"Clean Coal" plant cancelled
Plans for the UKs first "Clean Coal" plant have been cancelled amid spiraling cost projections from the consortium of Scottish Power, Shell and National Grid who now think £1.5bn of public funding is required.
Even using the roughest estimate of £3m per turbine that would would pay for around 500 offshore turbines.
The Government are continuing to back this horse despite it losing yet another leg.
No new coal file plants should be built UNTIL carbon capture has been tested and deployed at full scale.
DG001 base section lifted into place
Another milestone event today – installation of the base tower section of our first turbine in Hampshire!
You may notice that the door has been moved further up the tower. This is to reduce the overall height of the tower to 35m in order to comply with planning conditions.
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdoKkWHCimw]
Councils wasting money fighting wind energy schemes
We have previously written about our own experience in Cumbria where Allerdale Borough Council admitted to spending over £80,000 of tax payers money fighting (and loosing) appeals against various wind energy planning applications, including our own. It would seem even this amount is small change compared to East Ridings in Yorkshire.
Yes2Wind are reporting that East Ridings have spent a jaw-dropping £210,000 to £240,000 fighting various planning applications loosing the last 5 consecutive appeals in a row! It's good to see some councils still have plenty of money to waste on your behalf despite the cutbacks.
Will the NPPF be good for wind?
In July this year the Government published a draft of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) that aims to condense several hundred pages of separate planning polices into a single 50 odd page document. Its aims are twofold:
- Reduce the red tape that is endemic in the current planning system
- Promote positive planning for sustainable development and economic recovery
The draft publication was accompanied by a loud hoo-haa over changes to policy in areas designated as Green Belt with the CPRE (among others) decrying the end of the Green Belt is nigh. However, in relation to renewable energy schemes the NPPF says that "many" such schemes are still "likely" to be incompatible with the Green Belt. It does, however open the door where it can be demonstrated that "special circumstances" exist such that the wider environmental benefit outweigh any harm to the Green Belt. This seems eminently sensible since in most Green Belt areas there are parcels of land close to major road or rail networks or other man-made structures such as electricity pylons etc.
In such areas, for example like Talbot Farm (South Glos) it seems daft to argue about inappropriate development when the site is right next to the M4!
Outside of Green Belt areas the NPPF says planners should plan positively for sustainable development of which, it says, renewable energy schemes are a key enabling technology in the transition towards a low carbon (ie sustainable) economy. It goes further to suggest there should be a "presumption in favour" of such schemes providing that national policies are adhered to.
Here lies the rub. Does the NPPF actually replace PPS1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc? Because the NPPF is quite sparse on detail it suggests that planning authorities will still use the companion guides to existing national policies (eg PPS5 for heritage and PPS22 for renewables). In a March 2011 written statement Greg Clark (the Minister of State for Decentralisation) informed planning authorities to start using the new guidelines with immediate effect. Adding:
"The Government's top priority in reforming the planning system is to promote sustainable economic growth and jobs. Government's clear expectation is that the answer to development and growth should wherever possible be 'yes', except where this would compromise the key sustainable development principles set out in national planning policy.
The Chancellor has today set out further detail on our commitment to introduce a strong presumption in favour of sustainable development in the forthcoming National Planning Policy Framework, which will expect local planning authorities to plan positively for new development; to deal promptly and favourably with applications that comply with up-to-date plans and national planning policies; and wherever possible to approve applications where plans are absent, out of date, silent or indeterminate."
According to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) ...
"the document represents an attempt to condense more than 1,000 pages of existing guidance into just 52. [The NPPF is] a significant step forward in enabling the growth the UK requires."
It would appear that the NPPF represents a major shift in emphasis and it will be interesting to watch the first batch of planning refusals as they proceed through the appeals process should planning authorities not head the call to action from Mr Clark. That said, in the Impact Assessment document published alongside the NPPF the government clearly hope that the presumption in favour of sustainable development will lead to fewer planning applications ending up at appeal. Tax payers in Cumbria might appreciate this after it was leaked that just one authority alone spent over £80,000 fighting wind turbine appeals.
Cefn Parc public meeting to be held
A public consultation meeting for the proposed wind turbines at Cefn Parc will be hosted by DistGen staff on the evening of Wednesday 27th July 2011.
When: 27th July 2011, 6pm
Where: Cefn Cribwr Community Centre
There will be a brief presentation followed by a Q&A session plus a series of large scale display boards showing visual impact, predicted noise emissions and much more. Distgen staff will be on hand to provide additional information regarding specific technical questions.
