THIS IS A TEXT VERSION OF THE ABOVE DOCUMENT BUT PLEASE NOTE THAT FORMATTING AND FOOTNOTES ARE NOT EXACTLY AS THEY SHOULD BE.
A REBUTTAL FOR SEEKERS OF THE TRUTH
of the British Wind Energy Association’s
TOP MYTHS ABOUT WIND ENERGY
The BWEA published what it called the ‘Top Myths about Wind Energy’ (1-15) and what it claimed were the
true ‘facts’. These are still on its web site where they are trotted out by green organisations in defence of
wind farms. Below, we provide a set of independent comments which show how the BWEA has been
selective in its answers and economic with the truth.
Readers should be aware that the BWEA is not an academic or philanthropic body looking after the
interests of the Earth and the British people. It is a trade body with over 500 member companies, all of
whom seek to make profits from renewables, especially wind farms. While there is nothing wrong with this,
it does mean that the BWEA are not a neutral body and are, therefore, most likely to provide partial
information that is most likely to further their member’s profits and interests rather than promote the truth.
NOTE: The original references cited by the BWEA are at the end numbered 1-18 while those cited
by us are shown as footnotes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Myth: Tens of thousands of wind turbines will be cluttering the British countryside
Fact: Government legislation requires that by 2010, 10% of electricity supply must come from
renewable sources. Wind power is currently the most cost effective renewable energy
technology in a position to help do that. Around 3,500 additional modern wind turbines are all
that would be needed to deliver 8% of the UK's electricity by 2010, roughly 2,000 onshore and
1,500 offshore.
INDEPENDENT COMMENT: The 3,500 turbines are ADDITIONAL (as stated) which
would bring the total to 5,500 in the UK by 2010. However, the Government wants 20% by
2020 – or another 5,500 turbines on the BWEA’s calculations. In addition, to reach the EUs
target of 20% of ALL energy by 2020 would require 40% of electricity to come from
renewables because such large savings in other sectors such as air transport, railways and
vehicles is impossible. That would rack the number up to 22,000 turbines!
On December 10th 2007, John Hutton MP suggested we build 7,000 5MW wind turbines round
the coast of Britain by 20201. As there are only around 4,000 days left until then, that means
two a day for the next 12 years! How crazy can politicians get. He is talking about structures
nearing the size of Blackpool tower to be erected in a hostile sea where work is only possible
5-6 months of the year. This must be one of the most ludicrous political blusters of all time.
This aim was reaffirmed in a press release from the Crown Estate2 which marked the launch of
round 3 of off-shore wind farm licensing for 25GW, bringing the total to 33GW by 2020.
To replace our nuclear power stations alone with wind turbines would take between 10,000
and 15,000 turbines3. In fact any number of wind turbines could only produce electricity when
1 See Rob Johnson at http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4173/
2 The Crown Estate press release, 4th June 2008
3 Lord Sainsbury of Turville. House of Lords Hansard, 18/03/2003, Reference 231118-02
The Independent Comments have been prepared by FELLS with the help of Country Guardian – June 2008. V.1
PLEASE DO NOT MODIFY THIS DOCUMENT WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF FELLS. See www.fells.info
2
the wind blew and are incapable of delivering base load power which is provided mostly by
nuclear power stations.
2 Myth: Wind farms won't help climate change
Fact: Wind power is a clean, renewable source of energy which produces no greenhouse gas
emissions or waste products. The UK currently emits 560 million tonnes of carbon dioxide
(CO2), the key greenhouse gas culprit, every year and the Government target is to cut this by
60% by 20501. Power stations are the largest contributor to carbon emissions, producing 170
million tonnes of CO2 each year2. We need to switch to forms of energy that do not produce
CO2. Just one modern wind turbine will save over 4,000 tonnes of CO2 emissions annually3.
INDEPENDENT COMMENT: We agree that at the point of generation wind power
produces no CO2 and is renewable. However, wind will only save significant amounts of CO2
if it leads to the shut down coal or gas-fired power stations. But because of its intermittency
(i.e. when the wind does not blow or blows at a speed below peak power provision) this cannot
happen to any significant extent and some back-up power stations have to be kept at the ready
either as ‘hot spinning reserve’ which can take over at 5 minutes notice, or as ‘standby’ which
needs warming and several hours notice before it is available.
