The blades decimate wildlife" (Steward, Journal letters 14/09/07). Consultees including Natural England and Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust said "Mitigation would include measures to ensure that no Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) species are harmed; residual impacts to protected and BAP species (are minimised]", apparently.

I asked RSPB whether wind companies keep to these mitigation schemes, but was told by specialist Kath Harris they don't know, but assume so.
The noise/vibration issues – what a headache. I've asked Country Guardian, the foremost anti-windfarm group in the UK, for peer-reviewed papers on 'Vibroacoustic Disease' and wind turbines, without success. I'm told to wait for e-mails/calls that never arrive.

BLOT recommend three papers:
In "Public health & noise exposure: the importance of low frequency noise" (Alves-Pereira/Branco, Lus"fona University), section 5.2, the authors state they've no advice on what a "safe distance" between home and turbine should be changed to, if at all and that "in no way can or should this report be construed as a document arguing against wind turbines".

It concludes that studies must take Low-Frequency Noise into account. "The Measurement of Low Frequency Noise at Three UK Windfarms", (DTI, 08/06) states "Of the 126 windfarms operating in the UK, (just] five have reported low-frequency noise problems"
"Noise – Wind Turbines: Noise & Health" (Harry), is mostly re-iteration of the others, consisting of responses to "questionnaires sent to people already known to be suffering from problems which they felt were due to their proximity to wind-turbines". Not much use.

To "Noise Radiation from Wind Turbines Installed near Homes: Effects on Health" (Frey/Haddon), I agree that the ETSU-R-97 guidance needs re-examining, but think there is reassurance in Salford University's paper, "Research into Aerodynamic Modulation of Wind Turbine Noise," (07/07), which concludes that one in five (UK] wind farms has received noise complaints since operation; 230 complaints had been received since 1991, 152 of which were from a single site.

The total number of complainants at July last year was just 81, but this figure is too high as in certain circumstances each complaint received by local authorities is considered to be from a separate complainant.

"Wind-turbines do not replace power stations." (Caswell, 23/11/07).
Replacing power stations is not key, displacing fossil fuel use is. The Sustainable Development Commission states "Wind-power reduces emissions by gradually displacing conventional-power generation. National Grid Company has estimated that 8,000MW wind-power displaces about 3,000MW conventional".

Like Jesson (27/07/07), I'm not convinced the Vale is that spectacular a section of scenery, and agree with Clark (2/11/07) in that "(any] despoiling of the landscape has already been done (by pylons] 60 years ago".
The perception of the aesthetics of turbines is too subjective to determine policy. Around two thirds of responses to Infinergy's proposal have been in favour, though.

Accepting the application could mean further industrial development in that area, but to assume that unconditional further development to the extent of "an entire valley of hundreds of turbines, each over 400ft tall" (Finch, 3/12/07), is a strawman argument. The ease of dismantling and the small amount of land affected makes this far less likely to be "a planning disaster" as suggested in one letter.


Thanks to Negus (26/10/07) for directing us to www.xcweather.co.uk for wind speeds, but he hasn't mentioned that those "wind-speed measurements are made at a height of 10m." Apparently the average at 45m is 6.4m/s, the expected cut-in speed of turbines is 2.5m/s and the hubs would be at 80m.

Concern over subsidies-
dependence is clearly justified. BLOT states that subsidies will form "70 per cent of the farm's income", but I'm told the expected subsidy is 40 to 50 per cent.
Subsidies made Denmark's wind supply as successful as it is today, and it is removing them as the industry is economically-viable. The UK can do the same, but Ofgem is right to review the situation.

Problems:
lMD Wilmar states that the 52,000T of CO2 p.a. to be saved has been calculated assuming the conventional mix of fuels. However, this figure does not "include CO2-emissions or the emission savings by construction vehicles, the back-up by conventional power plants and/or the pollution of cement in constructing." (Infinergy, 3/12) Not including emissions from back-up plant is a very serious omission.
lSustrans state (04/07, FF44) that an enforced speed limit of 60mph on motorways could save 1.9MT of CO2 p.a. 52,000T seems disarmingly small. The average UK person's carbon-footprint is 9.4T (Lynas 01/07, Guardian); with 127,500 residents in SKDC, a very rough footprint for residents is 1,198,500T p.a. 52,000T is just 4.3 per cent of that total. Arguments for the windfarm must rest more on that renewable electricity is produced.

The figure of (equivalent to) 25 per cent of SKDC homes' energy being produced, I'm told, takes into account the load factor of approximately 30 per cent, however, the 8,000MW-3,000MW proportion from earlier, would suggest about 9 per cent of that 25 cent would come from wind.

SKDC seems to have no detailed plan on ensuring its renewables commitment can be achieved and how turbines will be backed as coal/gas supplies decline. Occasionally dropping the word "Biomass" into the Preferred Options is spectacularly unconvincing.

The consultation process has been abysmal. It may have been within regulations, but I think communal question-and-answer sessions post-planning application should be the norm, instead of exhibitions wherein those interested in learning more each have to re-invent the wheel.

Savills has no track record in concern for environmental issues and its involvement stems from consultations with Scottish estate owners' aspirations to make their assets profitable, making it difficult to see them as interested beyond profit.

I cannot, hand-on-heart, say this wind farm is the best use of resources, but with the pressing importance of establishing renewable supply and reducing energy consumption, and SKDC's absence of detailed alternatives, I just about side with the proposal.

My preference is: A public committee to openly have post-application queries addressed; that an independent study of Low-Frequency Noise expectations be completed, with a fresh review of the appropriateness of the ETSU-R-97 guidance, and a public statement of expected CO2-savings including back-up generation, which if all deemed acceptable, to accept the application, but on condition that the Community Fund is dedicated to the most effective energy-
efficiency measures for the local community.

If CAT's figures of a possible 50 per cent energy reduction per home are accurate, concerns of proliferation of turbines can be reduced by SKDC with decent energy efficiency programmes.
I hope councillors/deciders on this subject have more stamina and time than myself.
Awaiting the deluge, e-mail: Ben_austin_85@hotmail.


Do you agree? Click here to add you voice to the debate.