Newsletter Number Seven. April 2006.

The SoS Newsletters are produced to keep the communities of Aston Ingham, Aston Crews, Gorsley, Kilcot and Linton informed about the status of the 2 x 56 metre (183ft) Wind-Turbines, each the height of Nelson’s column which are proposed at Withymoor Farm, (grid reference SO:674. 241). We also aim to provide some general information about wind turbines.

The Continuing Story.
There is still no official movement from Green-Amp’s CEO Nick Brown. His boast of obtaining ‘Pre Planning Approval’ which we reported last month’ was dismissed by Mike Wilmott, Team Leader for the South Herefordshire Planning Team who together, with Councillor Harry Bramer, attended the AIPC meeting on 10th April.
SoS gave a report on its activities to the Linton, Gorsley and Bromsash Village Open Meeting on Monday 24th at Linton Village Hall. Achievements in 2005 included obtaining the support of our local MP, Paul Keetch, obtaining advice from West Midlands Planning Aid (a body funded to increase public involvement in the planning process), offering support to the Cracknell family at Withymoor Farm regarding subsidies available to farmers who grow biomass crops and, publication and distribution of this Newsletter to around 300 homes in the area. In 2006 our aims are to continue to oppose commercial wind turbines at Withymoor Farm. They are not appropriate in an area of great landscape value and would destroy the character of this landscape. We will also be working to quantify the economic and social threat to local communities posed by these proposals and to develop strategies to protect the countryside in this area from any other proposals which threaten to destroy its character.

What the Real Experts are saying.
Extracts from the Angela Kelly article for the magazine Green Places. During the past 15 years over 1,200 wind turbines have industrialized thousands of hectares of the UK ’s un-spoilt countryside. Their combined total average output is a mere half of one percent of our electricity supply - little more than the equivalent needed to operate the Anglesey Aluminum factory. But, this supply is only available when the wind is blowing, or not blowing too hard, so its intermittent, unpredictable output must be backed or shadowed at all times with a secure, controllable supply of either fossil-fuelled electricity which emits more carbon dioxide (CO2), or nuclear plant……If the wind industry gets its way, our ancient skylines will be transformed into miles of restless horizons and our beautiful varying landscapes reduced to a common denominator of cloned industrial units. Their gigantic size completely destroys the scale of Nature reducing a majestic oak tree to the size of a bush.

The Right Hon Neil Kinnock, summed it up in his speech to oppose a wind power station at Newbridge, Gwent in1994:-“Wind power is always going to be an additional source of power, an extra cost of provision, never an alternative. It doesn’t deserve the title of ‘alternative’ because it is simply a surplus on top, by its very nature. . . . This will not be so much a farm for making energy out of wind as a farm for making a lot of money out of the taxpayer.”
Nothing has changed. The UK’s CO2 emissions are still rising at an average of 1.5% a year. Plus, huge subsidies and hidden costs, gleaned from the unsuspecting taxpayer, create a false market which props up the wind industry and lines the pockets of the developers to the detriment of the environment.
In the UK we are paying between two and three times more for windpower than conventional electricity. The headline on the cover of German weekly journal Der Spiegel ( 29 March 2004 ) described it as ‘The Windmill Madness . . . from the dream of environmentally friendly energy to the highly subsidized devastation of the landscape.’
Good planning is about balance. The irreparable ecological damage, loss of amenity and distressing divisions within communities caused by commercial wind turbines far outweigh any benefit of their insignificant and unreliable contribution to our energy needs.
The tiny, intermittent output of electricity and the negligible CO2 savings cannot possibly justify the huge sacrifice of that most finite resource - our un-spoilt and un-renewable countryside. It is our duty to protect our rural heritage for present and future generations from such gross and unnecessary industrialization. The full text can be viewed at www.countryguardian.net/Green%20Places

Lesley Rackley, an SoS member, took this photograph whilst on Holiday in Abona on Tenerife’s east coast. Makes you think about un-renewable countryside.

Ocean-driven changes to the UK ’s weather systems threaten failure of wind power generation in winter. By Prof.Em. Peter Cobbold.

Summary: By 2020 the government intends that 20% of UK’s electrical power derives from renewable sources, mostly wind. Projections of the power to be generated by the turbine carpet are based on wind archives and the performance of wind turbines over the past 25 years. The flaw in this approach is that the machines will depend upon future weather and three lines of evidence suggest the UK is on the eve of changes in winter weather that cast serious doubt upon validity of wind power projections. First, last December Nature published a paper (Bryden et al 1038, pp 655-657) revealing that 30% of the northward flow of the warm ‘Gulf Stream’ - strictly the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, AMOC - has changed direction, starting around 1992. A southward-moving component of the Gulf Stream, which re-circulates warm water in the subtropical gyre has increased by half. Furthermore, half the deep current that returns the north-eastward flowing warm current from the Norwegian-Iceland Sea has gone. By 2004 about 300,000,000 MW of heating was being redirected. The ocean bordering the UK will cool: on this simple basis alone the UK should anticipate colder winters. Second, the UK’s winter weather is dominated by the North Atlantic Oscillation, NAO. When the NAO is ‘positive’, the UK has stormy, wet, mild winter weather. When the NAO is ‘negative’ we get cold, dry weather from December to March, and westerly winds are weaker or less persistent. Since 1980 the NAO has been predominantly positive: only five winters have been negative. It follows that all the archival data on wind turbine performance are heavily skewed by positive NAO winters. There is statistical evidence that the North Atlantic Oscillation might now be switching to ‘negative’, possibly as a result of the AMOC slowing. Third, it is known that the sign of the winter NAO, positive or negative, is influenced by anomalies in the sea surface temperatures (SST) of approx.1ºCelsius across the Atlantic. The recently described changes in the AMOC will surely result in much larger anomalies in Atlantic SST and hence in the winter NAO. But exactly what will these new SST anomalies be, and how will they then influence the NAO? A reduction in SST north of Iceland and an increase in SST in the subtropical ocean would be expected to drive the NAO negative. The AMOC-SST change might be so large that there is a possibility that the NAO would cease oscillating such that all winters become ‘negative’. The impact of AMOC slowing on SST and NAO must be predicted with precision if the planning for wind (and wave) power is to have any validity. Precision of prediction is essential as the impact of even a small fall in mean wind speed would be amplified by the turbines: a mere 20% fall in wind speed could eliminate half the power. Any loss of higher wind speeds – those in storms- contributing to that mean would further reduce output. The implication of this analysis is that, every winter, the wind turbine carpet might deliver several fold less power than currently expected. Both the DTI Energy Review, and the Welsh Affairs Committee Inquiry into Energy and Wind Power in Wales, should incorporate into their deliberations new predictions of wind resource, in which the effect of the AMOC-slowing on SSTs and NAO are fundamental. A wise government would impose a moratorium on all wind and wave power station development until it has robust predictions of the UK’s wind and weather for this decade onwards. Full text can be viewed at www.countryguardian.net/Ocean.htm