One modern 1.8MW turbine will NOT save over 4,000 tonnes of CO2 emission a year. This
figure has been arrived at by multiplying the electricity generated by a CO2 ‘savings factor’ of
0.86 tonnes per megawatt hour (MWh). This figure is no longer accepted by the Government,
the Carbon Trust, Ofgem (the electricity regulator), DEFRA, or the Department of Business
Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (formerly the DTI). Most of these organisations now use a
‘savings factor’ of 0.45t/MWh though press releases from the Energy Minister are now using
0.37t/MWh. This reduces the ‘savings’ from 4,068 tonnes to either 2,128 tonnes (0.45 factor)
or 1,750 tonnes (0.37 factor). In reality it is even less than this after the CO2 released in
manufacturing, erecting, maintaining, turbines and making allowance for the hot spinning
reserve or standby power are deducted.
Notably the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has upheld complaints against wind farm
companies on several occasions, finding them guilty of misrepresentating the CO2 savings
when they use the figure of 0.86t/MWh. The wind energy industry knows it is guilty as it
effectively acknowledged this in a recent industry publication4 and specifically on the
BWEA’s web site where it committed itself to the agreement of new figures with the ASA5.
3. Myth: Building a wind farm takes more energy than it ever makes
Fact: The average wind farm will pay back the energy used in its manufacture within 3-5
months of operation4. This compares favourably with coal or nuclear power stations, which
take about six months. A modern wind turbine is designed to operate for more than 20 years
and at the end of its working life, the area can be restored at low financial and environmental
costs. Wind energy is a form of development which is essentially reversible – in contrast to
fossil fuel or nuclear power stations.
4 Winds carbon claims ‘wrong’, RE News, 11th October 2007, page 1.
5 See Press Release at http://www.bwea.com/media/news/071015.html
The Independent Comments have been prepared by FELLS with the help of Country Guardian – June 2008. V.1
PLEASE DO NOT MODIFY THIS DOCUMENT WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF FELLS. See www.fells.info
3
INDEPENDENT COMMENT: Reference 4 quoted above is a paper by Milborrow who used
to work for the BWEA. A graph in that paper compares the pay back time of several forms of
electricity generation. Wind power is shown as a minimum time of about 4 months and a range
up to 34 months. This is at variance with the House of Lords Science and Technology
Committee Report which used figures of 1 to 3 years. The reason for this wide range is not
clear but the higher figures probably include a component for transportation of the turbines by
sea and lorry and mining iron ore for steel manufacture. However, figures very much higher
than 3 years can occur if a wind farm is built on peat soil where there is significant release of
CO2 from peat damaged during draining of the site and road construction. This is now a major
concern in both Scotland and the EU and is one of the reasons that the Isle of Lewis wind farm
was turned down in early 20086.
We agree that a modern wind turbine can be removed after 25 years much more easily than a
nuclear power station. However, it is more likely that they will not be removed at all but will
be repowered (i.e. old turbines removed and replaced by even larger ones as has happened
already at some locations such as Caton Moor in Lancashire). Further, the footprint of visual
landscape damage by wind farms spreads over hundreds of square kilometers compared to just
a few for conventional power stations.
4. Myth: Wind farms are inefficient and only work 30% of the time
Fact: A modern wind turbine produces electricity 70-85% of the time, but it generates
different outputs depending on the wind speed. Over the course of a year, it will typically
generate about 30% of the theoretical maximum output. This is known as its load factor. The
load factor of conventional power stations is on average 50%5. A modern wind turbine will
generate enough to meet the electricity demands of more than a thousand homes over the
course of a year.
INDEPENDENT COMMENT: Many people campaigning against wind farms confuse the
30% load factor with the amount of time for which a wind turbine produces some electricity
(70 to 85%).
So in this case, the BWEA are right but, as usual, fail to tell the whole truth. They do not
explain that based on the wind speed frequency in the UK7 and the power curve for a 2.5MW
turbine8, wind farms will generate nothing at all on 15 to 30% of the days. This translates to
55 to 110 days a year depending on the windiness of the site. Even worse, for 110 to over 250
day a year the power output will be less than 25% of the installed capacity. For all those days
coal or gas fired power stations will have to provide the electricity using spinning reserve or
back-up power stations. The only renewables that can give near 100% availability are
hydroelectricity and biomass, though the latter has other serious environmental and social
problems associated with it.
