Giant wind farm plan thrown out

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39395000/jpg/_39395602_windfarm203.jpg

BBC News:

Plans to create England's largest wind farm in Cumbria have been rejected by the government. The £55m development would have seen 27 turbines, each 377ft tall, erected at Whinash, near Kendal.

A six-week public inquiry last year heard from campaigners who said the project would destroy the landscape of the Lake District. Energy Minister Malcolm Wicks said he agreed with the inquiry inspector that the plan should be thrown out.

Environmental groups such as Greenpeace backed the clean energy plans, but campaigners were worried about the visual impact on the countryside.


The turbines would have occupied a 9-hectare (22.25 acre) area stretching between the Yorkshire Dales and the Lake District National Park, close to the M6 motorway. Chalmerston Wind Power and the Renewable Development Company led the proposed project to build the turbines, which would have generated around 67 megawatts of electricity.

The Cumbrian Tourist Board was amongst those opposed to the plans and naturalist David Bellamy vowed to chain himself to the turbines if building went ahead.

Mr Wicks said: "Tackling global warming is critical, but we must also nurture the immediate environment and wildlife. This is at the crux of the debate over wind energy.

"On this occasion, we agree with the independent inspector that the impact on the landscape and recreation would outweigh the benefits in terms of reducing carbon emissions.


"I know there was both support and opposition to the Whinash development, but I hope the winner here is the planning system, which has to be robust in its assessment of the merits of each proposal. Our commitment to renewable energy is remains firm."

Stephen Tindale, executive director of Greenpeace, said: "Any government that wants to expand airports and turn down wind farms is simply not fit to govern.

"Climate change will ravage beautiful areas like the Lake District. I hope those responsible will be willing to explain to future generations how they played their part in allowing the savage grip of global warming to trash the countryside and claim hundreds of thousands of lives."

Penrith and the Border Conservative MP David MacLean said: "The overwhelming weight of evidence at the public inquiry was against the Whinash wind farm development.

"This is good news for Cumbria, for local people and all those who have been campaigning to prevent our precious Lake District landscape being destroyed by the wrong wind farms in the wrong places."

In order to produce enough electricity to resolve the generation problems in this way we would need to build so many windfarms that it would amount to the biggest change in the landscape since people started cutting down trees - and it wouldn't be a change for the better. We should build nuclear power stations instead.

Or build them out at sea. Why do they need to be on land anyway?

nuclear power stations?! Wind Power is easy to install and easy to dismantle. Its an ideal stop gap, nuclear power is neither a stop gap or long term option! The Nimbys are fools

This decision pisses me off! At a time when energy requirements are fairly high on the agenda and in the media and we're worrying about how we're going to provide enough energy in the future, we refuse to build a clean, and in my opinion, beautiful set of structures that will help to provide 67 megawatts of power! :ohno:

some of the sites campaigning against this windfarm are clearly run by the nuclear lobby. some are calling for new nuclear powerstations and NO onshore windpower at all. perhaps theyd like something in cumbria like sellafield?

windfarms are a form of visual pollution whose impact is felt for miles around. we don't have an awful amount of land in the uk and a lot of it, garden-like in scale, is unsuited to these huge machines. i think in the right context they can look spectacular and majestic, when you drive into the SF Bay Area from the south east there's thousands of the buggers and their effect is of an awesome magnitude. such a magnitude can also be negative in terms of altering the tame british landscape (one of our best assets) so for me their use is limited for onland schemes here in the uk. i can't see any windfarms approaching the scale and effectiveness of the one outside SF for instance.

offshore though, let's start building.

Offshore is the way forward for wind farms.

offshore is too expensiv though right now, the technology isnt yet competitive with other forms of power. it needs a good ten years for these costs to drop and in the meantime we need power stations NOW.

Thank God. Defacing our countryside with hideous windfarms is not progress at all.

