I submit this evidence to explain why I believe that investing in commercial wind power according to the Government's policy to reduce CO₂ emissions is misguided and ineffective.

  1. Windpower makes an insignificant reduction in CO₂ emissions and it wastes taxpayers' money that should be invested in research to find realistic solutions to reducing polluting emissions.

  2. Conservation of energy coupled with restraint in use should be the first priority. It is the logical and commonsense answer to our energy problems, along with improving the technology to clean up our fossil fuelled power stations.

  3. I believe it is unacceptable to cover our "un-renewable landscapes" with gigantic industrial machines which are little more than symbols, or a salve to the "green" and essentially urban conscience of those who feel powerless to control the many excesses of our wasteful, polluting and ostentatious society. I share those concerns but despair at the way they are exploited by those who are able to manipulate public sympathies. Apart from a minute amount of uncontrollable, intermittent electricity, these rotating money-spinners merely generate subsidized income for the turbine manufacturers, developers and a very few landowners.

  4. Of course we all prefer clean energy but we must not be stampeded into irreversibly ruining what remains of our precious countryside by erecting inefficient, commercial wind "farms" which are no solution to the pollution caused by fossil fuels.

  Good planning is about balance—the irreparable ecological damage, loss of amenity and the distressing divisions within previously harmonious communities caused by commercial wind "farms" far outweigh any benefit they purport to bring.

  5. After six years investigating the issue from every point of view I am in no doubt that on balance the typical commercial wind "farms" as subsidized and stimulated by the NFFO regime are one of the most destructive things ever to appear on the horizons of the UK. My investigations have included numerous visits to sites and discussions with those people who have these wind factories forced on them against their will. Many times I have heard the noise made by these industrial machines. It is quite unacceptable that people have to live with this. Only a few weeks ago a man living within sound of a wind "farm" said that they were "just wondering how to keep sane for the next 20 years".

  6. It is the impact of these installations and their side-effects that I oppose, not wind energy per se.

  Wind power can be a really useful method of electricity generation.

  Installations may be acceptable if they:

(a)  are sensitively and safely sited.

(b)  do not destroy the scale and character of the local environment.

(c)  do not create deep divisions within the community

(d)  supply direct to the consumer

  7. I am not a "NIMBY" ("Not In My Backyard") in the sense as used by the advocates of of commercial wind "farms". The stigma carried by such a label (implying self-interest above all else) is a very effective and frequently used technique for suppressing questions from people anxious to know why gigantic industrial structures are suddenly appearing all over the land and in their "back yards". Many of us consider the whole country as our `back yard' and even the whole world.

   "Scare" tactics are used by the developers such as "you must accept these to save the planet" etc., etc. They seek to induce a sense of guilt in those who, only too reasonably, question the need for such developments. The developers avoid reasoned debate because it quickly becomes evident to people that the true statistics and facts about wind "farms" cannot justify the sacrifice necessary for their implementation.

  8. The present politically correct "scare" is "GLOBAL WARMING". Less than 20 years before that "scare" (not long in the life of the planet!) at the beginning of this decade, the politically correct "scare" was

  "GLOBAL COOLING"

  Just a few quotations to illustrate the point:

  1. "a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery" (International Wildlife, July 1975).

  2. "the world's climatologists are agreed" that we "prepare for the next ice age" (Science Digest, February 1973).

  3. "the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool" glaciers "have begun to advance" and "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter" (The Christian Science Monitor, 27 August 1974).

  4. "many signs pointing to the possibility that the Earth may be heading for another ice age" (New York Times, August 14 1975).

  5. "continued rapid cooling of the Earth" (Global Ecology, 1971).

  6. "the approach of a full-blown 10,000-year ice age" (Science, March 1 1975).

  I do not know the answer but one thing is quite certain—there is no consensus on the matter among all the world's leading scientists. The IPPC was formed by a group of scientists who were virtually told to reach a consensus on the matter. Many of the world's leading independent scientists say that there is insufficient evidence to prove that man-made CO₂ emissions are the main cause of global warming. Most of them maintain that what is happening to our climate is just in the natural, cyclical order of things—i.e:

"Climate will continue to change catastrophically, gradually and unpredictably, whatever happens at the Kyoto conference. We fool ourselves by thinking that we can "halt" climate change by fiddling with one or two politically selected variables" [37]

  9. The wind will always be unpredictable, uncontrollable and unreliable so how can it possibly be an "alternative"? What happens when the wind is not blowing? What happens when the wind is not blowing at the correct speed? Can you switch your light on? No.

  10. Repeatedly, one hears the phrase that wind energy is "better than nuclear" from people who are well-motivated but either uninformed or misinformed—and, of course, from the developers! The idea that weather-dependent wind farms' could cause the closure of huge nuclear power stations is a myth which is fostered by the proponents of commercial wind "farms" in order to discredit their opponents. Of course, wind power does not replace nuclear or conventional power stations: it merely displaces their power for those periods when the wind happens to be blowing between the cut-in and cut-out speeds of approximately 11mph and 55mph respectively.

  11. It has recently been calculated that the world's current total output of wind energy is less than 5 per cent of the UK's requirement for electricity.[38]

—  So even if all the tens of thousands of wind turbines in the world (over 30,000) could somehow be crammed on to the UK we would still have to back up their unreliable output (less than 5 per cent) with an equal amount of conventional, reliable power.

  12. The following statistics are based on "best" performance of the 24-turbine wind "farm" at Cemaes (1995)—i.e., 25 per cent capacity. This represents a total of 1.8MW (less than 2MW!) of an unreliable output of energy towards an average need for over 40,000MW of reliable electricity. In 1997 demand peaked at 57,000MW!

