The first independent study to rate farms according to how much electricity they produce shows that wind farms south of the Scottish border are not generating as much as the Government assumed when it set the target of producing a tenth of Britain’s energy from renewables by 2010 and 15 per cent by 2015.

Despite millions being spent on wind turbines, the study by the Renewable Energy Foundation shows that England and Wales are not windy enough to allow large turbines to work at the rates claimed for them. The foundation, a charity that aims to evaluate wind and other forms of renewable energy on an equal basis, based its study of more than 500 turbines now in operation on data supplied by companies to Ofgem, the energy regulator.

The study shows that even wind farms in Cornwall on west-facing coasts, which might be expected to be the most efficient, operated at only 24·1 per cent of capacity on average. Turbines in mid-Wales ran on average at only 23·8 per cent. Those in the Yorkshire Dales ran at 24·9 per cent and Cumbria 25·9 of capacity. The only regions with turbines operating at or above 30 per cent of capacity were in southern Scotland, which averaged 31·5 per cent, Caithness, Orkney and Shetland at 32·9 per cent and offshore (North Hoyle and Scroby Sands on opposite sides of the country), which came in at 32·6 per cent.

The report concludes that the most effective place to site the turbines is at sea near major cities where they can harness the greater power of off-shore winds without losing much of the electricity generated in transmission through the National Grid from remote areas such as the north of Scotland.

John Constable, an adviser to the foundation, said: “All the Government’s targets are based on wind farms running at 30 per cent of capacity. It is quite clear that if they are built anywhere on land south of the border, the targets will not be met.”

The foundation’s report found some real “turkeys” in lowland England – some attached to the offices of high profile companies. Worst of all is the turbine close to the M25 at Kings Langley, Herts at the HQ of Renewable Energy Systems, the green energy division of Robert McAlpine group. This produces 7·7 per cent of the electricity it would if there was enough wind for it to run continuously at full power.

The study says the turbine at GlaxoSmithKline’s pharmaceutical plant at Barnard Castle, Co Durham, which is in a built up area and uses second-hand turbines, operates at 8·8 per cent of capacity. “We are really talking about a garden ornament, not a power station. These are statements about the company’s corporate social responsibility, not efficient generating capacity,” Mr Constable said.

The foundation says that too much subsidy (£45.50 per megawatt hour under the renewables obligation which gives wind farms 60-70 per cent of their annual income) has encouraged wind development in poor sites. One house will need between three and five megawatt hours a year. Dr Ian Mays, managing director of Renewable Energy Systems, whose turbine scored lowest in the report, said: “Situated in low wind speed Hertfordshire, the RES turbine was never intended to generate huge amounts of electricity. But each unit it does generate is zero-carbon and you can’t get much better than that.”

A spokesman for the British Wind Energy Association accused the Renewable Energy Foundation of having an “anti wind agenda” and said it was “deeply suspicious” of the findings.

A plan for a wind farm on land owned by Mohamed Fayed at Invercassley near Lairg in Sutherland has been refused by Highland councillors. An appeal is expected.

• Your house price could fall over 15% by being near wind turbines
• The turbines will be less than 25% efficient
• That each of the 12,500 homes these turbines provide power for will pay £218 in subsidies/year
• These turbines could affect your sleep and health. Planned noise levels exceed those known to cause night time problems

Carole and Andy Hall and Jinny and John Casey have climbed Suilven in Scotland to raise funds for Preserve.

This is Suilven in the far north of Scotland that Carole Hall decided she would like to climb to raise funds for Preserve. She has been going to this area, where her sister Debra lives, for over 20 years but had never had the courage to do it before. This was going to be quite a challenge as Carole and Andy had not done any hill walking before let alone an A+ mountain such as Suilven ( That’s the highest grade without a rope!)

First of all we had to put in some serious training. So over the course of the year we all tackled hills in the Derbyshire Peak District and the Yorkshire dales to get some serious walking practice in.

Then in October Andy drove us the 700 miles to Lochinver where we were staying. (Thanks Andy -12 hours is a lot of driving!)

The walk was planned for the Monday at the crack of dawn as we needed every second of daylight.

There was a gruelling 4 hour walk in over heather, streams and peat bogs just to get to the base of the mountain.

The nearer we got the more impossible the climb seemed. The mountain side looked near vertical BUT we had said we would do it so we soldiered on.

As we neared the saddle between the 2 peaks of Suilven the path became very unstable and sheer. We were all anxious at this point but we didn’t want to turn back having come so far so we encouraged each other up the last few feet. It was worth it. The view was amazing.

Unbelievably someone had built a stone wall up there which was a welcome shelter from the wind.

As we continued up the views opened out further but we couldn’t stay too long as we were all worried about how we would descend safely and there was still the 5 hours walk back to the car before the daylight went.

Yippee!! We made it, exhausted, but all in one piece. 10 hours hard slog but it was worth it!

On the way down Carole said “My Gran always said ‘where there’s a will there’s a way’”.

Well you certainly proved that Carole and I think your Gran would have been proud of you.

Over £1000 was raised for Preserve.

We all are (and of ourselves too!)

You can still support their efforts and help raise funds for PRESERVE:

see http://sites.google.com/site/carolesclimb for more information

Current thinking is that this distance should be a minimum of 2km for turbines of the size planned for the Chelveston Airfield.

In Scotland, Planning Advice calls for a 2km set back on new turbines and while citizens of England currently enjoy no such explicit protection, Planning Policy Statement 22 (PPS 22, para 22: Noise) clearly establishes the right of Local Planning Authorities to define a set back minimum distance:

‘Local planning authorities should ensure that renewable energy developments have been located and designed in such a way to minimise increases in ambient noise levels. Plans may include criteria that set out the minimum separation distances between different types of renewable energy projects and existing developments.’

Indeed, Lincolnshire County Council is already putting in place a Planning Protocol which will call for a 2km set back for large turbines.

Moreover, a Bill which has been recently tabled in the House of Lords, “Wind Turbines (Minimum distances from Residential Premises) Bill (HL)”, states that the ‘minimum’ distance requirement should be 2000m for turbines which are between 100m and 150m high, ie the height of those planned for Chelveston Airfield.

The following diagrams show the impact of applying the 2km set back principle to CRE’s proposal. They illustrate that all the turbines will be within 2km of a dwelling somewhere.

PRESERVE is writing to both Bedfordshire and East Northants Councils to suggest that they exercise their right, on behalf on their constituents, to require minimum set back distances of at least 2km in line with current thinking.

PRESERVE is also writing to the 3 local MPs to request them to consider encouraging the Councils to take a similar step to Lincolnshire and set their own minimum set back distance. Once again, a minmum of 2km would be envisaged in line with the requirements for minimum distance as described in the Wind Turbines Bill (HL) (Section 2.4.c).

East Midlands MEP, Roger Helmer, is already campaigning for national adoption of a minimum set back distance.

a

Please add your voice to the above campaign for a 2km set back distance:

Write to your local council:

Bedfordshire: Iain Blackley, Head of Development Management, Planning Services, Bedford Borough Council, Town Hall, St Paul’s Square, Bedford, MK40 1SJ.

email planning@bedford.gov.uk

East Northants: Trevor Watson, Head of Planning Services, East Northamptonshire Council, Cedar Drive, Thrapston, Northants, NN14 4LZ.

email planning@east-northamptonshire.gov.uk

a

Write to your local MP:

Mr Alistair Burt MP, House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA

Mr Peter Bone MP, House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA

Ms Louise Bagshawe, House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA

a

Write to Roger Helmer, MEP:

and express your support for his campaign.

address: East Midlands Conservatives, Ground Floor Suite, Three Crowns Yard, High Street, Market Harborough, LE16 7AF.

email: roger.helmer-office@europarl.europa.eu

a

Please contact Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government:

Appeal to him to leave PPS 22, para 22: Noise, in place and ideally to strengthen it.

a

Please don’t delay: following the change of government, PPS 22, like many other things, is under review.

If the CRE application for nine wind turbines at Chelveston gains approval the owners and developers stand to collect approximately £115m in public subsidies over the lifetime of the project!

A copy of the PPS letter, appeal forms, grounds of appeal, and the list of plans and documents submitted with (to read more please click here) the appeal can be found on the East Northants Council website, by taking the following steps:

• click on http://publicaccesssrv.east-northamptonshire.gov.uk/PublicAccess/tdc/DcApplication/application_detailview.aspx?caseno=KYSYHJGO03N00 which will bring you to the application page – Application number 10/00415/FUL
• click on the Associated Documents tab
• click on the View Associated Documents box
• this brings up a list of blue links on the left hand side of the screen – you will see the ‘Appeal Form’ heading at the very top – click on the Appeal form link