Serving West Park Homes, West Park Drive, West Park Terrace
THE WESTFIELD LANE WIND FARM PROJECT
PROJECT DEVELOPER: BANKS RENEWABLES TOW LAW COUNTY DURHAM
This section has been included to inform those of you who don’t know the full workings of wind turbines and the effect they can cause to individuals (health problems).
Before you start to call us all a set of N.I.M.B.Y’s and that we should get our facts right. We have carried out extensive research on this project over the last eighteen months. The following items are the results of our research. Judge for yourselves.
How are the wind turbine components transported?
Transport of such large items and the cranes needed to assemble them often presents problems in the remote areas where they are typically built. Roads must be widened, curves straightened, and in wild areas new roads built altogether
These will be soon if we don;t fight for the rejection of this wind farm project......
How big is a wind turbine?
Industrial wind turbines are a lot bigger than ones you might see in a schoolyard or behind someone's house.
The widely used GE 1.5-megawatt model, for example, consists of 116-ft blades atop a 212-ft tower for a total height of 328 feet. The blades sweep a vertical airspace of just under an acre.
The 1.8-megawatt Vestas V90 from Denmark is also common. Its 148-ft blades (sweeping more than 1.5 acres) are on a 262-ft tower, totaling 410 feet.
Another model being seen more in the U.S. is the 2-megawatt Gamesa G87 from Spain, which sports 143-ft blades (just under 1.5 acres) on a 256-ft tower, totaling 399 feet.
Many existing models and new ones being introduced reach well over 400 feet high.
What kind of platform is a wind turbine set in?
The steel tower is anchored in a platform of more than a thousand tons of concrete and steel rebar, 30 to 50 feet across and anywhere from 6 to 30 feet deep. Shafts are sometimes driven down farther to help anchor it. Mountain tops must be blasted to accommodate it. The platform is critical to stabilizing the immense weight of the turbine assembly.
How much do wind turbines weigh?
In the GE 1.5-megawatt model, the nacelle alone weighs more than 56 tons, the blade assembly weighs more than 36 tons, and the tower itself weighs about 71 tons -- a total weight of 164 tons. The corresponding weights for the Vestas V90 are 75, 40, and 152, total 267 tons; and for the Gamesa G87 72, 42, and 220, total 334 tons.
What is the nacelle?
The gearbox -- which transforms the slow turning of the blades to a faster rotor speed -- and the generator are massive pieces of machinery housed in a bus-sized container, called the nacelle, at the top of the tower. The blades are attached to the rotor hub at one end of the nacelle. Some nacelles include a helicopter landing pad.
Are wind turbines more intrusive than other structures of similar size?
Besides the noise and vibrations such huge moving machines unavoidably generate, they must be topped with flashing lights day and night to increase their visibility. The moving blades attract attention.
How much area is required for a wind power facility?
The huge turbines require a correspondingly large area around them clear of trees and other turbines to maximize the effect of the wind and avoid interference. They should have 10 rotor diameters of clearance in the direction of the wind and 3 rotor diameters in every other direction. In a line of several turbines perpendicular to the wind (as on a mountain ridge), the GE 1.5-MW model would need at least 32 acres and the Vestas V90 78 acres for each tower. In an array that can take advantage of the wind from any direction, the GE needs 82 acres and the Vestas V90 111 acres per tower.
In practice, the area varies, averaging about 50 acres per megawatt of capacity. On mountain ridges, the turbines are generally squeezed in about eight per mile.
Can the area around a wind turbine continue to be used?
Only by putting oneself in danger. Besides the unpleasant noises and distracting motion, wind turbines are not safe. They are high-voltage electrical devices with large moving parts. It is estimated that for every 100 turbines, one blade will break off (see Larwood, 2005). In the winter, heavy sheets of ice can build up and then fall or be thrown off. Access to the land around wind turbines is usually restricted, even to the landowner.
Are bigger turbines more efficient?
No, they are just bigger. Output depends on wind speed and the combination of blade diameter and generator size. Bigger blades on a taller tower can capture more wind to run a bigger generator, but they don't do so more efficiently than smaller models.
