‘Tracks’ are actually 5 metre wide roads of crushed stone with soil and rubble piled alongside

Construction of turbine basesConstruction of turbine bases

Turbine base with concrete (note person top left)Turbine base with concrete (note person top left)

Turbine sections en route (1) Turbine sections en route (1)

Turbine sections en route (2)Turbine sections en route (2)

Getting turbine sections up hillsGetting turbine sections up hills

Delivery of generator section (Nacelle)

Huge machine holds turbine sections upright

Erected column & nacelle

Erection of columns. Moudy Mea in 2010?

Delivery of turbine bladesDelivery of turbine blades

Blade attachment

Almost complete

Black Law w/f, Forth, Scotland. 12 turbines 330 ft high – note Transit van

ConclusionsConclusions1. Building wind power stations is heavy

engineering on a massive scale

2. There will be inevitable damage and destruction

3. The risk of siltation and run off is high

4. Such structures cannot be ‘mitigated’

5. The visual damage will last a generation or more

OutlineOutline1. A brief look at the proposal

2. Building a wind power station on Moudy Mea

3. Misconceptions and myths about wind power

MISCONCEPTIONSMISCONCEPTIONS

Britain has a huge wind resource which can meet most of our power needs

WRONG

Annual 1971-2000

2.3 to 8.0

8.0 to 11.5

11.5 to 16.1

16.1 to 20.7

20.7 to 27.6

27.6 to 34.5

34.5 to 36.0

Mph

Guernsey = 14.1 mph

Jersey = 13.0 mph

‘The climate of the UK and recent trends’. Published by the UK Climate Impacts Programme and the Meteorological Office. December 2007

MET OFFICE UK WIND SPEEDS

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38

Windspeed (miles/hour)

Da

ys

/yr

(ye

llo

w)

110 days

Wind speeds in the UK – Met Office data

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38

Windspeed (miles/hour)

po

we

r (r

ed

)73% 27%

Typical wind turbine power curve

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38

Windspeed (miles/hour)

Da

ys

/yr

(ye

llo

w)

& p

ow

er

(re

d)

73% 27%

What this means for electricity supplyWhat this means for electricity supply

• A wind farm will produce no electricity for up to 110 days a year (3.5 months)

• It will run at less than 25% of its potential output for a further 150 days (5 months)

• So we will only have significant electricity production for about 100 days a year

So how do we manage on low wind days?So how do we manage on low wind days?

We use BACK UP using

coal and gas fired power stations

Homes suppliedHomes suppliedDevelopers always state that a certain number of

homes will be supplied. In reality;• NO homes will be supplied for 110 days a year• Only about a quarter of those claimed will be

supplied for another 150 days.

• WITHOUT BACK UP FROM COAL OR GAS-FIRED POWER STATIONS WIND WOULD TOTALLY FAIL DOMESTIC USERS

A lesson from Germany

MYTHMYTH• Wind farms can replace nuclear power

WRONG

Base load and demandBase load and demand

Maximum ever UK demand was for 54,431 MW

on December 10th 2002

BASE LOAD – MAINLY

NUCLEAR

Submission to the House of Lords Economic Affairs Submission to the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee Inquiry into the Economics of Renewables Committee Inquiry into the Economics of Renewables

from Eon (UK)from Eon (UK)

‘…if the UK required 40,000MW of wind capacity to met its renewables target by 2020, only 8% (3,600MW) could be relied upon to meet peak winter demand. This means that 36,400MW of renewable capacity would need to be backed up by thermal plant’.

Ref: SC/07-08/EA311

What does this mean?What does this mean?

• 36,400MW of new back up would require the building of;

• 20 to 30 new coal-fired new power station OR

• 40 to 70 new gas-fired power station

TOTAL COST = over £200 billion

MISCONCEPTIONMISCONCEPTION

Wind power stations reduce greenhouse gas emissions

VERY LITTLE IF ANY

VANISHING COVANISHING CO22 SAVINGS SAVINGS

0.98

0.86

0.65

0.270.37

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

A B C D E

ton

nes

/MW

hMid-

1990s

Dirty coal

1995-2007

BWEA2000DTI mix

OFGEM, DEFRA &

GOVT

TODAY DEFRA 2010

Quotation from the UKERC Report, The Costs and Impacts of Intermittency’ , March 2006

‘Actual CO2 savings are dependent on what fossil fuel plant is displaced, reduced by efficiency losses in thermal plant ……’

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

Seimens, Science in Parliament 60/2, April 2003

‘A 2% loss of efficiency in a coal-fired power station can increase CO2 emissions by 10%’

ARE THERE ANY SAVINGS?ARE THERE ANY SAVINGS?

“When plant is de-loaded to balance the system, it results in a significant proportion of the plant operating relatively inefficiently……

…..it has been estimated that the entire benefit of the renewables programme has been negated by the increased emissions from part loaded plant…….”

David Tolley (Innogy plc), Jan 2003, Address to the Institution of Mechanical Engineers

CATOTELM

ACROTELM

DRAINAGE AT CEFN CROES

Ditching round a turbine base

COCO22 pay back time for Stainmore wind pay back time for Stainmore wind

power stationpower station

if no peat on site = 2.3yrs

If average peat depth is 1 metre = 11.5yrs

If average peat depth is 2 metres = 21.6yrs

Assumptions 12 X 2.5MW turbines, LF = 30%, 12km of ‘track’, 1 borrow pits, 15,000 tonnes of aggregate, 12,000 concrete, CO2 displaced at 0.37t/MWh

What does the COWhat does the CO22 saving really mean? saving really mean?

If Stainmore is 12 x 2.5MW turbines the developer will claim a

saving of 29,170 tonnes of CO2 each year (based on 0.37t/MWh)

You may well say that is a lot to save BUTlook at it another way

What does the COWhat does the CO22 saving really mean? saving really mean?

If Stainmore saves 29,170 tonnes of CO2 each year

The Kingsnorth coal-fired power station proposed for

Kent will emit 21,978 tonnes per DAY

MYTHMYTH

• We can’t meet our future targets without a massive wind power

programme

FALSE