Something that bothers me about the whole turbine “thing” is how divisive it is. We don’t like to talk about it but it is very hard for nearby groups to support one another because there is [probably] a limit to how many turbines the Government will push through in a particular area. It’s an unfortunate fact that if a windfarm say 4 miles away from one I particularly care about stopping is approved I am going to breath a very guilty sigh of relief as the chances of “mine” being approved drop dramatically.
Someone from the midlands now living in the area has emailed STINC to say the following:
I could not find a menu item on how to support a wind farm in North Cornwall in an appropriate site. After all unless we are willing to stop using electricity it would be hypocritical to not encourage some applications.
After all the people of the Trent valley have been putting up with smoke, sulphur dioxide, increased rates of asthma, acid rain dust and noise from coal generation so that the people of Cornwall can put their lights on.
The coal fired stations were there because the coal and water were there.
The wind is here on top of hills so let’s decide where we will accept them and support those rather than just being a load of nimbies.
I didn’t read what he was saying properly to start with because I don’t read anything properly if I can help it and because I thought he was just calling me a nimby. But I think what he is saying is absolutely spot on. Unfortunately he doesn’t mention how to solve the difficulties of actually doing what he suggests. The obvious problem is that if I think Tredump is a good place for a windfarm because 1) it’s far enough away from my house so I won’t hear the noise from it and 2) it’s a tip and it couldn’t look any worse anyway, Joe Trevithick who’s family have lived there for 500 years is going to be quite upset if I persuade North Cornwall to vote for Tredump Community Windfarm and get it pushed through.
I think that Cornwall should pick itself up by its bootstraps and say “We are going to aim to be a net exporter of energy. We will first make a 30%(?) cut in our energy use through a self funding energy efficiency investment scheme. We will promote locally produced food. We will sort out a proper public transport system.” Once this sort of thinking is established we can start asking people to discuss and agree where we are going to site windfarms, digesters, woodpellet and biomass producers and reclaim the word community from the developers of Cheshire. When we build roads, we buy houses and land by compulsory purchase and whilst it must be devastating when it happens to you, there must be compensations. The trouble with X Community Windfarm is that there are no tangible compensations. We need to establish that within a framework for a sustainable future we don’t build windfarms in areas of outstanding natural beauty but that neither should we expect people to suffer from asthma on our behalf in Didcot. A compromise has to be reached where we agree the least worse place to build the things that ideally we don’t want at all and then go about compensating those who live near them with a certain amount of free energy, some money or some compensating improvement to their environment.
Central Governement won’t do it because they are too busy trying to refinance their other solution by selling it, or not, to the French Governement. But we are almost an island and we ought to be able to build a sustainable future with a concensus behind it. We have the Duchy. We have lots of rich people who like spending their money down here. We unfortunately also have a significant population living below the breadline who need energy efficient homes but can’t afford them and we need to deal with this too. We have a proud history of exporting industry to the rest of the world. And perhaps Cornwall’s success in leading the world in steam technology that spawned the industrial revolution leaves us with a duty to lead the world in building a sustainable future.
August 13, 2008 at 7:43 pm
You have hit the nail on the head with your point about focusing on energy saving rather than energy production.
If wind generation is meant to prop up our ageing base-load generation and meet rising future electricity requirements, there will be plenty of really p**sed off people at some point in the next decade when the wind stops blowing.
For every 1Mw of wind energy, there has to be 1Mh of ‘traditional’ standby generation, a factor that often gets overlooked in the entire money spinning nonsense that wind generation actually is.
August 20, 2008 at 8:16 am
I did not attend the meeting last night, even though I am in favour of the windfarm because I have a family and children to get to bed.
However I feel we have to recognise that if you use electricity people need to shut up and put up with turbines. I would much rather have a turbine next to my house than a nuclear powerplant or a coal or gas plant.
And yes I will be able to see the turbines from my house but I want my children to grow up able to swim in the sea and breathe the clean air of Cornwall and still be able to afford to switch on a light at night.
Everywhere I drive I see turbines at Hallworthy and Delabole, even Bradworthy now. They are not unnattractive and are alot prettier than the pylons which are at the back of my house.
