Fifty five per cent of Killington residents support windfarm proposal, according to survey

First published in News The Westmorland Gazette: Photograph of the Author by , Senior Reporter

MORE than half of residents in a South Lakeland community where developers want to build a windfarm support the idea, a survey has suggested.

 Banks Renewables’ plan for three turbines between the M6 and A684 have the backing of 55 per cent of locals, according to a poll at the Killington Parish Meeting.

In the vote – set up to assess the feelings of everyone on the local electoral roll – 36 per cent said they were against it and the rest (nine per cent) were still to make up their minds.

South Lakeland District Council is due to decide whether to grant planning consent in the next few months.

If successful, Banks has promised to deliver a ‘community benefits fund’ to the area worth around £675,000 over 25 years to pay for projects like faster broadband and better fuel efficiency.

Resident Andy Newbold, one of those supporting the green energy scheme, said: “Building the windfarm would mean we’re doing our bit towards producing the energy that is used by every-one in the area, which is something I think is important, and it would also bring a great deal of local material gain through the fund.”

But campaign groups inc-luding STAK (Stop Turbines at Killington) are opposed to the development, claiming it would blight the landscape and not produce enough electricity. The company says construction of the Killington windfarm would create work for up to 50 people with £4m of contracts available for local firms.

Related links

Phil Dyke, development director for Banks Renewables, said: “We’ve had a lot of support for our proposals over the last nine months from local people who have recognised the wide range of benefits the windfarm would bring to the area. It’s pleasing to see this officially reflected in the Killington vote.

“Our hope is that South Lakeland District Council’s planning committee will give due weight to the views of people in the parish that is closest to the scheme in their deliberations – and we look forward to receiving their judgement.”

Comments (33)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:51pm Wed 6 Feb 13

KarenSTEMM says...

Sorry, few people have ANY faith in 'surveys' produced by the very people who are putting forward wind 'energy' schemes. What questions were put to people? Usually they are leading questions which violate the survey's supposed objectivity. And, since when were financial 'bribes' permitted to be part of the planning process? 'If successful, Banks has promised to deliver a ‘community benefits fund’ to the area worth around £675,000 over 25 years .....' The only thing these turbines will 'produce' are tens of thousands of pounds a year in subsidies to the wind energy company with significant sums for landowners, too. Meanwhile the area will be desecrated by this form of industrialisation with the possibility of falling visitor numbers, a drop in house values or unsaleability, noise etc. Those so-called 'jobs' need checking out, too, as they haven't delivered in other parts of the UK.
Sorry, few people have ANY faith in 'surveys' produced by the very people who are putting forward wind 'energy' schemes. What questions were put to people? Usually they are leading questions which violate the survey's supposed objectivity. And, since when were financial 'bribes' permitted to be part of the planning process? 'If successful, Banks has promised to deliver a ‘community benefits fund’ to the area worth around £675,000 over 25 years .....' The only thing these turbines will 'produce' are tens of thousands of pounds a year in subsidies to the wind energy company with significant sums for landowners, too. Meanwhile the area will be desecrated by this form of industrialisation with the possibility of falling visitor numbers, a drop in house values or unsaleability, noise etc. Those so-called 'jobs' need checking out, too, as they haven't delivered in other parts of the UK. KarenSTEMM
  • Score: 0

7:50pm Wed 6 Feb 13

onelocal says...

£675,000 over 25 years. That's £27,000 per year at current value. With inflation, after 25 years this will be worth less than half in the latter years. If the village of Killington want to sell their view, their health, then good luck. The noise and vibration will mean those living close by will have no peace. Banks will make millions from the subsidies and the price of electricity. Sounds like 30 pieces of silver, but worth much less.
£675,000 over 25 years. That's £27,000 per year at current value. With inflation, after 25 years this will be worth less than half in the latter years. If the village of Killington want to sell their view, their health, then good luck. The noise and vibration will mean those living close by will have no peace. Banks will make millions from the subsidies and the price of electricity. Sounds like 30 pieces of silver, but worth much less. onelocal
  • Score: 0

9:01pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Mary Young says...

Readers might like to see this article, relating to another Banks' proposal and this extract, in particular.
"EVAG would like Banks to state, for the benefit of local communities, the anticipated output figures. These are particularly relevant when taking into account the comments from Banks that potential community benefit figures would be based on a percentage of gross revenue. It is also relevant in light of the average on-shore turbine output being 25 per cent of capacity.
“In addition, EVAG wants the community to be made aware of what constraints are on the actual community benefit figure – wind yield, electricity prices, Renewable Obligation Certificate subsidy rates, administration fees, for instance.
http://www.stirlingo
bserver.co.uk/2012/0
4/13/campaigners-dis
miss-claims-of-windf
arm-developer-51226-
30747204
Readers might like to see this article, relating to another Banks' proposal and this extract, in particular. "EVAG would like Banks to state, for the benefit of local communities, the anticipated output figures. These are particularly relevant when taking into account the comments from Banks that potential community benefit figures would be based on a percentage of gross revenue. It is also relevant in light of the average on-shore turbine output being 25 per cent of capacity. “In addition, EVAG wants the community to be made aware of what constraints are on the actual community benefit figure – wind yield, electricity prices, Renewable Obligation Certificate subsidy rates, administration fees, for instance. http://www.stirlingo bserver.co.uk/2012/0 4/13/campaigners-dis miss-claims-of-windf arm-developer-51226- 30747204 Mary Young
  • Score: 0

11:04pm Wed 6 Feb 13

Ivor Ward says...

