ad

Former county MP speaks out on power plans

Published date: 26 May 2011 |
Published by: Richard Jones

 

LIBERAL Democrat peer and former Montgomeryshire MP, Lord Carlile of Berriew, has condemned proposals to build an ugly network of pylons, wires and windfarms across the constituency as “an unnecessary and an economic error of high magnitude”.

A Deputy High Court judge and QC, Lord Carlile was MP for Montgomeryshire from 1983-1997.

He says the Welsh Assembly Government’s Tan 08 document, which identified Montgomeryshire as a prime location for windfarms, has failed to take into account the impact of the turbines on the beautiful landscape and should be reviewed.

“From the time I was MP for Montgomeryshire, I have been opposed to the ruination of the Montgomeryshire landscape by extensive windfarms and their infrastructure,” he said.

“TAN 8 fails utterly to take these important issues into account.

“The current grid proposal, to build a large and ugly network of pylons and wires, is exactly what we do not want. The contribution of on-shore wind, and such value as it presents economically, have been exaggerated in order to give the impression that there is a more mixed energy policy than is revealed by true examination of the underlying policy.

Other prominent figures opposing the plans include Lady Hooson, from Llanidloes, wife of Lord Hooson, Montgomeryshire MP from 1962-1979.

“I am totally opposed to the idea of these windfarms with hundreds of wind turbines, 47 metre high steel pylons and a 20-acre substation in our area,” said Lady Hooson.

“It would totally destroy the natural beauty of this area and have a serious effect on the tourism industry and property prices.

“The unreliable, intermittent power generated would be very expensive and not for the national or local good.”

You must be a registered user to leave a comment. Register or login here.

  1. Posted by: sam.. at 12:37 on 26 May 2011 Report

    The scenery, the wildlife and the natural fauna will all suffer adverse effects due to climate change caused by man made pollution. All over Montgomeryshire, Wales, the UK and the world. Wind farms cut carbon emissions and can help towards sustaining what we all love about this area. it only takes 6 - 9 months for wind farms to give back what it takes out in carbon production (source: Friends of the earth Cymru) - CONTINUED...

  2. Posted by: sam.. at 12:38 on 26 May 2011 Report

    Face the facts, we can not continue to drain resources from this planet if we are to enjoy it for generations to come.

  3. Posted by: Archbishop at 17:02 on 26 May 2011 Report

    Sam, you miss the point. If we take the subsidy used to make these turbines worth building we could finance putting solar panels & water heating onto every house in Montgomeryshire. This would do more for CO2 than these things ever will. Your comment reflects a trend, it seems that if something reduces CO2 then it must happen - there is more to the environment than CO2, you cannot justify damaging the environment in the way that is being proposed just to save a *tiny* amount of CO2

  4. Posted by: Archbishop at 17:03 on 26 May 2011 Report

    Sam, you miss the point. If we take the subsidy used to make these turbines worth building we could finance putting solar panels & water heating onto every house in Montgomeryshire. This would do more for CO2 than these things ever will. Your comment reflects a trend, it seems that if something reduces CO2 then it must happen - there is more to the environment than CO2, you cannot justify damaging the environment in the way that is being proposed just to save a *tiny* amount of CO2

  5. Posted by: Archbishop at 17:04 on 26 May 2011 Report

    You talk about enjoying the environment for generations to come - if this happens, there won't be anything left to enjoy. What about damage to the upland peat reserves ? What about the rare earth metals that are used in the manufacture of these things, 97% of which come from China and are mined in environmentally disastrous conditions ? What about the hedges that will need to be ripped out to get the turbines to site ? The roads that will have to be widened ?

  6. Posted by: Archbishop at 17:05 on 26 May 2011 Report

    The tons of concrete that must be poured for them to sit on, that will stay in the ground even when the turbines are replaced (which is happening at one wind farm right now, and slabs the size of swimming pools are being poured for the new, bigger turbines to sit on). What about the fact that none of this will allow us to switch off even one conventional station, because we all know there will be days or even weeks when they do effectively nothing because there is not enough wind, or too much.

  7. Posted by: Archbishop at 17:06 on 26 May 2011 Report

    What about the new research from the States that raises concerns about the effect on local climate caused by sucking too much energy from the atmosphere if you have loads of these things in an area ? These things are no more than totem poles for the politicians to point at and say 'Look - we are tackling CO2'. Rubbish.

  8. Posted by: Archbishop at 17:07 on 26 May 2011 Report

    I often wonder why they are painted grey. I would like to start a campaign to paint them gold, or at least the colour of a pound coin. Because that's what this is really all about. These are cash generators, the electricity is a by-product. Wake up people, you can't justify these on the basis they save a bit of CO2. You can't say 'we must have these, they are the best option for clean energy' - if this is the best option then we are in trouble and need to start thinking fast.

  9. Posted by: Archbishop at 17:07 on 26 May 2011 Report

    I was at Cardiff the other day, and I fear that people will see the campaign as an anti-green campaign. I think it was Nick Larder said that until a few weeks ago he was in favour of wind farms. I was too, and then I started to research. There are probably many people who still think wind farms wonderfull and do nothing but good. Believe me, this is not the case. Please look into it.

  10. Posted by: Archbishop at 17:09 on 26 May 2011 Report

    Everyone in Montgomeryshire is as green minded, probably more so than most people. We all love the environment, it's a natural consequence of living in such a beautiful place. But wind farms won't sustain this area, or any other. To date, wind power has almost been 'untouchable', to attack it puts you at risk of being seen as 'anti-green'.

