Windfarm Wars

[mobbsey]

Anyway, I doubt you will convince many folk to make those changes. Most folk like their electrical power, and preferably not generated in their back yard.

Perhaps, but will they be able to afford to buy as much power in the future, irrespective of whether it's fossil or renewable?

Also, what do you suggest for manufacturing and heavy industry, and large buildings such as hospitals.

If we undergo a prolonged economic contraction, how many of those manufacturing plants do you think will be around?

In any case, there's been a long-term trend of power-heavy plants, like aluminium smelters, moving to locations around the globe with big hydro-power schemes to get a cheap and secure energy supply (the same has happened recently with data centres too). If anything, I think you'll see that process happen both globally, but also within the UK where hubs for tidal power are developed.

We used to locate plants where the raw materials existed -- e.g. Corby steelworks was located in the ironstone mining area of Northamptonshire, only to be demolished when iron ore imports took over from domestic production in the 60s. The same will happen for heavy power users, moving to locations where power is easily available (in that sense it's 'back to the future', since that's how the first factory systems were developed three to four centuries ago).

So, you don't need a grid to support heavy manufacturing industries -- we'll return to the situation that's existed for thousands of years (e.g. http://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=6924) where we make certain things in the most suitable location to support their development and then move the goods to where they are used.

But being off grid creates its own risks

Oooh, please, tell me more! I've never heard of being off-grid described as a "risk" before!

[goslow]

Sure, its possible we'll see a further reduction in manufacturing at least in the west and clearly its feasible to do some heavy manufacturing without a grid. The Chinese and Indians will go on manufacturing for us and we can expect more relocation nearer to various renewable sources like you describe. However, for a lot of intermediate sized businesses while they need quite a lot of power, they also need to consider other criteria like access to good transportation, labour forces etc. For some users like hospitals, proximity to your energy source would be understandably not very desirable.

Also agreed that as consumers we can't expect "by right" a reliable and cheap electricity supply. But meeting even basic energy needs with microgeneration is quite a challenge. OK, it might be possible to downsize your electrical needs, power your lighting and a few small appliances, maybe a heat pump if you're lucky. Seems to me if you want to do that, you'd better have access to lots of free wood and live somewhere real sunny!!

Concerning my other point - being "off-grid" arguably means just swapping one type of dependence for another. So, if you are more dependent on local resources there is less possiblity for back-up if your local resource becomes unavailable. E.g. for micro-hydro in a drought, competition over local wood resources. Hence, my thinking is more towards a hybrid approach of both national/international grid plus local solutions for double resilience.

[Prokopton]

That's not our job.

I agree. Again, that's why I like the Green Wizards approach of Greer.

He accepts, I accept, it appears Mobbsey accepts, not everyone is in shape to see the real way ahead. But if some break ground now with solutions, and actually live those solutions, then by the time others notice their own ways are crumbling under them, they will have alternatives they can look to.

[mobbsey]

Concerning my other point - being "off-grid" arguably means just swapping one type of dependence for another. So, if you are more dependent on local resources there is less possibility for back-up if your local resource becomes unavailable.

Hang on dude, you not really thinking this through -- you're still thinking like a 24/7/365 resource-chomping consumer.

Our most important resource is not electricity or wood, it's food; all else is negotiable. We won't meet our current energy demand from renewable sources, ever. What we have to do is evolve a means of living whereby we secure our most important resource, food, and then find ways of developing a new culture to support our creative and communicative abilities.

Just as the culture that existed a century ago would be as horrified by many aspects of modern culture as today's consumers might be about matters then, the constraints of depletion will create a whole new set of drivers to enable culture. E.g., why invest lots of resources in personal stereo systems when, throughout human history, we've always performed and enjoyed music together (this has been the great social folly of consumerism -- the conflation of the social ability for individual expression with the validation of individualism through opportunities for personal consumption -- and as a result we've just gotten a generation or two of atomised, stressed, lonely and screwed-up people).

Implying that we need in some way to hoard renewables to power our lives is absurd; as a result of resource depletion, the aims and opportunities our lives afford will be dynamically reformed by the resource and technological constraints on development. I see this happening already with people who do live off-grid. They reschedule events in their lives in order to work around daylight, or the availability of water or power, and they change their behaviour to maximise the use of both the available resource and the efficiency with which they use it. They are living a truly ecological lifestyle since they are harmonising their biological activity with the ability of the environment to support it; it's certainly a far more rational and functioning ecological reality than most forms of mainstream 'green consumerism'.