So let us put this amazing generosity from Banks renewables into context. £675,000 over 25 years. Wow..But wait...Three large turbines will recieve about £225,000 EACH, PER YEAR, in ROC subsidies. That is £5,625.000 per turbine for the 25 years or SIXTEEN MILLION POUNDS in all, plus the odd £875,000 left over but that is pocket money.
They will also get about £150,000 per turbine per year for the electricity they produce. That is £3,750,000 per turbine for the 25 years or ELEVEN MILLION POUNDS for all three plus another £250 thou in small change. A grand total of £28,125,000.
Yes,that's right TWENTY EIGHT MILLION POUNDS for 3 Turbines over 25 years. Here is the first killer: That £28 million is inflation proofed. So what are they offering? £675,000 over 25 years with no mention of inflation. That is less than the small change from the Renewable Obligation Certificates. Generous eh? Here is the second killer:
Who is paying for this? Not Banks; Not the Government...YOU ARE, on every electricity bill you pay and every pound in tax.
Will these wind follies save the world? Ask the Chinese. They are burning 46% of the worlds coal and increasing year on year emissions by more than our TOTAL output. Will they provide jobs? Only for the eight weeks of construction. After that the only job is the guy who goes around picking up the bird carcases before the school kids find them. All the maintenance is done by manufacturers technicians flying in from abroad.
If You want to, vote for the wind follies but take a look at who really gains from wind factories in the real world before you do.
So let us put this amazing generosity from Banks renewables into context. £675,000 over 25 years. Wow..But wait...Three large turbines will recieve about £225,000 EACH, PER YEAR, in ROC subsidies. That is £5,625.000 per turbine for the 25 years or SIXTEEN MILLION POUNDS in all, plus the odd £875,000 left over but that is pocket money. They will also get about £150,000 per turbine per year for the electricity they produce. That is £3,750,000 per turbine for the 25 years or ELEVEN MILLION POUNDS for all three plus another £250 thou in small change. A grand total of £28,125,000. Yes,that's right TWENTY EIGHT MILLION POUNDS for 3 Turbines over 25 years. Here is the first killer: That £28 million is inflation proofed. So what are they offering? £675,000 over 25 years with no mention of inflation. That is less than the small change from the Renewable Obligation Certificates. Generous eh? Here is the second killer: Who is paying for this? Not Banks; Not the Government...YOU ARE, on every electricity bill you pay and every pound in tax. Will these wind follies save the world? Ask the Chinese. They are burning 46% of the worlds coal and increasing year on year emissions by more than our TOTAL output. Will they provide jobs? Only for the eight weeks of construction. After that the only job is the guy who goes around picking up the bird carcases before the school kids find them. All the maintenance is done by manufacturers technicians flying in from abroad. If You want to, vote for the wind follies but take a look at who really gains from wind factories in the real world before you do. Ivor Ward
  • Score: 0

11:21pm Wed 6 Feb 13

I know nothing says...

Ivor Ward wrote:
So let us put this amazing generosity from Banks renewables into context. £675,000 over 25 years. Wow..But wait...Three large turbines will recieve about £225,000 EACH, PER YEAR, in ROC subsidies. That is £5,625.000 per turbine for the 25 years or SIXTEEN MILLION POUNDS in all, plus the odd £875,000 left over but that is pocket money.
They will also get about £150,000 per turbine per year for the electricity they produce. That is £3,750,000 per turbine for the 25 years or ELEVEN MILLION POUNDS for all three plus another £250 thou in small change. A grand total of £28,125,000.
Yes,that's right TWENTY EIGHT MILLION POUNDS for 3 Turbines over 25 years. Here is the first killer: That £28 million is inflation proofed. So what are they offering? £675,000 over 25 years with no mention of inflation. That is less than the small change from the Renewable Obligation Certificates. Generous eh? Here is the second killer:
Who is paying for this? Not Banks; Not the Government...YOU ARE, on every electricity bill you pay and every pound in tax.
Will these wind follies save the world? Ask the Chinese. They are burning 46% of the worlds coal and increasing year on year emissions by more than our TOTAL output. Will they provide jobs? Only for the eight weeks of construction. After that the only job is the guy who goes around picking up the bird carcases before the school kids find them. All the maintenance is done by manufacturers technicians flying in from abroad.
If You want to, vote for the wind follies but take a look at who really gains from wind factories in the real world before you do.
Can you send this in to the letters page?

It's the best information that I've read on windfarms.
[quote][p][bold]Ivor Ward[/bold] wrote: So let us put this amazing generosity from Banks renewables into context. £675,000 over 25 years. Wow..But wait...Three large turbines will recieve about £225,000 EACH, PER YEAR, in ROC subsidies. That is £5,625.000 per turbine for the 25 years or SIXTEEN MILLION POUNDS in all, plus the odd £875,000 left over but that is pocket money. They will also get about £150,000 per turbine per year for the electricity they produce. That is £3,750,000 per turbine for the 25 years or ELEVEN MILLION POUNDS for all three plus another £250 thou in small change. A grand total of £28,125,000. Yes,that's right TWENTY EIGHT MILLION POUNDS for 3 Turbines over 25 years. Here is the first killer: That £28 million is inflation proofed. So what are they offering? £675,000 over 25 years with no mention of inflation. That is less than the small change from the Renewable Obligation Certificates. Generous eh? Here is the second killer: Who is paying for this? Not Banks; Not the Government...YOU ARE, on every electricity bill you pay and every pound in tax. Will these wind follies save the world? Ask the Chinese. They are burning 46% of the worlds coal and increasing year on year emissions by more than our TOTAL output. Will they provide jobs? Only for the eight weeks of construction. After that the only job is the guy who goes around picking up the bird carcases before the school kids find them. All the maintenance is done by manufacturers technicians flying in from abroad. If You want to, vote for the wind follies but take a look at who really gains from wind factories in the real world before you do.[/p][/quote]Can you send this in to the letters page? It's the best information that I've read on windfarms. I know nothing
  • Score: 0

6:20am Thu 7 Feb 13

searcher21c says...

