Author: Rachael Brooks
Cornwall Light & Power Wind Farm: Extension Granted For Comments
Thursday, 28th August, 2008 at 11:07 am, Isle of Wight
Andrew Turner’s office have advised today that an extension to the public consultation period has been granted in relation to the proposed wind farm on Cheverton Down.
Mr Turner raised his concerns with the Isle of Wight Council that the original deadline for comments on the scheme was 20th August, but details had not been circulated to parish councils in time.
Mr Turner wants those affected by the proposals to have the chance to request the information they need and respond to the scoping document so that any subsequent planning application deals properly with local concerns.
He said:
“I heard about the proposed plans when I was holding my Summer surgery in Shorwell and Limerstone on Tuesday August 19th. I was approached by several local residents who were extremely concerned about what a wind farm could mean for the area.
On Thursday 21st, I raised the issue with the Leader of the Island’s Council, Cllr Pugh and the Chief Executive, Steve Beynon and they negotiated a two week extension of the scoping report. This period, I hope, will give Shorwell residents and others time to ask the questions they need.”
Following the extension, responses are now due in by 5.00pm on the 3rd September.
Image: Benleto
Related posts:
- Cornwall Light & Power Wind Farm Exhibition: Dates Released
Cornwall Light & Power have now officially released details of... - Cheverton Down Wind Turbines: Cornwall Light and Power Interview, Part Four (Podcast)
This is fourth in the series of interviews with Cornwall... - Cheverton Down Wind Turbines: Cornwall Light and Power Interview (part transcribed)
For those of you who are unable to listen to... - Cheverton Down Wind Turbines: Cornwall Light and Power Interview, Part Six (Podcast)
Hear CL&P response to the questions of whether Cheverton Down... - Cheverton Down Wind Turbines: Cornwall Light and Power Interview, Part Two (Podcast)
This is following on from the first part of the...
Email This Story To A Friend
This is worth a read for people wanting to learn more about green stuff. It sums up most of the research and current thinking on sustainability in one page, although it is a very long page at that :)
http://www.drmillslmu.com/peakoil.htm
(Report comment)
Andrew Turner has tried to level out the playing field by:
“On Thursday 21st, I raised the issue with the Leader of the Island’s Council, Cllr Pugh and the Chief Executive, Steve Beynon and they negotiated a two week extension of the scoping report. This period, I hope, will give Shorwell residents and others time to ask the questions they need.”
Following the extension, responses are now due in by 5.00pm on the 3rd September.
_________________________________________________
Unfortunately for those who wish to ask questions:
______
The public exhibition schedule is as follows:
Wednesday 3rd September (3.30pm – 7.30pm), Shorwell Parish Hall, Shorwell
Thursday 4th September (5.30pm – 8pm), Wilberforce Hall, Brighstone
Friday 5th September (12noon – 8pm), Riverside Centre, Newport
Saturday 6th September (10am – 2pm), West Wight Sports Centre, Freshwater
_____
So, there is a window of just 1 and a half hours to “ask questions”.
That just about stitches it up then!
(Report comment)
One question I had at the exhibition was about the height of the turbines relative to Chillerton mast. Some people were speculating that they would be higher. Cornwall Light & Power gave me this answer by email on 5 September:
“The land at Cheverton Down stands at 614ft above sea level. The height of the turbines, if a turbine blade were to be vertical, would be 410ft. Therefore, the turbines at their highest point would stand at 1024ft above sea level.
The mast at Chillerton Down stands on land that is at 546ft. The mast itself is 700ft tall. Therefore, the top of the mast stands at 1246ft above sea level.
The proposed turbines would therefore visibly stand 222ft lower than the current TV mast.”
I hope that helps. The exhibition showed how the turbines would look from various places, but a comparison with the mast seems the obvious one to me to get a feel for how they’d look against the skyline.