  11. Posted by: Archbishop at 17:09 on 26 May 2011 Report

    Everyone in Montgomeryshire is as green minded, probably more so than most people. We all love the environment, it's a natural consequence of living in such a beautiful place. But wind farms won't sustain this area, or any other. To date, wind power has almost been 'untouchable', to attack it puts you at risk of being seen as 'anti-green'.

  12. Posted by: Archbishop at 17:10 on 26 May 2011 Report

    I think now we should have the courage to stand up and say that wind power has been tried and it has failed. It can never be relied on to provide a large proportion of our power, unless we accept that there will be times when we have no power. Rant over.

  13. Posted by: sam.. at 18:12 on 26 May 2011 Report

    Archbishop, I have looked into it ,thanks. ALL renewables must be considered. Wind power DOES work. NOWHERE does it say 100% of our energy needs must come from wind. the other arguments you raise can be dealt with by reading a document on the web called 'wind power 10 myths blown away'

  14. Posted by: sam.. at 18:13 on 26 May 2011 Report

    Archbishop, I have looked into it ,thanks. ALL renewables must be considered. Wind power DOES work. NOWHERE does it say 100% of our energy needs must come from wind. the other arguments you raise can be dealt with by reading a document on the web called 'wind power 20 myths blown away'

  15. Posted by: Archbishop at 21:10 on 26 May 2011 Report

    Sam, Interesting document but I can't agree. Points like they kill birds, are noisy, etc hardy count as 'myths'. Tourists probably aren't deterred by wind farms on the scale we have today but what's proposed is another matter. As for Denmark, take a look at this report http://www.aweo.org/problemwithwind.html this talks about the situation in Denmark.

  16. Posted by: Archbishop at 21:21 on 26 May 2011 Report

    Also, it's true that the grid can cope with the variability of wind - but only up to about 10% of capacity. The grid has enough slack to cope with a major station going down, and it's this slack that is used to accommodate wind variability. However if you go much above this then additional slack needs to be introduced.

  17. Posted by: Archbishop at 21:24 on 26 May 2011 Report

    Recent data contradicts the claims that most wind power is generated in winter. A report on the BBC news site states "During each of the four highest peak demands of 2010, wind output reached just 4.72%, 5.51%, 2.59% and 2.51% of capacity, according to the analysis."

  18. Posted by: Archbishop at 21:24 on 26 May 2011 Report

    Also the number of low wind events is more frequent than previously thought - "It also challenged industry claims that periods of widespread low wind were "infrequent". The average frequency and duration of a "low wind event" was once every 6.38 days for 4.93 hours, it suggested. The report noted: "Very low wind events are not confined to periods of high pressure in winter. "They can occur at any time of the year."

  19. Posted by: Archbishop at 22:12 on 26 May 2011 Report

    The report states that there is a scoping study to build up to 33GW wind capacity for 25 million homes. If 1988 turbines power 1.3 million homes, and there is a total of 25 million, this would take 36000 turbines !

  20. Posted by: Archbishop at 22:13 on 26 May 2011 Report

    If we build one a day, 7 days a week (far faster than we have done to date) it will take 98 years to build them !

  21. Posted by: sam.. at 13:00 on 27 May 2011 Report

    AB, Again, no one is suggesting windfarms generate 100% of our energy needs. The UK never has, nor never will rely on only one form of energy production. Quit with your scare tactics. We have a duty to cut carbon emissions now for future generations to enjoy a clean and safe environment. I welcome all renewable energy and the benefit they bring

  22. Posted by: Charles Turpin at 13:24 on 27 May 2011 Report

    Welcome, Archbishop. Good to see some intelligent and informed commentary. Personally, I am not convinced by man-made "climate change" and regard climate variation as only natural. But the point is that windfarms are a disastrous non-solution anyway, and you are making that point well.

  23. Posted by: archbishop at 14:02 on 27 May 2011 Report

    Sam, I welcome renewables also. I also share your concern that we need to reduce carbon emissions. Personally, I don't think it matters whether man made climate change is real or not, the fact is fossil fuels are going to run out one day, and we need to start to act now so we are prepared when that day comes - also, can we really continue to rely on the parts of the world where most oil comes from for our energy needs ?

  24. Posted by: archbishop at 14:04 on 27 May 2011 Report

    But, I still think wind (certainly on shore) cannot contribute anything more than a token amount of our future energy needs, and the environmental impact far outweighs the potential CO2 saving. I'm sorry you think I'm trying to scare people - I'm just saying it the way I percieve it is.

  25. Posted by: tyfelin at 18:18 on 27 May 2011 Report

    As somebody who works for a global organisation I can tell you that my colleagues in Denmark are taking down existing wind turbines and replacing them with larger and more efficient turbines. Why? Because they generate electricity. Scotland has made a bold target to increase electricity from renewables by 100%. I fear the anti wind lobby in Mongtomeryshire will drive government support away from renewables and into the hands of nuclear power.

  26. Posted by: Archbishop at 19:21 on 27 May 2011 Report

    Tyfelin, as I understand it Denmark has said that in future their focus will be off shore wind development. As I said in my last comment I'm a little more undecided on this, apparently ther wind is slightly more predictable off shore and you can therefore expect a higher load factor. Also you don't have quite the same landscape issues (although I still wouldn't call them pretty).

  27. Posted by: Archbishop at 19:22 on 27 May 2011 Report

    I don;t agree opposing onshore wind means we will end up with nuclear - there are other renewable sources.