Nah, lets have one of these then, much more beautiful! Think of the benefits it'll bring to our beautiful countryside:
http://www.brukeroptics.com/applications/images/head/nuclear_head.jpg

You need one nuclear plant for hundreds of windfarms spanning hundreds of square miles. That is not a very hard calculation.

what we need to do is invent fusion. or one of those flux capicitors like in back to the future. or some kind of dark matter-anti-matter-quantum entanglement thingy so we can have limitless energy for all. forever.

i'm sure i've read about it somewhere.

I am very supportive of wind power however there are locations where wind turbines should not be built. Perhaps this was one. I don't know the site myself, but the decision seems to be strongly one sided and against. What we need is as many wind power proposals as possible. Some will get rejected, the ones in the most unsuitable places, but they cannot possibly all be campaigned against effectively. There is loads of land suitable for wind power in the UK that is not someones back garden or a natural beauty spot. Software used to place turbines in the maximum position of wind also takes into account potential noise and shadow's throughout the year (including the flicker effect on residential property). The wind power industry are doing their homework and generally arguments against are very weak.

I don't really buy the argument that the nuclear industry is sneakily involved in undermining wind. Even if all the schemes proposed get built (~8GW including offshore) we still only have 10% of power generated by renewables. Thus the argument for nuclear supplying part of the remainder 90% is still very strong. Short of everyone deciding to cut their energy use by 90%, China, India and the US agreeing to do the same I think nuclear along with renewables is the only option on the table.

not true... sellafield is multiple generators, secondly the combined footprint of the sellafield site is less than that of any wind farm. wind farms just have space between each turbine whereas sellafield is a huge lump of continuous land.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/Sellafield-1515b.jpg
it generates approximately as much as some offshore windfarms that are proposed.

nuclear power stations?! Wind Power is easy to install and easy to dismantle. Its an ideal stop gap, nuclear power is neither a stop gap or long term option! The Nimbys are fools

Give 'em a nuclear powerstation then. From the photomontage it looks like an ideal site, near a lake for cooling, in the countryside.

isnt sellafield in cumbria???

Sellafield is not just a power station, it also is a reprocessing plant thats why its so big, dungerness on the south coast has two reactors but is much smaller.

They should build these next to Sellafield, that would be sensible.

The way ahead is rooftop wind-turbines. Once they get the noise issue sorted, everyone will have one. Cheap (about a grand each at the moment including instalation), and not much more visual impact than a satelite dish or TV ariel. If every house in England had one, it would have a huge impact on energy consumption.

The thing about wind turbines vs power stations is that they can be built and removed with little disruption to the habitat they are in (with the exception of bird habitats of course) because the ground between them is not disturbed much. A nuclear plant destroys whatever land it is built on (fine if it's brownfield land but I assume most nuclear powerplants would be built on greenfield land). Also, whereas you can remove windfarms and restore the land back to almost exactly what it was like before in a very short space of time, nuclear power plants take decades to decomission so even after their useable lifespan has ended they still stay on the landscape for ages. Why not continue to build land based wind farms now and in 10 yrs or so when it becomes more viable, start replacing the older onshore windfarms with offshore ones?

The thing about wind turbines vs power stations is that they can be built and removed with little disruption to the habitat they are in (with the exception of bird habitats of course) because the ground between them is not disturbed much. A nuclear plant destroys whatever land it is built on (fine if it's brownfield land but I assume most nuclear powerplants would be built on greenfield land). Also, whereas you can remove windfarms and restore the land back to almost exactly what it was like before in a very short space of time, nuclear power plants take decades to decomission so even after their useable lifespan has ended they still stay on the landscape for ages. Why not continue to build land based wind farms now and in 10 yrs or so when it becomes more viable, start replacing the older onshore windfarms with offshore ones?


You cannot directly compare wind farms with nuclear power. Nuclear power provides a large constant and reliable source of electricity. To generate the same quantity of electricity with wind power you would need thousands of turbines. However the wind is not a reliable and constant source of energy therefore the electricity generated is not reliable or constant, you need a backup supply such as coal/gas or nuclear to produce the electricity when the wind dies down. Because of this wind or solar power will never replace a source such as nuclear.

