Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Friday, 9th May 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the n/a site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Decision day for windfarm applications



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date:
26 March 2008
LONG awaited decisions on three wind farm proposals just a few miles apart are due to be made by planners at Berwick Borough Council today (Thursday).

A seven turbine scheme at Moorsyde, near Ancroft and a six turbine scheme at Barmoor, near Lowick are being recommended for approval while planning officers are advising refusal of a seven turbine proposal at Toft Hill, near Duddo.

Protesters an
d supporters are expected to arrive in large numbers for the all-day meeting of the planning committee which starts at 10am in The Maltings.

Your Energy is hoping it will be second time lucky for its Moorsyde proposal which first went before planners 15 months ago only to be deferred following a last-minute legal objection from protesters.
Richard Mardon, Your Energy managing director, said: "We are of course pleased that planning officers have once again recommended the wind farm for approval.

"We strongly believe we have made a comprehensive case for the wind farm at Moorsyde and look forward to answering questions members of the committee may have on Thursday.

"This is the climax to more than four years of hard work and this is the right proposal in the right place. If the council gives the go-ahead this week we are committed and ready to work constructively with the local community for years to come.

"The proposed wind farm would power the equivalent of more than 7000 homes every year and would be a valuable asset to the area in generating a clean and renewable source of electricity."

However, Moorsyde Action Group (MAG) have responded to the planning officer's recommendation by issuing a rallying call to local people and councillors.

A MAG spokesman said: "Although the Moorsyde application is accompanied by a massive amount of information, of highly variable accuracy and quality, the issues are relatively simple.

"They boil down to a cost/benefit calculation: the impacts of the scheme on the landscape, local communities, the local economy and on historical monuments and sites have to be weighed against the claimed benefits of a small amount of intermittent and erratic power generation and an even smaller amount of CO2 saved.

"We have done all we can to provide officers of the council and councillors with clear and substantiated evidence of the overwhelming costs of this scheme to our landscape, tourist economy and communities.

"All we can do now is hope is that our elected representatives will make a decision that is in the best interests of the borough and local people.

"Their decision will affect the futures of us all. They can throw open the gates and watch speculative developers turn the 'Secret Kingdom' into 'a wind farm landscape' or they can stand fast in the defence of the borough's glorious landscape and its fiercely loyal people. We trust that they have the vision to match our 'far horizons'."
Catamount Energy managing director Bill Peacock says he is hoping for a 'positive decision' from the council on its proposals for Barmoor South Moor.

He said: "Our development partner has worked closely within guidelines set by the North East Regional Government in choosing the location of the project.

"It is within an area identified by local government as a preferred location for wind farm development and its design has been amended to meet the recommendations of planning officers.

"The project has none of the aviation or radar problems affecting a number of wind farm developments in the region and has been identified by the planning authority as one that can make a substantial contribution to meeting the renewable energy targets that the region has set for 2010."



The full article contains 610 words and appears in n/a newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 26 March 2008 2:00 PM
  • Source: n/a
  • Location: Berwick
 
Prev
1
Next
1

Divers_uk,

Berwick 27/03/2008 20:31:12
"The proposed wind farm would power the equivalent of more than 7000 homes every year and would be a valuable asset to the area in generating a clean and renewable source of electricity."

OOPS SHOULD HAVE SAID "...for a MAXIMUM (yes that does mean maximum) 20% of the time which happens to be when the wind is right rather than when the power is needed and it does mean that a MINIMUM of 80% of the time (yes thats right 80% is a significant majority) there will be no power available."
2

Divers_uk,

Within 1 mile of the Your Energy site 27/03/2008 20:33:19
"If the council gives the go-ahead this week we are committed and ready to work constructively with the local community for years to come"

They have not doen so yet so what would change with planning.
3

John Everett,

Durham City 28/03/2008 14:39:20
The assertion that wind turbines only work for a maximum of 20% of the time is entirely wrong. Whoever makes such an allegation is either deliberately lying or hasn't bothered to get to grips with the facts.

Wind turbines typically generate electricity for UP TO 80% of the time. Given, however, that the wind speed is variable, they are not working "flat out" for all of this 80%. In total, therefore, over the course of any given year, they will normally produce between 20% and 35% of their theoretical maximum output (depending on location). This is known as the capacity factor.
It might be helpful to think about it in terms of two people taking turns to ride the same bicycle which has a maximum speed of thirty miles an hour on the flat. In a 24 period, therefore, the maximum distance that could be travelled is 720 miles.

Let's now say that I myself go out on a bike ride for eight hours on flat roads and I cover 80 miles. The bike has been operating for 33.3% of the 24 hour period (8/24) and has a capacity factor of approximately 11% (80/720).

Now we put Lance Armstrong on the same bicycle and set him away. He cycles for only six hours on the flat, but at a speed of 25mph. In total, therefore, he covers 150 miles. The bike has been operating for 25% of the 24 hour period (6/24) and has a capacity factor of app 21% (150/720).

Neither of these statistics (total time working or capacity factor), by the way, refers to the EFFICIENCY of the bike. If they did, then you'd think that the bike was not very efficient when I was riding it, and much more efficient when Lance was riding it. But that cannot be possible when it's exactly the same bike. The bike itself is actually very efficient; what makes the difference is the person riding it.

So it is with wind turbines. They are actually very efficient aerodynamic machines. Their overall output (capacity factor) changes with variations in wind speed and duration.

In actual fact, capacity factor is only of impo
4

John Everett,

Durham City 28/03/2008 14:43:26
(Finishing previous comment)...In actual fact, capacity factor is only of importance to the developers. The wind itself is totally free and renewable, so it's not as if a wind farm with a low capacity factor is using up a precious, 'scarce' resource. On the other hand, the so-called financial subsidy that wind energy attracts only kicks in as electricity is produced. As the capacity factor decreases, therefore, so does the return on the developers' initial investment in the turbines (many millions). Developers would not want to invest in a project if the projected capacity factor for the site was too low.

Please! If you want to rubbish wind turbines, then at least take the time to understand what you're talking about and get your facts straight.
Prev
1
Next

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.