ELIZABETH MANN BSC

Copywrite

© Elizabeth Mann 2017  |   wind-farm.co.uk

Energy

Campaign for the Protection of Rural England

Maintenance

There are burning issues which still need to be addressed, not least the safety factor if turbines catch fire. CEWT. Noise, clarification of Wind Speeds, the real situation regarding MOD, NATS ,CAA, RO & ROCs and 'discrepancies' in the ROC register (Ofgem) which remain unresolved.


I fail to see how decisions can be made without this information, a crucial part of the balancing act, potential benefits and potential disbenefits. Could that be the reason for the draconian measures of ignoring potential disbenefits and and the attempt to use the Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 to acquire land?


Safety: According to press articles It appears that due to the height, there is no equipment available to deal with turbine fires. Surely this should be the Developer's responsibility. To have to allow a fire to burn itself out could be dangerous. Anyone servicing the turbine deserves to know there are safety procedures that could be put into practice should he be unable to descend unaided.


MOD NATS CAA :Conflicting reports from MOD, CAA, NATS and Developers are giving cause for Concern


Wind Speeds: Difficult to access meaningful data.


CEWT: Conveniently and cunningly ignored.


Health: Noise

25 Feb 2005 : Column 892W Hansard


Adam Price: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the ETSU W/13/00921 REP report on low frequency noise and vibrations was compiled; what size turbines were studied; and if (she )will make a statement. [217508]

Mr. Mike O'Brien: Assuming the reference to ESTU W/13/00921 means the ETSU 97 "The Assessment and Rating of Noise from Wind Farms" which was published in September 1996. The turbines studied for the report were 450 kW machines at St. Breock in Cornwall.



Where is the Dti report to update ETSU? It has been promised at regular intervals since Spring 2005 and in June 2006 it is still not available

Dear Mrs Mann,
> It was good to talk to you and I'm sorry that your batteries ran out!
> Please feel free to let me know your concerns regarding ETSU, and can then investigate whether a revision is in order - perhaps we can talk again once the LFN study is available.
> Kind regards,
> Alan Smith
> 07979 406771

My reply is copied here

The following situations remain un resolved

Unresolved issues e-mail reply

Attaching Hansard reference ( 25 Feb 2005 : Column 892W )to support my statement that in my opinion ETSU 97 is outdated. Turbines were were of capacity 450kw and are now up to 3000 kw
Elizabeth  

Although promised by mid April by both Dti and Future Energy Solutions (FES)it still has not surfaced. (18 June 2006) Note: ETSU is now part of FES !

Ofgem Discrepancies not resolved even through FOI

Renewable Obligation (RO) The obligation placed on licensed electricity suppliers to deliver a specified amount of their electricity from and eligible renewable source. Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) Eligible renewable generators receive Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) for each MWh of Electricity generated. These certificates can then be sold to suppliers. In order to fulfil their obligation suppliers can either present enough certificates to cover the required percentage of their output, or they can pay a buyout price of ?0 per MWh for any shortfall. All proceeds from buyout payments are recycled to suppliers in proportion to the number of ROCs they present.

The above definitions are from the North East of England Regional Renewable Energy Strategy (NERRES) document (p77) prepared by TNEI for GO-NE They are typical of the definitions used and do not appear to explain clearly to the consumers, who pay for it, that this is a covert subsidy, not a levy, appearing to favour wind energy above other technologies Now it seems the Energy Minister agrees.....

House of Commons -Oral Answers published May 2006 Full text can be read on line

Q. Mr Lancaster......... but does the Minister agree that we need to reconsider the Renewables Obligation which focuses on wind power to the detriment of other emerging technologies

A. Malcolm Wicks Yes I agree that the renewables obligation despite its strengths..................................could appear to be a blunt instrument and certainly seems to be favouring wind energy.

Note The above answer from Malcolm Wicks was most interesting considering the parliamentary Guide to Windfarms launched on 12/01/2005

Reduction in Carbon Dioxide Emissions: Are wind turbines reducing emissions as promised?

25 Feb 2005 : Column 892W Hansard
Adam Price: To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what reduction in carbon dioxide emissions is expected from the proposed wind turbine programme. [217510]

Mr. Mike O'Brien: As stated in my answer to question 217505 Government's renewable target of 10 per cent. of energy from renewable sources by 2010 would mean a reduction, per year, of 2.3 million tons of carbon dioxide over that same energy being produced by gas. The 10 per cent. target relates to all renewable technologies. The Government do not have a wind turbine programme. The support being provided by Government for renewables under the RO is technology neutral .

The follow reports are very critical of the Renewables Obligation (RO):

  • Recent reports by the Auditor General (HC 210 Session 2004-2005) House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts, Dti ( 6th Report Session 2005-6) also appear to have been ignored.
  • The Auditor General stated the level of support for the RO was greater than necessary.
  • The Committee of Public Accounts (CPA) was concerned with the lack of parliamentary control
  • CPA voiced their concern that the RO was not explained to customers, who pay for it.
  • Also, the Chief Executive for EON UK has been reported as saying "Without the Renewables Obligation certificates (ROCs) nobody would be building wind farms"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overall, my main concerns remain:

  • RO and ROCs Why is the massive subsidy, paid by the consumers not explained clearly, nor it seems, mentioned at planning meetings?
  • Why is it discrepancies on the ROC register can still not been explained even after contacting FOI /Ofgem
  • Real concerns regarding National Safety and Security seem to be ignored. (Letter sent to Defence Policy and Intelligence expressing concerns)
  • Why has the Dti report to update ETSU W/13/00921 REP, report on low frequency noise and vibrations, not yet surfaced 05/06
  • What will be the outcome of the RES and the RSS with PPS22 and its Companion Guide? Will the cry of 'all renewables so long as it is wind' continue?
  • Are the reductions in emissions overestimated?

Does not "Forget Old Battles, we now have the law"- show serious errors of Governance? (ODPM)