  28. Posted by: Archbishop at 19:23 on 27 May 2011 Report

    Take a look at this article from teh Telegraph :- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/7996606/An-ill-wind-blows-for-Denmarks-green-energy-revolution.html

  29. Posted by: Archbishop at 20:00 on 27 May 2011 Report

    The fear of nuclear has I think sustained on shore wind in this country for many years - the choice has often been presented as either wind or nuclear. Given that choice, people have chosen wind.

  30. Posted by: sam.. at 10:30 on 28 May 2011 Report

    CT. Harmful pollutants from fossil fuels are destroying the earths natural defense against the sun. this is causing the polar ice caps to melt. this effects the oceans which effect weather patterns. Unseasonable weather will have a massive impact on our everyday lives and the cost of items in our shopping baskets. Cont...

  31. Posted by: sam.. at 10:31 on 28 May 2011 Report

    Ocean life changes as southern invaiders wipe out our native species. This is happening now. This has a massive impact on the whole ecology. Apply this to land; and the countryside you so love will be drasticly altered for the worse.

  32. Posted by: sam.. at 10:31 on 28 May 2011 Report

    The UK rely on 40% gas, 30% coal 19% nuclear for our energy needs. The price we pay for fossil fuels are rising year on year. Nuclear plants are being decommissioned and are expensive to build. We need to invest in ALL renewables including wind for energy security. Montgomeryshire has it's part to play. The county times needs larger boxes for comments too!

  33. Posted by: tyfelin at 13:27 on 28 May 2011 Report

    Having watched Glyn Davies MP being interviewed on television outside the Senedd I’m sure the wind was too strong for any of the attended mass to hear his statement that some more (wind farms) will go ahead in Mid Wales. Do I suspect a repositioning on this matter? Glad to hear it Glyn.

  34. Posted by: Archbishop at 13:34 on 28 May 2011 Report

    The fact is that there are some farms currently in the planning process that, even is TAN8 is reviewed/scrapped/whatever have gone so far down the planning process that they will probably go ahead anyway. This is just a realistic view. These are sufficient to also mean that some portion of the new lines/etc will also be required. The issue is one of scale, Glyn I suspect is resigned to some wind development, it is the huge plans for the future that must be opposed.

  35. Posted by: Archbishop at 13:35 on 28 May 2011 Report

    And yes, 500 characters is not enough !

  36. Posted by: ioanjones at 15:56 on 28 May 2011 Report

    You can store wind energy in hydro pumped storage dams as the Spanish are doing along with their wind energy program. An example in Wales at Dinorwic. All our electric here in Mid Wales has come on pylons through Shropshire ,how self-centered are we?

  37. Posted by: ioanjones at 17:56 on 28 May 2011 Report

    Something for the anti wind anti pylon comarades , have you read this "UK to fund Chernobyl safety programme" This is the real cost of objecting to on shore wind energy. Better fund our own wind program that does not have devastating consequences when things go wrong than plough money into a bottomless pit! P.S the wind turbines survived the tsunami in Japan and are working fine. If I was a terrosist of which I am not, the nuclear plants are the best targets to bring a country to its knees.

  38. Posted by: archbishop at 21:23 on 28 May 2011 Report

    Again we have the argument that it's either onshore wind or nuclear. No. There are many other options.

  39. Posted by: tyfelin at 21:29 on 28 May 2011 Report

    Archbishop would you recognise these words as one of your leading supporters; “the people of Wales are thinking clearly about the future of the planet and I am proud to be one of them. With the most powerful wind farm in the UK opening today, Wales is already making a significant contribution to providing the UK with a safe, efficient source of renewable energy." I guess now Sian Lloyd lives in Montgomeryshire planet Earth’s needs aren’t as important as her view.

  40. Posted by: ioanjones at 22:43 on 28 May 2011 Report

    Archbishop, it would seem appropriate to pick the apples from the lower branches first. As Archbishop you should be encouraging your flock to worship the ONE who made the hills, and not the hills. Wind is free it just needs the ingenuity of mankind to put it to use.

  41. Posted by: Archbishop at 22:50 on 28 May 2011 Report

    For what it's worth, my passion is for micro generation, small domestic or local community projects, perhaps with energy storage via hydrogen generation - for example generate hydrogen during the day via solar to use in the evening via fuel cells, ground source heat, heating via wood burners, etc. No wires, no large scale environmental impact.

  42. Posted by: sam.. at 19:33 on 29 May 2011 Report

    I've been looking into 3rd generation nuclear. The UK are looking to build new reactors... At a cost of £5 billion each. Up to ten are planned - Thats a bargain of £50billion. They can take the best part of a decade to build. The same design the UK will be using is already three years behind schedule and £2bn over budget in Finland.!

  43. Posted by: sam.. at 19:33 on 29 May 2011 Report

    Then add on the £80bn to decommission the old nuclear plants that have come to the end of their working lives. Thats £80bn and rising. This doesn't factor for the cost of nuclear waste disposal. We'll be paying for all this through our utility bills. And in another 40 years time we'll have to pay for it all again!

  44. Posted by: sam.. at 19:34 on 29 May 2011 Report

    With this in mind, Nuclear will only contribute 20 - 25% of our energy needs. Fossil fuels are running out, we need alternatives. Existing wind farms in wales already contribute 13% of our energy needs in Wales(as of 2010) ACT NOW AND TELL GLYN, RUSS, LEMBIT, ALEX AND THE EDITORS OF THE COUNTY TIMES TO WAKE UP TO AN ENERGY CRISIS! we must embrace ALL renewables and Montgomeryshire has it's part to play with wind turbines and the associated infrastructure. (which can be placed underground)

  45. Posted by: Archbishop at 20:30 on 29 May 2011 Report

    I agree with Sam - we need to be pushing ahead on all renewables, but all I ever hear about is wind - we need to be pushing tidal,hydro (surely with all our dams & lakes we could do something there), solar, biomass and especially small scale micro projects. But all I ever hear about is wind, we need to be putting the same effort, nay more, into other sources. But I still say wind can only be a bit player.

