16/03/13 Arguments against RES appeal

Basis for a Rejecting an Appeal

1)The Tan 8 process was not widely consulted - only one meeting in Carmarthen.

2)There was totally inadequate research carried out about by the Welsh Assembly Government on the impact of wind farm policy -  the only research done was concerned about the amount of wind.

3)Because of the distance from the National Grid at Swansea, there would be considerable transmission loss of energy available of up to 10% from an already inefficient and unreliable provider.

 

4)Wind farms cannot be considered independently of power station back up. Since most coal fired power stations will close in the next couple of years it is against the national interest to rely on such an intermittent source of energy.

5)Wind farms require huge subsidies which would be better spent  on reliable sources such tidal barriers. The more wind farms built, the higher fuel bills will rise to fund the subsidy causing an increase in fuel poverty.

6)There is an ever increasing amount of peer reviewed research on turbine noise from all over the world showing an impact on human health.

7)There is a currently a public inquiry looking at the ETSU process which determines sound levels and much of the evidence given to the inquiry talks about ETSU shortcomings. The original committee was made up of interested professionals who dismissed the impact of low frequency sound and did not consult other professionals e.g. health experts.

8)There was bias in calculating  background  sound levels for this application. The results of monitoring at chosen sites did not present representative samples which could be used to provide an adequate  forecast of the ambient noise and therefore the sound impact on all the other local properties.

9)Acoustics 'experts' had a vested interest in more wind farms being provided as the policy supplies a good income for all their talk of best practice (defined by themselves).

10)The Prime Minister has talked about the importance of considering local opinion. If this opinion is to be dismissed out of hand then the whole process is a farce.

 In conclusion, the number of extra wind farms being proposed for this one area would place an unacceptable burden on local residents and have a dramatic negative effect on their human rights.

Tues. March 12th Devastating News

The Secretary of State for Energy has granted planning permission for RWE to build a wind farm of 28 giant turbines at Brechfa Forest West, alongside the existing 10 turbine wind farm at Alltwalis. Of course we could not expect Whitehall to show any compassion for the interests of local people here in Wales. The real villain in this tragedy is the Welsh Government which identified a large area of the Llanllwni mountain as ripe for any old carpet bagger to come and take advantage,  making large sums of money at our expense. The worst of it is, we still face the threat of wind farms number 3 and 4 here, which are currently in the planning process. Should these extra wind farms go ahead, we would be faced with a total of 70 giant structures turning an unspoiled tranquil area  of countryside into an industrial zone. It seems that government has selected us for special treatment and clearly don't care about the impact on our lives. The only thing that matters to these politicians is their green image because any rational assessment of wind energy would not consider using a flawed technology which is inefficient and unreliable. Never mind the effect of turbine sound on local people's health and on the value of their property; these developments require huge subsidies which lead to an increase in fuel poverty and the need for conventional power stations to be on permanent stand-by when there is to little or too much wind.

04/03/13 Weather Radar

Farmers in Wales are dependent on accurate weather forecasts to enable good planning of their day to day activities. It is therefore worrying to hear that the practical function of the Met. Office weather radar at Crug-Y-Gorllwyn is experiencing problems due to clutter caused by the existing wind farm at Alltwalis . This radar station, which is 10 miles West of the wind farm, provides a detailed daily record of the present conditions and is an important element of accurate forecasting for South West Wales.

It appears that the Met. Office was unaware of the proposed 2 much larger wind farm developments at Brechfa West and Bryn Llywelyn and has just raised strong objections on this matter. It will be interesting to see if, at this very late stage in the planning process, the DECC minister in Whitehall can be influenced in his decision about whether or not to give permission for Brechfa West to go ahead. Presumably the Government Inspector who ran the planning process was responsible for not consulting the Met. Office and therefore a degree of flexibility can be used.  Hopefully, with regard to the Bryn Llywelyn application, the matter can be raised without too much trouble at the appeal proceedings later this year.

08/02/13 Letter sent to Western Mail

Dear Editor,

Having recently had the chance to read through the report produced by the Cardiff Business School and others about "Economic Opportunities for Wales from Future Onshore Wind Farm Development", I would like to make the following observations. Firstly this report reads like a large scale public relations exercise on behalf of the wind energy industry - not surprising since the exercise was funded mostly by the wind farm developers who stand to gain by its findings.  Secondly, at best, the report may be seen as a large scale business  plan with little attempt to provide any critical analysis or what any self-respecting economist would provide, such as cost benefit analysis. Thirdly there are many underlying assumptions made which are not spelled out e.g. that these developments will not involve extra costs for local inhabitants e.g. traffic congestion and property devaluation etc. etc.

Figures are confidently provided on Gross Value Added (GVA) and Full Time Equivalent Jobs (FTEs) without any detailed explanation as to how they were arrived at or how much confidence we may have in their accuracy. From the perspective of producing a new wind farm, the vast bulk of these jobs will be temporary and thus will not be sustainable in the rural localities where most of the turbines would be sited. I suggest the average number of new wind farms required per year, of something like five to meet targets, will inevitably involve large scale developers such as RWE with their own specialist staff and, as this report indicates, contracts will be given only to large scale firms, mostly outside Wales. Of course, profits and consumer provided subsidies will go to shareholders, also mostly outside Wales and in some cases overseas. The only way that wind farm development can provide us with such a bonanza is if there was large scale turbine production in Wales - something that this report's authors rule out!

Finally, there is a built-in paradox in the report in that developers and the Welsh Government prefer rural sites where there is more wind and less inhabitants likely to complain, whereas from an economic perspective, to reduce transmission costs and find more local contractors, these structures would be built near large towns or cities. The answer is probably to build all wind farms offshore where,  even if more costly, there is a lot more reliable wind and thus more turbine output.

