Some good news that shows that people power can win - but only if you stick together.  Our congratulations to  the villager’s of Hempnall, South Norfolk for their efforts to prevent the imposition of a pseudo green wind farm upon their community!

Campaigners against the proposed windfarm at Hempnall celebrate the planning decision at South Norfolk Council headquarters. Photo: Nick Butcher.

EMILY DENNIS
06 August 2008 08:28

Campaigners were jubilant last night after controversial plans to build a windfarm in the south Norfolk village of Hempnall were unanimously refused.

More than 100 local people packed into the chamber at South Norfolk Council’s headquarters in Long Stratton to listen to the debate over plans by renewable energy company Enertrag UK to build seven 125m high turbines on land at Bussey’s Loke.

The proposals had been recommended for refusal and were last night unanimously turned down by the council’s south-west area planning committee. Enertrag said that it would appeal the decision.

There has been widespread opposition to the plans and Michael Windridge, district councillor for Hempnall, who has been a leading campaign against the scheme, said: “I am absolutely delighted the planning committee took the importance of protecting south Norfolk’s landscape into account. It is our most priceless asset.

“Enertrag have completely failed to understand just how deeply attached local villagers are to their own countryside. We will fight this appeal with all our vigour.”

The scheme was recommended for refusal on the grounds that it would be detrimental to the character of the area and visual amenity, it would have an impact on listed buildings and Norwich International Airport, there would be insufficient visibility at the junction of the B1332/B1527 and because it is contrary to policies.

Objectors to the scheme included local protest group Showt (Stop Hempnall’s Onshore Wind Turbines).

Group spokesman Hilary Battye said: “Of course we are delighted the planning committee has voted against this proposal, recognising the unsuitability of the site because of unacceptable visual intrusion. The appropriate planning policies have been applied with rigour and therefore it is the right result.

“We are, however mindful of Enertrag’s right of appeal and certainly their normal behaviour to do so. We hope that they will give thought to the level of opposition to this proposal and the fact that this is not a suitable site, a view that we feel a planning inspector will share.”

The district council received objections from Hempnall, Saxlingham, Shotesham and Woodton parish councils and recommendations of refusal from Topcroft, Tasburgh and Morningthorpe parish councils.

Other objectors included South Norfolk MP Richard Bacon and county councillor Adrian Gunson.

The district council received more than 600 letters of objection and 62 letters in support of the scheme.

The East of England Development Agency (EEDA) wrote in support of the scheme which it said would make a contribution towards the region’s renewable energy targets.

Did you know that German owned, Npower, is attempting to turn the children of its customers into spies, all under the guise of saving the planet, which makes it all right? Well actually it doesn’t make it all right, not by a long chalk it doesn’t!

Npower ran an advertisement in the Sunday times on July 26th, and on August 2nd the Sunday Telegraph an article that was highly critical of Npower for taking such an improper approach (this article is reproduced below).

We too should be angry for Npower’s actions amount to little more than the attempted perversion of our children (Npower = Nazi-Power it seems). Recruiting children as climate Stazi, is simply resurrecting old Nazi methods for indoctrinating children and turning them into informers. It is an utterly abhorrent practice, and it should be condemned!

Equally abhorrent has been the response from the Advertising Standards Authority, which has refused to condemn the advertisements. That the body responsible for policing all advertising in the UK - to ensure that parental responsibility is not compromised - should renege on its own rules shows that we can expect no help from the authorities! But Npower is a commercial concern so why not deluge them with complaints, and, if you happen to be one of their customers - change supplier!

Npower Executives may be contacted via this link

Energy firm recruits children as ‘climate cops’

Last week’s Sunday Times carried a large advertisement for the German-owned energy company npower, inviting children to “save the planet this summer” by becoming “climate cops”. A picture showed a sleeping dad, with a notice on his head warning in a childish scrawl that he had been found guilty of “climate crime” by “falling asleep with the tv still on”.