  46. Posted by: ioanjones at 20:39 on 29 May 2011 Report

    Sam, you should write what you said in a letter to the County Times. It would be interesting to see if they will publish it ,as they are so biased. I have written letters in the past and they will not publish them! They only publish what they want to propagate.

  47. Posted by: archbishop at 21:30 on 29 May 2011 Report

    For me the campaign is not anti green. But it is anti wind. That's thd way I feel about it anyway. I think that by pushing wind as hard as we have we have missed an opportunity. It is now time to focus our efforts elswhere.

  48. Posted by: sam.. at 11:21 on 30 May 2011 Report

    IJ. What good is it me writing a letter to editor of a newspaper that has tunnel vision and or so called journalists that won't portray the full story or the big picture? That's why I stopped buying the tacky tabloid years ago. I've written to Glyn & Russ via their blogs too on these issues. They don't publish half my postings either. If they want to lead us into energy poverty, then let them carry on. They'll be the first to moan when their lights go out.

  49. Posted by: sam.. at 11:45 on 30 May 2011 Report

    AB, I won't knock your small scale renewable projects, they will be equally important as the larger proposed ones. (wind, solar, hydro etc) We need strong leadership on this hugely important matter. We elected poor weak individuals because they told us what we wanted to hear. Now they need to turn that around and tell us the full facts on what we need to know. Only then will they get my respect.

  50. Posted by: tyfelin at 21:03 on 30 May 2011 Report

    I have a little optimism when I read considered comments like this. This issue is complex - world leaders can’t agree look at what happened in Coppenhagen and Cancun. It’s such a shame our local newspaper has been so bias and put such a negative simplistic view forward. We do need a bigger debate on this which addresses the national and international agenda. Sam you have such good facts which deserve column inches in the paper and not just web space.

  51. Posted by: Archbishop at 12:42 on 31 May 2011 Report

    Went to the Centre for Alternative Technology yesterday. Go there fairly regularly. Thought if anyone could make windfarms sound good, it would be them. They were presenting their 'Zero Carbon Britain 2030' report - a blueprint for the UK to produce zero carbon emissions by 2030. You can download the report as a PDF for free at http://www.zerocarbonbritain.org/. I haven't read it in detail yet but some of the headline figures are interesting.

  52. Posted by: Archbishop at 12:43 on 31 May 2011 Report

    The plan proposes reductions in energy use of about 50%, coupled with a change to renewable energy generation. There are some things I like, such as a drastic reduction in flying (I think flying should be rationed - give people a yearly mileage allowance, if they want to go over than then tax them to hell).

  53. Posted by: Archbishop at 12:43 on 31 May 2011 Report

    Also localism - this morning I've done a 100 mile round trip to Telford hospital (again) with my son, that could be avoided by grouping appointments geographically and bringing the consultant to the patients, rather tha the other way round. As far as wind goes, they propose to increase the onshore wind capacity to 28.5 GW. Also, they propose to create 195 GW of off shore wind capacity.

  54. Posted by: Archbishop at 12:44 on 31 May 2011 Report

    Now this document is a piece of research work, it's not government policy, although the report has been seen by government and apparently it will inform policy. My concern is that it's not credible, particularly the off shore wind proposals.

  55. Posted by: Archbishop at 12:45 on 31 May 2011 Report

    Off shore turbines are 5MW at the moment. So you need 200 to create 1GW, and 39000 to create 195GW. The sheer number is hard enough to imagine, but even harder is how we would do this by 2030. To achieve this, we would have to erect 5-6 a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, for the next 19 years. Plus the on shore ones. I don't think that's very likely to say the least, even if we went like mad, it's just an impossible engineering task. Does the world even produce this many ?

  56. Posted by: Archbishop at 12:46 on 31 May 2011 Report

    To me this is effectively saying 'We can't do this by 2030'. And I think that's exactly what the report should have said. If there's no way with current technology we could be carbon neutral by that date then we should be shouting it loudly. I don't know the answer but there are some very, very clever people out there that might get interested if we point out the fact that there is a problem.

  57. Posted by: Archbishop at 12:46 on 31 May 2011 Report

    There is of course one technology that could produce the vast quantities of carbon free energy that this report requires. Nuclear. And if we don't develop an alternative now, or very soon, that's what we will get.

  58. Posted by: Archbishop at 12:47 on 31 May 2011 Report

    Sorry to have rambled about this but I think this illustrates the problem with wind, it never can or will fill the gap. It is not a bad technology, it produces some energy, it does some good but it will simply never be enough. But whilst we continue to promote it, those at the top making the decisions (not always the sharpest people) are left thinking that there is not a problem, all we have to do is put up a few turbines.

  59. Posted by: Archbishop at 12:47 on 31 May 2011 Report

    We need now to push the development of new technologies now, otherwise it will be 2025 and there will be only one option left, and it will be the one no-one wants.

  60. Posted by: Archbishop at 12:47 on 31 May 2011 Report

    PS, interesting what Germany have announced, will be interesting to see how they get on. PPS, Oxfam today have called for a halt to the use of land to grow energy crops as they predict a doubling in food proces by 2030. The CAT report suggests we take 80% of the land currently used to graze animals in the UK and use it for biofuel crops. Looks like there's room for debate there.

