Protesters fighting proposals for a windfarm near Market Drayton are set to launch a fundraising campaign to fight an appeal launched by the applicant after the plans were thrown out.
Energy giant Nuon has appealed against a decision to refuse permission for seven giant wind turbines at Lower Farm, Bearstone.
Members of North Shropshire District Council’s development control committee threw out plans for the 110m high turbines last month.
Residents opposed to the windfarm say it would ruin the landscape, cause problems for pilots from RAF Shawbury, and affect nearby residents’ health.
Now the Vortex – Veto on Rural Turbine Expansion – group has stepped up its fight, and has met with expert consultants and advisors, North Shropshire MP Owen Paterson, Stone MP Bill Cash and representatives from local parish councils to take its campaign forward.
Terry May, of Vortex, said: “We now have a much better understanding of the forthcoming appeal process and have developed our strategy to defeat the planning application for huge wind turbines in the middle of our community.
“This is not an appropriate or an acceptable location. We will now be launching an intense fundraising campaign to enable us to engage the very best counsel available to put our case forward.”
“It is now for the Planning Inspectorate to decide whether the appeals have been validly lodged.”
See Also:
27 Comments
Oh Dear, moan, moan, moan.
Its about time that the Shropshire Green Party stood up and told the protestors that their selfish action is an asssult on the environment.
But why is the Shropshire Green Party silent on this one? Can anyone tell us?
Report abuse
Got to confess to ignorance here – how do wind farms affect your health?
Report abuse
Lucy,
You might also ask Shropshire Green Party why they are backing a technology that actually results in more fossil-fuelled power stations being built due to the need for backup:
‘With an increase in intermittent wind power, Mr Anderson said the UK would require a jump from the current 78GW of power capacity to more than 100GW.’ (Nation Grid presentation, reported in New Energy Focus, 8 October 2008).
And:
‘One of Britain’s leading energy providers warned yesterday that Britain will need substantial fossil fuel generation to back up the renewable energy it needs to meet European Union targets. The UK has to meet a target of 15% of energy from renewables by 2020.’
‘E.ON said that it could take 50 gigawatts of renewable electricity generation to meet the EU target. But it would require up to 90% of this amount as backup from coal and gas plants to ensure supply when intermittent renewable supplies were not available. That would push Britain’s installed power base from the existing 76 gigawatts to 120 gigawatts.’ (Guardian, 4 June 2008).
You might also ask how many fossil-fuelled power stations have shut in Germany which had 19,460 wind turbines installed at the end of 2207 (by comparison, the UK had 1,951 turbines installed in February, 2008).
Answer = 0. In fact they are building 26 new coal-fired power stations. So much for the ‘wind revolution’ – all spin no substance!
Report abuse
try jonathon woss and russell brand they are full of hot air and have loads of our money
Report abuse
Gordon: Well in the abscence of Green Gurus and Penguin Protestors adding their comments we will have to remain in the dark, so to speak.
It seems that some greenies are only our for self-publicity and to boost their egos.
Report abuse
Sorry, ‘Lucy W’, not to respond earlier, and thank you for your interest in Green Party policies.
As ‘Lucy W’ says, the Green Party is a supporter of wind energy and other renewable energies, and the Shropshire Green Party supports the Market Drayton windfarm bid, while recognising that we are one of many voices in a democratic process.
When the alternative is dangerous, dirty and expensive nuclear or polluting, climate-changing coal, we have to collectively scratch our head and agree with mike’s bemused question in comment #2.
The negative impacts of the other two energies on our collective health, and those of some of the poorest people in the world, are surely indisputable by now, aren’t they?
The Green Party want to make our economy more resilient to the widely predicted oil shocks and climate shocks, which are looming on the horizon. And we believe that, coupled with a massive drive on energy efficiency, a concerted drive towards renewables will strengthen our future prospects immeasurably.
(Gordon, ‘Lucy W’ denies anthropogenic climate change. I trust you do not…)
The Green Party believe that the government should invest in a Roosevelt-style GREEN NEW DEAL to kickstart the economy again, and set it on a radical new and sustainable course ( http://www.shropshirestar.com/2008/07/21/experts-call-for-credit-and-climate-crunch-action/ ).
This would be achieved with massive investment from the state in a green industrial revolution in the wake of the credit crunch and the financial crash.
As a result of this crash many jobs are being lost in the services and banking sector, so government money should be targeted at training people, who would have otherwise gone into these sectors, in green-collar jobs instead.
The renewables sector requires more manpower than the nuclear sector.
A switch towards renewables could lead to 130,000 jobs being created in the clean, green, fossil-fuel-free wind industry by 2020, and 100,000 potential jobs installing solar panels across the UK.