For more “interactive games and fun downloads”, readers were invited to contact npower’s Climate Cops website. This explains in comic book format how children can spy on their parents, relatives and neighbours to catch them out in seven “climate crimes”, such as leaving the TV on standby, putting hot food in a fridge or freezer (as is recommended by hygiene experts) or failing to use low-energy light bulbs.

Children could record these offences in a “climate crime case file”, while teachers are offered a full “learning resource” pack for use in schools, including a PowerPoint presentation and posters for classroom walls.

When my colleague Richard North asked the Advertising Standards Authority how they squared this with their rules prohibiting “marketing communications” which “undermine parental authority”, they replied (as he records on his EU Referendum blog) that they had “considered you (sic) objections but do not feel it have (sic) breached our Codes on the basis you suggest”.

My own advice to children tempted to become “climate cops” is that they might begin by looking at npower’s own record as operators of 13 fossil fuel power stations.

Its coal-fired Aberthaw power station in Wales, for instance, emits more CO2 in two months than is notionally saved in a year by all the 2,000 wind turbines now disfiguring Britain’s countryside. If merely going to sleep in front of the TV is a “climate crime”, why haven’t the directors of npower put themselves behind bars long ago?

Sunday Telegraph

Splitting from the Grid???

In a revolutionary leap that could transform solar power from a marginal, boutique alternative into a mainstream energy source, researchers from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) have overcome a major barrier to large-scale solar power: storing energy for use when the sun doesn’t shine.

Watch a  video presentation, by Daniel G. Nocera, the Henry Dreyfus Professor of Energy at MIT, and read the full article via this link:

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2008/oxygen-0731.html

Land & People reported earlier this year that a search for new homes for more than 65,000 birds has begun as part of a study into building a Severn barrage. A Government spokesman has now announced a feasibility study into the barrage to establish whether the benefits would outweigh the costs. It is claimed that a tidal barrage across the Severn Estuary would have the “breathtaking” potential to provide almost 5% of Britain’s electricity and reduce carbon dioxide emissions significantly. In operation the proposed barrage would operate like a hydroelectric dam to generate electricity, with the water being pushed in by the tide. The Barrage proposed would stretch 10 miles from Lavernock Point west of Cardiff to near Brean Down in Somerset, impounding an area of 185 square miles.

The downside is that the barrage, which is estimated to cost £15 billion, would destroy large stretches of mud-flats, saltmarshes and other habitats vital to wetland birds that spend the winter in Britain. Presently the estuary is home to some of the most valuable bird habitats in Europe �“ attracting species such as Bewick’s swan, pintail duck, shelduck, dunlin, redshank and, at risk of extinction in Britain, the curlew.

The estuary is also an important environment for fish such as lampreys, salmon, sea trout and eels. Any barrage could potentially block their migratory routes along the Severn. The study, which will take some two years to complete, will assess the cost of providing alternative areas of wetlands and the chances of finding suitable land.

It is claimed that more than 65,000 wetland birds are attracted each winter to sites that would be affected and they would need to be found alternative areas. To make matters worse saltmarshes, like those in the Severn estuary, are among the rarest types of habitat to be found in the British Isles. Similar work has taken place in parts of Essex, also as previously reported on by Land & People, but there remain doubts about how easy it would be for important fish species to transfer to restored areas.

Understandably ornithologists have considerable reservations about the Severn barrage proposal and a spokesman for the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, recently said that the Government needed “to think long and hard” before committing itself. He said: “Supporting this scheme to the tune of £15 billion would not leave much spare change for alternative projects should it fail to deliver, so the Government has to be sure it is the right place to risk so much taxpayers’ money.”

The attraction of the Severn estuary, in terms of energy generation, is because it has the second-largest tidal range in the world �“ the difference between the highest and lowest tides is up to 42ft (14m).

It is further stated that the feasibility study would be followed by public consultations if it were felt that the project should go ahead �“ a questionable eventuality considering recent legislative proposals to ignore such consultation where the “national interest” is said to be in question!

In addition the feasibly study will look at several options, including the biggest proposal - for a barrage between Cardiff and Weston-super-Mare and will consider tidal lagoons.

