|
To keep things simple the following remarks are not referenced. Further details are available elsewhere on the web site.
NOWAP and the Planning Application
NOWAP (NO Windfarm at Parham) was formed on the 7th of January 2004 to oppose the proposed windfarm development of Parham airfield, in the county of Suffolk.
A planning application was formally submitted by the property developer, Saxon Windpower Ltd., on the 14th of March 2005.
Proposal Outline
The developers propose to erect six 1.3 MW turbines, each with an overall height of 100m (328 feet).
The turbines consist of consist of a tower of 69m (226 feet) and blades describing a circle of 62m in diameter (thus giving an overall height of 100m).
This is nearly six times the height of the tower of the parish church of Great Glemham (18m; 59 feet), which the turbines would overlook and dwarf. The blade circle of the proposed Parham turbines is 62m (269 feet), which is 2m larger than the wingspan of a 747 jumbo jet.
[Insert turbine+747.gif]
There are only just over 20 buildings in London taller than 100 metres, but Saxon Windpower Ltd. want to build 6 such structures next to our villages.
The swept area of the blades of each turbine would cover 3,019 sq. metres or 3/4 of an acre.
These structures are very large, but will just fit within a typical football pitch (100m long and 69 metres wide).
Together, the area swept by the turbine blades would cover 18,114 sq. metres, that’s nearly 4 and half acres of sky.
The blades are large, and the rotational rate is 19 revolutions per minute, resulting in very high blade tip speeds.
In fact the tips of the blades will move at approximately 138 mph (222 kph).
Put another way, every 26 seconds a blade tip will have travelled a mile. With speeds such as these it’s not surprising that bird and bat kill are known problems.
Proximity to Dwellings
The proposed site is very close to several villages, including Parham, Marlesford, and Great Glemham. Other villages in the area will be affected, and believe, correctly, that if the industrialisation of the countryside succeeds in Parham then it will be their turn next.
There would be many homes within 1,000 metres (1,093 yards), some under 700 metres (766 yards) and almost the whole of the village of Great Glemham would be within 2 km (1.24 miles) of the turbines.
Apart from their visual intrusion there are numerous other problems. For example, the latest generation of very tall turbines are widely acknowledged to generate significant noise and light interception effects.
Noise is a particular concern in the Great Glemham area, where there many houses within 2 km (1.24 miles), downwind of the site, and in a quiet valley.
The effect on quality of life in the area, and the wider effects of their visual intrusion, on rural tourism for example, now so vital to Suffolk's economy, are obvious.
This development would be a disaster for the villages surrounding it.
Parham in Context
The proposed Parham wind power station is part of a phenomenon that is much more than just a local or Suffolk issue.
Due to failings in the government's renewable energy policy many rural and domestic areas in the UK are now threatened with subsidy-hunting windfarm developments that are inappropriately sited, and have a very severe environmental impact.
In spite of their massive size they fail to generate any significant quantity of power or achieve significant or economical Carbon-dioxide reduction.
The proposed Parham Windfarm is such a development, and must be resisted because of its national as well as its local implications.
NOWAP is in touch with many other groups all over the United Kingdom, all facing inappropriate onshore applications. We share information and assist each other in resisting this national scandal.
Onshore wind-power shouldn’t be in anybody’s backyard.
Wind Farm Income is 70% Subsidy: The ROC System
According to the National Audit Office report published in February 2005, onshore wind is over-subsidized by 33%.
In fact, at present, nearly 70% of the income of a renewable energy generator such as a wind-farm comes from indirect subsidy.
By 2010 this will, say the NAO, be costing the electricity consumer £1,000,000,000 a year, and causing a 5.7% increase in electricity bills.
The Parham proposal could earn approximately £350,000 per year from electricity sales (assuming wholesale prices at just over £20 per MWh). A further £800,000 would be earned from indirect subsidy (assuming Renewable Obligation Certificate prices at approximately £47 per MWh).
Offshore Not Onshore
Onshore developments of the kind proposed at Parham are yesterday's technology. Doing the windpower job properly means doing it offshore, and this is a growing general trend.
For example, there is currently a proposal by the Greater Gabbard Offshore Wind company to construct a 140 turbine windfarm far out to sea off Orford. This site would have an installed capacity of 500 MW, as compared to the trivial installed capacity of 7.8 MW at the proposed site here in Parham.
By Saxon Windpower Ltd’s own, somewhat optimistic, estimates the Parham power station will produce 17,000 MWh per year. This is less than 1% of the output of the soon-to-be-decomissioned Sizewell A, which is a small nuclear station.
Compare this with the 140 turbine Greater Gabbard Offshore Wind station proposed for sandbanks 20 miles out to sea from the Suffolk coast.
Greater Gabbard could produce around 1,533,000 MWh per year, which is 50% of Sizewell A’s output.
Using Saxon’s own estimates we can see that if we are hoping to replace Sizewell A with wind power should we choose to have 177 Parhams, that’s 1062 onshore turbines.
By comparison, just two Greater Gabbard offshore windfarms would be needed, with 280 turbines in all.
Obviously, if wind-farms belong anywhere they belong offshore. The Klondike rush onshore has nothing to do with saving the planet and everything to do with financial greed, as companies seek to maximize profits from the already unbelievably generous system of indirect subsidy.
CO2 Saving
The UK emits approximately 550,000,000 tonnes of CO2 per year, which is just over 2% of the global total of 25,000 million tonnes.
The developer’s claims the Parham wind turbine power station would offset 14,690 tonnes of CO2. That is 0.00003 of the UK’s total emissions.
The DTI estimates that successful attainment of the 2010 renewables target will save 9.2 million tonnes of CO2. Saxon Windpower’s own claims are only 0.002 of this total.
These are ridiculously small savings, and come at a high social, environmental, and financial cost.
In fact, the truth is that the likely savings from the Parham proposal are even smaller. Saxon Windpower Ltd’s claim is based on the false assumption that windpower displaces only coal generation, and therefore saves CO2 at 0.86 tonnes per MWh. However, this claim is unjustifiable and supported by current government estimates.
If we use the currently standard emissions factors of 0.43 tonnes per MWh for short term savings, and 0.27 tonnes per MWh for savings in the longer term, we can calculate that the Parham proposal will save between 4,600 and 7,300 tonnes per year.
In other words, approximately 0.000008 of the UK’s total emissions.
There are many better alternatives for saving CO2, including “firm” generating renewables, such as tidal and biomass systems, which provide high value power, rather than the over-priced randomly intermittent energy from wind. Biofuels for transport have real potential.
And of course there is energy efficiency and energy conservation. The only stable planet saving policy is one that enhances national competitiveness rather than degrades it. Energy saving is a good for the economy, reducing our costs, and good for the environment. – The cleanest kWh is the kWh which is never generated.
Onshore Wind Power is Not the Answer
If you are care about renewable energy you should oppose the Parham proposal and others like it.
There is a serious risk that ineffective and environmentally damaging onshore windfarm proposals will discredit the overall green initiative, and that would be tragic.
|
