Moorsyde Action Group

TOFT HILL/'MOORSYDE' II?

NPOWER HIRES SOUTHERN ACTIVISTS TO STUFF THE RESPONSE FILES

NPower are using eco-activists from Southern England and Wales to stuff the response files with pre-written letters expressing support for the Toft Hill scheme.

On 27 and 28 February two activists were collecting signatures in Berwick. Their table, obstructing half the pavement outside a charity shop in Marygate, displayed a small part of NPower’s Toft Hill Environmental Statement. In conversation, they admitted that they were being paid by NPower to collect signatures. They were unwilling to give their full names and were remarkably camera shy for people who are usually trying to get pictures of their publicity stunts into the press. During the 45 minutes I was present, they did not once mention to people they were approaching that NPower were paying for them to collect signatures. Nor did the stall or the pre-written letter they were using bear the name of NPower or any other organisation (see below).

Stall with NPower’s ES documents, Berwick, 27 February 2008.

This is a dishonest way to operate, in our opinion. When members of MAG were collecting signatures for a petition, we identified ourselves to people with our full names and told them directly that we were collecting signatures for MAG's campaign. All our forms had MAG’s name and contact details on them.

Npower, when contacted by the press, issued a statement claiming that the stall was being run by an organisation called ‘Alliance4Wind’. We googled the name and got the following result: “Your search - Alliance4Wind - did not match any documents.” Very strange - an invisible activist group!

NPower‘s biggest fans

A quick bit of research on the internet revealed that one of the signature gatherers is Jonathan Lincoln, founder of the Welsh ‘Sustainable Energy Alliance’, one of myriad small groups of eco-activists. He was listed as a Greenpeace organiser in Porthmadog, North Wales in 2006. The SEA website gives a list of the wind power projects that they support; these are: Gwynt-Y-Mor, Lindhurst (nr. Mansfield), Langham and Rhyl Flats. These are all NPower proposals.

However, it does seem that Jonathan's group is now accepting commissions to operate on behalf of other developers, a recent press report identifies SEA as operating on behalf of Infinergy, which plans to build 10 huge turbines north of Grantham: “The firm pays the expenses of members of the Sustainable Energy Alliance when they visit the Grantham area to lobby for the proposed wind farm at Thackson's Well, near Long Bennington.” The Grantham Journal quotes an Infinergy spokeswoman as saying: “The activity is done by SEA and not by Infinergy.” An interesting distinction!

SEA’s informative style of debate on renewables issues is typified by its T-shirts:

SEA T-shirt.

Misleading the public.

NPower’s dodgy support letter.

Nearly every bullet point in this document is misleading.

Nuclear nonsense.

The pre-written letter being used by Jonathan and his friend contains the usual misleading stuff about nuclear power. It clearly implies that wind is “an alternative” to nuclear power generation. Even Jonathan Lincoln admits in conversation that wind is not a base-load power generator and therefore can not substitute for nuclear power generation. The most rabidly pro-wind report to date, which is invariably referenced by the BWEA, Greenpeace and FOE, states: “It would be unrealistic to assume that wind energy would displace any nuclear capacity,” ('Wind Power in the UK', Sustainable Development Commission. 2005. p35).

Jonathan admitted in conversation that he knew that Denmark, the world's most intensive wind power producer, actually produces more energy from biomass than it does from wind (75% of the country's renewable energy production) so the first statement is doubly misleading.

Electricity Needs

The 'electricity needs' of homes are met by base load power generation from thermal power stations, not from intermittent and erratic wind power generation that seldom follows demand. Wind power generation is not figured into supply calculations by power supply companies, because it can't be counted on to deliver when needed.

The American Wind Energy Association is more honest than our trade body: “You really don't count on wind energy as capacity. It is different from other technologies because it can't be dispatched,” (Christine Real de Azua, Assistant Director of Communications, American Wind Energy Association).

“... load-serving entities know not to count on the full nameplate capacity of a plant, said a market participant who trades primarily in California markets, ‘Wind doesn't help from a keep-the-lights-on-perspective,’ the source said.” (Platts Power Markets Week, 29 August, 2006. See the Windpower Page for more detail of the wind power problem in the real world).