5. Myth: Wind energy needs back-up to work
Fact: All forms of power generation require back up and no energy technology can be relied
upon 100%. The UK's transmission system already operates with enough back-up to manage
6 Scottish government halts Lewis wind farm plans. The Scotsman, 21/04/2008
7 Godfrey Boyle, Renewable Energy: Power for a Sustainable Future, Publ by Oxford University Press, Figure 7.30
8 G Sinden, Wind Power and the UK Wind Resource, Table 1. Environmental Change Institute, Oxford University
The Independent Comments have been prepared by FELLS with the help of Country Guardian – June 2008. V.1
PLEASE DO NOT MODIFY THIS DOCUMENT WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF FELLS. See www.fells.info
4
the instantaneous loss of a large power station. Variations in the output from wind farms are
barely noticeable over and above the normal fluctuation in supply and demand, seen when the
nation's workforce goes home, or if lightning brings down a high-voltage transmission line.
Therefore, at present there is no need for additional back-up because of wind energy.
Even for wind power to provide 10% of our nation's electricity needs, only a small amount of
additional conventional back-up would be required, in the region of 300-500 megawatts
(MW). This would add only 0.2 pence per kilowatt hour to the generation cost of wind energy
and would not in any way threaten the security of our grid6. In fact, this is unlikely to become
a significant issue until wind generates over 20% of total electricity supply.
INDEPENDENT COMMENT: The BWEA are largely correct – our Grid system has to
have back-up whether we have wind farms or not. The amount of back-up has varied in recent
years to as much as 25% of our peak requirements but is now about 15% due to the closure of
many older plants. However, a strong case has been made out9 that once electricity from wind
power reaches 15% of our needs (it is currently between 1 and 2%) or about 15 gigawatts the
National Grid will be destabilized and there will be frequent blackouts. Paradoxically, as the
Oxford economist Dieter Helm, has pointed out, we may need to build more conventional
power stations to allow us to have ‘windmills’. According to Paul Golby (Eon UK’s Chief
Executive) it would take 50 gigawatts of renewable electricity generation to meet the EU’s
2020 target. This would require up to 90% of this amount as backup from coal and gas plants
to ensure supply when intermittent renewable supplies were not available. That would push
Britain's installed power base up by a massive 44GW from the existing 76 gigawatts to 120
gigawatts at astronomical cost10.
6. Myth: Installing wind farms will never shut down power stations
Fact: The simple fact is that power plants in the UK are being shut down, either through
European legislation on emissions or sheer old age. We need to act now to find replacement
power sources: wind is an abundant resource, indigenous to the UK and therefore has a vital
role to play in the new energy portfolio.
INDEPENDENT COMMENT: In May 2007 the UK had 18 coal, 49 gas, 10 nuclear11, and
81 hydroelectric and pumped storage power stations and about 40 burning waste, oil or
diesel12. Of course these numbers change as old stations are scrapped and new ones built, for
example in January 2008 the UK had 5 new gas-fired power stations under construction, 3
approved at planning and 7 awaiting approval13. However, wind farms can never lead to the
closure of a polluting power station because the more wind that is installed the MORE back-up
conventional power stations are needed – NOT LESS – see previous ‘Myth’. This is because
wind is entirely unreliable (termed undespatchable by the Government as it is not available on
demand but only when it is windy). This was confirmed recently14 when Christopher Barton
(Director of the UK Renewables Energy Strategy Project) said, ‘…the intermittency issue is
not an insurmountable one, albeit that surmounting the problem comes at a cost so, for
9 Hugh Sharman. Why UK wind should not exceed 10GW. Civil Engineering, 158, pp161-169, 2005
10 Mark Milner, Eon warns over back-up for renewables, quoting Paul Golby in The Guardian, June 4th 2008
11 At this time coal, gas, nuclear and oil produced 37%, 36%, 18%, and 1% of our electricity respectively
12 Digest of UK Energy Statistics, 2007. Dept. of Business Enterprise & Regulatory Reform, Table 5.11
13 Lord Bach in a House of Lords debate on Energy: Electricity Generation, 31.1.2008
14 House of Lords Select Committee, INQUIRY INTO THE EU’S 20% RENEWABLE ENERGY TARGET, Monday
March 17th 2008, Question 12, pages 8-9 in uncorrected draft
The Independent Comments have been prepared by FELLS with the help of Country Guardian – June 2008. V.1
PLEASE DO NOT MODIFY THIS DOCUMENT WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF FELLS. See www.fells.info
5
example, there will need to be greater overall generation capacity in the UK as you introduce
more intermittent generation…’ [i.e. wind]. There you have it; the chief claim of wind
protagonists that wind allows you to close dirty coal and gas to save CO2 is not supported.
