Background to Wind Farms in Northumberland

Please allow me to share with you my knowledge (accumulated over many years) of the "Wind Farm" situation.
I would ask that you read what follows carefully, and consider that my initial reaction, on seeing a wind farm for the first time almost 20 years ago, was "Wow, what an impact (in landscape and visual terms)" but also “What a great idea…IF it really works…"
I thus resolved to find out about it, by examining the facts for myself.

Background to my research into wind farms

I have been fascinated with the subject of electricity generation since I was a small child, (perhaps inspired by living in a house powered by a small water driven hydroelectric plant, until 1959 when the mains came). I have also had a scientific education, and my career as a Land Agent, Civil Servant (in Agricultural Research), farmer and land manager has led me to be familiar with and understand most aspects of “land use”, in both scientific and economic terms. I also have a good understanding and experience of power, energy and electricity in a practical engineering sense. Moreover, both “electricity” and “unspoiled landscape” are extremely important commodities in the businesses with which I am involved.

On first looking into the wind farm issue, I found virtually all the official material that was easily available on the subject to be strongly supportive of the technology, constantly emphasising the “need” for renewable energy, and praising the “effectiveness” of wind power in providing it.

I also became aware that the income (in the form of rent) generated for farmers on whose land wind turbines are situated was extraordinarily high compared with that capable of being earned from virtually any other form of land based enterprise. Anyone who understands electricity generation in an engineering sense, and who has also studied prices in the wholesale electricity market, will wonder, like I did, how on earth a wind farm, which is accepted even by its strongest supporters to be an intermittent generator, can generate such staggering levels of income. On further research however, I learned that this income received by the farmer or landowner typically equated to only about 1-3 % of the gross annual income earned by the wind farm itself, indicating that there was indeed a truly vast amount of money to be made out of technology by its underlying investors.

This heightened my curiosity because it suggested either that wind power was a far more effective and productive form of generation than I thought, or that it was heavily subsidised in some way.

Not without difficulty, I managed to unravel details of the subsidies that were at play, as well as the political background that led to their creation. Perhaps most significantly, I learned how the wind industry’s trade association (then called the BWEA, now "renewableUK") became focused on selling the concept of wind farms to the public by deliberately talking up the benefits, while downplaying the various adverse impacts that inevitably arose in areas where they were built. At the same time, I became aware of how one of this organisation’s main priorities was to lobby Government to maintain, enhance, prolong, and guarantee that subsidy which provided them with such fabulous levels of return.

How are wind farms subsidised?

The main subsidy mechanism (though not the only one) that encourages renewable energy is known as The Renewables Obligation, and was introduced by the UK Government in 2002 following the Kyoto Protocol. This was a well meaning attempt to encourage investment in renewable energy installations, in order to try to reduce the amount of fossil fuels consumed by the UK’s electricity generation industry. The subsidy works by effectively doubling the price for which wind generated electricity can be sold. It does not, contrary to popular belief, provide capital grants for the installation of wind farms. Significantly, it effectively guarantees investors a spectacular and rising income until 2037. The very substantial cost of the subsidy is recovered from consumers’ increased electricity bills.

The gross income that can be generated by one large wind turbine (of say 3MW) can be in the order of £600,000 per year, thanks to the subsidy from the Renewables Obligation.

What effect did the Renewables Obligation subsidy have?

Although the Renewables Obligation was intended to incentivise investment in a wide range of renewable technologies, I learned that investors were quick to realise that onshore wind power was easily the most attractive technology in which to invest because it provided by far the best return on capital. That is because the wind turbine is already invented and available (a “mature technology” requiring relatively little research and development investment), is relatively cheap (in capital terms) and is fairly easy to install on onshore sites, provided planning permission can be obtained.

The result was that a “rush for wind” began soon after 2002 with developers scrambling to find compliant landowners on whose land they could make planning applications to build and operate wind farms.

While the wind resource of an area is clearly one factor that is relevant in the site selection process, I learned that it was by no means the main or most important factor (despite frequent claims). The subsidy (which is based on energy produced by the turbines over a period) is so generous that a wind farm situated in a low wind speed area will still return a very attractive profit for its investors, (although it will take somewhat longer to become profitable than if it were in an area of higher average wind speed).
Instead, site selection to date has been determined primarily by factors such as landowner compliance, ease of access, and the different ways in which Local Authorities implement planning policy.

Amazingly, however, there is a yawning gap between the spectacular financial return that this subsidy makes available to on-shore wind farm investors, and the actual usefulness of the energy produced by wind farms (because of its uncontrollability and intermittency). To cover up or disguise this deficiency, but to ensure that the subsidy was maintained, the wind industry had to make every effort to convince Government that wind farms perform very much better than in fact they do. This led to widespread misrepresentation and exaggeration of the outputs and benefits, which are fall too familiar to those who have studied wind farm promotion literature and planning applications.

"Efficiency”, or “effectiveness”?

I investigated the criticism frequently levelled at wind farms by those who oppose them, that wind power is “inefficient”. On this subject I learned that “efficiency” is a misleading and incorrect term to use in this context. What I did discover, however, is that there are genuine reasons to question the “usefulness” or the “value” of the intermittent energy that a wind farm can provide. I noticed, for example, that National Grid ascribes a value of “Zero” for wind power capacity when they calculate how to meet maximum demand on a cold winter’s day.