In Germany there are 250,000 jobs in renewable energy.
In the UK it is 26,000 at best.
I recognise that there is opposition to this scheme. However, I hope that locals, who oppose it, will be willing to debate the issues in a friendly and democratic way -perhaps on this thread.
Report abuse
Gordon, you said that the Greens are backing a technology, ‘that actually results in more fossil-fuelled power stations being built due to the need for backup.’
According to whom?
Eon.
Eon is the German energy company, which is trying to build the 26 coal-fired power stations in Germany, which gordon mentioned.
I said ‘trying to build’, because Eon is facing mounting opposition in Germany.
There is opposition in Germany
a) because building these power stations would undermine Germany’s renewable energy targets
b) because building these power stations would undermine Germany’s carbon-cutting targets
c) because of the appalling signal that it would send to the developing world (‘Do as we say but not as we do’)
If you go on to the Friends of the Earth International site, you will see that FoE Germany has formed successful alliances against coal plants at almost every site of planned construction.
In Ensdorf a local referendum stopped a two-billion Euro investment in coal by RWE Energy, one of the big German electric utility companies.
5 other coal-powered power stations have also been stopped because of public opposition.
I think that if we take our international obligations on climate change seriously, then we cannot allow coal back in.
Report abuse
I wonder what readers of this thread make of the ZeroCarbon Britain report produced for the Centre for Alternative Technology, based at Macynlleth, Wales, and available on the CAT website.
This report points out how the UK can de-carbonize its economy within 20 years.
The plan promotes cutting energy use in half with a massive energy efficiency ‘power down’ drive.
Wind power is seen as a vital part of the energy mix.
Interestingly, though, most of the siting of wind farms is offshore, according to this plan for a sustainable Britain.
Report abuse
Eon is not trying to build ALL the coal-fired power stations in Germany.
Apologies for this error.
Report abuse
I went to the Centre for Alternative Technology, but didn’t go in as it is very expensive. Am I right to presume thats because Alternative Technology is expensive?
Not really bothered because I have experienced and adopted many Alternative Technologies, like living in a caravan, stood under a wind farm and flew over the Hoover Dam in a helicopter.
So I dont think I missed much.
Report abuse
Huw: I visited http://www.cat.com and saw nothing about wind turbines and low carbon stuff. Just lots of big earth moving machines. But they had a very interesting bit about Energy and Climate.
Report abuse
‘Lucy W’, try http://www.cat.org.uk/index.tmpl?refer=index&init=1 for an introduction to the work of the Centre for Alternative Technology.
For the alternative energy strategy I mentioned in #8, try http://www.zerocarbonbritain.com/ .
While you are at it, I recommend SOURCEWATCH, which looks at the sources used by the climate change denial industry, which is so anti-wind power.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SourceWatch
SourceWatch exists to document the PR and propaganda activities of public relations firms and public relations professionals engaged in managing and manipulating public perception, opinion and policy.
I think you and other readers would find it fascinating reading, ‘Lucy W’.
Report abuse
Hugh Teach: All very well posting links, but I am uncertain on your personal opinion to the Market Drayton proposal.
Are you saying the objectors are selfish, eco-destroying NIMBYs?
Report abuse
No, I am saying that I disagree with them.
Disagreement often happens in democracies.
I have also said that I would be interested to discuss the issue with them on this thread.
It may be hard for you to countenance, but it is possible to disagree with others without resorting to the language of the playground.
Witness the mostly exemplary comportment of the 2 US presidential candidates, John McCain and Barack Obama, for evidence of this.
Report abuse
Huw: Sorry, but I’m not afraid to call a spade a spade. Guess it comes from my working class routes and deprivation of a University education.
Thats the problem with politicians, they never give a straight answer to anything. Never nail their colours to the flag.
Take the Greens. They say they want green Bio-diesel, then their leader, Caroline Watshername, votes against Bio-diesel Targets in the European Parliment.
Report abuse
This isn’t really relevant to a discussion about a proposed windfarm in Market Drayton, but, in the absence of anyone opposing wind power on this thread, I will gladly explain.
The Green Party were the first party to call for a moratorium on agro-fuels in autumn 2007.
Why?
Because evidence was mounting that agrofuels are exacerbating the very problems they were supposed to solve.
Poor people are being moved off their land to make way for agro-fuels, land conflicts are increasing as a result, and food insecurity is worsening as feeding cars with fuel is being prioritized over feeding people.
In light of this evidence, Greens in the European Parliament argued that the emphasis should be instead on
a) fuel efficiency in cars
b) promoting a modal shift from private to public transport
That is why Caroline Lucas voted as she did in the European Parliament.