This is a reprint of the same piece that appeared last week only now without the comment I added at that time. Not sure what is going on with the Gazette. I say again, it would be useful to know what percentage of "Killington residents" were at this meeting and, in particular, how many of them will have these turbines in full view of the properties they live in. Those who do will face huge hits on the values of their properties. Banks will not compensate for that and it is still wrong that government has not legislated to make them do so, given the obscene profit levels they get for these things. As well as the figures Mr Ward has mentioned above, don't forget that the landowners also get something like £25000 per year for each turbine, probably more for machines of the size proposed here. And surprise, surprise, landowners' own homes are rarely affected because they usually live elsewhere.
This is a reprint of the same piece that appeared last week only now without the comment I added at that time. Not sure what is going on with the Gazette. I say again, it would be useful to know what percentage of "Killington residents" were at this meeting and, in particular, how many of them will have these turbines in full view of the properties they live in. Those who do will face huge hits on the values of their properties. Banks will not compensate for that and it is still wrong that government has not legislated to make them do so, given the obscene profit levels they get for these things. As well as the figures Mr Ward has mentioned above, don't forget that the landowners also get something like £25000 per year for each turbine, probably more for machines of the size proposed here. And surprise, surprise, landowners' own homes are rarely affected because they usually live elsewhere. searcher21c
  • Score: 0

10:20am Thu 7 Feb 13

Kendmoor says...

might as well just repost what I wrote earlier as it still stands:

"I just don't know! arguing about how much things cost, just seems to trivial in comparison to getting a form of energy back that doesn't effect the environment in a negative manner..

I mean I *know* its alarmist, and *rather* over the top, but in a way its like complaining about the money its costing to send a mission up to destroy an incoming astoroid that will kill off mankind.. (i'm cringing just saying that!) but what I mean is that it just seems very material of people.
Almost like the logics of clean energy are being overtaken by the "logics" of root of all evil..

If its such a cash cow - for heavens sake get in on it and stop whinging on a forum about other people making money ;)"

There isn't alot you can do about other countries. Wind farms aren't to save the world in it's entirety; but more to help reduce our reliance on other more enviromentally invasive methods..

refreshing to hear someone use a money argument instead of the usual "can't stand the sight of them", at least the money argument holds water!
might as well just repost what I wrote earlier as it still stands: "I just don't know! arguing about how much things cost, just seems to trivial in comparison to getting a form of energy back that doesn't effect the environment in a negative manner.. I mean I *know* its alarmist, and *rather* over the top, but in a way its like complaining about the money its costing to send a mission up to destroy an incoming astoroid that will kill off mankind.. (i'm cringing just saying that!) but what I mean is that it just seems very material of people. Almost like the logics of clean energy are being overtaken by the "logics" of root of all evil.. If its such a cash cow - for heavens sake get in on it and stop whinging on a forum about other people making money ;)" There isn't alot you can do about other countries. Wind farms aren't to save the world in it's entirety; but more to help reduce our reliance on other more enviromentally invasive methods.. refreshing to hear someone use a money argument instead of the usual "can't stand the sight of them", at least the money argument holds water! Kendmoor
  • Score: 0

3:43pm Thu 7 Feb 13

Kendal Jock says...

Pro-windfarm people have their heads in
the clouds. It is costing the taxpayer a fortune. Tho' I'm retired on a piddling pension, I still have to pay tax on a very
small income, which leaves me very little
to pay my fuel bills. One BIG scam!
Pro-windfarm people have their heads in the clouds. It is costing the taxpayer a fortune. Tho' I'm retired on a piddling pension, I still have to pay tax on a very small income, which leaves me very little to pay my fuel bills. One BIG scam! Kendal Jock
  • Score: 0

5:44pm Thu 7 Feb 13

Kendmoor says...

that's not forgetting those pro-windfarm people are also taxpayers too of course ;)
that's not forgetting those pro-windfarm people are also taxpayers too of course ;) Kendmoor
  • Score: 0

9:48pm Thu 7 Feb 13

Digby1958 says...

'The noise and vibration will mean those living close by will have no peace'.

Have any of the above people visited the site of these proposed new turbines?! Nobody lives closeby! Certainly not the residents of Killington.
'The noise and vibration will mean those living close by will have no peace'. Have any of the above people visited the site of these proposed new turbines?! Nobody lives closeby! Certainly not the residents of Killington. Digby1958
  • Score: 0

11:50pm Thu 7 Feb 13

Lakeuk says...

Indeed Didgy, looking at the map they are by the M6, the nearest building being the motorway services 600m+ away
Indeed Didgy, looking at the map they are by the M6, the nearest building being the motorway services 600m+ away Lakeuk
  • Score: 0

8:54pm Fri 8 Feb 13

fourcandles says...

Never mind the locals who are evidently being buttered up, don’t care about their beautiful surroundings and mostly aren’t affected anyway.

What about those of us who actually enjoy the area but are having it spoilt with a succession of monstrous turbines?

I love to walk and cycle in the area but this is one wind farm too many.

Even walking on the Helm now isn’t the same when looking at one of my favourite views across Old Hutton valley and seeing the huge new Armistead turbines gleaming bright white across the whole area. You can also see the Lambrigg turbines and will no doubt be able to see these proposed Killington turbines. Before long the whole ridge from Lambrigg to Farleton will be covered and views spoilt forever.