Emissions savings

NPower claim that the Toft Hill power station would displace 27,400 tonnes of CO₂ per year (Environmental Statement, based on 7 x 2MW turbines). Sounds impressive.

But, NPower's figures are based on a discredited substitution rate of 860g/kWh, which assumes that wind only displaces coal-fired electricity. Ofgem, BERR, Carbon Trust and, recently, the ASA all agree that a grid average figure of 430g/kWh must be used, halving NPower’s claimed savings at a stroke.

NPower also use an “assumed” capacity factor for Toft Hill of 26%. This is absurdly high.

NPower had not recorded any wind figures for the site when they submitted their application and stated in a Toft Hill newsletter that they were working on a baseline figure from meteorological records of 21%. By comparison, the modern 100 metre high Crystal Rig turbines that we can see 30 kilometres to the north of the ‘Moorsyde’ site are on a windswept, unpopulated moor in the Lammermuirs that is 150 metres higher than the Toft Hill site. Operating without any of the output restrictions that might be necessary to stop the Toft Hill turbines breaking noise limits, they recorded a capacity factor of just 25.2% in 2006.

So, even ignoring the wildly optimistic capacity factor, we are left with an adjusted figure of 13,700 tonnes of CO₂ that would supposedly be saved every year. Still impressive? Well, ecological experts tell us that a return daily transatlantic jet flight emits 520,000 tonnes equivalent per annum. So Toft Hill would, in theory, save 2.6% of the emissions of a single jet. All well and good, you might say, surely this is a contribution to saving carbon emissions?

There is an additional problem - significant numbers of wind turbines need power stations running as back up for their intermittent and erratic power production. It is not possible to switch coal-fired furnaces off and on at the flick of a switch. So they are kept burning and their turbines are not coupled in until needed. So, while it is true that wind power substitutes for some power production, it is not true to claim that wind powered electricity production saves emissions on a direct substitution basis. According to the National Grid, it is likely that the UK would need at least 65-75% backup for wind power stations.

In Germany, huge numbers of turbines (now over 20,000) have had little effect on carbon emissions due to the high level of backup required. E.On Netz operate the grid in the part of Germany with the highest concentration of wind power production; they state:

“Wind energy is only able to replace traditional power stations to a limited extent.

“Their dependence on the prevailing wind conditions means that wind power has a limited load factor even when technically available. It is not possible to guarantee its use for the continual cover of electricity consumption. Consequently, traditional power stations with capacities equal to 90% of the installed wind power capacity must be permanently online in order to guarantee power supply at all times.” [Our emphasis].
(E.On Netz, Wind Report 2005, p. 4)

So, if you actually analyse the figures, it seems that Toft Hill might, optimistically, save the equivalent of 0.5% of the emissions of a single transatlantic jet. You might think this is hardly evidence of a significant contribution to “slowing climate change”!

Local employment

We have already seen the damaging effects of the Toft Hill, ‘Moorsyde’ and Barmoor proposals on investment in tourist enterprises in the area. There has been a similar negative effect on property prices. The only local employment that “may” be provided is a few days haulage and groundwork or fencing. Even this is unlikely, as regional or national contractors usually get most of this work.

The idea that the Toft Hill power station would boost the rural economy is, frankly, insulting.

NPOWER QUESTION SCOTT WILSON FINDINGS

The Scott Wilson report has recommended refusal of the scheme on the basis of the visual impacts of the scheme on the setting of Duddo Five Stones.*

We understand that RWE npower have submitted a response to the Scott Wilson report and that Cobbetts LLP have submitted a seperate letter to the Borough's Director of Regeneration and Development Services and the Government Office North East, "raising procedural and methodology concerns". (Letter from Clare Wilson, regional development Manager, to Rod Hepplewhite, acting Case Officer, Blackett Hart and Pratt LLP, Darlington. 10 October 2007.)

---------------------

* Scott Wilson's Toft Hill report is available for download here (PDF file).

