Killington windfarm protesters stage rally (From The Westmorland Gazette)
When news happens, text KENEWS and your photos and videos to 80360. Or contact us by email or phone.
Killington windfarm protesters stage rally
3:45pm Wednesday 26th September 2012 in News
By Steven Bell, Senior Reporter
Demonstrators at Killington
OPPONENTS of the planned Killington windfarm protested just yards from where energy company Banks Renewables held its latest public exhibition.
Members of STAK – the local group Stop Turbines At Killington – gathered outside the village hall where company bosses were updating the public on plans to build five 135 metre-high turbines between the A684 and the M6.
Banks, the company behind Armistead windfarm at nearby Old Hutton, has confirmed it is to submit a planning application to South Lakeland District Council.
But some residents say the landscape is unsuitable for such a development and fear that the visual impact of the windfarm will hit tourism and the economy.
Dr Mike Hall, of STAK, one of around 20 campaigners waving ‘No Thanks Banks’ placards at the protest, said: “Killington Lake is a superb resource enjoyed by fishermen, canoeists, sailors and walkers. It’s a beautiful location and probably the main leisure resource outside Windermere.
“The site is also right on the boundary extension of the Yorkshire Dales National Park Authority.”
South Lakes Action on Climate Change (SLACC) staged a counter-protest and said a ‘coherent energy strategy’ needed to be considered.
SLACC trustee Chris Rowley said: “We need a balance of different sources of energy. Our concern is that over the next 10 or 20 years, energy costs are going to rise significantly.
“Energy security is the key issue. Generating green energy is going to be a key factor. The ecology of the Lake District is significantly affected by climate change.
“We see wind turbines as one part of solving that.”
Banks claims the windfarm would generate enough electricity to supply 9,500 homes a year and remove 23,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere annually.
It has also promised to create up to 50 jobs with £4 million of contracts for local firms.
Comments(35)
Ben Berry
says...
4:05pm Wed 26 Sep 12
Lakeuk
says...
8:38pm Wed 26 Sep 12
As to STAK, is there an element if nimby'ise in protests against?
alan.sloman
says...
8:53am Thu 27 Sep 12
the answer is a resounding "NO" as they are trying to protect a landscape for everyone. Millions of tourists flock to the Lakes every year for its scenic charms. Do you think they would still some if the views were industrialised with wind turbines, pylons, substations and access tracks?
I have been coming to the Lakes for over forty years and I can tell you that if you allow it to be desecrated with these monstrosities I will not be coming back.
Tourism plays a massive part in the Lakes economy and the extension to the National Park is welcomed.
These 135m high wind turbines should be opposed by everyone who derives any business from tourism or who has any sense at all about landscapes values.
keeplakesgreen
says...
11:56am Thu 27 Sep 12
Wind turbines are inefficient, contribute little if nothing to CO2 reduction and need conventional power back up. Why does the onshore wind industry ignore the growing evidence of the health problems particularly from infrasound, noise and turbine flicker suffered by many living near them? Because wind farms are a subsidy scam making vast amounts of money for the landowners and developers. Subsidies you the electricity user pays for. Because of wind farms subsidies expect your electricity bills to keep on rising. Wind power will not decrease electricity costs for the user.
Millions of pounds in local contracts. Really? For how long and at what cost to the future. What of the money lost in the tourism industry, vitally important to Cumbria because of the destruction to the environment by wind farms? For the real facts about wind farms and the wind industry visit www.nowind.org.uk or www.fells.info
The pro industry side can be found at renewablesUK.
If wind farms are so wonderful, clean, cheap and eco friendly why are other countries further down the route of windification, for example Germany pulling back from wind farm development? Because they are seeing the folly of them.
To corrupt Winston Churchill the wind industry can be summed up by 'in the field of human greed, never has so much been taken by so few from so many'.
tictoc1
says...
2:04pm Thu 27 Sep 12
keeplakesgreen
says...
2:42pm Thu 27 Sep 12
Would you be all for them then? You'd just get the problems day in day out, not the tens of thousands of pounds rent a year the land owner or the millions a year the developers would get from each turbine.
Fossil fuel is not running out. Personally I'd rather have more nuclear and shale gas extraction than wind turbines everywhere.
You can forget moving to escape the problems caused by the turbines. Nobody will want to buy your house unless you're willing to give it away. Probably the only way you'll sell it is by auction. Hope you don't rely on the tourist industry. Wave that goodbye as well.
And if you are relying on wind to supply enough electricity for todays society as and when its needed you won't get that either. Stock up on candles my friend.