7. Myth: Wind power is expensive
Fact: The cost of generating electricity from wind has fallen dramatically over the past few
years. Between 1990 and 2002, world wind energy capacity doubled every three years and
with every doubling prices fell by 15%7. Wind energy is competitive with new coal and new
nuclear capacity, even before any environmental costs of fossil fuel and nuclear generation8
are taken into account. The average cost of generating electricity from onshore wind is now
around 3-4p per kilowatt hour, competitive with new coal (2.5-4.5p) and cheaper than new
nuclear (4-7p)9. As gas prices increase and wind power costs fall – both of which are very
likely – wind becomes even more competitive, so much so that some time after 2010 wind
should challenge gas as the lowest cost power source.
Furthermore, the wind is a free and widely available fuel source, therefore once the wind farm
is in place, there are no fuel or waste related costs.
INDEPENDENT COMMENT: The above answer is largely correct. With the recent sharp
rises in coal and gas prices (which are linked to the oil price) wind power has become much
more competitive. It also benefits because the fuel (wind) is free and is not linked to
international market trends. However, wind-generated electricity still receives a substantial
subsidy in the form of one Renewable Obligation Certificate (ROC) for each megawatt hour
generated. This ROC can be sold to the highest bidder, most likely to be one of the big power
companies. Ofgem recently stated that wind companies could now make as much as £100 per
MWh compared with conventional generation (coal, gas) which can only make around
£35/MWh. These additional prices for wind-generated power are added to the household bills
of consumers. ALL consumers are paying this premium which has reached over £1.1 billion a
year already. Green tariff subscribers who think they are saving the planet are not paying
anywhere near the value of the electricity they are using – we subsidise it. Notably, Denmark
has almost the highest electricity costs despite have 6,000 wind turbines capable of generating
up to 20% of its peak demand when the wind blows.
8. Myth: The UK should invest in other renewable energy technologies and energy
efficiency instead of wind power
Fact: Wind energy's role in combating climate change is not a matter of either/or. The UK will
need a mix of new and existing renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency
measures, and as quickly as possible. Significant amounts of investment have been allocated
for wave and tidal energy development, and these technologies, along with solar and biomass
energy, will have an important role in the UK's future energy mix. However, wind energy is
the most cost effective renewable energy technology available to generate clean electricity and
help combat climate change right now. Furthermore, developing a strong wind industry will
facilitate other renewable technologies which have not reached commercialisation yet,
accumulating valuable experience in dealing with issues such as grid connection, supply chain
and finance.
INDEPENDENT COMMENT: Yes the UK should be doing much more to help other
renewables develop but all, including wind, can play little part in combating climate change –
The Independent Comments have been prepared by FELLS with the help of Country Guardian – June 2008. V.1
PLEASE DO NOT MODIFY THIS DOCUMENT WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF FELLS. See www.fells.info
6
now or in the future. Also they will contribute even less as our generation mix becomes
cleaner (e.g. nuclear, gas, coal with carbon capture and storage) – see note on Question 2. If
CO2 really is driving climate change then there are much better ways of dealing with it than
destroying our most valued landscapes. For example, homes generate 84 million tonnes of
CO2 a year. If each of us saved 10% of our power (not a lot to ask) that would amount to 8.4
million tonnes. The entire Government target for electricity from renewables by 2010 is a
saving of 9.2 million tonnes. So we could save it all with not a wind turbine in sight. The UK
has also saved 10.6 million tonnes in 2007 by switching from coal to gas generation and by
using less fossil fuel in our homes and industry15 - again exceeding our 2010 target.
The BWEA are engaging in wishful thinking when they say there has been significant
investment in other renewables. The amounts are but a drop in the ocean compared to what is
needed and wind energy may be the most cost effective but it is the best of a very dismal lot.
All renewables have problems of intermittency and can never be relied upon when needed.
Even the Government says they are ‘non-dispatchable’ – which means not available on
demand.