(Report comment)
WE won’t care what the landscape looks like within the next 20 years, we will be too concerned with feeding our children, scraping a living without oil and watching the ‘civilised’ world change beyond all recoqnition
(Report comment)
Take your point KJ. I just know from the way people were talking at the exhibitions that the landscape issue is a biggie for a lot of people, so just wanted to share that reply.
(Report comment)
In my opinion most of the people who blindly oppose these issues are those who will be dead before it effects them, or/and have seen the human race survive wars and disasters and come out OK and nievely expect 1or 2 scientists to come up with a solution tommorrow.
Headline News 2012..Petrol at £9/gallon and due to double in 12 months
(Report comment)
I’m not disagreeing with KJ entirely, but the oil price is largely controlled by a cartel, and is only partially affected by supply and demand. It is back on the way down right now, and there is still enough in the ground for us to think through a solution rather than being railroaded into it. Wind is OK as a ‘top-up’ power source, but it’s not constant enough for more than that. Wave and tidal power hold more promise, IMO, and I’m not even considering the visual impact of wind turbines.
Once the man-made global warming scare is over, we can go back to using coal, anyway.. :-)
(Report comment)
“scientists to come up with a solution tomorrow”
Of course, that may be literally true, if the LHC experiment at CERN on Wednesday reveals something useful!
Fusion power would solve most of the world’s energy problems, but unsustainable birth rates are a bigger (and more intractable) issue, I fear.
(Report comment)
JP, you really must stop being so reasonable, lol.
Don’t you know that we are all going to die?
I love this “ishoo” as dear old kj calls it.
No matter how much evidence you put before them, 1,000 metric tonnes of concrete poured into the ground for stability, government stats that they work for 1 day in 4, etc. etc., all you get back is stuff like “on the Falkland Islands (population 2,913), 3 turbines have reduced diesel consumption by 20%”. WOW!
Wendy has concerns about the height, so what does kj say “scraping a living- feeding our children – end of civilisation” Put the fear of God into them and they’ll give in, eh kj?
(Report comment)
Where did I use the word ‘Ishoo’?
I don’t think we are all going to die, but I’m not stupid enough to think that once the last oil fields go into decline (10 years Max) then they will stop selling oil and start hording it.
Putting the fear of God into people (or alternatively – telling them the truth) may force some of our ‘ostrich’ friends to realise that wind will play a part (not a major one) in a combined effort to stave off the inevitable energy shortfall which WILL happen sooner than later.
(Report comment)
Sorry, Bertie – I’m not trying to be reasonable!
“1,000 metric tonnes of concrete”
Which will be responsible for more CO2 than the generators will ever save! Cement manufacture (which requires a lot of heat) accounts for so much CO2, that halving it would achieve the global Kyoto protocol target at a single stroke.
Makes you wonder where ‘carbon-neutral’ houses come from, or what they put in their foundations…
I’m not quite sure if KJ is saying that the oil will run out in ten years, or just start to get scarcer, but the last time I looked, we had at least 50% left in known reserves. That’s not including the known unknowns, or the unknown unknowns, as Donald Rumsfeld might say!
It’s been running out since we started using it, so it’s not such a cause for alarm. Other things need to be looked at, but that’s what we’re doing, isn’t it?
That doesn’t mean there won’t be an apocalypse, but it would be ironic if we got hit by a stray asteroid because we were too busy arguing about windmills!
(Report comment)
Nearly all the major oil fields reached peak production in the last 10 years, the rest will reach it in the next 10 years
(Report comment)
“Don’t you know that we are all going to die?”
That’s about the only certainty in this!
(Report comment)
I’ve asked some more questions of Cornwall Light & Power, and here are their replies, received by email today:
Q1. At the exhibition it was stated that the turbines take just short of 8 months to recoup their carbon footprint. Does that include the concrete?
Answer from Cornwall Light & Power:
The 8 month figure is a complete one, and does include the time to offset carbon dioxide generated in the production of the concrete. The figure quoted is based on a V80 2.0MW machine which has an energy pay-back period of 7.7 months.