According to the politicians and their friends in the energy and construction industries, the barrage is needed to meet the growing energy requirements of the nation. Surely, we suggest, a far cheaper and less environmentally destructive solution would be to curtail energy demand growth by simply halting immigration into our overpopulated land? And could not significant savings be made in existing energy demand through deporting the one million or so, illegal consumers currently squatting in our country �“ people having neither moral nor legal right to be here in the first place?

Concern has been raised in southern England after permission to drill for oil was granted to a petroleum company on the South Downs. Environmental groups are angry that the local council is allowing such a development on a designated area of outstanding natural beauty.

West Sussex County Council granted permission earlier this year for Northern Petroleum to sink a test well in Markwells Wood, an ancient woodland outside the village of Forestside, near Chichester. The company reportedly became interested in drilling in the area after oil prices started to soar.

Conservation groups opposed to the plans claim that the drilling - which will destroy over two acres of woodland in an area which is likely to become part of the South Downs National Park - amounts to an act of environmental vandalism. But the council, contrary to its own ecologist and landscape officers objecting to the scheme, decided that the application met all legal requirements and approved it on the understanding that the company will replace and enhance the woodland when it has finished working on the site.

Notice the use of the word “understanding” - rather than “obligation”!

A spokesman for the Woodland Trust, said: “This is in ancient woodland which we consider to be irreplaceable. It’s our richest habitat for species in the UK and we would consider it as the equivalent, in terms of importance, to a rainforest.”

Meanwhile a director of Friends of the Earth, added: “This application is a further symptom of our dependence on dwindling oil resources. Sooner or later we must wean our society off oil and the quicker we do so the better.”

In addition, a director for the South Downs Society, an environmental pressure group, said: “The damage to habitat, destruction of trees and hedgerows, the visual impact of the drilling tower and its lighting, construction of a new access through the wood, noise from vehicles: all of this is inappropriate in the Downs, where people go for peace and quiet.”

Yet despite the comments of respected environmentalists, a spokesman for West Sussex County Council is quoted as saying that the area was not as important as some were making out. “Technically it is ancient woodland, but to look at it you would not regard it as a very important piece of land,” he said.

“We granted permission for oil to be drilled for two reasons: one is that there is a national policy in favour of extracting minerals from the earth where we have them; and secondly because we have struck a deal with the company which will actually see the area of woodland improved when they are finished.”

The construction of the 120-feet high exploration rig will involve clearance of part of the wood and the building of a temporary access road and will take three months. Northern Petroleum has temporary consent for construction, drilling and testing for a period of three years, but they will need consent to remove the reserves if enough oil is found.

What happens next, if commercially viable quantities of oil are found, is anyone’s guess!

Yet it is no secret that the oil beneath the North Sea is becoming increasingly expensive to extract. In 2006, Britain changed from being a net exporter of oil to a net importer. Last year, the country produced 1.8 million barrels a day but used more and so had to import 145,000 barrels daily. This year, it is expected that the production rate will drop to 1.5m barrels a day and so 310,000 barrels will have to be imported. This means that the country is now spending £3bn a year on importing oil, compared to earning £3bn a year from exports, as it was in 2001.

Land & People concurs with those who believe that even if oil is found in commercial quantities, the likely effect on South Downs habitats - together with the likely short life of any such enterprise, gives rise to the question: “is it worth it”? We suspect not!

With crude oil at well over $100 a barrel one would have thought that exporting countries would be producing as much as they could to cash-in on the bonanza. However, a growing number of respected industry figures are now starting to question mainstream forecasts for supply, suggesting that the era of “plateau oil” is nearer than many in the business care to admit.

It remains a fact that whilst global oil demand is projected to grow to more than 100 million barrels per day (bpd) over the next few decades, it also remains a fact that supply is unlikely to increase much beyond the current rate of some 86 million bpd. To make matters worse, even when oil extraction from so-called unconventional sources, such as tar sands and converted from natural gas are taken into account, supply will continue to decline against demand.