Sellafield isn't a nuclear power station, it's a reprocessing plant. It did generate some electricity but I believe this was abandoned a few years ago. So there is no issue with Sellafield 'competing' with the wind power organisations for business.

Climate change is the whole world's issue. It's a bigger issue than a handful of people's local view of the countryside. How could such a small number of people be so reckless and irresponsible?

the planned london array will be the second largest power station in the country. i wish people would stop peddling that crap about capacity, the same applies to nuclear. they do not run all the time at the same capacity. the load factor of an offshore turbine is about 45%, for a nuclear power station its 50%.

and so what if they're inefficiant? the economic damage caused by severe climate change would dwarf that of the windfarms.

I think the word NIMBY is used far too often. I don't see it as unreasonable to trying to make planning decisions in sites of beauty and the few remaining natural wilderness sites in Britain harder to achieve as some kind of Ludditism. We don't have many areas of true landscape beauty in England, but Cumbria is one of them, being sensitive to the area is not the cultural backwardness many seem to make out.

However the wind is not a reliable and constant source of energy therefore the electricity generated is not reliable or constant,
Actually that is only partially true. Over, I believe, 35 years of detailed wind monitoring in the UK there has never been a day when it was not windy anywhere.

I think the word NIMBY is used far too often. I don't see it as unreasonable to trying to make planning decisions in sites of beauty and the few remaining natural wilderness sites in Britain harder to achieve as some kind of Ludditism. We don't have many areas of true landscape beauty in England, but Cumbria is one of them, being sensitive to the area is not the cultural backwardness many seem to make out.Areas like that are also brilliant for wind farms. Generally though we should be pushing for larger and more numerous wind farms out at sea....150m tall wind farms are something the UK is thankfully pushing towards.

I think there should be more wind turbines along the thames gateway to power the new developments being built there. I'd like the schemes to be energy neutral in the long term combining wind and solar energy, that could sell excess to the national grid and take a bit back if it's cloudy and has little wind.

Actually that is only partially true. Over, I believe, 35 years of detailed wind monitoring in the UK there has never been a day when it was not windy anywhere.


But is the wind allways strong enough to provide enough power for the whole country?

if you have enough turbines yes. offshore capacity is about 45% to nuclears 50%. thats only a 10% difference.

if you have enough turbines yes. offshore capacity is about 45% to nuclears 50%. thats only a 10% difference.


5%

So how many wind turbines would it need to replace all the nuclear plants?

I think the capacity point is with the wind you have no control over the wind power, wheras with coal and nuclear you have control over the power output - although its easier with gas.

When there are concerns about how we're going to keep the lights on in the next few decades some sacrifices are going to have to be made and if that means installing some wind turbines on hills then so be it. They can always be removed in the future and I know plenty of people who think they actually enhance the landscape.

Roy Hattersley and myself are just two. I'm not really sure what the problem is, it's not like someone was proposing to put them all over Scafell Pike!

You could argue that as Cumbria is mostly a national park and has a great amount of beautiful countryside that perhaps it can afford to surrender some of it's less striking moorland for the general good of the nation.

10%! learn some maths. wind turbines are 10% less efficient than nuclear power.

10%! learn some maths. wind turbines are 10% less efficient than nuclear power.


??? Im not sure quite what you are on about there.



Any power station that converts heat into electrical power can only do this at around 40% efficiency.

Im not sure what the efficeincy of a wind turbine is but does it really matter as its converting basically free enrgy into electricity.

When there are concerns about how we're going to keep the lights on in the next few decades some sacrifices are going to have to be made and if that means installing some wind turbines on hills then so be it. They can always be removed in the future and I know plenty of people who think they actually enhance the landscape.


We should be making sacrifices by using less power! Why do we have to sacrifice what little open countryside we have when for a little exra money they can go offshore!
I do not believe most people think they improve the landscape of the countryside.