Of course, the reason they can do this complex rescheduling is that they're living life at a far slower pace than the average UK consumer, and so they can randomly change their working patterns to accommodate the management of their needs. This again represents the reality of our future lives. If there's less economic activity, there's going to be a lot less employment; so being able to actively manage your needs using the time freed up by the collapse of the employment market, obviating the need for the income from external employment by meeting more of your needs yourself, is going to be an important aspect of how we manage our time.

As far as I'm concerned CAT, FoE and others are misleading people when they give the impression that the ecological future simply involves unplugging one energy source and plugging in something else -- the aspiration of middle class affluence being preserved as a result. The reality is far more challenging, and goes way beyond any mainstream concept of consumerism.

...and whether you like that or not is irrelevant, it's what the Laws of Thermodynamic imply as a result of both depletion and the switch to less "dense" energy resources.

And, to return to my earlier point, this is also why the content of the 'Windfarm Wars' programme is complete and delusional cobblers -- from both sides in the 'big wind' argument.

[goslow]

Actually, I in basic agreement with what you are saying concerning needing to adjust to a lower energy lifestyle, slower pace of life and less dependence on consumer goods, nintendo wii whatever.

I also get a bit annoyed with FoE often suggesting that "clean energy alternatives can easily be developed" - its certainly not straightforward. I'm also a bit sceptical that we can decarbonise the grid and maintain the current level of energy consumption, even with renewables on a large scale AND they are talking about using even more electricity with EVs, heat pumps etc. So big change is really necessary. And "energy efficiency" may eventually call for some hard choices, like maybe a hospital has to start limiting its use of MRI and other power hungry equipment? (I suppose that private hospitals may be in a better position than NHS ones...)

However, I'm just asking the question, that it could be a risky strategy to totally localise - if we maintain for example a gas grid then this can help if one area runs out of wood or we get unfavourable weather for wind or solar energy. So I still support the idea of an electricity (and gas) grid as I think this is complementary to microgeneration for the reasons I have suggested. Also, it seems off-grid is not so relevant for most parts of cities? However, if the national grid eventually turns out to be hard to maintain due to shortages of necessary materials, theft of cable etc so be it, we'll just have to manage.

Since I don't particularly intend to watch this programme I can't really comment on it. I expect they are not doing the issue justice and just focusing on the "drama". I would be generally on the side of the developer though would hope they don't oversell.

[clv101]

As far as I'm concerned CAT, FoE and others are misleading people when they give the impression that the ecological future simply involves unplugging one energy source and plugging in something else -- the aspiration of middle class affluence being preserved as a result.

...but technically we can pretty much unplug one source and plug in something else. Okay, it might take best part of a century and 'efficiency' would need to at least halve our economy's energy intensity. But there's no fundamental law of physics that states we can't keep the 7bn folk on the planet watered, fed, sheltered and entertained on the transient energy flows instead of drawing down on stocks.

[Potemkin Villager]

And, to return to my earlier point, this is also why the content of the 'Windfarm Wars' programme is complete and delusional cobblers -- from both sides in the 'big wind' argument.

Whilst I would broadly endorse mobbsey's thesis I cannot agree with this sweeping statement.

The programmes value is that it depicts a situation where ordinary people are reacting to something they only have a very partial understanding of based on self interest, a lot of half truths and propaganda and it will be interesting to see if their understanding improves as the "war" continues.

To be fair to the folks involved some have at least realised that the developer is being rather less than straightforward with them. They are not stupid people but they are ignorant of a lot of the detailed pieces of the puzzle and prone to misleading by paid experts.

I suspect the greenish guy living next to the proposed development with the genuine concerns about noise is going to become very disillusioned ......

The problem is that if a forum of energy geeks cannot agree on the modus operandi of sustainability what chance has the general public?

Apart from all the other considerations I find it bizarre on purely money making grounds why anybody would want to build a windfarm in a valley with I suspect a very much less than wonderful wind resource........ this must be why they are so coy about the results of the windspeed logging and how it has been interpreted.

[mobbsey]

The programmes value is that it depicts a situation where ordinary people are reacting to something they only have a very partial understanding of based on self interest, a lot of half truths and propaganda and it will be interesting to see if their understanding improves as the "war" continues.

True, but it's important to ask who is framing that debate, and (as I've done on a number of occasions in my work) help those people understand the facts behind the pressures on the parties/media gatekeepers who define the terms of the "the war". I've taken on some planning applications/inquiries against large wind farms, and it's interesting that on each occasion I've received as much flak from the anti-wind brigade for the way I ran the campaign -- precisely because I wouldn't adopt the "accepted" position of Country Guardian and others -- as I got from the pro-wind groups. What's even more curious is the way that big business has started to manipulate (aka 'astroturf' -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing) elements within the environment movement in the UK; e.g. see my write-up for the Free Range Network -- http://www.fraw.org.uk/news/2010/news-0622.shtml

Let's not forget, wind power is a walk in the park compared to the political and economic storm that will erupt when, finally, the peak oil issue finally becomes a mainstream media debate. We can learn a lot, to frame our participation in the future debate, by studying how similar debates are being conducted today.