I'm green, I think wave, tidal, other renewables, gas, nuclear and personal solar should be developed. Thing is I don't buy into the lies and manipulation of the truth and statistics of the wind industry. Stop subsidising wind. Without it wind wouldn't be viable and the money can be used on proper technologies that may well give us the electricity we need, not fairy tale ones.
Yes, yes turbines generate some electricity. You can also drive on square wheels with a graet deal of effort and difficulty. Doesn't make square wheels a good idea though does it? Same as wind turbines are a terrible idea except for the subsidy farmers.
If you plan to rely on wind, turn off the lights now and get used to it.
tictoc1
says...
3:19pm Thu 27 Sep 12
So please don't shoot me down for having an opinion.
I'm simply saying I'm for it and I accept that you're not.
KarenSTEMM
says...
8:14pm Thu 27 Sep 12
onelocal
says...
8:39pm Thu 27 Sep 12
Perhaps Banks should stick one up Longsleddale.
Yarbles
says...
8:53pm Thu 27 Sep 12
tictoc1 wrote:Unfortunately you do not seem to have a grasp on the practicalities of electricity generation. The dead giveaway is the link you make between wind turbines and reliability of supply.
I'm all for the turbines. Fossil fuel is running out and I'm sorry, but if it came to having a view with a turbine in it, over no electricity then I know which I'd go for!
Load balancing and electricity distribution is a complex business. Electricity in the grid is not available at the flick of a switch like it is in your home, just because a wind turbine decides it is going to produce something doesn't mean that the electricity is substituting fossil generation.
The only reason the power variations caused by wind turbines can be tolerated is because they produce pitifully little and any power they do generate is backed up by other plant.
It is not a subject that can be understood without a good appreciation of the industry, please take the time to make an informed decision.
Ladyxxmacbeth
says...
11:43pm Thu 27 Sep 12
I do genuinly like them and they are needed we can't keep burning oil, coal and gas.
I hate all this not in my back yard mentality.
tictoc1
says...
8:41am Fri 28 Sep 12
Yarbles wrote:I don't expect wind turbines to generate all the electricity we use, but they do contribute. "Please take time to make an informed decision"? I have, my decision, along with others, is to support the turbines. That's my choice. Oh, and NO supply is reliable and I haven't tried to hide that. Wind turbines/farms are now all over the world and people are becoming more accepting of them. They are a means of producing a fraction of the electricity that we're using and I also agree with ladyxxmacbeth, they look ok.
tictoc1 wrote: I'm all for the turbines. Fossil fuel is running out and I'm sorry, but if it came to having a view with a turbine in it, over no electricity then I know which I'd go for!Unfortunately you do not seem to have a grasp on the practicalities of electricity generation. The dead giveaway is the link you make between wind turbines and reliability of supply. Load balancing and electricity distribution is a complex business. Electricity in the grid is not available at the flick of a switch like it is in your home, just because a wind turbine decides it is going to produce something doesn't mean that the electricity is substituting fossil generation. The only reason the power variations caused by wind turbines can be tolerated is because they produce pitifully little and any power they do generate is backed up by other plant. It is not a subject that can be understood without a good appreciation of the industry, please take the time to make an informed decision.
keeplakesgreen
says...
12:04pm Fri 28 Sep 12
What is not in dispute is that the decisions by the Valuation Office Agency to move certain houses close to wind farms into lower council tax bands are the first official recognition that wind turbines can lower the value of homes nearby.
Property experts have long acknowledged the harmful effect of wind farms on property prices, however the association has until now been dismissed by the wind industry as conjecture.
On the cost issue of CO2 targets and ‘green’ energy, Prof Gordon Hughes, a former senior adviser on energy to the World Bank, now a professor of economics at Edinburgh found that to pursue our Climate Change Act target, reducing Britain’s CO2 emissions by 80 per cent by 2050 would cost us £124 billion by 2020. That is £5,000 for every household in the land. This is not just to build tens of thousands of highly subsidised wind turbines, but also for the open cycle gas fired power stations needed to provide back up. To guarantee the same amount of power from combined cycle gas fired plants would cost £13 billion, barely a tenth as much.
Furthermore Prof Hughes explains ramping the back up gas plants up and down would mean running them very inefficiently giving off so much CO2 that we could end up increasing our overall emissions rather than reducing them.
On those countries starting to get a nasty hangover from the wind and reneawables party,
European Energy Commissioner Guenther Oettinger has said recently Germany must rein in the runaway costs of subsidising electricity from renewable sources or risk overburdening consumers.
