Small scale hydroelectic schemes work

As someone who really is concerned about the environment and how we have the ability to mess it up it might seem strange that I am less than convinced that we should have massive wind farms all over the countryside. It's where I part company with 'Friends of the Earth' and other 'green' organisations of similar mind who think that anything to which you can attach a label that says "renewable" has to be supported no matter what. I can't go along with that outlook I'm afraid.

One particular renewable I've been enthusiastic about for a very long time however is that of small scale water power. I'm very pleased that on the BBC news website you can read here and here about how a Welsh hill farmer is utilising the energy of a fast flowing stream on his land to provide power some of which at least can go into the National Grid and give him a useful extra income. The thing is that we have huge numbers of streams and small rivers, not to mention long pipelines of water from reservoirs, all of which have the potential to turn turbines or Archimedes Screws to generate electricity. This is an absolutely classic instance of "small is beautiful" as they say - two massive plusses of these schemes are (1) that the generating equipment is compact and unobtrusive and hence is not blighting the landscape, and (2) by having these small schemes close to the user the huge power losses resulting from electricity being carried over huge distances from the large traditional power stations exist to a far far lesser extent.

OK I'm realistic enough to understand that such sources of power can only supply a little of our needs but the technology is well proved. The water used is only borrowed for goodness sake so, unlike fossil fuels which go on getting depleted, the water will continue to be available. It's not only in the Welsh hills that this potential exists: I understand that there is a river (or maybe more than one) in South Somerset from which numerous waterwheels for mills obtained their power. A number of these are in a scheme whereby the old water wheels have been replaced powerwise by modern turbines. So there is proved potential in the lowlands as well.

In my neck of the woods there is an interesting example of water power usage which dates in fact to before the Second World War. The water is taken from the River Tavy, one of England's fastest flowing rivers. The engineers utilised some existing leats originally used for mining purposes and built a small power station at Mary Tavy just off the western edge of Dartmoor. Later, down in Tavistock, some of the Tavy's water goes into the Tavistock Canal (a feature again resulting from the old mining boom). Terminating high above the old port of Morwellham the water is now diverted down a pipe into another hydro electric plant on the Devon bank of the Tamar.

The middle Tamar Valley was home to many leats in its industrial heyday as was Dartmoor as I hinted at in my last paragraph. Why can't the powers that be see the immense potential inland waterways and pipelines could have in generating electricity. A large part of the answer I'm sure is that each of the small schemes I enthuse about is exactly what I've said - "small". Unlike the wind energy people who no doubt are very powerful lobbyists in the corridors of power there is no one really to bend the ear of a Minister for the little projects which in total could add up to a lot.

Just one other example I'll mention here and that is one of my favourite locations - the twin villages of Lynton and Lynmouth on Devon's north coast. The West Lyn river drops rapidly off Exmoor to join its sister the East Lyn at, unsurprisingly, Lynmouth. In its short course the West Lyn not only powers a hydro electric station but also provides the means by which the steep cliff railway linking the two villages functions.

That's proper green energy for you!

Wind Energy distortion

I consider myself to be as passionate about environmental matters as anybody but I am very free thinking about the problems we have here on Mother Earth and won't support a policy just because mainstream opinion considers it be "green". A case in point that I have alluded to in the past concerns wind energy. Conventional thinking seems to be that the more wind farms we have the better in the search for environmentally friendly power generation. I beg to differ.

Last week the early morning 'Farming Today' programme on Radio 4 was concentrating on the vexed question of wind turbines in the countryside, on the Saturday they have a sort of omnibus edition of it pulling together some of the strands in the programmes of the previous five days and I was awake enough on Saturday morning to hear at least some of this. What really fired me up was the interview on it with Chris Tomlinson from the British Wind Energy Association (BWEA). Talk about arrogance! He was questioned by the interviewer, Charlotte Smith, about the fact that wind farms aren't delivering power all the time. He really didn't want to answer this one and she had to press him for a reply. He said something about them working 80 to 85% of the time. He very hurriedly went on to another aspect whereas Charlotte should have gone further and got him to admit that out of the time the mills are turning it is only a part of that time that they are delivering their maximum output. The way he tried to duck the questioning told me all I needed to know.

What really does make me irate is when the wind power proponents talk about a windfarm producing the energy for so many homes. This is so misleading because there are many occasions in the course of a year when it is yielding either no power at all or something below the theoretical maximum. Going back to Mr Tomlinson it wasn't just me who was dismayed by his attitude - there is a message board on the BBC's 'Farming Today' website and there are many listeners on there who have taken issue with his approach. Definitely not good.