  61. Posted by: sam.. at 13:06 on 31 May 2011 Report

    Tyfelin, I don't see that a credible debate can happen when so many antis suffer from veritaphobia and local press poison the minds of others to create stories that sell papers. Energy security, energy poverty and energy sustainability are real issues. Every home, every town, village and city will have a part to play and a price to pay if we are to have the luxury of cheep electricity in the not so distant future at the touch of a button. cont...

  62. Posted by: sam.. at 13:06 on 31 May 2011 Report

    Millionaires such as Sian Lloyd and Lady Hooson might be able to afford hikes in prices caused by de-pleating fossil fuels, but we will all suffer if nothing is done

  63. Posted by: Archbishop at 14:19 on 31 May 2011 Report

    Controversial suggestion - Nuclear Fusion ?

  64. Posted by: sam.. at 15:42 on 31 May 2011 Report

    AB, you highlight the massive scale of problems we are to face as a human race. There is no single answer but to work together. Nuclear fusion - still in the early stages of development. currently uses more power to create than it makes. This will change tho but we're looking 20 years down the line. energy poverty is happening now, especially affecting the elderly

  65. Posted by: Archbishop at 15:48 on 31 May 2011 Report

    Fuel poverty is a slightly different issue I think, not directly related to the renewable/fossil fuels debate. Energy costs will rise whatever we do, either because of fossil fuel cost increases or the cost of replacing our current infrastructure with new, cleaner alternatives. The government could resolve the poverty problem quickly, this is a political will issue rather than a technical one.

  66. Posted by: sam.. at 15:58 on 31 May 2011 Report

    I still support wind energy as a way to help to assist meet that gap, equally as all renewable projects will have to. With community projects or large scale farms, there will be the need for improved infrastructure. All have negatives, all will require improved infrastructure. all of us will benefit by enjoying cheep electricity at the touch of a button

  67. Posted by: ioanjones at 22:02 on 31 May 2011 Report

    AB, thank you for sharing your comments on micro generation,like you I feel that is very important as well. We heat our house totally from wood,solid fuel stanley cooker and wood stoves. At our previous home I installed 3 solar hot water panels after a visit to CAT and chose the stainless steel ones,they were above expectation in fact commisioning it , I nearly got scalded releasing some trapped air! Sadly we have not got any now as we have not got a suitable south facing roof.

  68. Posted by: ioanjones at 22:04 on 31 May 2011 Report

    A couple in our community have got a wind turbine I think its 6kw it seems to be going most of the time,very impressed. I feel very, very, sad, that you feel the way that you do about large turbines and wind farms, I think that I read some time ago that when you double the diameter of a turbine you get 4 times the power so the larger they are, the more efficient. You quote the time needed to build so many,well if they are double the size we only need 1/4 of them!

  69. Posted by: ioanjones at 22:08 on 31 May 2011 Report

    A couple in our community have got a wind turbine I think its 6kw it seems to be going most of the time,very impressed. I feel very, very, sad, that you feel the way that you do about large turbines and wind farms, I think that I read some time ago that when you double the diameter of a turbine you get 4 times the power so the larger they are, the more efficient. You quote the time needed to build so many,well if they are double the size we only need 1/4 of them!

  70. Posted by: ioanjones at 22:17 on 31 May 2011 Report

    A couple in our community have got a wind turbine I think its 6kw it seems to be going most of the time,very impressed. I feel very, very, sad, that you feel the way that you do about large turbines and wind farms, I think that I read some time ago that when you double the diameter of a turbine you get 4 times the power so the larger they are, the more efficient. You quote the time needed to build so many,well if they are double the size we only need 1/4 of them!

  71. Posted by: ioanjones at 22:21 on 31 May 2011 Report

    A couple in our community have got a wind turbine I think its 6kw it seems to be going most of the time,very impressed. I feel very, very, sad, that you feel the way that you do about large turbines and wind farms, I think that I read some time ago that when you double the diameter of a turbine you get 4 times the power so the larger they are, the more efficient. You quote the time needed to build so many,well if they are double the size we only need 1/4 of them!

  72. Posted by: Archbishop at 09:32 on 01 June 2011 Report

    ioanjones, the numbers I quote aren't mine, they are from CAT - I was discussing the report with one of their people, I didn't know how big offshore turbines were. Apparently 5MW is the size best suited to conditions around our island.

  73. Posted by: Archbishop at 09:35 on 01 June 2011 Report

    Also, the bigger the turbine the less densely you can pack them in, so the energy per square kilometer doesn't really change.

  74. Posted by: Archbishop at 09:43 on 01 June 2011 Report

    I think the report demonstrates that realistically large scale wind is not going to save the day. Even if it worked reliably 100% of the time we just couldn't do it quick enough. I fear if we pursue it to the exclusion of everything else we'll reach a crisis point where the only option will be to resort to nuclear. Some say no wind means nuclear. I say wind means nuclear.

  75. Posted by: ioanjones at 13:31 on 01 June 2011 Report

    AB Not sure if you are correct? To increase the diameter increases the vertical height,obviously you are correct on the horizontal plane, but what about the vertical plane this must give extra cubic capacity? We will never have 100% wind energy anyway,nor 100% nuclear.The nuclear stations situated near rivers in France have to be shut down in hot summers because their cooling waters raise river temperatures to high, so they are not 100% either.