“We need a speed limit,” Oettinger said, referring to the accelerating cost of funding electricity produced from sources such as wind and sun at above market prices.
The subsidies have encouraged a rapid rise in renewable installations in Europe’s biggest economy, which already has the second highest power prices in the EU.
Germany is headed for a general election in 2013 in which energy costs are likely to feature prominently.
Is this really what we want in the UK? An uncontrolled rush to cover the country in wind turbines for no benefit. Fuel bills much higher than they need to be because of subsidy.
Killington and the others are really a side show. What should be stopped is the windification of onshore British Isles, full stop.
Geoff103
says...
12:55pm Fri 28 Sep 12
I'm afraid this yet another example, especially prevalent in this debate, of 'Never mind the facts, I know what I know'.
I know it's difficult and a long read but the various arguments and debates are well-aired here:
http://www.bishop-hi
ll.net/blog/2012/9/2
8/ouch.html#comments
And you need to read more than one of the postings. Arguments for wind power are well and truly demolished - not from and ideological point of view - but simply on the evidence and the requirements of running a complex electricity grid. The latter are especially unsuited to simple 'green is good' arguments.
There is simply no case on any rational grounds for expanding wind power any further. Only subsidy and blind ignorance is carrying them along.
Yarbles
says...
1:14pm Fri 28 Sep 12
tictoc1 wrote:I don't think I'm getting through. Are you saying you have a good understanding of the engineering aspects concerned here. If so I beg to differ.
Yarbles wrote:I don't expect wind turbines to generate all the electricity we use, but they do contribute. "Please take time to make an informed decision"? I have, my decision, along with others, is to support the turbines. That's my choice. Oh, and NO supply is reliable and I haven't tried to hide that. Wind turbines/farms are now all over the world and people are becoming more accepting of them. They are a means of producing a fraction of the electricity that we're using and I also agree with ladyxxmacbeth, they look ok.
tictoc1 wrote: I'm all for the turbines. Fossil fuel is running out and I'm sorry, but if it came to having a view with a turbine in it, over no electricity then I know which I'd go for!Unfortunately you do not seem to have a grasp on the practicalities of electricity generation. The dead giveaway is the link you make between wind turbines and reliability of supply. Load balancing and electricity distribution is a complex business. Electricity in the grid is not available at the flick of a switch like it is in your home, just because a wind turbine decides it is going to produce something doesn't mean that the electricity is substituting fossil generation. The only reason the power variations caused by wind turbines can be tolerated is because they produce pitifully little and any power they do generate is backed up by other plant. It is not a subject that can be understood without a good appreciation of the industry, please take the time to make an informed decision.
You need to look into how the system is financially rigged and what effect unreliable generation methods have regarding load balancing. Just because the energy is generated does not mean it replaces the CO2 emissions associated with that energy.
Visual impact is subjective, and if you think they look ok then who am I to judge your taste in landscape.
The engineering side however is tangible and any opinion should be fact based. As an example you state 'no supply is reliable', what is your definition of reliable? 30, 50, 90% operation, 4 hour warning before shut down? Reliability is massively important because it directly effects operating reserve (both spinning and non-spinning), embodied CO2 within other plant amongst other things.
zaney5
says...
1:18pm Fri 28 Sep 12
Ladyxxmacbeth wrote:I'm with you on that score. I like 'em too.
I think they look really good I'd like to see more. Like a modern day holland. I do genuinly like them and they are needed we can't keep burning oil, coal and gas. I hate all this not in my back yard mentality.
keeplakesgreen
says...
1:52pm Fri 28 Sep 12
Probably wasting my time here with Ladyxxmacbeth and zaney5, but here goes.
Its a shame the Dutch don't feel the same way about windfarms than you do.
North Holland province says “No” to new windparks: “Mega money pit with virtually no merit”
The Dutch province of North Holland has realised that windparks are a complete and useless eyesore that blight the landscape and they save very little CO2.
Therefore, the province has decided to forbid their construction.
The North Holland region would seem to be ideally situated to take advantage of the windy North Sea. Indeed it would be difficult to find a more suitable spot for windmills. So if windparks there don’t make sense, what does that tells us about other places?
As a result, 20 planned windparks have been recently forbidden. Only a single planned token windpark in the Wieringermeer may be built.
The senselessness of the wild construction of weather dependent windparks is revealed by a Dutch study. ‘’It was found out that the real fuel savings, and thus the reduction in CO2 output, is a whole 1.6% of the windpark’s rated capacity.”