A third wind farm proposed within such a small picturesque area is just ridiculous. One wind farm maybe. Three no.
Never mind the locals who are evidently being buttered up, don’t care about their beautiful surroundings and mostly aren’t affected anyway. What about those of us who actually enjoy the area but are having it spoilt with a succession of monstrous turbines? I love to walk and cycle in the area but this is one wind farm too many. Even walking on the Helm now isn’t the same when looking at one of my favourite views across Old Hutton valley and seeing the huge new Armistead turbines gleaming bright white across the whole area. You can also see the Lambrigg turbines and will no doubt be able to see these proposed Killington turbines. Before long the whole ridge from Lambrigg to Farleton will be covered and views spoilt forever. A third wind farm proposed within such a small picturesque area is just ridiculous. One wind farm maybe. Three no. fourcandles
  • Score: 0

11:35am Sat 9 Feb 13

JimTraficantforPresident says...

Would all you well meaning people who support these monstrosities please check out the following website on a regular basis:

http://www.gridwatch
.templar.co.uk/

It is a record of the electricity demand and production in the UK. As I type this the current demand is 43.80 gigawatt. The amount produced by wind is just 0.29 gigawatt.
In other words totally useless.
Would all you well meaning people who support these monstrosities please check out the following website on a regular basis: http://www.gridwatch .templar.co.uk/ It is a record of the electricity demand and production in the UK. As I type this the current demand is 43.80 gigawatt. The amount produced by wind is just 0.29 gigawatt. In other words totally useless. JimTraficantforPresident
  • Score: 0

9:15pm Sat 9 Feb 13

Yarbles says...

Kendmoor wrote:
might as well just repost what I wrote earlier as it still stands:

"I just don't know! arguing about how much things cost, just seems to trivial in comparison to getting a form of energy back that doesn't effect the environment in a negative manner..

I mean I *know* its alarmist, and *rather* over the top, but in a way its like complaining about the money its costing to send a mission up to destroy an incoming astoroid that will kill off mankind.. (i'm cringing just saying that!) but what I mean is that it just seems very material of people.
Almost like the logics of clean energy are being overtaken by the "logics" of root of all evil..

If its such a cash cow - for heavens sake get in on it and stop whinging on a forum about other people making money ;)"

There isn't alot you can do about other countries. Wind farms aren't to save the world in it's entirety; but more to help reduce our reliance on other more enviromentally invasive methods..

refreshing to hear someone use a money argument instead of the usual "can't stand the sight of them", at least the money argument holds water!
Wind turbines do affect the environment. You need to look into the energy system and how they operate within it.

Firstly, these machines require back up. Backup is required for variation in demand in any case, however it is also required for variation in supply as results from use of wind power. This backup is additional over the existing and the CO2 emissions should be directly attributable to wind energy.

Secondly, load balancing results in lower efficiency of other plant, usually CCGT. This results in more CO2/kwh and this should be directly attributed to wind energy.

Thirdly, embodied energy. All materials have a CO2 cost. Wind turbines are additional plant on the electricity network. They can not replace any other generating plant. Moreover they require more infrastructure, support and increase maintenance on thermal plant.

You need to take a good look at the industry to understand how it operates as you seem to have v limited understanding.

I am not against people making money unless it is at the expense of others. Wind turbines screw the tax payer, the bill payer but worst of all the communities they are put up in. 675k may seem a lot to an individual but it isn't over 25 years. Put that into context against the profits Banks will make and it makes the blood boil.
[quote][p][bold]Kendmoor[/bold] wrote: might as well just repost what I wrote earlier as it still stands: "I just don't know! arguing about how much things cost, just seems to trivial in comparison to getting a form of energy back that doesn't effect the environment in a negative manner.. I mean I *know* its alarmist, and *rather* over the top, but in a way its like complaining about the money its costing to send a mission up to destroy an incoming astoroid that will kill off mankind.. (i'm cringing just saying that!) but what I mean is that it just seems very material of people. Almost like the logics of clean energy are being overtaken by the "logics" of root of all evil.. If its such a cash cow - for heavens sake get in on it and stop whinging on a forum about other people making money ;)" There isn't alot you can do about other countries. Wind farms aren't to save the world in it's entirety; but more to help reduce our reliance on other more enviromentally invasive methods.. refreshing to hear someone use a money argument instead of the usual "can't stand the sight of them", at least the money argument holds water![/p][/quote]Wind turbines do affect the environment. You need to look into the energy system and how they operate within it. Firstly, these machines require back up. Backup is required for variation in demand in any case, however it is also required for variation in supply as results from use of wind power. This backup is additional over the existing and the CO2 emissions should be directly attributable to wind energy. Secondly, load balancing results in lower efficiency of other plant, usually CCGT. This results in more CO2/kwh and this should be directly attributed to wind energy. Thirdly, embodied energy. All materials have a CO2 cost. Wind turbines are additional plant on the electricity network. They can not replace any other generating plant. Moreover they require more infrastructure, support and increase maintenance on thermal plant. You need to take a good look at the industry to understand how it operates as you seem to have v limited understanding. I am not against people making money unless it is at the expense of others. Wind turbines screw the tax payer, the bill payer but worst of all the communities they are put up in. 675k may seem a lot to an individual but it isn't over 25 years. Put that into context against the profits Banks will make and it makes the blood boil. Yarbles
  • Score: 0

10:47pm Sat 9 Feb 13

Kendmoor says...