A former top official at state oil giant Saudi Aramco is quoted as saying: “Today’s oil prices are high because there are limited new supplies. “There’s a history now. We’re several years into level production.”

Back in 1980, when crude oil first hit $100 per barrel, the impact was alleviated by producing countries and major oil companies increasing production, partly through exploiting new fields. It remains to be seen whether they are capable of responding in the same way this time around - many doubt it.

According to the International Energy Agency (IEA) conventional supply from outside OPEC has missed forecasts in recent years and appears to have hit an “effective plateau” in terms of production capability. Non-OPEC countries currently extract around 60% of the world’s oil, with the 13 members of OPEC making up the balance. Most OPEC countries, whether for reasons of war or sanctions, lack of investment or falling supply at ageing fields, are deemed unable to raise production. Or, as top oil official for OPEC member Libya, told the media recently: “Opec can do little. Most OPEC countries are producing at capacity.”

Furthermore, a former exploration geologist claims: “Every place is more or less running flat out. They can’t pump enough to meet demand, so the price is going up. Assuming no particular economic crash, the only direction is upwards.”

The view of some experts vary. Some believe that the supply of oil, including unconventional oil, will peak in 2010. Others claim that high prices will sustain a production plateau of 85 million bpd for up to around 2018, thereafter production will go into a long, gradual decline, reducing the world’s supply of oil and natural gas liquids to about 78 million bpd by 2030.

The bottom line, which most experts now agree, is that demand will outstrip availability. The bone of contention is merely whether the point of divergence has already been reached or simply postponed for a few more years. The need to develop new, clean and green forms of energy have never been so acute and is, undoubtedly, one of the major challenges of the Age.

According to the media 7,000 wind turbines are to be erected on the hills and around the coasts of Britain by 2020. Apparently they will be the highly visible symbols of what the Prime Minister called “the most drastic change in our energy policy since the advent of nuclear power” �“ a shift to producing at least a third of Britain’s electricity from carbon-free renewable sources, compared to under 5% cent today. That, of course, is the government spin �“ with the actual number being built likely to be considerably less than that.

The objective, as set out in a consultation document that claims to lead to a formal new strategy, is to cut down the greenhouse gas emissions from conventional power stations that are causing climate change, reduce Britain’s reliance on foreign energy supplies, and meet the demanding climate target agreed by EU leaders last year, of providing 20% of Europe’s total energy use from renewable sources by 2020.

According to the experts, Britain’s share of this works out at a 15% renewable energy target, split between electricity, heating and transport, with electricity being the largest element: This means that between 30% and 35% of Britain’s power will need to be renewable by the target date, compared with a mere 4.5% today

But even those naïve enough to accept government proposals at face value concede that the investment programme and timetable needed to achieve this in a mere 12 years are demanding

Realistically, hitting these targets means at least trebling the current scale of wind-farm construction, adding 4,000 more onshore turbines to the 2,000 already in place, and installing 3,000 turbines in the sea, at a rate of two every three days between now and 2020, Christmas and bank holidays not excepted. Questions were raised as to whether or not Britain has the manufacturing capacity, or the number of engineers necessary to carry out the installations.

Yet the Government claims it can be done �“ the same Government that promised us a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty that is!

It was clear from his speech recently that after a long time being more or less apathetic about renewable energy, Gordon Brown has himself, it would appear, undergone a damascene conversion to the real merits of the wind turbine and its related technologies.

And there would appear to be two reasons for this.

One is growing concern about the security of Britain’s energy supplies, thrust into sharp focus by the soaring oil price in the past six months, which Brown reminded the country was worse than the two oil shocks of the 1970s. Britain needs to kick its coal, oil and gas habit, and Brown reminded everyone that he also feels nuclear power sits alongside renewables as the way to do this.

The other is the realisation that the development of low-carbon energy technology, which is taking off across the world, represents a potential employment bonanza for Britain. Calling it “a green revolution in the making,” Brown said it could provide 160,000 new jobs �“ a figure he has yet to fully explain!