How to destroy the UK onshore wind industry
Simple... support this Private Members Bill by looney tory lord, Hugh William Mackay, 14th Lord Reay, Baron Mackay
The Wind Turbines (Minimum Distances from Residential Premises) Bill seeks to impose minimum distances between wind turbines and the nearest properties of at least 1000m for turbines over 25m up to 2000m for the largest turbines. Smaller distances could still be approved by planners if EVERY resident within the "buffer zone" gave written permission.
On the face of it you might think this is reasonable, however consider the implications.
- The bill takes no account of the number of turbines. Whether its 1 or 1000 the same rules apply.
- By mandating large separation zones it will force developers to look further out into unspoiled countryside and schemes will become even more controversial. Why should people living in the countryside have to host wind turbines to power towns and cities?
- It will kill community schemes. We are working on a number of community projects and thanks in part to the negative propaganda put about, it is near impossible to get 100% approval for any scheme. So it would just take 1 NIMBY to thwart the aspirations of an entire village. Fair? We don't think so.
This bill will, quite simply, kill the UK onshore wind industry dead... from single turbine community schemes upwards. For many this will cause to celebrate, however if you are concerned about energy security and climate change it's a disaster waiting to happen.
The UK is legally bound to reduce carbon emissions massively by 2050, we are so behind schedule its scary. If onshore wind falters then you could argue off-shore will pick up the slack - but at THREE TIMES THE COST are you willing to see your energy bills to take the hit?
Annual energy inflation is already running at 10 - 15% with no signs of doing anything but accelerating. Nuclear is now universally unpopular, besides which... where do you build new nuclear plant if experts are predicting significant sea level rises within their operating lifetime?
Signs and Portents
Just this week Scottish Power have announced gas and electricity price increases of 19% and 10% respectively with the threat that other suppliers may follow suit.
Gas price increases in summer?
Typically this is when demand is at its lowest and historically prices have fallen. If energy costs are spiraling, what then of food? Again, only this week a UN report warns that global food costs could increase by 30% - on top of 37% increases in many foods just in the last 12 months alone!
Oil prices are hovering around $115 per barrel having touched $125 earlier this year after a warning from the EIA that global production of oil has peaked. After years of denial the EIA has finally admitted that, unless some as yet undiscovered mega-field magically appears...
the amount of oil available every year from now on - will be less than the year before.
There have been many books written on the possible outcomes following peak oil with visions ranging from hellish Mad Max to a utopian Star Trek. One thing is for sure, as conventional oil stocks deplete the oil co's will focus their attention on harder to extract (aka more environmentally destructive) oil locked in the Canadian tar sands or perhaps under the polar regions.
Let's not forget climate change. While the economic downturn has been taking center stage the environmental picture has not improved. In 2010 CO2 emissions leaped to over 30 GIGATONNES.
Many experts now agree the goal of preventing a 2 degree rise in global temperatures is almost impossible.
Climate change is real and its already here. Weather patterns are becoming more erratic, every year the rate at which "record weather events" occurs appears to rising... record heat, record cold, record drought, record flooding... its there if you go and look for it.
The lack of fresh water is now also becoming a major issue.. this time outside of Africa. From the USA to China fresh water rivers are drying up - often as warming is causing a reduction in the annual snow fall on the great mountain ranges from which the rivers flow. Pressure on fresh water supplies then feeds directly into food prices.
All this as the worlds population moves towards 7 billion souls.
The signs and portents that have been present for years are now screaming at us to change.
How will we respond?
New report details common concerns over wind power
The Centre for Sustainable Energy has just published a report that covers the common concerns that are raised (and re-raised) every time a new wind turbine application is discussed.
The report is based on peer reviewed research and current Government policy/analysis and should be read in conjunction with any proposals for wind energy developments.
Simon Roberts, CSE Chief Executive, said “Of all renewable energy sources, wind power occupies a unique place in the public consciousness and generates strong opinions, both for and against. For the most part the debate is emotive and unhelpful, with both sides cherry-picking convenient facts to support their entrenched position whilst ignoring evidence to the contrary. "
“Our research paper aims to present pertinent research in a more balanced manner and we hope that it will make the debate less polarised and generate informed and constructive discussion."
“CSE’s view is that wind power is a necessary part of the energy mix that is required to meet our carbon emission reduction targets and help tackle climate change. However, wind power is not appropriate everywhere, and we believe it is the duty of local communities themselves to decide where there is a place for it through engaging responsibly with the best available evidence, and through working together to assess their own locality.”
The report can be found on the CSE website here.
How do you like your global food collapse?
If ever you needed proof that the current system is broken take a look at these recent comments from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) reporting on the spread of the global collapse of honey bee populations....Read more
Talbot farm public meeting held
Last night saw approximately 20 local residents attend our public meeting to discuss the Talbot Farm wind turbine.
While the audience as a whole were generally in support of the scheme three particular issues were raised: