for significant financial benefits for local communities affected by wind farms and in a time of financial uncertainty that should be welcomed.

A "knee jerk" no to wind farms is no longer acceptable. It results in unnecessary expense for the tax payer ( East Lindsey District Council recently announced they have spent almost £500,000 on appeals against wind farms). I would urge everyone to look beyond the angry rhetoric of the anti-wind protesters, seek out the facts and make sure their voice is heard in the public consultation."

The veto that never was

It's been widely reported in the media today that local residents affected by onshore wind farm proposals will be given the opportunity to "veto" the development.
That sounds like bad news for the future of onshore wind in the UK as passing on the decision for the deployment of wind farms to those people most affected by their presence is surely a death knell for onshore wind?
But there appears to be an anomaly between the soundbite announcement from Downing St "local residents will be able to stop unwanted wind farms" and the real thrust of the onshore wind call for evidence recently concluded by DECC ,the source of the government's review of onshore wind in the UK.

If you read the document in full (see link on right) it is obvious that the government is merely requiring that the protaganists of the onshore wind debate play by the rules that already exist.
The wind farm developers must properly consult with residents prior to any application and the local planning authorities must include in their local development plan, areas that are suitable for on shore wind and those that are not due to material impacts on the local surroundings, be it historic buildings or cumulative affects.

The call for evidence makes it plain that onshore wind remains a continuing essence in the UK's energy road map for the future. The government wants to encourage community ownership and it aims to promote the facts about the benefits and importance of onshore wind through "evidence tool kits" and training seminars to LPA's.

It has ramped up the recommended payments that developers should make to communities for the life of the wind farm  to £5000 per MW (rated capacity) per annum (many developers already make payments at similar levels).

The challenge is for local authorities to stop putting their head in the sand over this issue and to accept the role that on shore wind has to play in our energy future. They will have greater powers to object to inappropriate wind farms but only if they have demonstrated that they have identified areas where onshore would be acceptable in a local development plan.

 It seems to me that what has been reported to the press in soundbite form is a reaction to the divisive appeal of UKIP to many conservatives  but is a total red herring when it comes to the reality of the situation. There is nothing in the proposals that gives the local residents an unconditional veto against onshore wind developments.

LPA's that behave responsibly on this issue by including a constructive on shore wind policy in their local development plan will gain some control over onshore wind in their areas because they will have demonstrated that they are not just saying no to every proposal.

The message is listen to the facts, understand the issues, behave responsibly in the national interest, avoid wasting taxpayers money on appeals for perfectly acceptable on shore wind proposals and gain the legitimacy to object to inappropriate proposals.

Are you listening ELDC?

UKIP, do you know what they stand for?

I received my UKIP bundle through the letter box this morning and on the back of an A5 size poster were these words: "You know what UKIP stands for"
Well I know they are against the European parliament and they're against immigration and against political correctness (whatever that means) and against wind farms but I was not altogether sure what they stood for so being as this is a pro-wind blogsite, I thought I'd look up their energy policy.
It's written by Roger Helmer MEP and includes several gems of climate change denialism.   Their policy states “The slight warming in the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well established, long-term natural climate cycles — the Roman Optimum, the Dark Ages, the Mediæval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age. And now we seem to be moving into a new, natural 21st century optimum”. So I guess if you shared that blinkered view of the accelerating environmental crisis you'd probably want to ditch the Climate Change Act of 2008 as UKIP suggest. 
The policy also states that increasing CO2 emissions is ok, which is why it supports fracking for shale gas and open cast coal mines but doesn’t support wind farms and solar arrays. 
Please read the policy here to get a feel for "What UKIP stand for".
http://ukip.org/media/policies/energy.pdf

UKIP are feeding on the fears of the misinformed...if you get the opportunity to enlighten anyone considering a vote for UKIP I'd suggest you take it.

This week we could well see the earth's atmosphere register 400ppm of CO2 for the first time in several million years....UKIP state this will help to "green" the planet, 

UKIP : anti-science, anti-reality, anti-social.

"Scientists do not disagree about human-caused global warming. It is the ruling paradigm of climate science, in the same way that plate tectonics is the ruling paradigm of geology. We know that continents move. We know that the earth is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause. These are known facts about which virtually all publishing scientists agree." Dr James L Powell  scienceprogress.org/2012/11/27479/