Suddenly, jobs and a stable economy, with which Brown has always concerned himself, fit into the scheme of things alongside helping the environment �“ and they all go forward as one package. Yet, like most things Labour turns it hands to, the most likely outcome will be a failure to meet targets �“ hence, who can blame the sceptics for believing that this is just so much more hot air and spinning windmills from Labour?

Speaking at the Euroscience Open Forum in Barcelona, a scientist representing the European commission’s Institute for Energy, claims that it would only require the capture of just 0.3% of the light falling on the Sahara and Middle East deserts to meet all of Europe’s energy needs. It is therefore perhaps no surprise that scientists are calling for the creation of huge arrays of solar farms - generating electricity either through photovoltaic cells, or by concentrating the sun’s heat to boil water and drive turbines.

It is further believed that a massive new direct current (DC) supergrid could transmit electricity along high voltage direct current cables to allow countries such as the UK and Denmark to export wind energy generated electricity at times of surplus supply, as well as to import electricity from other green sources. With energy losses on DC lines being far lower than on the traditional AC ones, transmission of energy over long distances is not only feasible but economic.

The grid proposal, which has won political support from a number of European leaders, answers the perennial criticism that renewable power will never be economic because the weather is not sufficiently predictable. However, its supporters argue that even if the wind is not blowing hard enough in the North Sea, it will be blowing hard enough somewhere else in Europe, or the sun will be shining on a solar farm somewhere.

Interestingly scientists also claim that harnessing the Saharan sun would be particularly effective because the sunlight in this area allows for around three times the electricity generation capability - compared with similar panels in northern Europe.And, to state the obvious, there are far fewer cloudy days in the Saharan area than in northern Europe!

It is also claimed that much of the cost would come in developing the public grid networks of connecting countries in the southern Mediterranean, which do not currently have the spare capacity to carry the electricity that the north African solar farms could generate. Even if high voltage cables between North Africa and Italy would be built or the existing cable between Morocco and Spain would be used, the infrastructure of the transfer countries such as Italy and Spain or Greece or Turkey also needs a major re-structuring.

The idea, of course, is not new and a number of southern Mediterranean countries - including Portugal and Spain - have already invested heavily in solar energy. In addition, Algeria has begun work on a vast combined solar and natural gas plant which will begin producing energy in 2010 - leading to that country being able to export 6,000 megawatts of solar-generated power to Europe by 2020.

We can but hope that this warning will prove to be an exaggeration, but the signs are not good.  Make sure you check out our advice on keeping warm this winter:

EUREFERENDUM Blog 29.7.08

A political black hole.

“Will they empty the jails for those who can’t pay gas bills? “

Very often it is The Sun which has its finger on the political pulse of the nation, leaving the politicians (and many of the more self-important political bloggers) floundering.

It is of some significance, therefore, that today this paper should run a major story on the energy crisis, pointing out the implications of spiralling energy costs for the less well off.

Thus, under the headline illustrated above, the paper notes that, “It’s odd to talk about heating bills in the hottest spell of the year, but many Sun readers must be scared about the coming winter.” Last week’s rises of 22 percent for gas and 17 percent for electricity are terrifying, it adds, then predicting: “There’s worse to come. Prices are sure to rise AGAIN in the winter, and by Christmas families could be paying £30 a week or more for light and heat �” nearly double last winter’s bill.”

Later in the story, we see the political slant, with the observation that, “The Government appears clueless. Labour have been asleep on the job as the rest of the world has been busy building nuclear power stations. Our own nuclear stations are years away.” The paper adds: “Thanks to Labour inaction we can store only 13 days’ worth of gas compared to 122 days in France. That leaves us at the mercy of sudden global price changes.”

Then we come to a damning, if not muted conclusion that: “Instead of plotting to remove Brown, Labour ministers should be plotting how to avert misery for millions this winter,” with the payoff line, “Lives will be at stake. It is as serious as that.”