Yours truly,

E.J. Razzell,  B.Sc. Econ., Master Mariner.      

N.B. This letter is unlikely to be published in the newspaper because of its length.

06/02/13 Letter published in Carmarthen Journal

Dear Editor,

Mr. Clubb makes a number of points in his letter of January 16 entitled "Wind power is cost effective" which I would like to refute. Firstly he states that serious climate change is real and that those who differ from his opinions are not relying on peer reviewed evidence - he is ignoring a recent statement from 125 international experts on climate change that the threat from global warming is exaggerated. If he is keen on peer reviewed evidence, how about the peer reviewed research from Professor Gordon Hughes showing that wind turbines deteriorate after 10 years and become totally uneconomic after 15 years? Mr Clubb has also mislead us about the article in the BMJ last March, presenting it as a mere opinion piece. In fact it took the form of an editorial and its arguments were backed by published research; and, according to the pro wind farm Professor Chapman, these studies were peer reviewed. Incidentally, the 17 studies he quotes, that state that there is no evidence of health effects from wind turbines, are also heavily criticised by the BMJ authors.

With regard to the evidence given to the Welsh Government Petitions Committee about the suffering of Gwddgrug residents from wind farms, if this evidence is to be dismissed out of hand then how come the Welsh Energy Minister is reported to have said that in this context  turbines could be sited further away from human habitation?

The assertion at the top of Mr. Clubb's letter that wind power is cost effective should also be taken with a pinch of salt. If his view were correct, then how come the wind industry needs such massive subsidies which are paid even when turbines are inoperative and have the effect of spreading fuel poverty in this country. I suggest that all the economic costs to the local economy should be taken into account as well as the costs of procuring damaging  production materials and then a different picture would emerge. It is obvious that apart from a few fortunate landowners, the vast bulk of benefits go to RWE and their foreign shareholders - otherwise they wouldn't be here!

I do accept there is some evidence of global warming but there is so much anecdotal evidence from all over the world about turbine based health problems, that an in depth scientific study should be carried out here, involving medical experts such as neuroscientists and epidemiologists. Prior to such a study, there should be a moratorium  on all new wind farm proposals. Wind farms may have their place but in this small island of ours there isn't sufficient wide open space for onshore wind farms to prevent an unacceptable impact on people's lives.     

Yours truly,

Ted Razzell

N.B. Those words which appear in italics were removed by the editor before publication.

Letter from David Clubb to Carmarthen Journal 16/01/13

Dear Editor,

In in letter entitled "Time to switch to tidal power", Mr Razzell states that opinions about global warming are divided among environmental Scientists. However, the position held by the overwhelming majority of scientists and scientific organisations is that climate change is real and that changes will accelerate if emissions continue unabated.

Opinion on climate change is therefore divided between those who accept peer reviewed evidence and those who do not. The same applies to the alleged health impacts from wind power. Those who claim that there are adverse health impacts from wind turbines take 'as gospel' the research from non peer reviewed literature, whilst dismissing that from the body scientific.

Mr Razzell refers to the Welsh Government Petitions Committee whose recommendations were largely rejected by Welsh Government on the basis of the evidence. The only recommendation upheld,, that that there is a need for quality consultation with the local community , is one fully supported by the wind energy industry.

He also says that the British Medical Journal expressed concerns about the health issues related to wind turbines; however, this is not strictly true. The article that he is referring to was not written or commissioned by the British Medical Journal; it was an opinion piece and not a research article. Those interested in the subject could worse than read the comment by Simon Chapman , professor in public health at the University of Sydney, entitled "sickening truth about wind farm syndrome", where he lists 17 reviews on the subject which show an insignificant level of risk to health.

Finally, I wholeheartedly agree that we need to fully develop wave and tidal power; however, it certainly should not be at the expense of wind energy which is cost effective, reliable and supports small businesses across Wales during development, construction and operation.

David Clubb, CPhys, FIWA. Director, RenewableUK Cymru 

   

02/01/13 Letter sent to the Carmarthen Journal

Dear Editor,

Mr. Clubb has sought to dismiss the idea that low frequency wind turbine noise can cause any health problems to human beings. In fact opinions on this subject among acoustic experts are very divided, in the same way that opinions about global warming are also divided among environmental scientists. Is Mr. Chubb, whose employers RWE have a vested commercial interest in promoting more wind farms, suggesting that a considerable number of research projects from all over the world which demonstrate that low frequency noise and infrasound can cause neurological problems, have all got it wrong? Perhaps he would like to put his views to residents of Gwddgrug, who convinced a petitions committee from the Welsh Government last February that their suffering from the Altwallis wind farm was all too real. owded island of ours!The truth of the matter is that the ETSU committee, when setting up the guidelines for determining acceptable noise limitations in the placement of turbines, found a way of removing low frequency noise from the equation because they realised that, if it was left in, it would not be possible to have any onshore wind farms in this crowded island of ours.

Does Mr. Clubb want to ignore the opinions of organisations such as the British Medical Journal and the World Health Organisation, which expressed concerns on this health issue? I could list at least 10 research papers from either the USA or Britain which refer to empirical research on the effects of this type of sound. I suggest that as a minimum he looks at the work of neurological expert  Dr. Amanda Harry. We should not allow ourselves to be panicked into accepting this flawed wind farm technology to meet the green lobby allegations that the lights will all go out by 2015 unless we go all out with wind power. Recent evidence from the Met. Office shows that the rate of global warming is not ensuring an immediate crisis and that we have plenty of time to transfer the subsidies presently enjoyed by the wind industry over to more potentially reliable sources of energy such as tidal and wave power.  

Yours truly,

Ted Razzell    

Words in italics were left out of the actual publication!