Going to have to disagree with you there, although I'll freely admit my knowledge on the subject is purely from skimming over information that is provided on the internet and nothing more (i'll add to that, that I refuse to look at "green" sites or the "anti" sites, nothing makes me feel more nauseated than the biased drivel that oozes from both sides of the argument which is directly reflected in the sites). I think dubiouslty slapping the emissions from "backup" sources right onto windpower is reaching a little - assuming the backup is what would be being used up if the turbine wasn't there in the first place. Load balancing from what I read I can understand would be an issue..but clearly it isn't *that* much of an issue the turbine isn't pointless in the first place. As far as your third point goes, again, from what I'm reading the embodied energy is neglegable in comparision to the c02 that would be saved by having the machine in the first place.

I think the biggest problem we're going to have with this conversation is that it isn't truely something I care about..(much in the same way I don't spend my evenings tossing and turning over how much is being spent keeping the london underground active) I can see a windfarm from here, it's not ruining my community...other than the ones of course who don't like the look of them. My energy bills are quite reasonable and there are certainly worse things as a tax payer I feel I'm screwed over for..
Going to have to disagree with you there, although I'll freely admit my knowledge on the subject is purely from skimming over information that is provided on the internet and nothing more (i'll add to that, that I refuse to look at "green" sites or the "anti" sites, nothing makes me feel more nauseated than the biased drivel that oozes from both sides of the argument which is directly reflected in the sites). I think dubiouslty slapping the emissions from "backup" sources right onto windpower is reaching a little - assuming the backup is what would be being used up if the turbine wasn't there in the first place. Load balancing from what I read I can understand would be an issue..but clearly it isn't *that* much of an issue the turbine isn't pointless in the first place. As far as your third point goes, again, from what I'm reading the embodied energy is neglegable in comparision to the c02 that would be saved by having the machine in the first place. I think the biggest problem we're going to have with this conversation is that it isn't truely something I care about..(much in the same way I don't spend my evenings tossing and turning over how much is being spent keeping the london underground active) I can see a windfarm from here, it's not ruining my community...other than the ones of course who don't like the look of them. My energy bills are quite reasonable and there are certainly worse things as a tax payer I feel I'm screwed over for.. Kendmoor
  • Score: 0

10:53pm Sat 9 Feb 13

Kendmoor says...

I should write that it isn't an outright refusal, I should have written "refuse to take on face value" ;) But yes, they are a headache to look at, so I do try and avoid them other than to get a quick insight into the nature of each argument (that goes for any subject, gun law, age limits, wars...blah blah blah)
All gets a bit daft though, the sites are all mirrors of each other...one offers one piece of info...the other will give you the rebuttal, and the cycle starts again
I should write that it isn't an outright refusal, I should have written "refuse to take on face value" ;) But yes, they are a headache to look at, so I do try and avoid them other than to get a quick insight into the nature of each argument (that goes for any subject, gun law, age limits, wars...blah blah blah) All gets a bit daft though, the sites are all mirrors of each other...one offers one piece of info...the other will give you the rebuttal, and the cycle starts again Kendmoor
  • Score: 0

10:22am Sun 10 Feb 13

Yarbles says...

Kendmoor wrote:
Going to have to disagree with you there, although I'll freely admit my knowledge on the subject is purely from skimming over information that is provided on the internet and nothing more (i'll add to that, that I refuse to look at "green" sites or the "anti" sites, nothing makes me feel more nauseated than the biased drivel that oozes from both sides of the argument which is directly reflected in the sites). I think dubiouslty slapping the emissions from "backup" sources right onto windpower is reaching a little - assuming the backup is what would be being used up if the turbine wasn't there in the first place. Load balancing from what I read I can understand would be an issue..but clearly it isn't *that* much of an issue the turbine isn't pointless in the first place. As far as your third point goes, again, from what I'm reading the embodied energy is neglegable in comparision to the c02 that would be saved by having the machine in the first place.

I think the biggest problem we're going to have with this conversation is that it isn't truely something I care about..(much in the same way I don't spend my evenings tossing and turning over how much is being spent keeping the london underground active) I can see a windfarm from here, it's not ruining my community...other than the ones of course who don't like the look of them. My energy bills are quite reasonable and there are certainly worse things as a tax payer I feel I'm screwed over for..
Variable supply requires additional backup. Due to wind variations supply varies, this is independent to demand variations. Supply can drop at the same time as demand rises and additional backup is required to deal with this. This is directly attributable to wind as it wouldn't be required without it. Wind power has to co-operate with other plant. Other plant does not.

The problem with feasibility studies is that they are easy to manipulate. As a civil engineer I have been involved in many. In order to procure future work it is necessary often to paint a rosy picture, the best way to do this is attack the problem from both ends. Overstate the benefits and understate the costs, it is amazing how much you can change the outcome of the study (I was working on flood defence so don't feel too bad about it). Anyway, my point is that wind companies are vastly overstating their benefits, ignoring the negatives and getting away with it because of the ignorance of the general public. This has knock on effects for the embodied energy which becomes more significant for the realistic picture.