The Toft Hill Proposal

NPower Renewables are proposing to build seven 367 ft (112 metre) turbines on the Toft Hill site, a small area of land on a large estate owned by an absentee landlord who lives in Dorset. The site is less than half the acreage of the 'Moorsyde' site and is bounded by settlements at Shellacres, Grindon Rigg, Grindon and by the A698. It is very close to the scheduled ancient monument of Duddo Five Stones.

The Toft Hill site is less than 2 miles (3 km) from the 'Moorsyde' site:

© Crown copyright 2005.

Reproduced from OS 1:25000 mapping (Licence No. 100044197).
1 grid square = 1 square kilometre. Green oval marks Duddo Five Stones, scheduled ancient monument.

In terms of separation distance, visual and other impacts, Toft Hill amounts to an extension of the 'Moorsyde' site.

While NPower have adopted a different approach to Your Energy Limited, by following planning guidelines on consultation before finalising their proposal, their array of 362 ft. turbines would have the same adverse visual impacts on our landscape and the same damaging effects on local communities and the local economy.

View to Shellacres & Cheviots, western edge of Toft Hill Site

View to Shellacres & Cheviots, W. Edge of Toft Hill Site

(Taken with 6x7 cm. SLR camera using wide angle, 55mm f/4 lens).
© 2001 Don Brownlow Photography.

NPower, like other developers in the area, are studiously ignoring adjacent applications and have stated to us that their focus is purely on maximising the number of turbines they might get away with on this site. They have also submitted their planning application before applying for permission to erect an anemometer mast to measure the wind resource. It used to be thought politic to monitor the wind resource before a planning application was submitted. The company seem to have been in a huge hurry to get an application in. This might not be unconnected with the Wind Capacity Study by Ove Arup for the North East Assembly (the strategic planning authority) and Berwick Borough which is due to be released in early April.

It also seems that wind developers are rushing to get as many applications as possible approved before the gravy train is derailed by Government action to reduce the Renewables Obligation (RO) subsidy for onshore wind.

Following on from the Energy Review, Government has been consulting on the introduction of a banded RO scheme which would offer a higher reward to higher value technologies and which would downrate onshore wind. The Government admits that, "As a technology-neutral instrument, the Renewables Obligation has thus far proved less successful in bringing forward development of the more emerging renewable technologies." In other words it has resulted in the present Klondike windrush because onshore wind is the cheapest and easiest technology to develop, even though it is of lowest value both in terms of carbon saving and security of supply. Ofgem calculates that since the obligation was introduced in 2002 customers have been overcharged by £740m and that saving one tonne of carbon through the RO costs up to eight times as much as under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. The National Audit Office reported that onshore wind developers were being paid at least twice what was needed to develop onshore sites in 2005 (the rate of return has actually increased since then). This excess is paid for in electricity bills.

In order not to upset the industry, the Government intends maintaining the present regime for schemes which are in production by 2009. This high level of subsidy will probably be reduced for schemes that are not in production by 2009, when a banded RO subsidy system is likely to be introduced. The present subsidy is so generous that (as Your Energy openly admit) wind resource is a secondary matter. ¹

NPower admit in the small print of their 'Wind Power News' flier for Toft Hill that they are working on a capacity factor of only 21% for the site. This is in line with the very poor capacity factor of just over 22% that Your Energy have claimed for 'Moorsyde'. To put this in context, the British Wind Energy Association claims a 'typical' capacity factor of 30%. The DTI has published recorded figures for 1998-2004 which showed that the North East has the lowest capacity factor in the country, at 21%.

The Toft Hill scheme would totally dominate Duddo Five Stones, a scheduled ancient monument of national importance which has been described as, "... undoubtedly the most complete and dramatically situated" [of Northumbrian stone circles]. ² Duddo Tower (SAM & Grade II listing) would also be adversely affected.

Duddo Five Stones, Stone Circle, Looking SW to Cheviots

(Taken with 6x7 cm. SLR camera using wide angle, 55mm f/4 lens)
© 2005 Don Brownlow Photography.

