A large number of people who live close to the proposed Pilrow site have contacted me about this proposal. They are unanimous in their opposition to the plans. They are not opposed to wind turbines in general, but they do not believe this is the correct location.
There is currently a Bill before Parliament which would introduce a minimum distance from residential properties for permission to be granted. Broadview Energy’s proposal would not meet that requirement.
As I have previously stated, I am in favour of local consultation. I am grateful to Broadview Energy for holding a number of consultation sessions in the area, giving local residents the opportunity to discuss the plans with Broadview and to make their feelings known. However, I am aware of properties very close to the site which have received no information from Broadview. This is a serious failure of consultation, as it deprives those most affected by the proposal the chance to make their views known.
The key to good consultation is the impact it has on the applicant. It is important to act on the results. If the consultation responses have been anything like the correspondence I have received, Broadview will be aware there is overwhelming local opposition to this proposal.
I am concerned about the visual impact the proposed turbines would have, should Broadview proceed. The structures could be up to three times higher than National Grid’s proposed pylons. I continue to campaign against pylons being built on the Somerset countryside. I cannot support the idea of something three times larger being built instead.
I am not a scientist, and do not have a great deal of technical knowledge, but it seems that if this was the right location for wind turbines, the wind speeds closer to the ground would be high enough that any turbines would not need to be so large.
I am, and remain, in favour of renewable energy, but proposals must be appropriate for the surrounding area. There are alternatives which could be explored like off-shore wind, tidal power and solar power, none of which would have the impact of this proposal.
For the reasons above, I support the local residents in their opposition to Broadview’s Pilrow proposal.
The John Muir Trust commissioned a survey in March 2011, based on figures provided by The National Grid. The findings were
• Output from wind was 27% in 2009, 21% in 2010. The wind energy industry claim that output from wind farms across the UK is in excess of 30%
• There were 124 separate occasions from November 2008 to December 2010 total generation from wind farms metered by the National Grid was less than 20Mw. (Average capacity over the period was in excess of1600Mw) The average generation from all sources was over 50.000 Mw
• The average frequency and duration of a low wind event of 20Mw or less was once every 6.38 days for a period of 4.93 hours
• At each of the four highest peak demands of 2010 wind output was low being respectively 4.72%, 5.51%, 2.59% and 2.51% of capacity at peak demand
You state that anti wind farm campaigners claim wind turbines cause cancer. I have not heard that claim but would suggest you read the papers written by Dr Nina PierPont, Paediatrician in USA, trained at John Hopkins, Yale and Princeton University. I am medically qualified and all three establishments are amongst the most prestigious. She has written extensively on the subject and claims and supports with scientific fact that some people’s health is adversely affected by wind turbines.
These are just two “peer related papers”. I could produce much more but I suspect the pro wind farm lobby will just do the usual character assassination. They claim that anti wind farm campaigners peddle myths but I have yet to see any information emanating from the pro wind farm lobby that is not misleading.
A good example of this misinformation is their claim that of the 300,000 noise complaints received by Westminster council NOT one was for noise from a wind turbine. I do not live in London, but the last time I visited I did not see a commercial wind farm in central London.
I’m all in favour of the proposed windfarm, those against it need to get rid of their ‘not in my back yard’ attitude and accept and promote positive changes like this. Windfarms are being built all over the country, not just in Somerset – if everyone were to take this attitude we’d be stuck with burning coal for electrical energy for the next 100 years and a bloody lot of good that’s going to do!
Personally I’m fed up with listening to myths and false theories espoused by anti-windfarm or anti-climate change activists. People will say and believe anything if it backs up their opinion of not in my back yard. There’s no benefit, there’s no wind, they give you cancer, they stop you from sleeping, drivers crash because they get hypnotized by the blades – show me a peer-reviewed paper coming to these conclusions and I might give you some credit.
Jon Glauert – leave it out with the ‘constant thrumming’ you live next to a main road. Probably didn’t complain when they decided to build that nice, countryside ruining thing which makes your life easier did you? If you’re that concerned about the wildlife, which by the way this project is going to have next to zero impact on in comparison with any major road or build (wildlife is currently flourishing INSIDE Chernobyl so I don’t think a windmill is going to be an issue). You are no scientist – exactly, you’re a homeowner concerned about property prices and your nice countryside view.
I for one think the wind-turbine should be seen as a symbol of a better society, not as an impact on your nice backyard view. We all have to chip in in some way in order to preserve these beautiful surroundings for future generations and if that means having a metal windmill in a field then I’m all for it.
Why, oh why, is Somerset and, in particular, our unique area of the Somerset Levels, being selected as a dumping ground for new energy projects? First, Hinckley Nuclear Power Station, then monster pylons and now giant wind turbines?
I have been trying to imagine what effect this will have on not only the thousands of tourists coming down the M5 to stay in Burnham and the surrounding area to see our beautiful countryside scarred by such monstrosities, but also the effect that both pylons and wind turbines will have on the wildlife which many of us are trying so hard to conserve and, indeed, encourage to flourish here.
I am no scientist, but I believe the impact of both pylons and turbines are likely to have a devastating effect on wildlife and, of course, on us residents who will have to endure the visual and noise impact, not to mention health considerations if, as I am told is true, there is a subliminal impact from the constant thrumming of the turbine blades. Selfishly, I know, but the impact on the value and possible sale of our properties will also be affected.
I understand that wind turbines are not as efficient as they may appear, especially if they have to be frequently
charged during low wind forces by generators that will add to the Co2 emissions that we are trying to lessen.
If we have to consider new ways of producing energy, then why not up the M5 corridor or under the Bristol Channel(pylons) or in the Bristol Channel (wind turbines)?
Solar panels on new and existing properties or thermo underground heating (as in Sweden) would be less intrusive and probably more effective in the long term, and with Government grant aid would probably be more cost-effectve in the long run.
Are you aware of the REAL carbon savings from onshore wind factories ??
Due to their now proven intermittency, the requirement to back up wind with fossil fuel generators running inefficiently means that for a large proportion of the time, carbon savings from wind are more than offset by the extra fossil fuel burn in the conventional generators either burning but not generating or generating inefficiently.
This is well established and confirmed by experience from Holland, Denmark, Germany and USA.
The only wind output figure produced by DECC is an average monthly figure which totally ignores the intermittency.
Onshore wind is as effective as a chocolate fireguard in saving carbon dioxide generation.
I have much data if you would like to know more.