Wind Farms - A Few Facts
Wind Farms produce electricity without the harmful emissions of carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen. Advocates say that carbon dioxide emissions in particular are linked to global warming. Those who oppose wind farms emphasise that if the UK were to be filled with wind turbines there would be no discernable benefit because the major contribution to greenhouse gases comes from China, India and the USA. Others argue that the issue is better addressed by making homes more energy efficient (thereby reducing carbon dioxide production in power stations) or by applying new technology to existing power stations and by ‘cleaning up’ road transport.
Whether viewed as a structure of beauty or a blot on the landscape there is no disputing the fact that wind turbines are very large structures for the relatively small amount of electrical energy that they produce. Not many years ago few wind turbines existed in the UK since they were uneconomic to build and electricity companies only invested in means of creating shareholder value. However, all that was to change! In the UK the government established, via the Utilities Act 2000, a requirement that 5% of electricity should be provided by renewable sources by 2005, rising to 10% by 2010.
The most readily available ‘renewable source’ is the wind turbine and the government suggested that wind would supply 75% of the Act’s requirement. Also in the year 2000, in support of ‘fast tracking’, the government required all regions to prepare renewable energy assessments and to set regional renewable energy targets. In 2002, recognising that wind turbines were uneconomic to build and that the process needed accelerating, the government created a subsidy called the ‘renewables obligation’ which incentivised developers. The result was a ‘dash for wind’- nothing better than a certain return on investment to get developers into high gear. The actual mechanism of the ‘renewables obligation’ is complex and has been described by the industry as deliberately obscure. The end result is that developers are paid around twice the price for the energy from wind compared to coal, gas or nuclear power.
What is not often understood is that this subsidy ‘for life’ is funded by a levy on everyone’s electricity bill, whether they agree with wind farms or not and irrespective of whether or not they have a ‘green tariff’. Despite the large subsidy and the ‘dash for wind’ the strategy struggled and developers started to squeal because objections during the planning process caused schemes to be turned down. There were demands for a fast track system. The government had intended that most of the wind farm capacity should be off-shore but it is much more costly to build off-shore which reduces the profitability of all but the larger schemes. On-shore one of the strengths of the ‘anti’ lobby was The Countryside Act 1968 which restricted industrial developments, usually to already industrialised areas.
The hold up was eased in England in 2004 when Planning Policy Statement 22 (PPS 22) was adopted which, whilst only ‘advisory’, presumes in favour of wind farms unless there are strong arguments to the contrary. The Committee of Public Accounts in 2005 said that the new guidance ‘would increase the chance of the 2010 target being met but only by reducing local communities’ influence on the planning process’. On 16th February 2004 in response to an MP’s question, Yvette Cooper, MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in the ODPM replied ‘…….decisions will continue to be made with due regard to planning policies and only after very careful consideration of all the relevant issues, such as, for example, the visual impact of the project and the views of the local population. I would also like to reassure your constituent that there is no intention to overrule the democratic processes in local planning.
Whether viewed as a structure of beauty or a blot on the landscape there is no disputing the fact that wind turbines are very large structures for the relatively small amount of electrical energy that they produce. Not many years ago few wind turbines existed in the UK since they were uneconomic to build and electricity companies only invested in means of creating shareholder value. However, all that was to change! In the UK the government established, via the Utilities Act 2000, a requirement that 5% of electricity should be provided by renewable sources by 2005, rising to 10% by 2010.
The most readily available ‘renewable source’ is the wind turbine and the government suggested that wind would supply 75% of the Act’s requirement. Also in the year 2000, in support of ‘fast tracking’, the government required all regions to prepare renewable energy assessments and to set regional renewable energy targets. In 2002, recognising that wind turbines were uneconomic to build and that the process needed accelerating, the government created a subsidy called the ‘renewables obligation’ which incentivised developers. The result was a ‘dash for wind’- nothing better than a certain return on investment to get developers into high gear. The actual mechanism of the ‘renewables obligation’ is complex and has been described by the industry as deliberately obscure. The end result is that developers are paid around twice the price for the energy from wind compared to coal, gas or nuclear power.