“Adding it all up, one must conclude that under the present conditions in the Netherlands a 100 MW (Megawatt) ‘name plate’ capacity wind development produces on average 23 MW because of the capacity factor. 4,6 MW (20%) of this has to be subtracted from the final net result because of initial energy investments. From the actual Statline production figures we know that 27% of this 23 MW = 6,17 MW represents the actual fossil fuel and CO2 savings. But from this figure we need to subtract the amount of energy invested in the construction works: 4,6 MW. The net total of fuel saving electricity provided by our wind turbines therefore is 6.17 – 4.6 = 1.57 MW on average over the year. That is ~ 1.6% of the installed capacity. It makes wind developments a mega money pit with virtually no merit in terms of the intended goal of CO2 emission reduction or fossil fuel saving.”
Source EPAW
tictoc1
says...
3:56pm Fri 28 Sep 12
Ladyxxmacbeth
says...
4:04pm Fri 28 Sep 12
Coal fired power stations work so build one of them. No? Is that because it's got nothing to do with how good they are or how much power they produce it's about the selfishness of the residents and whether their houses have dropped in value. If you dont like them there then move! Swap with me there are no wind turbines around here!
keeplakesgreen
says...
5:15pm Fri 28 Sep 12
On the whole people chose to live somewhere because they like it there. They don't want to move.
Sadly if the number of turbines needed to meet targets get built onshore many, many people unaffected by them up to now may be in for a nasty shock.
As for the question of why the building of wind farms has increased the answers are simple and uncomfortable.
First, there are vast amounts of money to be made from wind farms. This has no relevance to their value as a credible electricity generation technology.
Secondly 'green' technologies are a vote winner for politicians whose constitients do not fully understand the topic.
Thirdly the wind industry, and in this, and only this respect I take my hat off to them, have the most superbly executed, well funded and effective PR and political lobbying campaigns to push their message and drown out all others.
Up until recently that is. The tide is turning. Slowly, but it is turning against wind.
Yarbles
says...
5:29pm Fri 28 Sep 12
tictoc1 wrote:There is a lot of money to be made, its as simple as that. ROCs ensure that any electricity produced regardless of when and if required is sold at vastly inflated prices. The electricity companies don't care, they just pass the cost to the consumer. We have to pay for the construction these things through taxes, pay more for our electricity with the knowledge that insignificantly less CO2 is being released as a result. We then have to look at them and be reminded of mans stupidity every day.
As of 2011, 83 countries around the world, are using wind power. They have also been around since the 1890's. So I'd like to ask those against the idea, if they are as bad as you're making out, why has usage of the turbines increased?
Wind power has increased due to the incompetencies of certain politicians and the effectiveness of wind lobby groups. As is obvious above people seem very keen to state an opinion without having a clue about the engineering aspects behind the issue.
In the 1890's windmills were used to grind corn - as were a couple of donkeys on a donkey mill. Hardly meaningful power. Also corn can be stored, electricity in the grid can not.
tictoc1
says...
6:17pm Fri 28 Sep 12
Yarbles wrote:I know the difference between a windmill and turbine. May I suggest you look further into what I wrote! They were used for electricity! And incompetences of 83 countries? Wow! That's alot of incompetent people!
tictoc1 wrote: As of 2011, 83 countries around the world, are using wind power. They have also been around since the 1890's. So I'd like to ask those against the idea, if they are as bad as you're making out, why has usage of the turbines increased?There is a lot of money to be made, its as simple as that. ROCs ensure that any electricity produced regardless of when and if required is sold at vastly inflated prices. The electricity companies don't care, they just pass the cost to the consumer. We have to pay for the construction these things through taxes, pay more for our electricity with the knowledge that insignificantly less CO2 is being released as a result. We then have to look at them and be reminded of mans stupidity every day. Wind power has increased due to the incompetencies of certain politicians and the effectiveness of wind lobby groups. As is obvious above people seem very keen to state an opinion without having a clue about the engineering aspects behind the issue. In the 1890's windmills were used to grind corn - as were a couple of donkeys on a donkey mill. Hardly meaningful power. Also corn can be stored, electricity in the grid can not.
Yarbles
says...
8:14pm Fri 28 Sep 12
Politicians are not in the main engineers or even have a scientific background, they are not capable/qualified to make decisions so seek advice. This is where the lobby groups come in. Lobby groups are very effective in shaping government policy.
The turbine you refer to charged a battery, it was not connected to a network. In any case how long they have been around for is irrelevant. Steam engines have been around since the 1700s but we don't still use them to plough fields.
tictoc1
says...