A power station development such as this, while making a negligible contribution to secure power production and even less to carbon saving, would have a major impact on views to the Cheviots from the A698 which is the major tourist route between Berwick and Coldstream. It would also have major visual impacts on the Tweed valley and the National Park.

There is also a problem with the proximity of this turbine array to settlements. Whereas NPower's previous proposal for 12 turbines on this site would have resulted in numbers of houses being well within the industry's so-called 'accepted, working, separation distance' of 750m, the revised proposal still places turbines within 1.5 km of housing - the Scottish Executive (SPPG 6) is presently discussing the imposition of a 1.5 km separation distance for large schemes (20MW plus).³ The DTI has yet to modernise a 450m separation distance guideline from the mid 1990's when turbines were less than half the size of current models.

The UK Noise Association has also recently published report which suggests that wind power stations should not be built within 1 mile of dwellings.⁴ A DTI working party is currently examining the problems with wind farm noise and hopes to formulate a more effective system for rating and assessing noise than the flawed ETSU-R-97 guidelines which were originally designed more for the convenience of the industry than to protect householders.

¹Moorsyde Brochure: "Your Energy believes that the Renewables Obligation together with technological advances allow a new approach focusing on considered site selection to be pursued".
² Roger Miket, Duddo Stones, Archaeology in Northumberland, Vol. 15, 2005, Northumberland County Council.
³See our Home Page for details.
⁴See our Windpower Page for details.

NPower Spokesperson Dismisses Planning Guidelines

In a statement which reveals an arrogant assumption that this is a done deal - totally undermining the PR value of their 'consultation' exercise - Clare Wilson, NPower Renewables' development manager for the North, has said in a Journal interview (4 April, 2005):

"These and other proposed sites have been through a consultation process at regional level, and these locations are considered suitable for development. [...] That does not mean we can just come along and put up whatever we like. We have to prove that what we are proposing is appropriate for that particular site, but what it does say is that a windfarm of some varying degree will eventually be built there. That's unless we are presented with a show-stopper, and at this moment in time there doesn't seem to be one."

This repeats the same distortion of the planning guidelines that Your Energy have been guilty of. NPower repeat this misleading interpretation on their website:

"The area has been identified within the emerging Regional Spatial Strategy of the North East Assembly as appropriate for a medium-sized wind farm. Northumberland County Council have endorsed the area as having the potential for medium-scale wind development in their recently adopted Structure Plan (February 2005)."
NPower Renewables - Toft Hill page

The Examination in Public of the Regional Spatial Strategy, to which MAG was invited to contribute, has now reported and confirms the correct interpretation of the RSS with regard to wind power development, especially with regard to policy 42. The RSS has been repeatedly misrepresented by NPower, Your Energy and other wind power developers.

The EIP Panel Report states:

'Small to medium scale development

8.40 The Panel considered whether there was a need for greater clarity in Policy 42 and supporting text concerning the use of the term `medium scale wind energy development’. Policy 42 b) confirms that the areas identified in the Policy have ‘potential for medium scale development’. It emerged from the debate at the EiP that the interpretation that should be put upon the potential of these areas is that they are suitable for small to medium scale wind energy development, [our emphasis] and that this description was intended to distinguish these areas from the potential for large scale wind energy development in the Kielder Forest. It was pointed out that some renewable energy companies believed that this policy implied that the designated areas could accommodate a number of ‘medium scale’ developments. It was established from the NEA in reply that the definition of medium scale set out in paragraph 3.141 (20 - 25 turbines) and carried forward into Policy 42 related to the total capacity of an area and should not be regarded as an appropriate scale for individual proposals. [our emphasis] It was also confirmed that work is on-going using landscape capacity techniques to better inform the carrying capacity of the designated areas. We note that this work will be of particular assistance in making judgements on cumulative impact.'
(EIP, Panel Report, 4 August 2006.)

The EiP Panel report is available as a PDF download from the NE assembly Website.

Toft Hill - Turbine Size Comparison Diagram

Landscape Sensitivity.