  76. Posted by: Archbishop at 13:48 on 01 June 2011 Report

    The last thing I want is nuclear. We have now a system where we can turn up the power when we need to and turn it down when we can. A small amount of wind is OK in that scenario. We need a renewable source that is controllable in this way. I don't know what that is. But we have clever people in this country that might have some ideas. But as long as wind is put forward as the solution the search for an alternative is starved of attention.

  77. Posted by: Archbishop at 13:50 on 01 June 2011 Report

    An alternative might be some form of large scale energy storage, so we can use 100% of whatever wind does generate, when we need it. Maybe large scale hydrogen production/storage. But even if we had that the sheer number of turbines needed would be huge.

  78. Posted by: Archbishop at 13:53 on 01 June 2011 Report

    I thing in summary we must accept that what we are trying to do, to extract energy from a natural system on the scale we need it without damaging that system is extremly hard. Remember, the 39000 offshore turbines in the CAT report was just for 60% or so of our energy after also cutting energy consumption by half. So that would be 30% of todays level.

  79. Posted by: Archbishop at 13:54 on 01 June 2011 Report

    So we can't even say we could make up the shortfall with effeciencies, that has already been taken into account.

  80. Posted by: Archbishop at 13:57 on 01 June 2011 Report

    We can't rely on government to make the changes required, as it will inevitable involve energy reduction measures such as restricting flying, road charging, etc and that will be unpopular and no government will sacrifice itself until it gets so bad that they have no choice. We need a clean energy source that really works.

  81. Posted by: Archbishop at 15:45 on 01 June 2011 Report

    Have a look at this article from the Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/8545306/Wind-farms-Britain-is-running-out-of-wind.html

  82. Posted by: ioanjones at 22:51 on 01 June 2011 Report

    AB, thank you,I had already read that article.Not sure where Telegraph stands on wind power? My concern is the same as TYFELIN posted 27 May "I fear the anti wind lobby in Mongtomeryshire will drive government support away from renewables and into the hands of NUCLEAR POWER".

  83. Posted by: ioanjones at 22:53 on 01 June 2011 Report

    I think you have put your finger on it regarding storage ,hydrogen sounds very good, pumped dam also,all renewable sources can use these systems as a buffer as Dinorwic uses Nuclear power to refill lake through the small hours.

  84. Posted by: sam.. at 20:05 on 02 June 2011 Report

    AB. Did anyone put the suggestion of storage dams on their NG consultation forms? I have never heard of them before. We needed to know this at the start of the consultations. Surely a better alternative to power lines and underground cables. A 21st century solution for our 21st century energy needs. Are the staff at the county times still spending their days reviewing computer games. They could have easily brought this to all our attention if they had done some work

  85. Posted by: tyfelin at 22:24 on 02 June 2011 Report

    The news confirms yet again the price we pay for relying on oil as a source of our energy needs as it sadly emerges there are casualties from the explosion at the Chevron plant in Pembroke. Of course those who marched in Cardiff won’t worry about this incident as it did not happen in their back yard! I wonder how many fatalities are caused by wind farms?

  86. Posted by: Archbishop at 10:26 on 03 June 2011 Report

    Tyfelin, this is obtuse to say the least, workers are killed & injured in production & construction industries of all kinds. Sad but true. If you wish to eradicate an industry because of such incidents then that's a noble cause but I think you will fail.

  87. Posted by: Archbishop at 10:27 on 03 June 2011 Report

    And it's cheap to say people don't care because it's not in someone's back yard - for all you know someone reading this could be related to one of the victims of this incident.

  88. Posted by: Archbishop at 10:57 on 03 June 2011 Report

    Sam - dam storage - the CAT report I referred to earlier looks at the potential for hydro generation in the UK and concludes (I quote) : "The scope for expansion is extremely limited with most of the accessible sites already in use. Large-scale hydro power can have very disruptive effects on natural habitats and may actually increase greenhouse gas emissions through the release of methane in flooded areas (Fearnside, 2004)....(cont)

  89. Posted by: Archbishop at 10:58 on 03 June 2011 Report

    Potential sites for large hydro development in Britain lie either in national parks or other highly-valued areas and landscapes making their development problematic at best."

  90. Posted by: Archbishop at 11:20 on 03 June 2011 Report

    Now pumped dam storage is a bit different, but I reckon similar issues would remain. Plus I would want to know how much energy you could store, I can't imagine you could run a generation facility for more than a few hours from a single dam. You could also end up with more pylons, taking power from the wind farms to the grid to be used when it can, from the wind farms to the dam to be used for pumping when the grid doesn't need it, and from the dam to the grid for when the dam was generating.

  91. Posted by: Archbishop at 11:21 on 03 June 2011 Report

    I would suggest local storage. Many people round here have LPG tanks. I've got one. I envisage a system whereby power (e.g. excess wind that is currently thrown away) is diverted using smart grid technology to hydrogen generators installed either on a domestic or community scale. These would fill tanks like the LPG tanks people already have. These could also be hooked up to domestic/small community solar and wind systems.

  92. Posted by: Archbishop at 11:22 on 03 June 2011 Report

    The hydrogen generated could be used as & when either via a fuel cell or directly by combustion. The amount of hydrogen storage is limited only by tank size, so you could fill a tank over the summer, perhaps via a domestic solar installation, and use it over the winter.

  93. Posted by: Archbishop at 11:30 on 03 June 2011 Report

    All this would have to be backed up in some way of course, and there may be issues regarding the storage of hydrogen (but is it worse than LPG ?). But it has the advantage that the grid infrastructure required is in place, it can be rolled out gradually, and hopefully over time much energy generation could happen close to the places it was needed. Also as transport moves away from fossils, one alternative could be hydrogen. You could fill your car at home, with hydrogen generated from the sun.

