Fullabrook
Hector Christie is sitting on the public enquiry speaking in favour of the proposed 66Mgw windfarm at Fullabrook under a rule six. Others at Tapeley are speaking in favour as well. Submission as follows:
Hector Christie’s Case on point 3: Impact on the AONB.
In my Statement of Case part of my statement was as follows:
“It is our contention that whereas the environment in which we live in North Devon is beautiful, it is threatened by our rapidly changing climate. A vital element in the fight to prevent climate change is the need to provide renewable, sustainable energy such as will be provided by the wind farm at Fullabrook Down. Therefore we need to weigh up the need for renewable, sustainable energy against any impact on the AONB. The wind farm will not be sited in the AONB. It will be seen from a distance from some viewpoints in the AONB. Our contention is that this is a relatively small price to pay for the benefits which will be derived from this important source of sustainable, renewable energy and the contribution it will make in the fight against climate change which in the long term will safeguard the countryside.”
I respect the objective comments made by the District Council. They have looked at the practical implications of implementing the scheme weighing up the potential benefits against the local impact and how the potential problems could be overcome or not. However, my experience of dealing with those opposed to turbines whether it be via debate, discussion or written correspondence seem to centre around the aesthetics – they simply don’t like the look of them, and their other arguments largely originate from this and are there to add weight to this one overriding factor.
I wrote in my Statement of Case that the look of these turbines “is a relatively small price to pay for the benefits which will be derived . . . .” However, the 76% (see appendix for info source) of people in North Devon who are quietly pro-wind turbines (the national figure is 80%) would certainly see the sporadic conglomerate of turbines, with all the benefits they give, as aesthetically pleasing. Certainly everybody I speak to who’s been to Cornwall finds the turbines there either beautiful or inoffensive. It’s not as if the whole countryside is being carpeted with turbines and nor would we wish for that.
We ALL agree that far more emphasis needs to be given to energy saving and microgenereation. Indeed the UK has just been declared the worst in Europe with regard to energy saving. However, it is impossible for every house in villages, towns and cities to have small turbines and solar panels. We all agree that we have to act fast if we are to reduce CO2 emissions by 90% in developed countries by 2030 according to George Monbiot plus eminent scientists if we’re not to pass the point of no return and the world basically cooks. Even Blair has just said that we have to do something very significant within the next 10 to 15 years or else – and coming from him that’s saying something.
I’ve always said to the ‘antis’ that if they show me a positive, effective, quick to implement alternative I’ll join with them. However, many people I speak with in the know say that effective tidal and wave (which we’d all like to see) and new nuclear power stations are at least 15 years away. Wind turbines can be erected in 6 months and last between 20 to 30 years, have a carbon pay back of between 3 to 10 months (according to the Sustainable Development Commission – SDC), and are easily de-commissioned, especially compared to nuclear power stations.
There is a patch of concrete left by each turbine that is de-commissioned (which can always be used as a cost effective base for a new turbine), plus a track across a field which many farmers find useful. The environmental impact of this compared to the de-commissioning of a crop of nuclear power stations is less than negligible. De-commissioning costs for the current crop of nuclear power plants (exclusive of the estimated £70bn to thoroughly clear up the toxic waste left by the explosion at Dounreay in 1977)is rising towards £90bn – equivalent to £30.00 of tax for every one of us in the UK per week for a whole year. Pit the 10,000 tons of medium to high-level nuclear waste sitting above ground currently, the explosions (Chernobyl) and leaks (such as those at Brookhaven National Laboratories and at Sellafield last year), terrorism and the fact insurance companies will only insure up to the first £140 million – after which it’s down to the taxpayer, plus the increasingly depleted resource (and thus escalating cost) of uranium oxide, and surely we should be rushing to do as much in the way of renewable energy as possible?