Renewable Energy: The Alternatives Investigated by SoS member Chris Tormey.
Following on from “The Alternatives to Wind Turbines” article is last month’s issue. It was suggested we run a series of articles regarding what we can do as individuals to help support Green Energy and reduce CO2 Emissions. Thus, SoS member Chris Tormey agreed to relate his own experiences in a series of articles in his quest for Green Energy Alternatives.
In March 2005 I volunteered to take part in the Herefordshire Council Climate Change Focus Group in which the participants received information on the issues about Climate Change and discussed them and placed them in priority order. It was identified that there are Government responsibilities, Local Government responsibilities, and personal responsibilities. At the end of the process group members resolved to personally change what we do to reduce CO2 emissions, reduce waste going to landfill sites, and reduce energy requirements in the home.
Having more recently become involved with the campaign to oppose wind turbines being deployed on Beavans Hill I have actively researched alternative methods of energy saving in the home further. Some of the energy saving methods are:
1. Solar heating of hot water.
2. Changing from oil/gas for central heating to a Heat Pump system.
3. Solar Photovoltaic cells for power production.
4. Wind Power.
5. Biomass Heating.
6. Better Insulation
We are now seeing large increases in gas and oil prices. Therefore I have begun to explore the possibility of supplementing my oil based heating system with a solar heating system.
I had been approached by three Companies wanting to supply solar heating systems in this area, so I e-mailed all three.
The first was Solar Technik based in Dorset. Unfortunately, their e-mail address was rejected and the telephone number supplied was not recognised.
The second was Simplee Solar, also based in Dorset. My e-mail produced a phone call from a representative who took me through a list of questions and then indicated that a manager would call me the next day to arrange a meeting. A fortnight later I called them and indicated that I had not heard from the manager but the lady who took my call was not really interested so I terminated the call.
The third was Smart Energy, Head Office in Colchester, Essex, who called me and made an appointment for a Representative to call three days later.
He spent 2 ½ hours going through the design and effectiveness of the installation and ultimately to the crunch question of cost. The full installation would cost £8,000 but a number of subsidies for 1) First Visit, 2) Early Survey & Installation, 3) Display Advertising Board, 4) Photograph before & after, 5) Prominent site subsidy would reduce the cost to £6,440. Also a programme of referrals would pay £25.00 for each sale arising directly from my recommendation, with a full refund of the cost at the sixth sale.
My initial reaction was that this was certainly the most efficient system that I had seen anywhere (94.6%) and I was impressed that the design (produced in Switzerland) ensured that even on a cloudy, cold day it would produce useful heating to supplement existing heating. Three million have been installed in Europe and are now being installed in the U.S.A, so proving it as a viable system. (8 European Countries now require Solar Power systems in new build houses, but not the U.K.).
I enquired about Government Grants for the system and was told that because the Government were unable to cope with the demand for applications in the Essex area, the Company had taken on board the process, but found it too expensive to run, so there was no Government subsidy provided. I have not yet confirmed that this is the case for Herefordshire!
I was of the opinion that the cost was too high, even with the so-called subsidies, and rejected the system on that basis. I was also slightly annoyed at the “buy now or miss out” method of selling by this representative. On the following Monday I was called by the Company to check that the Representative had called and had been courteous and had put the full case to us. They also asked why I had rejected the system and I explained that I thought that the cost was prohibitive and would be more attractive at between £4,000 to £5,000 without all the frills and incentives.
I still feel that if I wasn’t retired, this system would be the best technology around and would provide free heating for up to 25 years without cost. But the initial cost, at the moment is the stumbling block for me.
Next Month: Would a Heat Pump be a better solution?

Useful Addresses and Web Links.
For those of you with access to a computer an excellent site about Turbines and their impact is http://www.countryguardian.net/
Link to map showing proposed location of turbines http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=367433&y=224154&z=3&sv=367433, 224154&st=4&ar=Y&mapp=newmap.srf&searchp=newsearch. srf&dn=637&ax=367433&ay=224154
The Action Group leading the SOS campaign is chaired by Jane Bradney (01989 750862). Other members are Steven Burns, Chris Tormey (01989 720861).and Lesley Rackley (01989 720358).
If you are interested in helping fight this proposal please ring Martin or Jane Bradney on 01989 750862. hvhac@aol.com.