With new initiatives for home and business insulation, improved efficiency of the engines in
cars and lorries, better public transport, and so on we can save all the CO2 necessary without
resorting to wind farms.
9. Myth: Wind farms should all be put out at sea
Fact: We will need a mix of both onshore and offshore wind energy to meet the UK's
challenging targets on climate change. At present, onshore wind is more economical than
development offshore. However, more offshore wind farms are now under construction, with
the first of the large-scale projects operational at the end of 2003, and prices will fall as the
industry gains more experience. Furthermore, offshore wind farms take longer to develop, as
the sea is inherently a more hostile environment. To expect offshore to be the only form of
wind generation allowed would therefore be to condemn us to missing our renewable energy
targets and commitment to tackle climate change.
INDEPENDENT COMMENT: Once again the first sentence is wrong as wind farms
(whether on- or off-shore) will do almost nothing to combat climate change. So the argument
as to where they should be is irrelevant. Having said that, off-shore wind turbines are about
twice as expensive as those on-shore (about £2.5 million per MW offshore compared to £1.25
per MW onshore). This no doubt contributed to Shell’s decision to pull out of the huge
Thames Array wind farm16.
10. Myth: Wind farms are ugly and unpopular
Fact: Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and whether you think a wind turbine is attractive
or not will always be your personal opinion. However, studies regularly show that most people
find turbines an interesting feature of the landscape10. On average 80% of the public support
wind energy, less than 10% are against it, with the remainder undecided. Surveys conducted
since the early 1990's across the country near existing wind farms have consistently found that
15 DEFRA Press Release, 2007 greenhouse gas emissions, provisional figures, March 27th 2008.
16 Shell pulls out of big wind farm. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/business/7377164.stm
The Independent Comments have been prepared by FELLS with the help of Country Guardian – June 2008. V.1
PLEASE DO NOT MODIFY THIS DOCUMENT WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF FELLS. See www.fells.info
7
most people are in favour of wind energy, with support increasing among those living closer to
the wind farms.
INDEPENDENT COMMENT: We agree that this is a subjective, personal matter. If
someone says they like wind turbines it is impossible to argue with them. There are certainly
many opinion polls that show that most people support wind farms. However, the studies cited
above in the early 1990s are so out of date and the turbines so small that they have no
relationship to today’s monsters. Having campaigned across much of northern England and
Scotland, it is abundantly clear to FELLS that once people are given all the facts rather than
wind industry spin, they are mostly opposed to wind farms. And people should be proud to be
a NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard). As Dr Valerie Carril (University of Barcelona) said;
Nimbys are in fact protecting the whole community from decisions that might not be in the best
interests of the locality. The interest of the developer is obviously to make a profit but will they
do anything for the quality of life of the rest of the community? The answer is often NO, and so
protesters are an essential part of getting the proper arguments and merits of any plan
discussed’.
11. Myth: Wind farms negatively affect tourism
Fact: There is no evidence to suggest this. The UK's first commercial wind farm at Delabole
received 350,000 visitors in its first ten years of operation, while 10,000 visitors a year come
to take the turbine tour at the EcoTech Centre in Swaffham, Norfolk. A MORI poll in Scotland
showed that 80% of tourists would be interested in visiting a wind farm. Wind farm developers
are often asked to provide visitor centres, viewing platforms and rights of way to their sites.
INDEPENDENT COMMENT: Neither Delabole nor Swaffham visitors centres were a
success. At various times both needed local authority cash bail-outs and both eventually went
bankrupt to be reopened in a different guise. Of the 150+ wind farms in the UK virtually none
has a viewing platform or a visitor’s centre. Of course many people would find a visit to a
wind farm interesting – out of curiosity if nothing else – but that does not justify covering the
countryside with them.
Of greater importance is the effect of wind farms on income from tourists. Several reports have
studied this issue17,18 and concluded that up to 18% of tourists would not revisit a location if
wind farms proliferated. This may seem a small proportion but with a scenic county like
Cumbria where tourism income amounts to £1.2 billion a year, the loss of 15% would amount
to £180 million of lost revenue together with hundreds of associated jobs. The same would
apply to other scenic centers in Scotland, the West Country, Wales and elsewhere. In fact a
Scottish study (footnote 18) found that ‘….a significant minority (20% to 30%) of tourists
preferred landscapes without windfarms’. In an internet survey in the same study, 17.8% said
they would not visit an area if a wind farm was constructed. These figures are inconsistent
with their evidence from a literature review that ‘…overall there is no evidence to suggest a
serious economic impact of wind farms on tourists’. It is all very well for wind companies who
17 UK Energy Policy: The Small Business Perspective & the Impact on the Rural Economy. Report by Candida Whitmill
for the Small Business Council of the DTI (now BERR), February 2006.