10:14pm Fri 28 Sep 12
Fedupofstupidity
says...
10:42pm Fri 28 Sep 12
It would be helpful if people would state their qualifications in the area of renewable energy and power engineering prior to quoting newspaper headlines like mindless sheep- just so I know who to bother replying to.
Thanks.
Ladyxxmacbeth
says...
9:28am Sat 29 Sep 12
Fedupofstupidity wrote:Electrical Engineering BEng and Electrical Technology for Sustainable and Renewable Energy Systems Masters (MSc)
Sadly we are probably not going to be able to stop it, as there are far more ill-informed busy bodies out the who want to feel like they are doing something good than well informed people who actually understand the business.
It would be helpful if people would state their qualifications in the area of renewable energy and power engineering prior to quoting newspaper headlines like mindless sheep- just so I know who to bother replying to.
Thanks.
KarenSTEMM
says...
10:14am Sat 29 Sep 12
.templar.co.uk/
whiskeydelta
says...
10:32am Sat 29 Sep 12
Lakeuk
says...
11:10am Sat 29 Sep 12
Yarbles
says...
11:10am Sat 29 Sep 12
Fedupofstupidity wrote:MEng - Civil Engineering. More importantly, experience in electricity generation as a consulting engineer.
Sadly we are probably not going to be able to stop it, as there are far more ill-informed busy bodies out the who want to feel like they are doing something good than well informed people who actually understand the business.
It would be helpful if people would state their qualifications in the area of renewable energy and power engineering prior to quoting newspaper headlines like mindless sheep- just so I know who to bother replying to.
Thanks.
I work for a large consultancy that makes oodles out of wind. You might say I have a vested interest in keeping the cash cow rolling (something in common with LadyxxMacbeth).
I've yet to meet a respected engineer who thinks of wind as a viable alternative to conventional plant. Even the majority of those who work on the wind projects are anti-wind. It is an open secret if you like...
LadyxxMacbeth, I'd be very interested to hear your views on how you expect to meet the intermittency challenges without the use of inefficient open cycle gas plant.
keeplakesgreen
says...
11:16am Sat 29 Sep 12
Actually what the most intelligent people do is make an informed decision using an enquiring mind.
They evaluate both sides of an issue using the facts and conclusions from those who do claim to be qualified or expert in a particular field.
They will also, most importantly have a healthy scepticism and be able to recoginise and weight the value of the qualified comment when said qualified comment has a vested interest in the outcome.
Sadly the wind industry proliferates because not enough of the population realises what is going on. They don't feel the effects. Its not their problem. Yet.
If subsidy payments were itemised on all electricity bills, if 400 foot tall wind turbines were erected in urban areas we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Wind turbines and the wind industry would be exposed for what they and it are. Politicians would run scared for fear of losing votes.Joy of joy the wind industry would cease to exist.
Geoff103
says...
12:20pm Sat 29 Sep 12
Further up this thread I posted the hyperlink to a blog where the potential of wind turbines and the difficulties (even impossibilities when going beyond a certain point as a % of overall generating capacity) to balance their use in a complex electricity grid are well and truly exposed as nonsense. By people who have the necessary expertise and/or work in the industry.
It's quite clear that the pro-windies never bothered to have a look or even attempted to understand the issues and complexities involved. Or simply *wouldn't* understand.
It's a question of belief. The alternative energy scams have become embedded as something close to a religious faith and are impervious to rational, engineering, economic based arguments.
Faith conquers all.
Here it is again:
http://www.bishop-hi
ll.net/blog/2012/9/2
6/missing-the-point.
html
Oh, and by the way, I used to be employed in the construction division of the CEGB. My brief included: Heysham A, Hartlepool, Dungeness B, Hinkley Point AGR nuclear stations, Drax coal-fired, Ince B, Isle of Grain and Littlebrook D oil-fired plant, Dinorwig (used be Dinorwic in my day) pumped-storage and Leicester gas-turbine plants.
churchy66
says...
5:49pm Sat 29 Sep 12
WilliamT
says...
1:12pm Tue 2 Oct 12
I am constitutionally in favour of power rationing, but it can't be achieved except by jacking the price up so much that only the wealthy can afford electricity. Perhaps the greatest effect the wind subsidy will have is reducing consumption by putting the price up!
Ben Berry says...
4:04pm Wed 26 Sep 12
These things are MASSIVE.
Lets have nuclear, hydro and tidal schemes instead please...