Perhaps we could have them removed as they spoil MY view and the value of MY house/ No, wait a minute then the people of Otterham would lose their power supply.
Life isn’t perfect and there are no magic solutions – sometimes you can’t have it all
August 20, 2008 at 12:35 pm
I did go to the meeting. It’s a shame you couldn’t go because a lot of worthwhile points were raised. (Although I was rather ashamed of some of the comments made about parish council functions.)
I think you identify the problem exactly – we have to do something about reducing our dependance on oil & gas and if people don’t believe in global warming they must believe that the price of oil makes our economy unsustainable.
However it is extremely uncertain that turbines will reduce our use of oil & gas for the following reasons:
1) The carbon pay back term is somewhere between 6 months and 15 years. Deli windfarm came online in Dec 1991 and is now being considered for repowering. On the upper pay back timescale it has taken most of the life of the wind farm to pay back the carbon it cost to build it. The trouble with this argument is that your conclusion entirely depends upon your assumptions. What if the concrete steel and fibre glass had been used towards energy efficiency projects? The same resources could have paid back in a much shorter time and made people more comfortable in the short term as a bonus.
2) It is not at all clear that turbines reduce carbon emissions because you still have to have conventional nuclear or oil/gas fired stations ticking over in case the wind drops. It has been reported that nuclear reactors either run at full tilt or are shutdown – ie they don’t turn down the reactor a bit when demand drops a bit they just vent the excess energy by some means. It was said at the meeting last night that Germany has not reduced it’s conventional generating capacity at all and Denmark has not saved a single ton of carbon even though they both have enormous wind generating resources.
3) My kiddies get an RSPB magazine. The current issue says in an article entitled “10 reasons to love starlings” “…Their flocking formations are breathtaking…” and “…They’re under threat. We use traffic light colours to show how well bird species are doing. The starling is one of just 40 species that are red listed. That mean it really is in trouble…” I hope you have seen them flocking at Davidstow. It is much better than when you see them on autumn watch. Do you not want to check that they will be unthreatened by the turbines and that the turbines will actually help with saving the planet before approving them?
4) Many objectors believe that the peat on Bodmin Moor holds more carbon than the turbines can ever “pay back” and disturbing the peat will release vast amounts of carbon.
The Government has an agenda to push windfarms because the don’t seem to know what else to do about global warming. This agenda translates into consumers’ money subsidising windfarms through carbon certificates. What we should be doing in the first place is to reduce energy consumption. That’s what the IET and other respected engineering bodies say we should do.
So I do agree with you that we have to do something. I think that a proper investigation process should be set up with clear benchmarks for pay back time and methods established to evaluate the cost to the environment including that to birds and wildlife.
August 20, 2008 at 6:04 pm
In reply to Tim – I can understand your points but I would like to make one thing clear. I am not interested in reducing my carbon footprint or saving the planet. I want to be able to carry on with my comfortable modern lifestyle and recognise that we can no longer rely on oil from the middle east and gas crossing Russia in vulnerable pipelines. Yes we are going to have to build nuclear power stations and we will probably have to reopen coalmines because the alternative is worse.
Wind power will play an important part in reducing this dependance. In the same way that if I grow my own vegetables, I may not be completely self-sufficient but I will be spending less at the supermarket each week.
Also regarding the starlings – we have millions of them flying around the fields and in our garden every autumn. They are certainly not endangered here – I also think they are smart enough to avoid a hundred foot turbine and if not there is such a thing as natural selection.
August 21, 2008 at 12:40 am
Sara, When you say 100 foot I guess you mean 126.5m or 411 feet?
The current Delabole ones are babies in comparison at 49.4m – these will be more than two and a half times that size.
Maybe 100 foot is just a turn of phrase but does everyone really understand that the rotors on the turbines are about the same diameter as the wing span of a jumbo jet?
August 23, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Should make them even harder to miss.
August 27, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Re your point about compensation, if you have a look at this link there’s info on what CWP are offering http://www.davidstowcommunitywindfarm.co.uk/camelsford.asp
plus 7 permanent jobs in the local area.