The RSPB's attitude to Wind Farms

Well now we have it: the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds have stated that we definitely must have more on shore wind farms. They state that there is a small percentage of possible sites that they would have to oppose on wildlife grounds but they would not object to the great majority of planning proposals. I can understand that the risk to birds, particularly the rarer species, is far bigger in some places than others. It seems that, never mind about a relatively small number of birds that might get chewed up by the whirling blades at sites that have their approval, it's their contention that the loss of bird life from climate change could be so huge that building more wind farms has to be a way of trying to ameliorate the problem.

I've made my stance on wind farms clear before, my primary objection being that the amount of power generated from them is unpredictable as the wind velocity in this country at least is so variable. Nothing irritates me more than to be told that a certain wind farm will provide the energy for a population of so many; the industry are assuming the ideal wind speeds for maximum output - what a con! As I see it back up has to be available if the wind is either too strong or non-existent and I have yet to see any convincing refutation of this argument.

The upshot of the RSPB statement is a green light for more wind farm construction from one of the major conservation charities. What would be interesting to see is how their huge membership would respond if they had a chance to vote on the viewpoint expressed by the organisation, not that they would ask the question.

Storms and windfarms

Yesterday evening. A very wild and wet affair. Just the sort of weather when a large swathe of this country's population would be glad to be indoors, to crank up the heating, to watch Saturday evening TV and to be boiling those kettles for numerous cups of tea. Which all means a spike in demand for electricity. Just as well then that we have all these wind farms up and running to add to the supply. Except of course it wasn't like that! With gusts of wind over 100mph in NW Scotland and even down here in the more southern latitudes anything up to 70mph it is fairly obvious that the windmills would have been deactivated down the whole of the western side of the UK for the duration of the storm.

It's much much quieter here this morning on the weather front and no doubt the wind farms will be churning out some power today. What I am trying to point out is that unlike other forms of generation the wind farms have a constantly varying output and that this is totally unrelated to the needs of the moment. I know I bang on about wind generation and I'm not saying that maybe a small turbine could serve a single dwelling in some remote breezy moorland spot but I will continue to flag up this matter as it's so important.

The thing that we should be shown is how the total output of this country's wind farms varies over say a year and how that variation relates to overall demand for electricity. I've stated before on this blog that when new wind farms are proposed their instigators talk about the size of population that they would serve. These people never qualify such statements by adding words such as "in optimum conditions". The way the mainstream media allow this to go unchallenged makes me so very angry. Investigative journalists need to wake up.

Wind farms and end of cold snap

It very much looks as if this lengthy cold but dry snap is coming to an end. Well for the moment at least. For the next few days we should be back to Cornish normal with weather fronts coming in off the Atlantic. Although I have had to crank up the heating my terraced cottage being very small and with neighbours either side doesn't suffer the heat loss of some properties.

One feature of the anticyclone that has given us this settled weather is that the winds have been light or very light. Obviously domestic energy use has been particularly high over the past few weeks. Now interestingly an alternative energy engineer who I have met in the past is a huge fan of wind energy. I most certainly am not. He reckoned that as the wind blew stronger demand for energy increased so that there was a good correlation between wind speed and energy use. I agree with many things he says but this is quite definitely NOT one of them! The weather of the past three weeks is exactly the sort we can get in winter with the turbines being very ineffective.

We really need accurate figures of the actual output of our wind farms at different times of the year and for these figures to be compared with the optimum. Maybe the Freedom of Information Act could yield that information. One of the things that annoys is when someone says such and such a wind farm will provide for the needs of a population of so many. Because the wind farm output is so variable such statements have little value. The media should be nailing this sort of misinformation and not letting the wind farm supporters get away with it.

Offshore windfarms drawback

We have now had a government announcement about their plans to massively increase the number of offshore windfarms in their bid to raise the percentage of renewables for our energy supplies. In fact it is reckoned that a wind turbine could be in view from almost every clifftop in Britain. Not surprisingly environmental organisations are well pleased with what they are hearing so why is this environmentalist not opening the champagne right now?

Superficially it all looks very good. But of course it will come at a high cost financially, although in fairness the better alternatives of tidal and current power would also be phenomenally expensive in their early days at least. As I have stated before the unreliability of wind strength is my overriding concern. You only have to look at the past few days to get a sense of this - last Sunday off the south west coast the winds were storm force 10 gusting to violent storm 11 yet on hearing the weather reports on Tuesday morning's shipping forecast what did I hear: "Scilly automatic, wind calm ... " In less than 48 hours the wind in that area had gone from one absolute extreme to the other, both situations being unsuitable for wind generation.