Clare Wilson sounded off again in response to criticisms of the visual impact of NPower's massive Middlemoor development near North Charlton, comparing it with a similar development on the edge of the Lake District National Park. We quote from the Journal article:

[...] local farmer Robert Thorp, said: "It will be the first thing that tourists heading along the A1 north of Alnwick will see.
"This area relies heavily on the appeal of its unspoiled countryside to sustain its tourist economy. Why the developer is planning to put a windfarm of this size here beggars belief, and I would like to see a full public inquiry like that being staged in Cumbria." However, Clare Wilson, npower renewables' development manager for the North, which is behind the Middlemoor scheme, said Whinash was a "very different" proposal to their own. "Whinash is a very sensitive site, on land which is currently adjacent to, and could eventually become part of the National Park," she said. "You can't draw any similarities to Middlemoor other than the scale."

Which raises the issue of Toft Hill and its landscape sensitivity. Seven 367 ft. (112 metre) turbines on this plateau, ignoring, for the moment, the 10 turbines proposed for the immediately adjacent 'Moorsyde' scheme and the 9 turbines proposed at Barmoor 5 km to the south east (both of which are already in the planning process), would dominate views to the adjacent National Park, the skyline of the Heritage Coast (a designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty) and views along the Tweed, a Site of Special Scientific Interest since 1976 and now adopted as Special Area of Conservation. This is before we even begin to examine the immediate proximity of the Duddo Stone Circle, a Scheduled Ancient Monument of national importance. The cumulative impact, if we add in any or all of the other proposals in the area is directly comparable to Whinash's 27 turbines which caused such a storm of protest nationally.

It is not possible to separate out this small plateau area from the surrounding landscape: with the National Park, the Heritage Coast and the Tweed Valley it is an integral part of a landscape which is the major capital asset of our tourist economy; an asset which power station developers care so little about compromising.

It is interesting that NPower make much of their offshore development pedigree (although they are involved in 23 onshore wind power stations to their 2 offshore, to date), selling their 'Juice' Scheme on the back of their North Hoyle development which is 4-5 miles off the coast of North Wales. Note that those turbines are smaller than those they want to inflict on this sensitive landscape. As NPower states:

"The UK has a huge offshore wind resource which is currently virtually untapped. Offshore sites have the potential to accommodate large numbers of the most powerful wind turbines [...]"
'NPower Juice' brochure.

We would agree. So why are they seeking to build an array of massive turbines on this wholly inappropriate site which has one of the worst wind capacity factor figures in the country?

I think we all know the answer: the massive, subsidised profits that are to be made from such developments.

ASA upholds complaint against NPower wind farm circular.

In a judgement on 21 February 2007, a complaint regarding a circular entitled "Wind Power News" about NPower's Nun Wood Wind Farm project was upheld on 7 out of 8 points by the Advertising Standards Authority.

(See full adjudication)

'Cut heating bills – give the kids a hat'
(NPower's latest wizard wheeze)

'An energy company has told families facing record heating bills to send their children to bed clutching “microwaveable rice cloth bags”.

Npower has published advice telling parents that they could keep their children “snug as a bug” by “getting them to wear socks and a hat in bed during the coldest nights, and taking a hot water bottle or microwaveable rice cloth bag to bed”.

It also suggests that children could be kept warm by tucking them into a sleeping bag.

The company, which has raised its prices for domestic customers three times this year, said that it wanted to help vulnerable families with young children to save on their bills.

The consumer watchdog Energywatch said it was glad that Npower had made the connection between cold homes and poor health, but added that it was not as impressed that it had not made the link between higher energy prices and cold homes.

Robert Whelan, of Civitas, an independent think-tank, said: “We don’t expect Sainsbury’s to tell us how to put children to bed hungry so I don’t know why an energy company is suggesting that we put children to bed with hats on.”

Sarah Miller, of Citizens Advice, said: “There should be better and more permanent ways of addressing the issue of spiralling energy prices.”

A spokesman for Npower said the advice was meant to be helpful.'

(David Sanderson, The Times, 7 November 2006).