We should be making sacrifices by using less power! Why do we have to sacrifice what little open countryside we have when for a little exra money they can go offshore!
I do not believe most people think they improve the landscape of the countryside.
Okay, but say by some freak of social change the whole country reduces their energy consumption by 50% we still need to generate the other 50% somehow. Renewables are currently supplying about 5% of our need.

Why do windfarms have to improve the landscape? Not to sound too cliche here but the plan is to save the planet. Or from the economic slant, saving several trillion pounds. A slight blip in aethetics from the view point of some people is a price worth paying. Typical human trait though, go for the cure rather than prevention.

But is the wind allways strong enough to provide enough power for the whole country?I think we should go for over supply. Studies have suggested that the UK could get 300% of its needs from wind. Assume that that is a massive overestimate and take 150% of its needs as an aim. That is on an 'average' day. On windier days and using the excess 50%+ we could export the energy to others, pump water up into reservoirs and/or charge fuel cells for use in cars or other mobile equipment. On days when output drops below 100% we let the water out of the reservoirs and after that start importing fuel from say some solar farms in Spain.

Okay, but say by some freak of social change the whole country reduces their energy consumption by 50% we still need to generate the other 50% somehow. Renewables are currently supplying about 5% of our need.

Why do windfarms have to improve the landscape? Not to sound too cliche here but the plan is to save the planet. Or from the economic slant, saving several trillion pounds. A slight blip in aethetics from the view point of some people is a price worth paying. Typical human trait though, go for the cure rather than prevention.

Why do they have to ruin the landscape? We are supposed to be protecting it. Why not make all new houses have photovoltaic cells on them, not a great energy producer in this country but every little bit helps.Cable boxes and other electronic equitment have off switches instead of standby mode.
Offshore will be more expensive to start wiith but the price will drop and has dropped already.
Several trillion?
I agree about the human trait, it's like getting into debt and then suddenly realising you have to pay it off.

We should be making sacrifices by using less power! Why do we have to sacrifice what little open countryside we have when for a little exra money they can go offshore!
I do not believe most people think they improve the landscape of the countryside.

Great...except in practise it's never going to happen. The majority of people will not use less power and would prefer windfarms if it meant they could have electricity. Offshore is great but at the moment it costs alot more than on land and someone's going to have to pay for that. Although I have no problem with loads of offshore building. It's not as if the countryside is dissapearing when these go up. Far from it, and some say they enhance the landscape including myself.

Great...except in practise it's never going to happen. The majority of people will not use less power and would prefer windfarms if it meant they could have electricity. Offshore is great but at the moment it costs alot more than on land and someone's going to have to pay for that. Although I have no problem with loads of offshore building. It's not as if the countryside is dissapearing when these go up. Far from it, and some say they enhance the landscape including myself.


40% is that a lot more?
They do damage the areas they are built on, I'm not saying we don't build them on land but that we should build more offshore.

offshore wind power
http://www.bwea.com/ukwed/offshore.asp

The large shallow sandy bays of the Dee estuary, the Wash and the Thames estuary provide the cheapest starting points.

The primary, but not only, sites at these locations are:
Gwynt e Mor - 750MW ~200 turbines (Dee)
London Array - 1000MW ~270 turbines (Thames)
Triton Knoll - 1200MW ~325 turbines (Wash)

5%

I think the capacity point is with the wind you have no control over the wind power, wheras with coal and nuclear you have control over the power output - although its easier with gas.

Tidal power is pretty consistant! Huge amounts of energy generated by movement of mass of epic proportions. Just that it only occurs twice a day but that could provide at least a very reliable backbone energy system.

Digging around for stuff to burn is positively neathandral by comparison

and Nuclear Power... all very hi tech and all but bloody hell is it worth the risk?! Saw a map of the fallout from the Chernboyl and it covered nearly all of Europe. Watching the spread of these powerstations just means that another dangerous failure is increasingly likely, especially when you consider places like Iran builing them. Dont people get it?! We are biological! All the fail safe systems in the world can not hide the fact that we can not protect ourselves from a harmful dose of radiation, its impossible, unless we walk around in lead suits for the rest of our lives.