Electricity is becoming more expensive and the situation over the next 5-10 years is looking dire. The UK is massively under investing in electricity infrastructure and investing in the wrong area. Bills are set to increase.
[quote][p][bold]Kendmoor[/bold] wrote: Going to have to disagree with you there, although I'll freely admit my knowledge on the subject is purely from skimming over information that is provided on the internet and nothing more (i'll add to that, that I refuse to look at "green" sites or the "anti" sites, nothing makes me feel more nauseated than the biased drivel that oozes from both sides of the argument which is directly reflected in the sites). I think dubiouslty slapping the emissions from "backup" sources right onto windpower is reaching a little - assuming the backup is what would be being used up if the turbine wasn't there in the first place. Load balancing from what I read I can understand would be an issue..but clearly it isn't *that* much of an issue the turbine isn't pointless in the first place. As far as your third point goes, again, from what I'm reading the embodied energy is neglegable in comparision to the c02 that would be saved by having the machine in the first place. I think the biggest problem we're going to have with this conversation is that it isn't truely something I care about..(much in the same way I don't spend my evenings tossing and turning over how much is being spent keeping the london underground active) I can see a windfarm from here, it's not ruining my community...other than the ones of course who don't like the look of them. My energy bills are quite reasonable and there are certainly worse things as a tax payer I feel I'm screwed over for..[/p][/quote]Variable supply requires additional backup. Due to wind variations supply varies, this is independent to demand variations. Supply can drop at the same time as demand rises and additional backup is required to deal with this. This is directly attributable to wind as it wouldn't be required without it. Wind power has to co-operate with other plant. Other plant does not. The problem with feasibility studies is that they are easy to manipulate. As a civil engineer I have been involved in many. In order to procure future work it is necessary often to paint a rosy picture, the best way to do this is attack the problem from both ends. Overstate the benefits and understate the costs, it is amazing how much you can change the outcome of the study (I was working on flood defence so don't feel too bad about it). Anyway, my point is that wind companies are vastly overstating their benefits, ignoring the negatives and getting away with it because of the ignorance of the general public. This has knock on effects for the embodied energy which becomes more significant for the realistic picture. Electricity is becoming more expensive and the situation over the next 5-10 years is looking dire. The UK is massively under investing in electricity infrastructure and investing in the wrong area. Bills are set to increase. Yarbles
  • Score: 0

1:43pm Mon 11 Feb 13

Chrisinkendal says...

The Killington vote went to every house in the Parish, unlike the less democratic vote in other parishes which took place in a meeting. If anyone would like some facts on wind power, untainted by the somewhat biased views often expressed by those against, please e- mail kwesp@hotmail.com and we will send you recent research which supports wind power as an effective and cost efficient way of producing power.
The Killington vote went to every house in the Parish, unlike the less democratic vote in other parishes which took place in a meeting. If anyone would like some facts on wind power, untainted by the somewhat biased views often expressed by those against, please e- mail kwesp@hotmail.com and we will send you recent research which supports wind power as an effective and cost efficient way of producing power. Chrisinkendal
  • Score: 0

6:23pm Mon 11 Feb 13

Kendmoor says...

Would rather hear a response from kwesp (Killington Wind Energy Support Project) to what Yarbles' points he made earlier!
though I guess a posting a link to the recent research you're talking about would be good too!
Would rather hear a response from kwesp (Killington Wind Energy Support Project) to what Yarbles' points he made earlier! though I guess a posting a link to the recent research you're talking about would be good too! Kendmoor
  • Score: 0

6:43pm Mon 11 Feb 13

Chrisinkendal says...

You might like to start with this link to "Beyond the Bluster" from IPPR, a renewable consultancy.

http://tinyurl.com/d
ymxypr

All forms of power need backup. You need to see wind in the context of the whole country, not individual turbines.
You might like to start with this link to "Beyond the Bluster" from IPPR, a renewable consultancy. http://tinyurl.com/d ymxypr All forms of power need backup. You need to see wind in the context of the whole country, not individual turbines. Chrisinkendal
  • Score: 0

6:10am Tue 12 Feb 13

searcher21c says...

You might also like to look at independent fact sources. Here is one I've just googled. It's from the USA:
http://windpowerfact
s.info/
I'm sure you will be able to find more.
What may also be useful is this link to a Northumberland site:

http://www.nandnsoci
ety.org.uk/index.htm
l

It has a link to a site called http://www.windbyte.
co.uk/
which made for an interesting browse.
You might also like to look at independent fact sources. Here is one I've just googled. It's from the USA: http://windpowerfact s.info/ I'm sure you will be able to find more. What may also be useful is this link to a Northumberland site: http://www.nandnsoci ety.org.uk/index.htm l It has a link to a site called http://www.windbyte. co.uk/ which made for an interesting browse. searcher21c
  • Score: 0

11:16am Tue 12 Feb 13

BillyBob86 says...

Yarbles, your quote of "Supply can drop at the same time as demand rises and additional backup is required to deal with this. This is directly attributable to wind as it wouldn't be required without it." I feel misses Kendmoors point of the fact the you either have wind turbines + alternative source as backup, or you have the alternative source on its own. At least the wind turbine provide energy.

Yarbles, you say that feasability studies can overstate the benefits and understate the costs. This is not just within this particular field. This is also true for any company in any part of the world wishing to sell something.

Being a structural engineer myself I'm very involved in the embodied carbon of given projects, and know the struggling situation we are in. However to get out the situation renewable energy solutions need to start to be given a bit of acceptance. Personally i don't feel wind turbine ruin the views too much. Maybe more funding would be put into renewable energy if it was not challenged at every turn which makes the costs of implementing these sources almost not worth it. People complain too much about the cost of energy, however the cost will rise more eventually without using a renewable source than if one was finally given a chance.
Yarbles, your quote of "Supply can drop at the same time as demand rises and additional backup is required to deal with this. This is directly attributable to wind as it wouldn't be required without it." I feel misses Kendmoors point of the fact the you either have wind turbines + alternative source as backup, or you have the alternative source on its own. At least the wind turbine provide energy. Yarbles, you say that feasability studies can overstate the benefits and understate the costs. This is not just within this particular field. This is also true for any company in any part of the world wishing to sell something. Being a structural engineer myself I'm very involved in the embodied carbon of given projects, and know the struggling situation we are in. However to get out the situation renewable energy solutions need to start to be given a bit of acceptance. Personally i don't feel wind turbine ruin the views too much. Maybe more funding would be put into renewable energy if it was not challenged at every turn which makes the costs of implementing these sources almost not worth it. People complain too much about the cost of energy, however the cost will rise more eventually without using a renewable source than if one was finally given a chance. BillyBob86
  • Score: 0

11:19am Tue 12 Feb 13

BillyBob86 says...