Re Delabole as far as I’m aware these are going to produce twice as much power, be 2.5 times as tall as the existing ones, but reduce in number to 4.
I couldn’t agree more with the comment re Didcot, having lived near that facility, it can be seen from all over Oxfordshire and a fair way up the River Thames plus it changes the weather in Abingdon, Milton and Didcot – give me wind turbines any day.
August 30, 2008 at 9:52 pm
Do you think the vague suggestions on the developer’s website mean anything?
1) They said there would be jobs running the site and to a provide warden. They have now changed the emphasis and it appears that the job opportunities may not be as local or tangible as at first appeared. I am a control engineer by trade and I can’t imagine what work there could be on the turbines once they have been commissioned. There is no way there would be a manned control room anywhere near Davidstow. What would they do all day?
2) They suggest they will provide an energy efficiency shop – whatever that is – in Camelford. I think it would benefit Camelford more if Stephens Hardware was subsidised to sell goods that help energy efficiency. I think a whole shop supplying energy efficient advice will prove to be unviable in about 2 months and then it would probably be withdrawn.
3) What is a warden going to do at Davidstow? There are already various voluntary wardens in place. I work with one of them. However I guess they will need someone to count the dead birds and bats so perhaps this is what the warden will do!
Ref Didcot – the trouble is that turbines here will not mean that Didcot or any other conventional power station in the country can be shut down. They will still need to run 24/7 in case the wind drops – like it did while we were up Roughtor this afternoon. The wind was blowing away so it was quite uncomfortable on top of Roughtor then 10 minutes later all but about 3 of the Cold Northcott turbines had stopped. I think it’s an understandable and natural desire to want turbines to fix the problem of global warming but they simply will not. I can’t imagine the Gov saying “Don’t worry if the wind stops – just cut power to some consumers for an hour or a day or whatever as necessary”.
I think the obvious solution at present is for us to use less energy in the first place.
June 6, 2009 at 2:21 pm
I think it is time that differentiation is made between community wind farms, commercial wind farms and single family wind turbines, and recognition given that the latter is environmentally a failure, and the former need better controls.
GODOLPHIN AND TREGONNING HILL
A 15 metre wind turbine to serve one family with surplus to the grid has been applied for on the slopes of Tregonning Hill in Cornwall. This is a World Heritage site, an Area of Great Landscape Value, (AGLV), near a conservation area. They are iconic landscape hills for Cornwall and this windmill will be visible for many miles, and from the two hills. It is a rich area for rare birds, bats and nesting barnowls. It is surrounded by neighbours, mainly opposed to the wind turbine. Property values will fall dramatically.
It is contested that the small benefit of sporadic electricity production at the cost of this exceptional landscape is not viable. It appears that this application contravenes many of the recommendations in the guidance documents.
The application is to be considered by Cornwall Council Planning Committee in July.
There are not many objectors as local people did not know it had been applied for before it went to the Parish Council.
It is feared that because “Wind energy is good for the environment” no one will be able to say no, although on specific analysis it does not balance the social cost in any way.
I believe entirely in wind farms producing per turbine enough power for 100+ people, and was involved at an early stage in calculating the original measurements for the Cornish wind farms. However, they should be subject to revised stricter planning laws, and not too many in one area.
I think it unacceptable that wind farms should not benefit those who suffer from them. Nimby it may be, but why should just a few take the rap for developers? In the case of this wind turbine, 15% off the property value overnight, which is a lot when you are working hard for your mortgage.
This turbine per family policy and subsidy is good only for sellers of windmills and the owner.
I think it should be acceptable to say no to turbines if the personal suffering justifies it.
September 21, 2009 at 10:22 am
I go up to Crowdy every morning and have done for the last 4 years. It is my favourite place on earth. (to the extent that I wish to have my ashes scattered up there when I die).It is peaceful, beautiful and the wildlife is stunning. Although my argument is only from a personal point of view-I do NOT wish to see wind turbines up there. I think its a dreadful idea and would ruin a beautiful piece of the Cornish countryside not to mention what it would do to the wildlife. I feel very strongly about this and will do my best to attend future meetings to help stop this from going ahead.