Extracts from the Sept-October 2001 edition of Renew
These extracts only represent about 25% of it

4. The Battle for Wind

On one hand we have the likes of Sir Bernard Ingham claiming gleefully that ‘I personally have stopped 66% of planning applications’. And on the other Peter Hain, then Energy Minister, saying ‘we must move away from the "not in my back yard" attitude that still prevails over onshore wind projects’. The battle goes on. The anti-wind farm group Country Guardian has updated their web site. They argue that "it is the right of the people of Britain to enjoy both clean and safe energy generation and an un-degraded countryside" and claim that wind farms are the wrong option: see http//ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/windfarms

However, unsurprisingly, the British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) was unimpressed (see http://www.bwea.com). BWEA Chief Executive Nick Goodhall pulled no punches ‘The Case against Windfarms’ is so fundamentally warped that no wonder the author’s name is not to be seen. I’d be embarrassed, too, if anyone thought I could defend the claims to be found in it’. For example, he pointed out that the BWEA was advocating ‘no more than around 2,500 onshore turbines for the UK in the coming decade. A lot less than the 22,700 mentioned by CG, but I think you’ll find that this number, like much of the essay, is made up to scare you’.

The debate goes on, with feelings often running high, not least on the preservation of cherished landscapes - for an account of one recent struggle from an anti- wind viewpoint see http:// www.wind-farm.co.uk. But so too does the wind programme, with the government seeking to put responsibility on local councils and local communities to resolve the conflicts.

At the special parliamentary debate on Renewables in April Hain commented ‘I do not want any project to trample over local opinion, and each must conform to the highest environmental and planning standards. However, if we want cleaner, greener energy, every community in Britain must take its responsibilities and duties seriously’.

He concluded ‘in general, I suspect that future generations will look back at controversy over wind farm sites and wonder what all the fuss was about. They will be part of our landscape and seascape and we will be pleased to have them. Although it is important to take local wishes into account, we should not allow a NIMBY-ist stance to impose a veto on onshore wind farm developments’. (We’ll be reviewing the parliamentary debate in Renew 134)

* A large industrial ‘brownfield’ site in Redcar and Cleveland Borough in the N.E is being investigated as a possible site for an urban wind farm. Meanwhile small (400w) windturbines are beginning to be used on top of buildings in Japan, to provide power for air conditioning units. See Renewable Energy World May- June.

Wind Kills Birds ?

Meanwhile in the USA, the hoary old claim that windturbines kill birds has been recycled. In an article subtitled ‘Foxes Advocate Hen Welfare’ David Case, executive editor of TomPaine.com, commented that. ‘suddenly, some of the most unlikely people are losing sleep over what windmills might be doing to birds’. For example, he notes that newly appointed Environmental Protection Agency administrator Christy Todd Whitman, who has evidently backed President Bush’s decisions benefiting the coal industry, commented that "... windmills kill birds because they’re in the flyway".

He also noted that the corporate-funded Washington Legal Foundation, a well known critic of so-called "environmental radicals" wrote in a recent ad in the New York Times, "...how many acres of land must be despoiled to erect enough windmills - and how many birds must be shredded flying through their giant blades - to keep California from becoming a third world country?". He adds ‘the ranks of new bird protectionists also it seems include Jerry Taylor and Steve Slivinski of the Cato Institute - a right-wing, anti-regulation organization that receives part of its funding from oil companies and that houses virulent foes of the environmental movement’.

The reality is surely that the number of bird deaths due to collisions with moving windturbine blades is tiny compared with that from power grid cables or other static hard- to-see man made objects, or of course toxic pollutants from power plants, cars, and so on. Individual birds are very adept at avoiding moving objects. Siting windfarms in migration paths ought to be avoided, since that involves large numbers on definite routes. But otherwise it’s not really an issue, as many studies have now shown.

Wind v MoD

As we noted in Renew 132, Ecogens windfarm project in Northumberland, with 80 turbines, has fallen foul of the Ministry of Defence (MoD) who said it would interfere with pilot safety, because of radar interference. The DTI decided to support the MOD’s objection, but that decision is now subject of a judicial review, lodged by Ecogen. Ecogen’s Austin Hamilton told the Guardian (May 31st) "Objecting to wind farms on those grounds is absurd. If the RAF cannot fly near wind turbines, we should be exporting them as defence systems. No other country stops wind developments on the grounds they interfere with aircraft. It is ludicrous".

Nick Goodwall, from the BWEA, said: "Does this mean that the RAF is unable to operate in Germany, Denmark, Sweden or even Latvia,", noting that there were now roughly 50,000 in the world. The BWEA said three large areas - south Scotland and the borders, north Scotland, mid-Wales and parts of the coast - had in effect been declared ‘no go’ by the MoD: "It means there is an effective blanket ban in the most suitable areas of the country".

Worse still, the Financial Times (May 29) reported that this ban might also apply to offshore windfarm sites, since the RAF often flew sorties around the coast. Crown Estates, the body responsible for the English and Welsh coastlines, and for giving consent to the 18 proposed offshore wind projects, told the FT: "The MoD has informed us of potential concerns at some sites. We hope these can be resolved by discussion and would be disappointed if they represented a blanket ban".

Scottish Power, which, with Shell and Elsam, is planning to develop an offshore site near Blackpool, said the MoD had expressed concern about the potential impact on radar systems at the nearby British Aerospace complex, and overall, Windpower Monthly reported that the MoD had expressed concerns about aspects of 13 of the 18 new sites.

However, the MoD told the Guardian that: "It is not true to say we have a blanket objection to wind farms, on or offshore. We take every case on its merits. We have done experiments with the RAF in 1997, and shown that the turning of the turbine blades can interfere with modern radar. The Kielder site is near the Nato electronic warfare establishment at Spadeadam in Northumberland, and so we fear for pilot safety. On that basis we asked the DTI to turn it down. We have not put in a formal objection to the off-shore sites yet, because there have not been planning applications, but we have indicated our concerns".

The MoD evidently rejected plans in the 1990s for 20km exclusion zones from wind farms around radar installations in favour of considering each development on its merits.