What is not often understood is that this subsidy ‘for life’ is funded by a levy on everyone’s electricity bill, whether they agree with wind farms or not and irrespective of whether or not they have a ‘green tariff’. Despite the large subsidy and the ‘dash for wind’ the strategy struggled and developers started to squeal because objections during the planning process caused schemes to be turned down. There were demands for a fast track system. The government had intended that most of the wind farm capacity should be off-shore but it is much more costly to build off-shore which reduces the profitability of all but the larger schemes. On-shore one of the strengths of the ‘anti’ lobby was The Countryside Act 1968 which restricted industrial developments, usually to already industrialised areas.
The hold up was eased in England in 2004 when Planning Policy Statement 22 (PPS 22) was adopted which, whilst only ‘advisory’, presumes in favour of wind farms unless there are strong arguments to the contrary. The Committee of Public Accounts in 2005 said that the new guidance ‘would increase the chance of the 2010 target being met but only by reducing local communities’ influence on the planning process’. On 16th February 2004 in response to an MP’s question, Yvette Cooper, MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in the ODPM replied ‘…….decisions will continue to be made with due regard to planning policies and only after very careful consideration of all the relevant issues, such as, for example, the visual impact of the project and the views of the local population. I would also like to reassure your constituent that there is no intention to overrule the democratic processes in local planning.
Wind Farms & Technical Information
Wind farms - a few facts
Politics and Economics
Politics and Economics
Wind Farms produce electricity without the harmful emissions of carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen. Advocates say that carbon dioxide emissions in particular are linked to global warming. Those who oppose wind farms emphasise that if the UK were to be filled with wind turbines there would be no discernable benefit because the major contribution to greenhouse gases comes from China, India and the USA. Others argue that the issue is better addressed by making homes more energy efficient (thereby reducing carbon dioxide production in power stations) or by applying new technology to existing power stations and by ‘cleaning up’ road transport. Whether viewed as a structure of beauty or a blot on the landscape there is no disputing the fact that wind turbines are very large structures for the relatively small amount of electrical energy that they produce. Not many years ago few wind turbines existed in the UK since they were uneconomic to build and electricity companies only invested in means of creating shareholder value. However, all that was to change! In the UK the government established, via the Utilities Act 2000, a requirement that 5% of electricity should be provided by renewable sources by 2005, rising to 10% by 2010.
The most readily available ‘renewable source’ is the wind turbine and the government suggested that wind would supply 75% of the Act’s requirement. Also in the year 2000, in support of ‘fast tracking’, the government required all regions to prepare renewable energy assessments and to set regional renewable energy targets. In 2002, recognising that wind turbines were uneconomic to build and that the process needed accelerating, the government created a subsidy called the ‘renewables obligation’ which incentivised developers. The result was a ‘dash for wind’- nothing better than a certain return on investment to get developers into high gear. The actual mechanism of the ‘renewables obligation’ is complex and has been described by the industry as deliberately obscure. The end result is that developers are paid around twice the price for the energy from wind compared to coal, gas or nuclear power. What is not often understood is that this subsidy ‘for life’ is funded by a levy on everyone’s electricity bill, whether they agree with wind farms or not and irrespective of whether or not they have a ‘green tariff’.
Despite the large subsidy and the ‘dash for wind’ the strategy struggled and developers started to squeal because objections during the planning process caused schemes to be turned down. There were demands for a fast track system. The government had intended that most of the wind farm capacity should be off-shore but it is much more costly to build off-shore which reduces the profitability of all but the larger schemes. On-shore one of the strengths of the ‘anti’ lobby was The Countryside Act 1968 which restricted industrial developments, usually to already industrialised areas. The hold up was eased in England in 2004 when Planning Policy Statement 22 (PPS 22) was adopted which, whilst only ‘advisory’, presumes in favour of wind farms unless there are strong arguments to the contrary.
The Committee of Public Accounts in 2005 said that the new guidance ‘would increase the chance of the 2010 target being met but only by reducing local communities’ influence on the planning process’. On 16th February 2004 in response to an MP’s question, Yvette Cooper, MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in the ODPM replied ‘…….decisions will continue to be made with due regard to planning policies and only after very careful consideration of all the relevant issues, such as, for example, the visual impact of the project and the views of the local population. I would also like to reassure your constituent that there is no intention to overrule the democratic processes in local planning.’
Technical Comments
A 2.5 Mw wind turbine is about 125m tall (410ft.) which is as high as a thirty storey building. The structure weighs about 325tonnes. The turbine will start to operate at a wind speed of about 10mph and increase its output up to about 35mph, above which the output will be constant. Wind turbines often freewheel at low wind speeds giving the impression that they are producing energy when they are not. The ‘load factor’ which is the percentage of the energy which is produced compared to that which would be produced if the turbine could run continuously, is about 25%. (DTI data). A 2Mw wind turbine with 25% load factor will support around 1,000 homes.
It is misleading to say that wind farms generate no carbon dioxide. Because wind farms operate intermittently then the more wind farms there are, the more running-spare capacity of conventional power plant is needed to smooth out the variations. This action increases the carbon dioxide from the conventional plant. Wind farm developers usually quote a simple displacement value of carbon dioxide for the installed capacity of the wind farm which is therefore optimistic. Some scientists state that only half of the carbon dioxide is actually saved that the British Wind Energy Association claim.
The speed of the blade tip of a large wind turbine is in the range 150 – 190 mph.Opponents have said that a single wind turbine requires a foundation the size of a large swimming pool. This is an exaggeration. In normal circumstances a 2.5Mw turbine requires a base of 250 cubic metres of concrete, about 40 large wagon loads. The Went Edge is however a significant geological fault and it is possible that any turbine placed on the Westfield Lane site may require enlarged foundations. A wind turbine would not normally be sited within 1,000m of dwellings. In Scotland there is new Planning Guidance which supports a separation distance of 2,000m between the edge of a town or village and large scale wind farm developments.
The UK Noise Association recommend that they are not built within one mile of residential dwellings. Noise measurements in rural communities where ambient noise levels are low are very difficult to translate into potential for complaints. Developers will say that their noise assessments meet Department of Trade and Industry guidelines but these guidelines were drawn up over ten years ago before any experience was gained with the huge machines now being built. Low levels of background noise are not particularly relevant to actual noise complaints. With wind turbines it is the intermittent ‘blade pulsing’ or so called ‘whooshing’ which has proved so objectionable and yet this noise is barely determinable by average noise measurements. Noise is measure in decibels (dBA). A useful measure is that an increase of 3dBA is a doubling of the sound pressure level.
With large developments there are some precedents where the developer funds a local authority Environmental Impact Assessment to be used in parallel comparison with the developer’s own. This is a positive step since some assessments carried out on behalf of developers include carefully chosen wording to allay people’s concerns.
The ‘load factor’ which is the percentage of the energy which is produced compared to that which would be produced if the turbine could run continuously, is about 25%. (DTI data).A 2Mw wind turbine with 25% load factor will support around 1,000 homes.
The most readily available ‘renewable source’ is the wind turbine and the government suggested that wind would supply 75% of the Act’s requirement. Also in the year 2000, in support of ‘fast tracking’, the government required all regions to prepare renewable energy assessments and to set regional renewable energy targets. In 2002, recognising that wind turbines were uneconomic to build and that the process needed accelerating, the government created a subsidy called the ‘renewables obligation’ which incentivised developers. The result was a ‘dash for wind’- nothing better than a certain return on investment to get developers into high gear. The actual mechanism of the ‘renewables obligation’ is complex and has been described by the industry as deliberately obscure. The end result is that developers are paid around twice the price for the energy from wind compared to coal, gas or nuclear power. What is not often understood is that this subsidy ‘for life’ is funded by a levy on everyone’s electricity bill, whether they agree with wind farms or not and irrespective of whether or not they have a ‘green tariff’.