With regard to the environment and our own AONB, turbines are currently the best and safest alternative currently on the market – plus they can easily be de-commissioned when something better comes along. On cost, a quote from the Government’s own advisory body, the Performance and Innovations Unit, has calculated that “the cost of electricity in the UK in 2020 is likely to be about 1.5pper kwh from on-land wind; 2p to 3p from offshore wind;2p to 2.3p from gas; 3p to 3.5p from coal; and 3p to 4p from nuclear power. I am aware that the nuclear industry is saying that the AP 1000 series reactor will be cheaper than that, as the Hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) pointed out. However, he also made the key point that no prototype has yet been built to prove the assumption. We simply do not know whether it will be the case. We can be certain, however, that the cost of nuclear – generated electricity will be significantly higher as should be the case if we are to have a level playing field- the cost of de-commissioning the nuclear plant and the waste management is to be factored into the price. That is the crucial consideration.” Quote from Michael Meacher MP speaking on Civil Nuclear Power in the Commons on 17.1.06.
“Turbines are ineffective” is another point constantly raised by those opposed to them (though why would companies spend millions building them if this was the case). The Sustainable Development Commission (SDC), an independent watchdog on sustainable development funded by DEFRA, the DTI, and WWF amongst others, whose job it is to study and report on the pros AND CONS of different forms of sustainable energy, has produced a comprehensive study of wind. On page 22 it shows a graph depicting typical demand variation over a 24 hour day in winter on the horizontal line with the corresponding output, in gigawatts, of the various energy sources on the vertical. Nuclear output remained constant, however output of gas and coal (especially) varied quite dramatically so as to meet the peaks and troughs of demand throughout the day. Wind turbines may only operate at between 27 and 35% of maximum capacity (though on average turbines are moving, generating something, 85% of the time – and are actually 97% fuel efficient, in the amount of energy that can be extracted from the wind). However, put this with the statistics in the paragraph above, and whether you can close coal and gas power stations or not, its not, surely, rocket science to see how the output (and hence CO2 emissions) from coal and gas power stations could be dramatically reduced if we had a healthy number of wind turbines. The fact that weather men can predict wind accurately these days, gives a very good indication when to crank up power stations or when to wind them down.
In the small SDC booklet ‘Your Questions answered’, it states that, “wind power reduces greenhouse gas emissions by gradually displacing coal-fired and other conventional power generation. National Grid Company has estimated that 8000mw of wind power might displace about 3000mw of conventional plants.” This is not super efficient by modern standards but bear in mind that wind is the closest thing we have to so called Free Energy. Also, the grid is already designed to cope with large fluctuations in supply and demand.
The reason I have for mentioning these facts with regard to the impact on our AONB, is that once the waves are lapping around the homes in low lying areas both inside and outside the AONB, it will be too late. We must act now and, I believe, not just in an insular manner with regard to meeting our local targets in North Devon. Being in a windy area with regard to most of the country, we surely have a duty to everybody else and the planet as a whole and as such, I believe, ought to be taking the bigger picture into consideration.
I am not saying that wind is the only answer, far from it, and would welcome joining with the vociferous minority to lobby the Government to pour far more funds into wave and tidal energy especially. However, it is the best alternative we have at the moment and I’m sorry to those who don’t like the look of them.
One last point: I do think the Council should offer all those within a certain radius of a turbine (such as 1km), a 25% reduction of their electricity bill – (a) for effectively utilising 100% renewable, carbon neutral energy; and (b) as a goodwill gesture should some of those living nearby not like the look of them. It might also help reassure them that their house price might not be affected. Indeed a survey by Gamesa Energy UK on the long-term effect on house prices (OK so Gamesa make turbines, but they did use 2 independent companies to do their survey) in a part of Wales, showed house prices near to a wind farm actually rose more between 2002 and 2005 compared to other houses elsewhere in Wales away from wind turbines. Bear in mind 80% of people do not object to turbines anyway. I have always said I’d love a 2 megawatt turbine in the field outside my bedroom window, knowing this would help reduce the burning of a small amount of fossil fuel. In the current climate, is it not time to look beyond the CO1, CO3,4,5,and 12, and ENV2, 5,6, and 15’s of our current planning policies to the bigger picture?
Appendix
1. Attitudes to renewable energy in Devon.“76% of people support wind power” – source of information from a survey by the Mori Poll published in 2004 titled: ‘To what extent do you support or oppose the use of wind power in Devon.’
2. Request to call upon an expert witness who has studied the impact on birds.