One thing I'm not too sure about, and people can correct me if i'm wrong, but surely these wind turbines don't 'ruin' the views too much as the Lambrigg Windfarm can be seen anyway from much places round there.
One thing I'm not too sure about, and people can correct me if i'm wrong, but surely these wind turbines don't 'ruin' the views too much as the Lambrigg Windfarm can be seen anyway from much places round there. BillyBob86
  • Score: 0

5:25pm Tue 12 Feb 13

Digby1958 says...

Energy from renewables is only part of the solution as far as I see it. Reducing our energy use by 80% by 2050 means that the % generated by wind power becomes a lot more significant.
Energy from renewables is only part of the solution as far as I see it. Reducing our energy use by 80% by 2050 means that the % generated by wind power becomes a lot more significant. Digby1958
  • Score: 0

9:46pm Tue 12 Feb 13

Yarbles says...

BillyBob86 wrote:
Yarbles, your quote of "Supply can drop at the same time as demand rises and additional backup is required to deal with this. This is directly attributable to wind as it wouldn't be required without it." I feel misses Kendmoors point of the fact the you either have wind turbines + alternative source as backup, or you have the alternative source on its own. At least the wind turbine provide energy.

Yarbles, you say that feasability studies can overstate the benefits and understate the costs. This is not just within this particular field. This is also true for any company in any part of the world wishing to sell something.

Being a structural engineer myself I'm very involved in the embodied carbon of given projects, and know the struggling situation we are in. However to get out the situation renewable energy solutions need to start to be given a bit of acceptance. Personally i don't feel wind turbine ruin the views too much. Maybe more funding would be put into renewable energy if it was not challenged at every turn which makes the costs of implementing these sources almost not worth it. People complain too much about the cost of energy, however the cost will rise more eventually without using a renewable source than if one was finally given a chance.
Yes the wind does provide energy and at best this can save fuel (It does not replace other plant). The question is how much fuel can they save, very difficult to quantify as getting the figures for fuel burnt (as opposed to just electricity produced) for thermal plant is not easy.

Wind energy is not CO2 free. For example, if load factor for wind is running at 30% (this is an optimistic average so I'm being nice to wind here), operating reserve associated with this will be in the region of 67% of the generated capacity. This is very significant and has CO2 associated with it. On top of this more NOx will be released due to thermal plant output variations.

One thing we can be sure about by getting an appreciation for the way the system operates and by looking at thermal plant efficiency is that the benefits in terms of CO2 savings is far less than claimed. This is obvious by looking at the omissions made in the developers figures.

If we are to reduce CO2 emissions there are far better ways of spending the money currently being thrown at wind.
[quote][p][bold]BillyBob86[/bold] wrote: Yarbles, your quote of "Supply can drop at the same time as demand rises and additional backup is required to deal with this. This is directly attributable to wind as it wouldn't be required without it." I feel misses Kendmoors point of the fact the you either have wind turbines + alternative source as backup, or you have the alternative source on its own. At least the wind turbine provide energy. Yarbles, you say that feasability studies can overstate the benefits and understate the costs. This is not just within this particular field. This is also true for any company in any part of the world wishing to sell something. Being a structural engineer myself I'm very involved in the embodied carbon of given projects, and know the struggling situation we are in. However to get out the situation renewable energy solutions need to start to be given a bit of acceptance. Personally i don't feel wind turbine ruin the views too much. Maybe more funding would be put into renewable energy if it was not challenged at every turn which makes the costs of implementing these sources almost not worth it. People complain too much about the cost of energy, however the cost will rise more eventually without using a renewable source than if one was finally given a chance.[/p][/quote]Yes the wind does provide energy and at best this can save fuel (It does not replace other plant). The question is how much fuel can they save, very difficult to quantify as getting the figures for fuel burnt (as opposed to just electricity produced) for thermal plant is not easy. Wind energy is not CO2 free. For example, if load factor for wind is running at 30% (this is an optimistic average so I'm being nice to wind here), operating reserve associated with this will be in the region of 67% of the generated capacity. This is very significant and has CO2 associated with it. On top of this more NOx will be released due to thermal plant output variations. One thing we can be sure about by getting an appreciation for the way the system operates and by looking at thermal plant efficiency is that the benefits in terms of CO2 savings is far less than claimed. This is obvious by looking at the omissions made in the developers figures. If we are to reduce CO2 emissions there are far better ways of spending the money currently being thrown at wind. Yarbles
  • Score: 0

10:18pm Tue 12 Feb 13

Chrisinkendal says...

It would be good to here what those " far better ways" are, bearing in mind the lead in time and uncertainties of new technologies. My experience has been that those who oppose wind nearly always give inadequate alternatives, which either use fossil fuels or depend on very uncertain projections from other technologies.
It would be good to here what those " far better ways" are, bearing in mind the lead in time and uncertainties of new technologies. My experience has been that those who oppose wind nearly always give inadequate alternatives, which either use fossil fuels or depend on very uncertain projections from other technologies. Chrisinkendal
  • Score: 0

10:40pm Tue 12 Feb 13

John H Curtis says...

This evening there was a planning meeting in which an application for a local wind installation was unanimously rejected by both the planning officers and the committee.

The committee had received over 1,500 letters against the application and 100 in favour. This was not some carefully rigged poll, but an actual response by people who are directly affected by the application.