  The six 400KW wind turbines proposed for the Cemaes "B" extension would produce an intermittent, unreliable 5,256,000KW hours (units) per annum Drax power station can produce a reliable 4,000,000 units in one hour. Therefore Drax could produce the annual output of the Cemaes "B" extension in less than one and half hours.

  The total 25-year life output of the Cemaes "B" extension could be produced by Drax in about one and a half days.

  13. Recent statistics, based on ETSU figures, show that the average capacity of output of all the wind "farms" in Wales for the year ending March 1998 was a mere 23.3 per cent—less than a quarter of their installed capacity. This is a totally uncontrollable output which is delivered for much of the time (especially at night) when it is not even needed. However, the electricity companies are forced to buy every unit, whether they want it or not, at a fixed, subsidised price. Is it any wonder that the developers are trying to persuade the government to change the planning system and deprive the public of their democratic right to refuse to have these gigantic industrial machines invading and spoiling the countryside and their lives.

  During the same period the average capacity of output for the whole of the UK was 25.7 per cent.

  Wind "farms" have been around for some time now so the public are more aware of the reality. This is bound to lead to increasing opposition.

  14. Professor Littlechild has recently stated that it could cost an extra £1 billion per annum for 10 per cent of renewables by the year 2010 and questioned whether it was worth the price.

  On a recent TV programme he said that it could mean an extra £20 per annum on electricity bills—just to cover the extra 10 per cent from renewables. That makes it very expensive electricity indeed. Ironically the Government has reduced VAT on electricity bills which surely encourages greater consumption. The Government has also put a moratorium on gas-fired power stations so that more coal can be burnt and produce more CO₂. Well, at least coal produces a significant amount of reliable energy which is more than can be claimed for wind power. The cleaner gas-fired plants have already enabled the UK to beat its own target for the reduction of fossil fuels by the year 2000.

  As long ago as 1994 the Public Accounts Committee criticised the Conservative government for not realising much sooner that money was being wasted on "wind and hot rocks".

  How much better to invest £15 billion into proper research to solve the nuclear waste problem and finding a realistic solution to the creation of clean energy.

  15. Tony Blair, on his recent trip to China with Heseltine, clinched a deal for Britain to build a hugh coal-fired power station which will burn tens of thousands of tons of Chinese coal in the next decades and winds carrying its pollution will spread over the globe. This makes even less sense for hardware to be dumped all over our countryside in the form of massive wind turbines which will offset the emissions by near zero.

  How does this square with the Government's commitment to reducing CO₂ emissions?

  Are we to understand that our un-renewable landscapes are to be desecrated for very short-term gain just so that turbine manufacturers and developers can benefit from this falsely created market?

  16. In 1997, in a nationwide press release, the Wind Energy Industry proclaimed that in 1996 a "record" 505 million units of electricity were produced from over 550 wind turbines. To put this apparently impressive figure into perspective I should explain that this was 0.15 per cent of the UK's total supply for 1996. Moreover, the average annual increase of supply in electricity from 1992-97 (and since the advent of wind "farms") has been 2.4 per cent.

  So, just to meet the average annual increase would necessitate a 16-fold rise in wind power!

  17. The Anglesey Aluminium Metal Ltd needs 220MW of constant, uninterrupted, reliable power.

  The unreliable, average output of 22 wind "farms" of the size of Carno, Wales (the largest one in Europe) would merely match the needs of Aluminium Metal Ltd. Owing to the unpredictable, intermittent nature of the wind it can never replace the reliable, constant 220MW of conventional power necessary for the functioning of the factory. Deprived of electricity for over six hours the plant would be damaged to such an extent that it would be uneconomic to re-open it. The factory supports 630 jobs and about twice that number in associated jobs.

  18. Over four million new houses are to be built during the next 15 years. Their construction will require even more energy and a subsequent rise in consumption by householders. This means that the proportion of renewable energy from commercial windpower will also have to rise in accordance with the Government's policy. So 6 per cent of energy from windpower by the year 2010 will need to be much higher than at present as the consumption of electricity will be much greater. Are there predicted figures for that year?

  19. In Germany over 90 eminent scientists, lecturers and writers have supported the "Darmstadt Manifesto" published in Bonn on 1 September 1998. This document illustrates how commercial wind "farms" are an environmental disaster and no solution to our pollution problems.

  20. The Government Inspector, David Lavender, recently dismissed National Wind Power's Appeal to put the largest wind "farm" in England on Barningham High Moor. Summing up he said: "it seems to me that the individual contribution to energy generation needs from High Moor would be insignificant and unreliable, and that pollution savings would be both correspondingly small and uncertain." He concluded that he could find "nothing to persuade me that the desirability of exploiting a clean, renewable energy resource at this prominent skyline site outweighs other important policy considerations, which include avoiding damage to attractive areas of landscape."

  21. Government figures for windpower up to the end of June 1998 show an average output of capacity at 26.7 per cent of a total 318 MW of installed capacity (UK) which is about 85MW. This would not even be enough to run the QE2 at maximum power. The QE2 generates 90MW when running at maximum power—sufficient to light up the whole of Southampton!

  22. To shift an Inter City electric train out of the sidings would require 16 600KW wind turbines.

  23. "It would take two to three wind turbines (600KW each) to compensate for the emissions of one 15-ton heavy goods vehicle."1

  24. Commercial land-based wind "farms" are the cheapest, quickest "fix" to be seen to be "green" but in reality are environmentally disastrous red herrings.

It surely must be a political aberration that "in order to save the country it is necessary to destroy it"

5 January 1999

1 Questions and Answers regarding the Use of Wind Energy in Germany, by Professors Imboden, Binswanger and Wolfrum.

38   Professor Ian Fells, Newcastle University, House of Commons Trade and Industry Committee, Energy Policy, June 1998.  Back