When government minister John Hutton talks about this new generation of wind farms being sufficient to supply all the electricity needed by domestic customers I start thinking that is typical political sleight of hand. It is possible that all these wind farms working at their absolute optimum just might supply all of our domestic needs although I'm sceptical of even this. But to imply as Hutton seems to be doing that they would be adequate 365 days a year is plain wrong. We really do need some sort of independent audit as to the degree to which they could supply our power needs over the course of a typical year rather than having to rely on the spin from the government and the wind turbine companies.

For the sake of balance I have to state that wind farms all round the coast (assuming they are working that is) would assist in reducing power losses because with the present situation in which a lot of the power generation is 'up North' the amount of power lost through the long transmission lines is colossal. But this doesn't invalidate my basic argument.

Windfarm developer's website misleads

Since writing my last piece I thought that really I should see if the developer for the proposed 'Davidstow Community Windfarm' had a website as I am keen to be fair in my argument. Like most I have my prejudices but do have some ability to look at matters very objectively and also I can be very forensic in my analysis.

So if you click here you can see what this scheme is all about from the developers point of view. Now the saying is that a picture is worth a thousand words and I would suggest that with a critical eye a map can also be worth a thousand words. So looking down the links on the left hand side of the page my eyes lit up when I saw the words 'Interactive Map' and I quickly went to it. Very interesting it turns out to be! On clicking to launch the map you are first presented with four locations outside the delineated area of development on which you can click to see how the windfarm would look after erection compared with the same view now. You might think these would be labelled 1, 2, 3 and 4. Wrong! They are shown as Viewpoints 3, 4, 8 and 13. H'm, no indication where there may be other viewpoints. Strange that! Number 13 at Showery Tor is the nearest of these 4 viewpoints and looking over Crowdy Reservoir it's not surprising that the windfarm is very visible. Very honest these windfarm people! Or are they. My eyesight might not be the best but I can't see the blades in the 'predicted view'. Perhaps they are turning too fast! They will add considerably to the height of the structures of course. And Showery Tor is very close indeed to the National Trust owned Rough Tor, Cornwall's second highest hill. It's worth mentioning at this point that Davidstow is not far from the Delabole Windfarm (Britain's first) where plans are afoot to upgrade to much larger turbines and so there would be a sort of cumulative affect to one's view, particularly from the 'Westdowns' area I would have thought (Viewpoint 8).

From this page one can now click on a close up view of the site plan where you can note exactly how the layout for the 20 turbines appears. But it's when you go to 'Show Zone of Visual Influence' that the developer's case can be really shot to pieces. Using four different colours on this very small scale map they show the following - 1 to 5 turbines fully visible, 6 to 10 turbines fully visible, 11 to 15 turbines fully visible, 16 to 20 turbines fully visible (my emphasis throughout). I never knew how important a little word 'fully' was! A cursory glance at the map might make you wonder just what the fuss is about. I wouldn't argue that the number of locations at which you can see the full height from base to tip of blade might be limited but what about the top 70% or 50% of the structure? You have to be absolutely forensic when looking at any developer's evidence I find.

I don't live many miles from the granite mound of Kit Hill, a Country Park, from which a great swathe of East Cornwall and West Devon is visible. As existing windfarms are visible from there then I have to suspect that much of the Davidstow scheme could also be seen. It is said that the very top of the new turbines will be pretty well level with 'Brown Willy' and I'm sure that eminence can be seen from far more places than the four colours on the map.

If I lived near Davidstow I would go through this website with a magnifying glass and read every word. Alas time is too short for me but I've seen enough to convince me that this scheme should be turned down.

Davidstow residents unhappy about windfarm

Residents at Davidstow on the north flank of Bodmin Moor are very unhappy about the latest wind farm proposal for Cornwall. When it comes to windswept acres North Cornwall has more than most areas I guess so naturally wind turbine companies look on it very favourably. Now there is a plan for another windfarm this time at the woodland location near the old airfield.