18 The economic impacts of wind farms on Scottish tourism. A Report for the Scottish Government by Glasgow
Caledonian University, March 2008
The Independent Comments have been prepared by FELLS with the help of Country Guardian – June 2008. V.1
PLEASE DO NOT MODIFY THIS DOCUMENT WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF FELLS. See www.fells.info
8
make their millions from wind farms to play down these effects, but in doing so they put at
risk the livelihoods of many other people trying to make an honest living.
12. Myth: Wind farms harm property prices
Fact: There is currently no evidence in the UK showing that wind farms impact house prices.
However, there is evidence following a comprehensive study by the Scottish Executive that
those living nearest to wind farms are their strongest advocates12.
INDEPENDENT COMMENT: Here the BWEA is simply not telling the truth. The Royal
Institution of Chartered Surveyors has carried out a survey of their members19. They found that
60% of the sample reported that ‘…windfarms decreased the value of residential properties
where the development is within view’. They also found that the negative impact continues
after construction is completed but ‘…becomes less severe after two years or so…’.The
number of properties affected varied across the Regions from about 75% in the South West to
40% in Wales. The RICS did not say by how much the value decreased. In a 2007 survey this
same Institution with the Oxford Brookes University stated "…as more wind farms are built,
more property will become proximate. Therefore, a cautious approach should be adopted..."
In a court case in Cumbria, the purchasers of a property near Barrow were awarded 20% of the
value in damages plus costs because they were not told that a wind farm was to be built close
by. This indicates that this judge considered a devaluation of 20%. In this same area several
houses have also had their Council Tax bands reduced. As this is calculated on the value of the
property, it implies a loss in value and amenity.
Where a specific issue affects a property (e.g. noise, flicker) its marketability can be seriously
compromised. A recent letter from an estate agent to the Davis family, who have been driven
from their home near Spalding, Lincolnshire, comments as follows on the problem caused by
the nearby wind farm20: "I do not believe any prospective purchaser would want to inhabit the
property, or indeed in the current climate whether any mortgage lender would be prepared to
lend on the property... I am therefore sorry to say that I find myself in the rare situation of
having to decline any instructions to market the above property."
Government itself has now acknowledged this damage to amenity and value by conceding that
a Council Tax discount may be given for ‘Property affected by the proximity of an electricity
generating wind turbine’ 21
13. Myth: Wind farms kill birds
Fact: The RSPB stated in its 2004 information leaflet Wind farms and birds13, that "in the UK,
we have not so far witnessed any major adverse effects on birds associated with wind farms".
Wind farms are always subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment and BWEA members
follow the industry's Best Practice Guidelines and work closely with organisations such as
English Nature and the RSPB to ensure that wind farm design and layout does not interfere
with sensitive species or wildlife designated sites. Moreover, a recent report published in the
19 Impact of wind farms on the value of residential property and agricultural land, Survey by the Royal Institution of
Chartered Surveyors, March 2003.
20 Letter to Mr and Mrs Davis, 29th April 2008 from Munton & Russell, Estate Agents, Spalding, Lincolnshire
21 Hansard, May 13th 2008: Column 1437W – continued and 13th May 2008: column 1442W continued
The Independent Comments have been prepared by FELLS with the help of Country Guardian – June 2008. V.1
PLEASE DO NOT MODIFY THIS DOCUMENT WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF FELLS. See www.fells.info
9
journal Nature confirmed that the greatest threat to bird populations in the UK is climate
change14.