  94. Posted by: Archbishop at 11:31 on 03 June 2011 Report

    Fantasy ? Maybe. But no more so than sticking 39000 turbines out at sea. Over time I think this could provide a genuinely resilient, sustainable system. The ability to store energy will be vital in future as no non-fossil source I can think of (other than nuclear) can be turned on & off at will like current stations can. And I think it would command genuine public support.

  95. Posted by: ioanjones at 23:06 on 03 June 2011 Report

    I think pylons are the least of our problems,the obsession with pylons pale's into insignificance should we have a serious nuclear incident either in the UK or from our French neighbours.

  96. Posted by: ioanjones at 23:09 on 03 June 2011 Report

    Spoke to a lady in Hay-on-wye today whose husbands father worked in Trawsfynydd's Nuclear power plant,he died at 50yrs of age from prostate cancer. The Abermule area has a very high incidence of cancer, could this possibly be due to radioactive rain from Chernobyl??? Our soils perhaps should be the main interest concering our view.

  97. Posted by: Archbishop at 23:17 on 03 June 2011 Report

    ioanjones, you are right, as far as nuclear is concerned you are not safe 100 miles away if one of the things goes belly up. This is why we need to focus on real, viable alternatives, not waste more time clinging to the notion that wind can do he job.

  98. Posted by: tyfelin at 11:44 on 04 June 2011 Report

    Wind is a real, safe and viable option one which we can use now and not in 20 years. I read that a resident in Pembrokeshire had objected to a field of oil seed rape on the grounds of visual impact! It seems that all forms of renewable energy come up against opposition. Understanding our global obligation and energy security needs may help people support these issue - and of course money! People need to feel they are getting local investment - rightly so.

  99. Posted by: ioanjones at 14:25 on 04 June 2011 Report

    Same kind of thing here Tyfelin. http://www.herefordshirejournals.com/2011/02/03/campaigners-anger-as-ban-is-overturned/

  100. Posted by: ioanjones at 20:04 on 04 June 2011 Report

    Quote from Glyn's speech "It would totally destroy the natural beauty of this area and have a serious effect on the tourism industry and property prices" please read this link http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1371793/Japan-nuclear-crisis-Fukushima-plant-entombed-concrete-radiation-leak.html .WIND IS SAFE!

  101. Posted by: Archbishop at 21:30 on 04 June 2011 Report

    We are getting into the wind/nuclear debate again. The fact is that wind will lead to nuclear eventually as we bury our heads and assume we have solved the problem with turbines. We have not. We will wake up one day 15 years hence and realise we need an alternative/backup for all our lovely turbines, and there won't be one, or at least one that doesn't mean we all will end up glowing in the dark if there's a problem.

  102. Posted by: Archbishop at 21:33 on 04 June 2011 Report

    We need to stop messing about with wind and find something that will do the job. Yes wind is safe, etc etc but so is a ferret in a wheel linked to a dynamo, but I wouldn't put my faith in that either. We need to start looking urgently at alternatives now as it will take years to develop.

  103. Posted by: ioanjones at 21:42 on 04 June 2011 Report

    AB Brilliant you have found the answer "ferret in a wheel linked to a dynamo" LOL

  104. Posted by: tyfelin at 22:07 on 04 June 2011 Report

    Maybe if our elected AM and MP put the same energy into finding solutions into our energy needs as they have done to opposing wind farms then ferrets won’t need to be exploited! Thanks Ioan - for those articles nuclear leaves such a terrible legacy.

  105. Posted by: ioanjones at 22:46 on 04 June 2011 Report

    Here's another item on wind power. http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article6910298.ece

  106. Posted by: Archbishop at 09:24 on 05 June 2011 Report

    None of us want nuclear, I think we would all agree on that. But this talk of nuclear is distracting from what this is about, the current plans for Montgomeryshire. Schemes like this are not the way to prevent nuclear. We must think again.

  107. Posted by: ioanjones at 22:10 on 07 June 2011 Report

    By any chance does anybody know who has given Mrs Alison Davies the permission to speak on behalf of Montgomeryshire. Has she been DEMOCRATICALLY elected ?

  108. Posted by: ioanjones at 22:10 on 10 June 2011 Report

    How sad is it when protestors have to engage young children in protests . We complain in the West when we hear of children being exploited in third world countries. Is not this another form of exploitation? I have even heard of children being encouraged to sign petitions against wind-farms/pylons. Is this right. Is this what the Anti-Wind Farm movement is coming to?

  109. Posted by: ioanjones at 00:09 on 11 June 2011 Report

    One of the quotes that the group, Conservation of Upland Powys uses is by English philosopher Edmund Burke who said, ‘The only thing necessary for the triumph [of evil] is for good men to do nothing.’ So from this statement that this group proclaims, it must inevitably mean that the people who want to provide the UK with clean non polluting wind energy are evil, and the protestors are good. WOW, think again!

  110. Posted by: ioanjones at 08:25 on 11 June 2011 Report

    Is it honorable and right when public meetings are called by anti-wind farm groups, to have power point presentations that denigrate Welsh MPs (former and current) that promote wind farms by showing them with duncess caps on their heads and wind turbine blades on top?

  111. Posted by: andymason at 21:09 on 11 June 2011 Report

    Lets get the facts here.Wind turbines/farms are a MONEY MAKING SCAM.Its ROBBING THE POOR TO PAT THE RICH!. We ALL pay for these waste of time & space wind farms through our electrcity bills.An extra £150 a year at the moment & set to rocket.Pensioners will die of hypothermia through fear of having the heating on.Is that what SAM wan ts? An expensive folly costing us £1.5 billion a year! and to boot destroying beautiful Mid Wales, jobs, businesses, toursim etc.Ned I go on! Get real!!