Report abuse
Re #16: a) Fuel efficiency in cars is now peaked. We will soon be buying CVT (Continuously Variable Transmission) and some environmentally aware people already drive them. There is very little room for improvement now.
b) Does Lucas use public transport to travel to and from Brussels?
As for poor people moving off land, well thats progress – just like the Highland Clearances. Can’t be such a bad thing as there are monuments to the Duke of Sutherland all over Scotland (and Lilleshall Hill) saying what a smashing bloke he was and thats why his tennants constructed the monuments at their own expense!
These people dont want to live in the jungle, they want to join us in the modern 21st Century.
All the Greens want to do, is stop the disadvantaged from bettering themselves so they can enjoy a greater share of the earths resources in the developed world.
Hypocrits the lot of ‘em!
Report abuse
Huw #7.
Answer: according to power engineers and grid operators with real world experience of wind power rather than the likes of CAT. E.ON are a also major international wind power operator and one of the few companies building biomass plant, so please let’s not just smear them with the coal argument. (It was not E.ON proposing 26 new coal plants in Germany, by the way).
I notice that you did not answer National Grid’s figures for backup. Where is their vested interest?
You will also be aware of Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research’s ‘Security of decarbonised electricity systems’
Technical report 30, July 2005. This found:
“We observed that wind generation has a relatively small capacity credit. At lower levels of wind penetrations the capacity credit of wind generation is found to be about the same as the average load factor of wind. However, as the level of wind penetration rises, the capacity credit begins to tail off. That is why in order to maintain the same level of system security a significant capacity of conventional plant will still be required.”
More to the point – where is the evidence for substitution in Germany, Denmark, Spain etc. Or the predicted falls in CO2 emissions?
France has the best power sector figures, which would suggest that nuclear is the best carbon reduction power technology!
Report abuse
Huw.
You state that “…the alternative is dangerous, dirty and expensive nuclear or polluting, climate-changing coal” (#6).
This is plain wrong.
Even arch-Windy Jonathan Porritt does not argue that wind would substitute for nuclear:
“It would be unrealistic to assume that wind energy would displace any nuclear capacity,” (‘Wind Power in the UK’, Sustainable Development Commission. 2005. p35).
I get very tired of the bogus nuclear argument that is dragged across every wind debate.
Equally, you, and most other people, totally ignore the fact that even in Denmark, where wind supposedly supplies 20% of electricity [c. 6% of consumption, in reality] the major renewable Power source is not wind:
“The largest output of sustainable energy in Denmark comes from biomass, that is, from the burning of, or the production of combustible gases from, hay, wood chips, manure from domestic animals, and garbage. Biomass accounts for 80% of the Danish production of sustainable energy.” (Danish Government Portal).
The recently announced [July 2008] Teesport biomass power station, a compact industrial plant with a single 70-90 metre chimney, will occupy a small, brownfield site. It will operate for some 8,000 hours per annum producing 2,400,000MWh of predictable, base load power. The project scoping report notes:
‘As the project will run 24 hours per day, 365 days per annum, it will generate as much renewable electricity as a 1,000MWe offshore wind farm (equivalent to that generated by the London Array wind farm which is one of the largest renewable energy projects in the world)’
Puts wind power in perspective!
Report abuse
‘Lucy W’, you said that fuel efficiency in cars ‘has now peaked’, then later you say there is ‘little room for improvement’.
Which of these two mutually exclusive statements do you mean?
Caroline Lucas goes to Brussels by Eurostar.
See this BBC article from 2005 for details: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4120557.stm
Your attempt to re-define land-grabbing for profit as social welfare -frankly- does not deserve a response.
Report abuse
Gordon, do you share ‘Lucy W’s perspective on the Highland Clearances?
Did she get in touch to tell you about this debate?
Report abuse
Hugh Teach: Here we go, trying to split hairs. It has peaked as what little improvement can be made is not viable for economic reasons. Cars are at their “Concorde” moment – we will never see another Bugatti Veyron again.
As for my land comment – Your are lost for words!! Well theres another shocker – or am I right, just like I was about Bonfire Pollution?
Report abuse
Huw
What happened to, “I have also said that I would be interested to discuss the issue with them on this thread.”
You are now sliding away from the issues.
It is also rather pathetic to use the climate change denial smear. The severest critics of wind power are grid utility companies and minor figures such as Professor James Lovelock, a real Green thinker, and Sir Martin Holdgate, retired chairman of the Renewable Energy Advisory Group (originators of government’s green policies). The latter said: “The trouble with wind farms is that they have a huge spatial footprint for a piddling little bit of electricity.”