INDEPENDENT COMMENT: The impact of wind farms on birds depends very much on
individual site characteristics. Certainly for small, typical lowland wind farms in Britain there
is little evidence of bird deaths. However, there is a significant risk if wind farms are sited on
migration routes, near major foraging grounds, between feeding grounds and roosting sites, or
near important breeding grounds. If a wind farm site is carefully selected and avoids these
sensitive areas then the risk of collision can be considerably reduced. Examples of
inappropriate sites include Barvas Moor on the Isle of Lewis which is both a rare and protected
blanket bog with deep peat22 as well as an important bird habitat. The RSPB objected
throughout to this application, which was finally turned down in early 2008, as well as to the
Pairc application for 53 turbines in central Lewis, the home of a growing Sea Eagle
population23 A second site that has proved disastrous is the Island of Smøla off Norway. Here
a wind farm has killed many Sea Eagles and driven many others away since it began operating
in 2005. The RSPB said ‘In short, the Smøla wind farm has caused birds to die and driven
many others away with no evidence that they are breeding elsewhere’24.
Perhaps of greater concern is disruption to and loss of habitat. The major construction
activities needed to erect a wind farm often damage sensitive sites and introduce an element of
human intrusion into what are often remote and peaceful locations. Special Protection Areas
(SPAs) and Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) are especially vulnerable. It is strictly
against EU legislation to build a wind farm within these areas or on land adjacent to them
where an impact can be expected. Unfortunately, especially in Scotland, these regulations are
often ignored. The RSPB agrees with these statements and said ‘…evidence from Spain and
the US confirms that poorly sited wind farms can cause severe problems for birds, through
disturbance, habitat loss/damage or collision with turbines’.25
Though not mentioned by BWEA, bats are perhaps at much greater risk than birds. There are
many reported instances of large number of bat kills around turbines built on their foraging
grounds (often ridges). This may be due to air turbulence (vortices) near wind turbines which
cause them to loose flight control, or to their inability to correctly echo-locate a fast-moving
curved turbine blade. As all species of bat in the UK are protected, this is a significant
concern.
The BWEA comment on climate change may be true but as wind farms make almost no
contribution to addressing this problem, the remark is redundant in the context of birds.
14. Myth: Wind farms are dangerous to humans
Fact: Wind energy is a benign technology with no associated emissions, harmful pollutants or
waste products. In over 25 years and with more than 68,000 machines installed around the
world15, no member of the public has ever been harmed by the normal operation of wind
turbines. In response to recent unscientific accusations that wind turbines emit infrasound and
22 See ‘Save the Lewis Peatlands’ at http://rspb.org.uk/supporting/campaigns/lewis/index.asp
23 RSPB Press Release, Protecting wildlife sites: Pairc wind farm, Isle of Lewis, 2nd August 2007
24 Brian Unwin, Sea eagles being killed by wind turbines, Telegraph, 27/06/2007
25 RSPB Press Release ‘Wind Farms’ 14 September 2005
The Independent Comments have been prepared by FELLS with the help of Country Guardian – June 2008. V.1
PLEASE DO NOT MODIFY THIS DOCUMENT WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF FELLS. See www.fells.info
10
cause associated health problems, Dr Geoff Leventhall, Consultant in Noise Vibration and
Acoustics and author of the Defra Report on Low Frequency Noise and its Effects16, says: "I
can state quite categorically that there is no significant infrasound from current designs of
wind turbines. To say that there is an infrasound problem is one of the hares which objectors
to wind farms like to run. There will not be any effects from infrasound from the turbines."
INDEPENDENT COMMENT: Leventhall might be right but his results would be believed
far more if he was not closely associated with the wind industry. A recent report from Salford
University26 found noise problems in some 10 or so UK wind farms but refused to say which
they were thus making checking the data impossible. One of the authors of this report also
makes a living by representing wind power companies at Public Inquiries and so is not
independent.
15. Myth: Wind farms are noisy
Fact: The evolution of wind farm technology over the past decade has rendered mechanical
noise from turbines almost undetectable with the main sound being the aerodynamic swoosh of
the blades passing the tower. There are strict guidelines on wind turbines and noise emissions
to ensure the protection of residential amenity. These are contained in the scientifically
informed ETSU Working Group guidelines 199617 and must be followed by wind farm
developers, as referenced in national planning policy for renewables18. The best advice for any
doubter is to go and hear for yourself!
INDEPENDENT COMMENT: While wind turbines have improved, the problem of noise
remains. The industry standard (ETSU-R-97) was prepared in the mid-1990s when turbines
were quite small. Today a typical turbine can be 100-125 metres high (328-410 feet). Hence
the guidelines have not kept up with the technology and are, to all intents and purposes, out of
date. Following out of date guidelines – even strictly - is useless for everyone concerned.
Experience also shows that wind farm noise is very hard to predict. Even a modern wind farm