Wind energy claims are just a lot of hot air
The case for winds farms is all but lost, as the Tories inject a welcome dose of reality into the debate

<<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/9645916/Wind-energy-claims-are-just-a-lot-of-hot-air.html>>

LibDems get hoisted with their own vane, again. (Or is that vain?)

The link doesn't work for me. (a bit like a Tory government)

Chop the “>>” bit off the end of the link to make it work. Not sure it's worth the bother, though; there might be a bit of information there on the politics within the Tory party but it's difficult to tell while you're busy discounting all the unsupported prejudice about the actual turbines.

I like the way he suggests that we ignore the opinions of expert third parties such as RICS, and instead put our trust in him. Sorry, but no.

I think the anti-wind hysteria is typical NIMBYism

I agree. Land owners that benifit from wind farms shouldn't be allowed to limit where thay can go on their land. Currently they can decide not to make the bit near their own houses available. This allows the developer to claim the turbines "have to" go close to neighbours houses or conservation areas because that's the only land that's been made available to them. Many of us fighting wind farm developments are NOT against wind farms in the right places.

We also want to see some honesty...

For example why are developers allowed to pretend an underground grid connection will be used when they know darn well that the DNO will prefer to use pylons even if the route goes past a conservation area? Underground connections are almost never used.

Why have I been asked by the developer to sign a totally unacceptable NDA agreement in order to get access to wind speed data used in the planning application? The Secretary of State says the developer should not insist on an NDA. The wording of the NDA appears to make any analysis of the data also subject to the NDA so it's impossible for me to agree it.

Isn't that what Freedom of Information Act is for, I am sure that they cannot claim that windspeed is commercially sensitive.

Be a good way to get some weather data for nothing too

Ted is the man to chat to as he knows how all this stuff works and what to quote from the rule book
Make sure you get the raw data and the meta data

Posted By: CWatters

Posted By: JontiWindy,

ST is correct but the authorities will be banking on the fact that you won't bother forcing them to disclose.

Jonti

As far as I can tell the planning officer in our area hasn't been able to get the raw data either.

This information must be at least a part of the environmental impact studies and without it how can they reach a decision about such a structure?

Has the PO has requested it even?

Jonti

Jonti - Sure there is processed data in the EIA but not the raw data. For example the EIA might simply state the average value of wind shear that was measured. It doesn't tell you what percentage of the time the wind shear was much larger than average and hence what percentage of time predicted noise levels might be much higher than calculated. Nor does it tell you if wind shear is greater when the wind is blowing noise towards houses etc

The planning officer hardly has time to read the EIA let alone analyse it. They certainly don't have money to pay for a professional to analyse the data.

Windy Lamb, Cwatters,

just shows how unreliable the planning system is.

Here in Scotland the EIA is done by an independent surveyor paid for by the applicant who should do a short summary drawing any relevant points to the planning officer's attention. Only in borderline cases would the PO need to analyse the info though generally I believe they throw it back at the applicant saying they believe it does not pass unless the applicant can prove otherwise.

Jonti

Posted By: windy lambneedless to say I'm in favour of appropriate turbines in appropriate locations but seems you don't have to show that in current applications!

But isn't part of the problem to define appropriate.

Jonti

.. independent surveyor paid for by the applicant..

Are they also chosen by the applicant as in England? I'd like to see the planning office hire them, paid for by the applicant.

If central government uses market incentives to provide renewables to the grid because central government spending on crazy Marxist stuff (:sink:) like houses and energy generation is out of favour across party divides, (+ public?), then can you expect private profit making enterprises to not use all methods at their disposal...

J

Trouble with the Planning Officer choosing an expert for me to pay for is that only those companies prepared to enter a tendering/vetting process could be used - it'd be another closed shop. These will necessarily be more expensive and thus could price small projects out of the system. Individual experts are not all unprofessional puppets.

Why not use the existing system properly; get a competent planner to actually read the information provided and then insist on clarification if a report is lacking. Trouble is the local authorities have cut costs by employing fewer, less qualified staff.

When I submitted my application for a Gaia I was phoned by the Planner asking to submit a bat survey. It was only 30 pages of the application sitting on his desk! Doesn't take much to look at the contents page and whoever the stuff is written by doesn't make any difference if no-one reads it!