It is indeed as serious as that, and the final point is well taken, but should have wider application. We have noted how the chatterati have been obsessed with the political theatre, relentlessly pursuing soap opera narrative of Brown’s supposed impending demise, all built on the thinnest patina of idle speculation.

Yet, in the here and now, we have an energy crisis of massive proportions building up which, in time, will become the main political issue of the day. But, at a time when �“ even at this eleventh hour �“ urgent and well-founded action could at least mitigate some of the worst effects, the political classes are silent. Energy simply is not on the political radar as a mainstream issue.

Part of this is due to the neglect of the main opposition, the Conservatives in what, as we remarked yesterday is not a technical issue but a politically induced crisis. By pursuing its soft, social agenda �“ and letting its “green” obsession overtake it - the Party has dropped the ball on something of far more importance and much greater urgency: the impact of spiralling energy prices and impending energy shortages, which as The Sun points out will affect most those who can least afford it.

It is reported that Drax, Britain’s largest power station, has launched a £50m project aimed at replacing 10% of the coal it uses with biomass. It is estimated that by mixing materials such as wood chips, sunflower husks or grasses with coal to generate electricity could reduce the power station’s annual carbon dioxide emissions from coal by several million tonnes.

In addition executives from Drax have signed a deal with Alstom to build a processing plant that could prepare 1.5m tonnes per year of biomass for use in the power station. Under the plans, biomass would be ground into a fine powder and injected directly into the power station’s coal-fired furnaces. Building work for the processing plant could start later this year - with the first part of the facility is expected to be completed by the end of 2009.

The chief executive of Drax is quoted as saying that the “co-firing” technology would deliver 2m tonnes of CO2 savings from coal and take the power station towards their overall target of a 15% reduction in carbon emissions by 2012. Last year, we set ourselves the target of 10% of co-firing of biomass - that’s equal to the output of about 500 wind turbines. In capacity terms, that’s 400MW.” If the estimates are correct then Drax could become the single biggest site generating electricity from biomass in Europe.

The chief executive added: “We think of it as the forgotten renewables technology, we think it’s very important and can deliver a significant amount of the carbon-abatement needed across the world. We are very aware that we need to tackle climate change and we firmly believe that we, as a coal station, can be part of the transition to a low-carbon economy while still delivering reliable and secure electricity supplies.”

Meanwhile an energy campaigner at Friends of the Earth, said that using biomass in power stations or combined heat and power schemes is a better use of the resource than, for example, turning it into liquid biofuels for use by diesel-engine vehicles. “Co-firing with biomass is a reasonable way forward - it’s a logical extension of what Drax is already doing and I’ve got no qualms with it on that score. If it helps build the sustainable biomass market in the UK, then all well and good.”

Currently Drax generates around 7% of Britain’s electricity needs and is one of the country’s biggest emitters of greenhouse gases. Since biomass is regarded as carbon neutral, any CO2 it produces does not count towards the power station’s total emissions; hence Drax can claim a reduction in CO2 emissions simply by mixing biomass into its furnaces.

To test whether co-firing would work, Drax has used a 2-3% mix of biomass in some of its coal-fired furnaces for several months already. In their current experiments, the biomass fuel is mixed directly into the coal as it burns but this technique would not work for larger quantities of biomass.

Furthermore, a production director at Drax, said that the new processing plant was a crucial part of the power station’s attempt to scale up their biomass usage. He also added that it would be able to handle a wide variety of biomass fuels. Although it is not widely known, different biomass materials burn in different ways, so the processing plant needs to be able to handle the materials accordingly. The resulting fuels then need to be inserted into the coal-fired boilers at different positions to ensure they burn properly. Engineers at Drax estimate that it will take 1.5m tonnes of biomass to replace the energy that comes from 1m tonnes of coal.

If co-firing coal with biomass proves successful, Thompson said that Drax would consider increasing the proportion of plant material it adds to its fuel mix, perhaps up to 20%. Drax has also committed to upgrade its turbines to improve efficiency, which it claims will deliver a further 1 million tonne reduction in CO2 emissions.