Despite the large subsidy and the ‘dash for wind’ the strategy struggled and developers started to squeal because objections during the planning process caused schemes to be turned down. There were demands for a fast track system. The government had intended that most of the wind farm capacity should be off-shore but it is much more costly to build off-shore which reduces the profitability of all but the larger schemes. On-shore one of the strengths of the ‘anti’ lobby was The Countryside Act 1968 which restricted industrial developments, usually to already industrialised areas. The hold up was eased in England in 2004 when Planning Policy Statement 22 (PPS 22) was adopted which, whilst only ‘advisory’, presumes in favour of wind farms unless there are strong arguments to the contrary.
The Committee of Public Accounts in 2005 said that the new guidance ‘would increase the chance of the 2010 target being met but only by reducing local communities’ influence on the planning process’. On 16th February 2004 in response to an MP’s question, Yvette Cooper, MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in the ODPM replied ‘…….decisions will continue to be made with due regard to planning policies and only after very careful consideration of all the relevant issues, such as, for example, the visual impact of the project and the views of the local population. I would also like to reassure your constituent that there is no intention to overrule the democratic processes in local planning.’
Technical Comments
A 2.5 Mw wind turbine is about 125m tall (410ft.) which is as high as a thirty storey building. The structure weighs about 325tonnes. The turbine will start to operate at a wind speed of about 10mph and increase its output up to about 35mph, above which the output will be constant. Wind turbines often freewheel at low wind speeds giving the impression that they are producing energy when they are not. The ‘load factor’ which is the percentage of the energy which is produced compared to that which would be produced if the turbine could run continuously, is about 25%. (DTI data). A 2Mw wind turbine with 25% load factor will support around 1,000 homes.
It is misleading to say that wind farms generate no carbon dioxide. Because wind farms operate intermittently then the more wind farms there are, the more running-spare capacity of conventional power plant is needed to smooth out the variations. This action increases the carbon dioxide from the conventional plant. Wind farm developers usually quote a simple displacement value of carbon dioxide for the installed capacity of the wind farm which is therefore optimistic. Some scientists state that only half of the carbon dioxide is actually saved that the British Wind Energy Association claim.
The speed of the blade tip of a large wind turbine is in the range 150 – 190 mph.Opponents have said that a single wind turbine requires a foundation the size of a large swimming pool. This is an exaggeration. In normal circumstances a 2.5Mw turbine requires a base of 250 cubic metres of concrete, about 40 large wagon loads. The Went Edge is however a significant geological fault and it is possible that any turbine placed on the Westfield Lane site may require enlarged foundations. A wind turbine would not normally be sited within 1,000m of dwellings. In Scotland there is new Planning Guidance which supports a separation distance of 2,000m between the edge of a town or village and large scale wind farm developments.
The UK Noise Association recommend that they are not built within one mile of residential dwellings. Noise measurements in rural communities where ambient noise levels are low are very difficult to translate into potential for complaints. Developers will say that their noise assessments meet Department of Trade and Industry guidelines but these guidelines were drawn up over ten years ago before any experience was gained with the huge machines now being built. Low levels of background noise are not particularly relevant to actual noise complaints. With wind turbines it is the intermittent ‘blade pulsing’ or so called ‘whooshing’ which has proved so objectionable and yet this noise is barely determinable by average noise measurements. Noise is measure in decibels (dBA). A useful measure is that an increase of 3dBA is a doubling of the sound pressure level.
With large developments there are some precedents where the developer funds a local authority Environmental Impact Assessment to be used in parallel comparison with the developer’s own. This is a positive step since some assessments carried out on behalf of developers include carefully chosen wording to allay people’s concerns.
The ‘load factor’ which is the percentage of the energy which is produced compared to that which would be produced if the turbine could run continuously, is about 25%. (DTI data).A 2Mw wind turbine with 25% load factor will support around 1,000 homes.