Q2. Another concern being expressed locally is that “people will not be able to walk near the turbines”. Is this true? If so, how near can we go?
Will it affect the Tennyson Trail?
Answer from Cornwall Light & Power:
The turbines will in no way affect where people can walk. The land where the turbines would be located is private agricultural land, but it is perfectly safe to walk around and indeed under turbines. As far as footpaths go, none would be affected by the scheme. The nearest is the Worsley Trail, around 320 metres from the proposed site. The Tennyson Trail is some 500 metres away.
Q3. Another comment people have made is that the turbines will
actually be sited on Limerstone Down, not on Cheverton Down. Is this true? I didn’t check the maps of the sites at the exhibition.
Answer from Cornwall Light & Power:
The confusion here seems to have come about as a result of the
locations of the currently consented turbines. Under the consented scheme, one turbine would be close to the edge of the scarp ridge on Limerstone Down. On the locations that Cornwall Light and Power are proposing, this turbine would, as with the other two, be located on Cheverton Down.
(Report comment)
Thanks, Wendy. My comment about the CO2 and the concrete (if that’s what prompted your question) was slightly TIC, but remains a serious point. The cement in 1000 tonnes of concrete involves the production of over 100 tonnes of CO2 (cement production creates CO2 both chemically and as a by-product of the required heating) and together with the carbon footprints of the masts, generators, blades and logistics in putting them there, I’d be surprised if the payback time was so short.
As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, I don’t happen to believe that CO2 is as dangerous as is claimed, but if that’s the case, then we don’t need wind generators at all!
See here if you fancy a solid read on that subject: http://tinyurl.com/6hqcqf
(Report comment)
Hi James, I’m trying to get informed answers rather than taking wild guesses. I haven’t read the paper on the 7.6 months payback quoted by Cornwall Light & Power but will ask for it.
They have responded to my questions very promptly and clearly, have to say, and if anyone else has questions for them, you can email them via their website at http://www.clpwindprojects.co.uk. You can also download the scoping document for Cheverton from their site.
(Report comment)
Wendy – I’d be very interested to read the paper, if you care to copy it to me. The official ratio of CO2 to kilowatt-hour (electrical units) from the grid is very close to 1 pound of CO2 for each kWh, i.e. quite a lot, so CLP’s figures may well be right, although that will rather depend on how much of the time they have the right amount of wind!
I’m not really pro or anti in this situation. I quite like the look of modern windmills, but I’m still not convinced that they offer much more than a sticking-plaster for our energy needs.
(Report comment)
Wendy, you would hardly expect them to provide answers other than those you have received would you?
I bet if you asked one major supermarket why you should buy their food over one of their rivals, they would tell you that their product is superior in every way. Ferry operators, airlines, car manufacturers, the list is endless.
If you want unbiased technical research put “The wind power report edition 3 2006″ in your search engine and read things like:
“In 2003 the Irish government declared a moratorium on further wind power development. This opens many questions about the assumptions and claims made for wind power” or:
“Wind power has been promoted for politico/environmental reasons and wind developers have benefited from substantial subsidies, leading to exaggerated claims. A reality check is needed.” and:
“Industry figures like the CEOs of E.ON Netz and Eltra do not deal in myths and solutions, they have real experience and more data than anyone else. They record what has actually happened.”
Copyright ABS Energy Research Ltd.acknowledged.
All you will ever get from proponents of this inefficient energy product is positive spin and why would anyone expect otherwise.
What I would urge you to take on board is that there is a hell of a lot of people whose “jobs”, mostly in marketing, depend on convincing the rest of us that they are right and we are wrong.
The truth is, they don’t know! Like all the other IPCC “experts” they are at best making predictions and at worst, guessing.
BTW, I predict 7,26,32,33,40,47 for the lottery!
(Report comment)