It does not look to me as if the poll figures touted in this article are anywhere near actuality. It would be interesting to see the actual questions and who set and asked them.
This evening there was a planning meeting in which an application for a local wind installation was unanimously rejected by both the planning officers and the committee. The committee had received over 1,500 letters against the application and 100 in favour. This was not some carefully rigged poll, but an actual response by people who are directly affected by the application. It does not look to me as if the poll figures touted in this article are anywhere near actuality. It would be interesting to see the actual questions and who set and asked them. John H Curtis
  • Score: 0

10:50pm Tue 12 Feb 13

Chrisinkendal says...

Letters are not a reflection of views. There will always be more letters against than for. Also please remember that the Killington Survey was a straightforward question to everyone in the Parish, not just to those who had attended a meeting or written a letter. How many of those 1500 letters were from locals? You cannot that they were "an actual response from those affected" without knowing the addresses of those who wrote.
Letters are not a reflection of views. There will always be more letters against than for. Also please remember that the Killington Survey was a straightforward question to everyone in the Parish, not just to those who had attended a meeting or written a letter. How many of those 1500 letters were from locals? You cannot that they were "an actual response from those affected" without knowing the addresses of those who wrote. Chrisinkendal
  • Score: 0

12:29am Wed 13 Feb 13

Mary Young says...

Chrisinkendal wrote:
Letters are not a reflection of views. There will always be more letters against than for. Also please remember that the Killington Survey was a straightforward question to everyone in the Parish, not just to those who had attended a meeting or written a letter. How many of those 1500 letters were from locals? You cannot that they were "an actual response from those affected" without knowing the addresses of those who wrote.
Why would there be more letters against an application than for? Perhaps you would post up the question which was posed to the Parish
[quote][p][bold]Chrisinkendal[/bold] wrote: Letters are not a reflection of views. There will always be more letters against than for. Also please remember that the Killington Survey was a straightforward question to everyone in the Parish, not just to those who had attended a meeting or written a letter. How many of those 1500 letters were from locals? You cannot that they were "an actual response from those affected" without knowing the addresses of those who wrote.[/p][/quote]Why would there be more letters against an application than for? Perhaps you would post up the question which was posed to the Parish Mary Young
  • Score: 0

5:48am Wed 13 Feb 13

searcher21c says...

And it would be good to know what percentage of households actually replied to the letter to the parish. The fact that known supporters send out a letter doesn't mean that others respond.
And it would be good to know what percentage of households actually replied to the letter to the parish. The fact that known supporters send out a letter doesn't mean that others respond. searcher21c
  • Score: 0

8:37am Wed 13 Feb 13

Yarbles says...

Chrisinkendal wrote:
It would be good to here what those " far better ways" are, bearing in mind the lead in time and uncertainties of new technologies. My experience has been that those who oppose wind nearly always give inadequate alternatives, which either use fossil fuels or depend on very uncertain projections from other technologies.
Firstly we should reduce consumption. This would have much greater impact given the efficiencies in the system. This should be number 1 priority. Problem with this is it makes no money. Think of the CO2 savings if a licence was required to drive a 4x4, based on the needs of the driver. Problem is people want a free ride, they won't sacrifice quality of life and expect technology to provide.

In terms of electricity, there are better alternatives at present. Hydro is a far better resource than wind. Even tidal is better. The Severn barrage would create a known quantity of electricity, as predicted and in an area where there is high electricity demand.

Nuclear, can produce huge amounts of electricity. When we get thorium reactors running we will have an even safer system that actually uses spent plutonium and produces much safer waste.

If the money spent on wind were to be used on updating fossil fuel plant, improving efficiencies there would be greater impact on CO2 emissions.

One of the problems with wind is that it produces poor quality electricity, yet they can sell it at premium price due to the rigged system. This puts more financial pressure on the other generators and reduces investment.

We are facing a big shortfall in capacity in future, this will lead to power failures. Wind then causes another problem in that it can't provide security of supply. The system will need a big kick to start up again, wind is useless.
[quote][p][bold]Chrisinkendal[/bold] wrote: It would be good to here what those " far better ways" are, bearing in mind the lead in time and uncertainties of new technologies. My experience has been that those who oppose wind nearly always give inadequate alternatives, which either use fossil fuels or depend on very uncertain projections from other technologies.[/p][/quote]Firstly we should reduce consumption. This would have much greater impact given the efficiencies in the system. This should be number 1 priority. Problem with this is it makes no money. Think of the CO2 savings if a licence was required to drive a 4x4, based on the needs of the driver. Problem is people want a free ride, they won't sacrifice quality of life and expect technology to provide. In terms of electricity, there are better alternatives at present. Hydro is a far better resource than wind. Even tidal is better. The Severn barrage would create a known quantity of electricity, as predicted and in an area where there is high electricity demand. Nuclear, can produce huge amounts of electricity. When we get thorium reactors running we will have an even safer system that actually uses spent plutonium and produces much safer waste. If the money spent on wind were to be used on updating fossil fuel plant, improving efficiencies there would be greater impact on CO2 emissions. One of the problems with wind is that it produces poor quality electricity, yet they can sell it at premium price due to the rigged system. This puts more financial pressure on the other generators and reduces investment. We are facing a big shortfall in capacity in future, this will lead to power failures. Wind then causes another problem in that it can't provide security of supply. The system will need a big kick to start up again, wind is useless. Yarbles
  • Score: 0

8:39am Wed 13 Feb 13

Chrisinkendal says...

I was referring to letters to the planning officer, not the Parish question.
I was referring to letters to the planning officer, not the Parish question. Chrisinkendal
  • Score: 0

8:39am Wed 13 Feb 13

Chrisinkendal says...

I was referring to letters to the planning officer, not the Parish question.
I was referring to letters to the planning officer, not the Parish question. Chrisinkendal
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree