----- Original Message ----- From: "TW"
To:
Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2004 11:24 AM
Subject: Alternatives
If you are as concerned about our environment as you claim to be, may I suggest you put forward some specific proposals for reducing the energy consumption of your community and contributing to green energy production, rather than just talking vaguely about doing more research into alternatives.
I dare say there will never be a source of energy which has no adverse environmental impact somewhere along the line.
You say your case is not simply one of "not in my back yard" - so what are you doing to help solve the problem?
TW Ealing, London
Reply:
Firstly, I'm not paid to solve the problem. We have, however, suggested that the subsidies that would go towards this environmentally inefficient method of producing power are better spent on insulating all local homes. The figure is actually on the website if you care to look before sending emails in future.
Secondly, turbines are not effective - from a cost or environmental perspective.
Thirdly, if they want to put them up, why not use land that is already spoiled - there are several miles along the M62 just over the hill from the proposed site that are already spoiled and are very suited to this.
The reason this land hasn't been used? Money. The government are happy to heavily subsidise the power produced, but not the means of producing power.
The proposed site is valuable, biologically, archaeologically and environmentally. I am not a "one issue" type person - I like to look at the "whole picture" and not be persuaded by a company (with the worse environmental record in the country incidentally) that has a vested interest - in terms of significant profit.
We are merely asking "why here? This place is special".
As mentioned on the internet site, the island of Hawaii tried to do research into wave power, but found the cost of research simply too high.
I dare say they have slightly more resources than the Saddleworth Moors Action Group - hence why we have not engaged any alternative research as yet.
Incidentally, the turbines would be sighted over 3 miles away from where I live. We would not be able so see them and I do not even go past the site regularly. I expect that changes me from a "nimby" to a "busy body".
Maybe if we find a PLC with a vested interest in keeping this valley special then I will get similar emails from the other side of the argument.
I am not, however, holding my breath.
Regards
Chris Foster
----- Original Message -----
From: EC
To: chrisfoster@noturbinesin.saddleworth.net
Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2004 10:30 AM
Subject: Wind turbines
I think it is imperative that an independent costing is done to provide solar panels for our roofs before billions of pounds are spent on the costly and unacceptable project of the hated turbines.
Of course we are all aware of how we must save energy. The Government already gives grants towards us doing this in our homes but the grants do not cover the cost of installing roof panels.
As we are sweltering in glorious hot weather and are to expect much more with global warming, instead of the Government spending £millions on unreliable, unwanted wind turbines, wouldn’t it make more sense to providing solar photovoltaic panels for our roofs so that we can harness the heat of the sun to warm our homes and drive our cooling fans?
A research into the cost of this would surely be worthwhile before we embark on the high cost of harnessing just wind. We would all love to see the cost of our electricity bills reduced, surely it would not be beyond the skills of our electrician to fix the panels in place rather than just a few chosen installers.
It is difficult to argue for or against when the true cost of each project is not known.
EC
Reply
Thanks for your email.
I believe that currently solar power has too high a "carbon cost"
- i.e. the current technology takes as much CO2 to produce the panels than
would be saved in a long time of use. I suspect this is due to a combination
of lack of research and low numbers produced. We have argued that newly built
homes should have to have panels fitted as standard. Discussions with the
local borough council are ongoing, but this should be nationally coordinated
(subsidies for wind power are, after all).
The other argument often used by the wind lobby (and many others) against
solar power is that the sun doesn't shine all the time. Of course, wind turbines
only produce electricity about 1/4 of the time too, but this is often glossed
over.
As for your other points, you are correct. If the money being used to subsidise
the "green" power from the turbines was used to increase energy
efficiency in the borough then more carbon would be saved over the same time.
Unfortunately, a big PLC (with the worst environmental record in the country)
does not stand to gain from this.
Regards
Chris Foster
----- Original Message -----
From:
Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2004 11:17 AM
Subject: Another wind turbine problem
Dear Sir,
I
hope you are aware that a wind turbine in Schleswig-Holstein, Germany, recently
caught fire after being struck by lightning.
The
local fire department had no plan for such an eventuality and no equipment
capable of tackling the fire. They could only stand and watch.
A fire in a wind turbine could lead to the rotor becoming detached.
Sincerely,
Cris Whetton
Dr.
C. W
Tampere,
Finland
Reply
Dear
Thank you for your information.
I suspect that there are many similar events connected to the safety, or otherwise, of turbines. Sadly, they are not reported with the same enthusiasm as the cries of "NIMBY" when somebody objects to their construction.
If
I could trouble you further and ask if you might have a link to any
stories about this, it would be of great help to us.
Regards.
Christopher Foster
-----
Original Message -----
From:GH
To: chrisfoster@noturbinesin.saddleworth.net
Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2004 4:29 PM
Subject: Mr Foster,
Mr
Foster,
Firstly, it is my hope that your reccent campaign day for the prevention of
wind turbines in the Saddleworth region was a success and I wish you luck
in your goals.
I am a Third year Geography student, undertaking the task of studying wind
energy and its development across Britain, associatied with reccent government
proposals for the increase in renewable energies. It is not my intention to
cause offense or take a side in this matter, but merely to gain a greater
understanding of the topic.
Having read your web site I have a number of questions which I would be gratefull
for your attention to. I am trying to gain an understanding of where your
opinions on wind farms progress to on certain issues:
You say in your home page that you are opposed to wind farms, not as a result
of the 'Not in my backyard syndrome'.
1) Does this mean that you are opposed to wind farms in all locations?
2) Do you conceive United Utilities claim that wind farms are a green energy?
In the report of the sedgefield, 'the full story' it mentions that the potential
for the turbines was to supply 7,000 local homes and reduce CO2 emissions
by 21,000 tonnes a year. In this case at the detriment to pink footed geese.
However without this problem in other locations would in your opinion the
intrusion of the wind farms be worth the physical pollution encountered in
fossil fuel production? the burnley and south elnham schemes seem to be based
on aesthetics alone.
3) The United utilities proposal outlines public inclusion from an early stage.
In what form did this take? Do you feel that if more time was goven to education
of the public and to deciding the impact feeling could be different?
4) In your opinion could locally ownened wind farms giving the public both
a social and econimic involvement help sway anti wind farm protestors?
5) your case study by an unknown scottish author details a health and safety
issue of wind farms. What does this refer to please?
Apologies for the lenght of this email,
Any help the you can give is very much appreciated,
And once again the best of luck with your goals at Saddleworth,
Kind Regards,
GH
Reply
Mr H,
Thanks for your email and the sentiments expressed therein.
1) I personally am opposed to wind farm development anywhere. I believe there
is sufficient data to at best call into question the overall efficiency of
this method of producing power. Britain is one of, if not the, most energy
inefficient nations in Europe. Before we start ruining our landscape permanently
with these machines, we should look to improving this statistic - everything
from insulation in older homes, through solar power on all new builds - and
lots inbetween.
This isn't necessarily the view of my fellow campaigners, however, as some
do "like the idea" of turbines in principal.
The accusation of "nimby" is one regularly expressed via email to
me. I live over 3 miles away from the site, 3 valleys away. We cannot see
the site from my house or my village. I do not pass the site regularly. Maybe
I and others like me are more "busy bodies" than "nimbys"!
Is it so wrong not to want to spoil such a special place anyway? Why not site
the turbines, if they must be built, on land already spoilt - along the M62
for example, less than 2 miles away from the proposed site and the highest
motorway in England.
2) United Utilities' claims, as most of the wind energy lobby's, are inflated
to say the least. They assume that a home uses a derisory amount of electricity.
At the risk of turning this email into a short book, I quote below a letter
received by the Western Morning News recently that sums it up perfectly.
"Western Morning News [letter]
WIND ENERGY FIGURES JUST DON'T ADD UP
11:00 - 08 June 2004
I am a pensioner living on my own and was disturbed to read the report (WMN,
June 4) where the British Wind Energy Association spokesman said that a modern
wind turbine could power over 1,000 homes. The wind turbines at High Darracott
are to be 1.3 MW each so dividing that by 1,000 only leaves 1,300 watts per
home. When I have one bar of my electric fire on in the evening and I am watching
TV I am already using over 1,300 watts but I like to have a piece of toast
and some hot chocolate before going to bed but both the toaster and the kettle
use 2,000 watts. Can I still have my usual supper or will it put too much
burden on the turbine?
He also said that the estimated power output of the turbine is only 0.3 of the rated capacity to allow for differences in wind speed so his turbine is really only worth 0.39MW and not 1.3MW. That means I can only have 390 watts which is just enough to run my TV.
The
family next door have three children and are always running their washing
machine, having baths and cooking and probably use over 10,000 watts. If all
families were like them the turbine would only power 39 houses and not over
1,000."
Again, I think this supports my personal anti wind energy stance. This is
not to dismiss arguments about "aesthetics" or local effects on
flora and fauna as I believe that these should be discussed openly, rather
than against the usual "fingers in the ear shouting nimby" approach
of those who would rather not take the time to consider the facts.
3) United Utilities held a 1 day public briefing in the local village school
to the site - Denshaw Primary. This was well attended. According to their
initial plans, however, they presented the local community with a "fait
accompli". This wasn't "discussing issues", it was telling
people what they were going to do. There is a difference.
I don't believe that any amount of discussion can get around the facts. To
be fair there have been rumours about planned developments of this nature
for many years anyway.
Incidentally, as I have mentioned on the site, UU have an appalling environmental
record.
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3107313.stm)
I am not certain that the wind energy development is a "conversion on
the road to Damascus" as it were. I suspect it has more to do with maximising
profits on land that they own that cannot be used in any other way.
4) Possibly, although I have seen other schemes defeated that were proposed
by local farmers (there are articles in the "archive" section of
the website.
Maybe if the community "owned" the development via a trust. I believe,
however, this would be crass mis-management of resources. As I don't believe
we should be developing these things at all, an attempt to have them built
by bribing local communities would not be a good thing.
5) Health and safety issues. I think this is a bit of a smoke screen thrown
up by the anti wind lobby to be honest.
There is a picture on the site of a turbine that collapsed recently at a site
nearby (http://tinyurl.com/2c9a6 - in Lancashire if I remember correctly).
There are cases of wind turbines building up ice on the blades when stationery
and this being shot off at high speed once they begin turning.
There was a recent case in Schleswig-Holstein, Germany, where a turbine caught
fire and could not be extinguished.
It is common sense that a 100 or so metre high structure is going to have
certain safety implications, especially if the blades of said machine rotate
at over 200KM/h.
In the scheme of things, however, if they do have a big environmental benefit
and someone does get killed by one (I am not aware of any deaths associated
with turbines, despite the many thousands installed around the world) then
I am sure this would be offset by lives saved from there being less pollution
etc.
There are big health and safety issues for birds. Thousand of rare birds are
killed very year by turbines. Try a search on the site for "birds"
for some examples.
I don't think they should be there in the first place, however, so it kind
of makes that argument a bit of a nonsense on 2 fronts!
Again, thanks for your email. Sorry for the very long reply, but I want to
try to put my/our view over.
Good luck with your studies and if I can be of any further help in any way,
let me know.
Regards
Chris Foster
Finally, one more email that I did reply to but I won't publish the response. I sent a copy of the above reply afterwards, though...
-----
Original Message -----
From: DC
Sent: Saturday, June 19, 2004 3:56 PM
Subject: Saddleworth
Why don't you wake up to reality and stop being so nimby-ist? We have to generate
power somehow, and the choice is as stark as this: choose between a coal-
or gas-fired power station and some wind turbines. Simple, isn't it?
Of course, even with your attitude of burying your head in the sand, you would
accept that coal and gas are not sustainable, so perhaps you'd like to consider
nuclear.
Maybe you should study the amount of energy you personally actually use -
including all the ancilliary energy use such as purifying your water, processing
your waste - and reduce that to a level that you would find acceptable before
hypocritically arguing against new energy production means to replace those
that are depleting.
DC