Even Professor Sir David King, Chief Scientific Advisor to the Government from 2000 to 2007 has second thoughts about wind now:
“This is an issue which needs to be revisited and I say this as somebody who feels that we really have to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions very substantially but in my view it is an expensive, and not a very clever route to go for 35 to 40% on wind turbines.” (‘Poverty fears over wind power’, BBC News , 4 September 2008).
While we are at it, would you correct your dodgy statistics on jobs:
“The massive planned expansion of renewable energy may produce far fewer jobs than the government has claimed, a study has found.”
“Producing enough renewable energy to meet government targets would create about 36,000 jobs in the wind energy sector by 2020, according to a study by Bain & Company for the British Wind Energy Association, to be published today.”
…
“The Bain estimate is far adrift of government claims.”
“Ed Miliband, secretary of state for energy and climate change, said last week that the offshore wind sector alone had ‘the potential to provide up to 70,000 new, green jobs’ in the next decade.’
‘In its renewable energy strategy, published over the summer, the government claimed it would create 160,000 new jobs by 2020.’ (Financial Times. 20 October 2008).
Report abuse
Sorry not to get back earlier to your points, Gordon.
They definitely deserve a considered answer and I will give it.
First of all, however, I did wonder how you heard about this thread.
Did ‘Lucy W’ tell you about it?
If she did, do you share her views on the Highland clearances?
Do you, like her, think that dispossessing poor people of their land to make way for agro-fuels is a positive development?
Do you believe that her hostile and aggressive debating style benefits a discussion like this?
Report abuse
Gordon, in #18 you said that the Centre for Alternative Technology (CAT) lacked ‘real world experience of wind power’.
This is false.
CAT produce ALL their electricity from their own renewable sources.
The engineers at CAT know what works and what doesn’t work because they have been building, installing and living with wind power and other renewable technologies for 35 years.
Their ‘Zero Carbon Britain’ report is their way of sharing their expertise and 35 years of ‘real world experience of wind power’.
I know some people would rather deny even this fact rather than visiting for themselves (#10), but you can find out about their real world experience, Gordon, from the CAT website.
Report abuse
I promised Gordon a considered answer to his points (#24), but then failed to give it.
Apologies for the delay.
Here it is…
In #3 Gordon asked the Shropshire Green Party why we are ‘backing a technology that actually results in more fossil-fuelled power stations being built due to the need for backup’.
The British Wind Energy Association’s Top Myths About Wind Energy web-page was helpful for responding to this, as was a book called ‘What about China?’ by Alastair Sawday Publishing, which answers common questions asked by sceptics.
I recommend these to people following this debate, who are concerned about our common future in a world of climate change, and who might feel inspired to join this vitally important debate and debunk the myths that justify inaction.
So does wind energy need additional back-up to work?
No, not any more than is needed at present, though a small amount (300-500 megawatts (MW)) WILL be necessary when wind is eventually providing 10% of the UK’s energy needs.
Only when wind provides 20% of total electricity supply will back-up be a significant issue.
So, with qualifications, I have to concede your point about the National Grid spokesman.
In response, though, the key is for us to get cleverer at
a) dealing with intermittent supply from wind
b) storing energy
A) According to a 2nd December 2008 article in New Energy Focus if the nation’s fridges were equipped with “Dynamic Demand” technology they could help the National Grid counter any drop in power generation from wind turbines or surge in demand from consumers – on a “second by second” basis.
Electricity giant npower is working with direct demand technology pioneers RLtec to test out the system in ordinary household fridges following the laboratory testing carried out at Imperial College.
B) According to a 5th January 2009 article in New Energy Focus (thanks for the reference, Gordon), EDF is trialling “smart grid” technology in Hemsby, Norfolk in order to store energy, using high-tech lithium-ion batteries and superconductor power transistors to even out the load on the grid from connected wind farms.
ABB, the Swiss company, which is building the Norfolk facility, said the system would be able to store surplus energy from wind turbines to use during periods of peak demand.
As for Gordon’s claim that wind farms are not shutting power stations, he ignores the fact that power plants in the UK are having to shut anyway due to necessary European emissions legislation or old age.
We need to replace these power sources with energy, which does not heat the climate or create a disposal nightmare for our great-great-great grandchildren and their progeny.
The UK has better wind resources than any other European country and therefore wind has a vital role to play in the new 21st century energy mix.
I hope the people coordinating the Shropshire campaign against wind turbines are supportive of carbon-friendly alternatives.
Report abuse
The Shropshire Green Party has written an open letter to Vortex to find out the group’s views on climate change and to ask which carbon-friendly alternatives to wind the group supports.
This can be read on our website in the Comment section.
We will post Vortex’s response when they reply.
Report abuse