[Potemkin Villager]

We are moving more into Mobbsey territory now as the developer appeals the planning decision and the locals hire a barrister.

For all lovers of real life soap operas, transparency and rational debate in Midsomer land don't miss Beeb2 tonight at 7PM!

[mobbsey]

We are moving more into Mobbsey territory now as the developer appeals the planning decision and the locals hire a barrister

Over the years I've done a few hundred planning inquiries... on reflection I wish I hadn't!

It seemed like a good idea at the time, but after 15 years I came to realise that whilst you can annoy the establishment via inquiries, you can't define the agenda the system works to. I think my favourite was the housing development in Hereford next to a landfill. We won the first inquiry because of the likely effects of gassing and contamination on health; quite a result at the time! As a result the Secretary of State directed a new inquiry with the bloke who was in charge of training all the other planning inspectors in charge of proceedings -- just to make sure they got the right answer the second time around.

Another was an inquiry I assisted at in the early 90s. We successfully proved that British Gas was never given the legal right to lay high pressure gas pipelines for new gas-fired plants -- that was one massive spanner thrown into the works! Next morning National Power came in waving the new regulations rushed through Parliament overnight that regularised the whole thing.

You can't change the world incrementally from within -- and those in the mainstream campaign groups are delusional in the face of the evidence if they believe so. You have to let go and set off on your own tangent to a different destination, and hope that enough people have the sense to see (a) 'why' and (b) that they should get off the sinking ship too.

[Potemkin Villager]

This episode was painful to watch apart from the sheer tedium of how these affairs are conducted. There does seem to be a certain air of envy as people come to realise what a noisy low output money tree is being proposed for their locale.

Not being a fan of planning disputes I had not realised that the policy criteria for wind energy in the UK are based soley on achieving a level of installed capacity rather than a level of energy production. So even a poor wind site can make "economic" sense if the price is right with the political advantage of being able to quote impressive figures only loosely related to production or emissions actually saved.

Having seen one or two impressive looking energy yield calculations for potential wind farm sites reminds me of the accountants answer to a client concerning how much profit the firm had made being "What figure had you in mind sir?".

[Initiation]

Not being a fan of planning disputes I had not realised that the policy criteria for wind energy in the UK are based soley on achieving a level of installed capacity rather than a level of energy production. So even a poor wind site can make "economic" sense if the price is right with the political advantage of being able to quote impressive figures only loosely related to production or emissions actually saved.

And what policy would that be? The main policy driver behind RE generation is the RO which is based on generation in MWh not installed capacity.

[Layla]

The problem is, how do you plan the downsizing of a whole nation? And convince the whole nation that it is not just necessary but inevitable. This is the problem we face and I've been trying to do it locally for some time now.

I have watched both episodes and feel that they are all missing the point

The affluent and vocal opposers are only interested because it will spoil their view. And they don't have any concept of the future we are facing.
I particularly liked the comment that nuclear is the future - do you think he'd prefer a nuclear power station near him?

On the other side RES seem to be very sneaky about the way they're going about things, and the governement guidelines seem to be a joke.

The main thing we need to do is drastically cut consumption. I have been trying to convince my family, friends and fellow villagers about the inevitable effects of climate change and peak oil - and it's very very difficult.

[biffvernon]

I've just got back from a few days in Galloway where I was pleasantly surprised to see that many farms now have their own wind turbine. It wouldn't take so very much more before Galloway becomes a net energy exporter.

[Potemkin Villager]

I've just got back from a few days in Galloway where I was pleasantly surprised o finde that many farms now have their own wind turbine. It wouldn't take so very much more before Galloway becomes a net energy exporter.

Biff thank you for this fine piece of totally irrelevant greenwash.

I am not even sure how many here people actually know where Galloway is. You might at least have mentioned which country it is in.

Then you could ask exactly how many farms and what size turbines? I mean are they 1MW+ utility turbines or 2.5kW Provens or smaller located in some sheltered spot too near buildings? (Don't take my word see Hugh Piggott's web site).

The area is very sparsely populated and even if it did become a "net energy exporter", which would be very difficult unless the local population all stopped driving vehicles and using steel, cement, fertiliser, coal and heating oil etc, so what?

The energy use of such rural areas is a merest blipisimo compared to, say, Glasgow.