It was only through having friends in the wind farm investment industry that I was able to discover the way in which, and the extent to which, these technical shortcomings of wind farms have been “glossed over”, while claimed “benefits” have been hugely exaggerated by developers in what has become dubbed "the Wind Farm Scam."

Thanks to this “spin” from the wind industry, there is still unfortunately a widespread public unawareness and misunderstanding of the way in which, and the extent to which wind farms contribute to the UK’s energy needs. Too often one hears the erroneous suggestion that wind farms are “a better alternative to nuclear power”. Regardless of all else, anyone who holds this view immediately reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the basic facts. The two technologies are simply not “alternatives” to each other. One provides base load, while the other an intermittent supply of energy of an entirely different nature and order of magnitude. A quick look at the electricity “generation by fuel type” graph on the website http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm at any time of day will reveal the truth of this.

Costs

Mainly as a result of the positive spin put onto wind energy by the industry, there is a popular belief that energy derived from wind power is in some way “free”, or low cost energy. However when one analyses the situation properly it is quite clear that the opposite is actually true. Wind energy comes at a very substantially increased cost compared to conventionally generated electricity. This increased cost (due to subsidy and extra expense of distribution infrastructure and Balancing services) is partly responsible for the very steeply rising costs of electricity that we are currently experiencing and being warned of for the future.

The other important though less easily quantifiable “cost “ is the cost of damage to our countryside or landscape, which is one of Northumberland’s premier assets, and lies at the very heart of our tourism industry. It is only necessary to travel over our northern county boundary into The Scottish Borders and the Lammermuirs area to see what can happen to countryside when wind farm planning is not properly addressed from the start. Proliferation of turbines throughout this area is now almost out of control, with inevitable adverse consequences for residents, visitors, rural communities and the local and wider economy.

Revelations from within the Wind farm industry

Much of my knowledge and information has been gathered from friends working in the wind farm investment business, who have taken huge advantage of what they call the wind farm bonanza.

Such people admit they are “laughing behind heir hands” at the way in which Government has swallowed the “spin” their industry has deliberately created about wind energy.

So, I would like to list here some statements I have noted from conversations with such people over the years:

They say:

“This is simply a licence to print money”…

“You would not believe how much money we are making”…

“This is the biggest “cash cow” that has ever been devised by Government”…

Of course it is a scam;…indeed it is a national scandal, but you don’t admit that publicly when you are on the receiving end”…

“The system is mad, but it gives us unparalleled financial rewards, while contributing little or nothing for either energy security or climate change mitigation”

“ The best of it is ...our investors get richer at the expense of all electricity consumers, including all those who can least afford it, … but government don’t seem to have noticed”.

“Thankfully for us, politicians are largely non technical, so it is easy to “pull the wool”, …and civil servants are easily persuaded.”

“ No, we ourselves don’t get involved in the nasty business of getting planning permission. We delegate that to others"

“Of course it spoils countryside; of course we wouldn’t do it in our own area. That’s why we go for places "up north" or in Wales or Scotland, remote from where we and our friends live "
" …we also go for Counties where we know the planning regime is a “push over””.

“no, you’re absolutely right… it is nothing to do with CO2 or climate, and of course it won’t make the slightest difference to these…”

Furthermore, these people have made it absolutely clear to me that their presentation of the situation to the general public, and crucially to Ministers and politicians, “is of course very different to what we have told you…”

This is the situation which incentivises wind farm proposals throughout Northumberland ...almost anywhere where a persuasive developer can find a "compliant" landowner.
Take a look at the website www.windbyte.co.uk to find out more about this. Look at the "Home" page, the "Northumberland" page, and the famous "North Map" and "South Map" pages for an eye opening view of all the current and planned wind farms throughout the North East England and South East Scotland.

Many people have devoted much time, effort and money to opposing blatantly inappropriate wind farm proposals in these areas, on valid planning grounds.
Northumberland's rural landscapes are rich with outstanding natural, cultural and historic features of national and international importance. These features, together with the local tourism industry are given some protection by Planning policies. Wind farm developers, however, constantly seek to downplay the importance of these features, in their attempts to gain planning permission.

Details of the “subsidy” and the financial situation that provides the powerful incentive for the development of wind farms, are not “planning” issues, and therefore cannot be taken into account by Planners when making planning decisions about wind farms.

However, I believe it is important for the public, and for decision makers to be aware of the sheer scale of these incentives, so that they are aware of the ways in which, and the extent to which wind farm developers might seek to exaggerate the benefits and downplay the adverse impacts, when presenting their proposals.

 I have discovered enough over the years to be completely confident that there is no absolutely no need for anyone to have a guilty conscience about opposing wind farm proposals in areas of valued landscape such as exist in Northumberland.
The benefits are largely fictional, and the adverse impacts large, widespread and real. Furthermore the policies which promote them and make them so attractive to developers are ill thought out, reckless and unaffordable.
In my opinion these policies will have to change in the near future. When that happens, and Government at last sees how the country has been hoodwinked by the Wind industry, I for one will be PROUD to say we kept Northumberland free of inappropriate, unnecessary and unwanted wind farm development.

Andrew Joicey