I've blogged in the past about my reservations concerning onshore wind farms (See here). This suggestion for Davidstow is for the new generation of tall turbines (to put this in perspective 3 times the height of Exeter Cathedral!) whereas up until now the much smaller first generation turbines have been built in Cornwall. The company behind this latest scheme have cheekily called their proposal "Davidstow Community Windfarm" I believe thus suggesting that the local residents are enthusiasts for it! And because that part of Bodmin Moor is a mix of disused airfield and forestry they consider it to be a brownfield site! Now in all honesty this isn't the most stunningly beautiful part of the county but its proximity to Brown Willy, Cornwall's highest peak, and that it's not that far from the wild North Cornwall coast means that the wind farm will be dominating the views from some of the most special parts of Cornwall.

Another factor regarding the proposed site is that it is a very significant winter roost for starlings - I must go and witness this myself one of these days. Local authorities are in a bind in Devon and Cornwall: I could advance arguments against the location of any new proposals in the two counties but it's obvious that if a developer goes to appeal some will get through as happened at Fullabrook Down near Ilfracombe.

This government will push through more and more windfarms and they will increasingly be of the much larger turbines.

BT wants windfarm at Goonhilly

At present BT operates its famous Earth Satellite Station at Goonhilly on the Lizard Peninsula. Last year the company announced that much of the work there will be transferred to its site in Herefordshire, a shame as west Cornwall is the home of much of the communications revolution. You just have to think of the telegraph cables from all over the world that terminate at Porthcurno and of Marconi's radio transmission over the Atlantic Ocean involving Poldhu apart from the Goonhilly operation in much more recent times to realise that the area is right in the thick of it.

Now I appreciate that companies like BT have on occasion to rationalise their activities but on the plus side they have to leave at least one dish - it's the one known as 'Arthur' - because it is a listed structure. Adjacent to the satellite station is a wind farm, much newer, which I think is completely independent of BT. Could be wrong but I'm almost sure that I'm right on this. This particular wind farm, like others in the county is what I call a first generation of its type. In other words the turbines are much less tall than today's monsters.

Not surprisingly BT's activities gobble up a tremendous amount of energy and they are keen to use their sites for renewable power supplies and, bearing in mind that the exposed Lizard has a tendency to be pretty breezy, they are suggesting building their own wind farm there. Reports suggest that they are looking to erect from 3 to 6 turbines up to 80 metres tall. (I hate all this metric stuff, I ought to convert it to 'proper' measurements I know). Anyway they will be very much taller than what we are used to in Cornwall and I think that many will be outraged if the scheme goes ahead particularly as it is in an AONB.

I have yet to be convinced that wind farms should be built onshore in Britain. Their output in relation to their size and landscape impact is not sufficient. Couple that with the extreme variability of wind speed and they don't make much sense to me. Bear in mind too that the wind farm developers get a hefty subsidy from the public purse. Just possibly that's why BT is showing its green credentials. Brian you are getting too cynical in your old age!

Fullabrook Down wind farm approved

Following a public enquiry the government has given the green light to the construction of the 66 megawatt wind farm at Fullabrook Down. Putting the geography into context Fullabrook Down is part of the high ground about halfway between Barnstaple and Ilfracombe. The 22 turbines will each stand about 360 feet tall. Energy minister Malcolm Wicks stated that the project would generate enough clean electricity to meet the average annual needs of 30,000 domestic customers or about 30% of total electricity consumption in North Devon. He also said it would also save almost 65,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions each year.

Here are my thoughts. Firstly I'm not an enthusiast of onshore wind energy. Not primarily because of the look of the wind turbines - if I thought they were effective 24/7 and 365 days a year and they really were the best option for 'clean' energy then I might revise my opinion. However as usual government figures in support of the go-ahead have to be taken with a very generous pinch of salt. It's not explained whether the provision of enough power to supply 30,000 homes is based on the assumption that the wind will be at its optimum speed at all times which obviously it won't. Why doesn't the minister come clean on this issue? And how does he define North Devon? And why do they talk about so many tonnes of CO2 saved each year? To the ordinary person such figures are absolutely meaningless, they could be ten times bigger or smaller it wouldn't mean anything.

Because of the constantly varying speed of the wind such developments would never be able to supply the base load for the National Grid. I've heard it said that as the wind blows stronger then electricity use increases. I'm not convinced at all by this argument. For a start think of the obviously huge chunks of energy that are needed which are totally independent of wind speed, power in factories and hospitals for instance. On occasion we have very cold but still nights where extra heat is needed. And increasingly in the summer (although not this last one I admit) there is demand for cooling fans in shops, offices, etc when it is very hot with no breeze.

Supporters of onshore wind energy have never made their case to my satisfaction. I do support genuine environmental initiatives but in this country with such variability in weather conditions I have to say these onshore wind factories are not the way to go.