  112. Posted by: andymason at 21:10 on 11 June 2011 Report

    Lets get the facts here.Wind turbines/farms are a MONEY MAKING SCAM.Its ROBBING THE POOR TO PAT THE RICH!. We ALL pay for these waste of time & space wind farms through our electrcity bills.An extra £150 a year at the moment & set to rocket.Pensioners will die of hypothermia through fear of having the heating on.Is that what SAM wan ts? An expensive folly costing us £1.5 billion a year! and to boot destroying beautiful Mid Wales, jobs, businesses, toursim etc.Ned I go on! Get real!!

  113. Posted by: ioanjones at 23:58 on 11 June 2011 Report

    EM check this link http://www.epolitix.com/latestnews/article-detail/newsarticle/uk-to-fund-chernobyl-safety-programme/ .Personally I would rather pay the extra costs for wind farms here than pour money down a bottomless pit in the Ukraine and probably also yet to be announced in Fukshima,but that is the cost of borrowing from tomorrow to have power today.The Atom god will never be satisfied ,like the heroine addict always looking for the next fix.

  114. Posted by: ioanjones at 23:59 on 11 June 2011 Report

    The idea that says tourists are put off by Turbines is laughable, check this link http://www.whiteleewindfarm.co.uk/news/wind_powered_cars_whitelee We need skilled manufacturing jobs in this area for 12 months of the year, not just jobs for a very,very, short fickle Tourist Season. Most people in this area heat there homes from Oil, or Gas, I think Gas is going up the most not Electric.

  115. Posted by: ioanjones at 00:00 on 12 June 2011 Report

    The landscape that we have around us today is not very natural at all, much of it was changed by the enclosure act, hence the hedgerows. The farmers have worked extremely hard in all weathers for very many generations attending to their animals,fences and hedges to give us what we see today. If they can benefit from having turbines on their land what business is that of mine? Today, to many people are minding other peoples business, as it says somewhere you shall not covet another mans goods.

  116. Posted by: ioanjones at 00:01 on 12 June 2011 Report

    If we had invested as a nation in indigenous renewables (not just wind) years ago we would not be in this mess today importing most of our energy including uranium, then the Pensioners would not need to worry about heating costs today. We have a local source of indigenous wind energy here, we are fools if we do not use it.

  117. Posted by: ioanjones at 20:37 on 12 June 2011 Report

    AB re: 12.45 31 May 2011. You seem to have grave doubt about building 39,000 Turbines and say " it would take 7 days a week, 365 days a year, for the next 19 years it's just an impossible engineering task". Well the Chinese are installing 1 every hour !! at this rate it would take 4.16 years. http://energy.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/1969715?UserKey=

  118. Posted by: Archbishop at 09:39 on 13 June 2011 Report

    I have very grave doubt that we could do this. How long do you think the Chinese have stopped to listen to their public ? What sort of consultation has happened ? Have they spent time listening to what their people want ? In the UK you have to spend years in planning before you do anything. No surveys of the sea bed where they plan to put these things have happened. No consultation with shipping. How about where all the cables come ashore, and the substations, pylons, etc for that ?

  119. Posted by: Archbishop at 09:40 on 13 June 2011 Report

    Its not just the physical task of putting them up, it's all the consultation, planning, etc that would be needed first. I suspect the Chinese haven't worried too much about that.

  120. Posted by: Archbishop at 09:46 on 13 June 2011 Report

    ioanjones, the point about tourism - it's probably true that the turbines we have now don't bother people. They don't bother me. But it's all about the scale of these proposals. Surveys that have been done to date are just not relevant. It's like asking someone if they are bothered by the traffic on a country lane, they'd probably say No. But if you then turn that into a motorway the answer may be different.

  121. Posted by: Archbishop at 09:51 on 13 June 2011 Report

    You ask what business it is of yours if a farmer erects a turbine. It's because you are paying for it. In fact not just the turbine, bit for whatever else will be backing it up when the wind doesn't blow. Or paying the farmer when the grid doesn't want the power.

  122. Posted by: Archbishop at 09:52 on 13 June 2011 Report

    There has been plenty of complaints about large cattle & poultry units in the recent past on farms. Is that our business ?

  123. Posted by: Archbishop at 09:54 on 13 June 2011 Report

    But I agree with the comment that we are in this mess because we have not acted years ago. This is why we must stop messing with wind Now and find a Real Alternative - or we Will get nuclear, maybe not now but in 10 years when everyone finally realises we are pH$$ing into the wind with wind.

  124. Posted by: Archbishop at 10:08 on 13 June 2011 Report

    PS - the Chine thing, I suspect this is on shore capacity. They are looking at off shore but the focus is on shore at present. Again, would what is happening here now be allowed in China, or would they just build without the people having a say ? And what when it's not windy - no mention of any backup strategy.

  125. Posted by: sam.. at 22:48 on 20 August 2011 Report

    it has been brought to my attention that wind farms work for 80% of their time which is a better result than some fossil fuel power plants. The NIMBYs, The MP, the AM and the CT should be ashamed for spreading lies stating they only work 19% of the time. Do not believe the lies told by the venomous anti wind farm campaigners. Seek the truth and demand a decent local paper that reports news, not lies.

 

Related Stories

Local vouchers

View all vouchers


Featured Businesses

View all adverts

Resources