npower renewables have submitted plans for a wind farm in my local area.
The site is at Batsworthy Cross, an attractive area just off the North Devon Link road.
I’ve made a representation of the site in Google Earth. It includes photographs, a map and 3D models to represent the proposed turbines. Download the Google Earth file here
click to enlargeThere is an article about using the Google Earth file on Juicy Geography
I have also posted some geotagged pictures on Flickr.
Good comment from Chloe. I know your site is supposed to show others how to use IT in teaching geography. But it shows how dangerous it is to tell half the story. You show the turbines much too small, in the wrong place and not all of them (nine proposed) It looks more like another attempt by someone in favour of turbines hiding behind a psudo educational subtext than a true assesment of reality. A true example of how not to teach anything. Not a good example for the kids, using the misinformation on the site could lead them to making the wrong conclusions as the the validity of turbines on the site, your portayal of the turbines as tiny toys certainly would. These things are taller than all but 40 buildings in London.
Thanks Neil.
I’ll point out once again that the exercise is designed to show how IT tools can be used to model the visual effect of wind turbines on the environment. I think I’ve made that perfectly clear!
I haven’t got time to ensure that the resources are a perfect representation of the site. However if you look at the Google Earth file there are 9 turbines. The Flickr photomontage is also clearly annotated to that effect. The exact location of the turbines is not yet in the public domain – at least not for me. Furthermore, the turbines are not shown as “tiny toys”, they are scaled to be 45m high from ground to hub height. I realize that the actual turbines are 60m high and I have produced a larger version of the model. I have asked npower to supply me with a map showing the siting of the wind turbines and the correct dimensions. When I receive that information I’ll update the Google Earth file. There is no “misinformation” in the article, although readers may draw their own conclusions from some of Chloe’s points, especially the one relating to noise!
I must take issue with your point about kids “making the wrong conclusions as to the validity of turbines on the site” – do you mean they might not agree with you? Plenty of local people support the Batsworthy plan. It is not my place as an educator to promote one side over the other, but should you wish to send me visual materials that more accurately represent the Batsworthy proposals, then feel free to do so.
What a fantastic site! It’s great to see you are making great efforts to keep the debate balanced and informed and are using such tools to encourage children to get involved.
One comment though. I refer in particular to the contradictory claim Mrs Green manages to make by way of stating “npower’s (partly unevidenced) case” then herself going on to discuss the following points (cut and pasted below for readers reference) which are not an issue at Batsworthy Cross, totally untrue and misleading (in particular the noise issue!), or found not to be a major issue (such as birds and bats and hydrology):
Quote from Chloe Green:
“Although visual impact is a key planning issue regarding wind turbines and the focus of your site is on teaching geography, there are many other areas to consider, damage to the ecology (wildlife especially bats and birds), environment (including water courses), economy (tourism), noise (at source the noise is the same as that of a jet aircraft at 250m), health and safety (low frequency noise, broken blade components and ice) and property price reductions (which are NOT evidenced by the RICs survey as “recovering”) and their lack of effectiveness in addressing our energy and CO2 emissions issues.
I hope this information is useful.”
Noel – I would in the interest of keeping your teaching materials as balanced and factual as possible be interested to see that these unsupported statements are removed, corrected to represent the real situation or supported by Ms Green. I am sure Mr Harvey would support me on this as he also believes it is dangerous to tell half the story.
I find it a shame you have come under fire from certain groups/individuals who criticise but offer little constructive comment in return, especially when your main aim is to debate a topic that is one of the most important issues we all face.
Good luck with the web site and if npower renewables can be of any assistance I would be pleased to assist.
This message has been moved in order to keep the discussion in one place
Chloe Green wrote:
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing regarding your study on the proposed wind turbines at Batsworthy Cross.
Visual images are a very powerful medium. Therefore I feel it is important if using them to do so as accurately as possible.
The proposed turbines at BC are 60m high to hub height and 100m high to tip height. This means the length of each blade is two thirds of the length of the tower. To more accurately depict the proposed wind turbines at BC the proportions of the turbines could be adjusted and their scale in relation to the land could be altered as they do not seem large enough. The proposed turbines at BC are 3 times the size of the ones in Cornwall i.e. they are taller than Big Ben.
Also the current npower site map shows 3 turbines on the west of the road as photographed and the remaining 6 to the east, some along the road, some even further east. Although the turbines at BC would have a wider tower, the scale of them can be seen at: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~hills/cc/gallery/index.htm#photos
I hope this information is useful.
To balance the views on wind turbines (most especially as this is a teaching
environment) and as there are four sites that are pro-wind, it may be fair to include the views of websites other than the Two Moors Campaign e.g. Renewable Energy Foundation – http://www.ref.org.uk Country Guardian – http://www.countryguardian.net National Wind Watch – http://www.windwatch.org Another useful insight to the wind industry is: http://www.twomoorscampaign.co.uk/useful_links.html
I also note on your site that you list npowers (partly unevidenced) case but not the other side of the story.
These turbines will be visible not just to tourists but to Devon inhabitants and not just from the A361, but for miles and miles around. They will have a massive zone of visual intrusion.
Although visual impact is a key planning issue regarding wind turbines and the focus of your site is on teaching geography, there are many other areas to consider, damage to the ecology (wildlife especially bats and birds), environment (including water courses), economy (tourism), noise (at source the noise is the same as that of a jet aircraft at 250m), health and safety (low frequency noise, broken blade components and ice) and property price reductions (which are NOT evidenced by the RICs survey as “recovering”) and their lack of effectiveness in addressing our energy and CO2 emissions issues.
Yours faithfully
Chloe Green
Although the comments regarding Batsworthy Cross are interesting, and would in themselves make a useful teaching resource, I am keen to keep them seperate from the published teaching materials.
In the interest of fair debate, I have followed Patrick’s advice and moved Chloe Green’s comments to this forum where they can be discussed openly.
I stress once again that my article is about the creative use of ICT in Geography teaching. The second part is a decision-making exercise using a variety of spatial data in the public domain.
Finally thanks to Simon Holt of npower renewables who wrote to say:
Hello all.
Interesting that Patrick Spink who works for Npower Renewables did not make it perfectly clear that this is the case. With regard to thenoise issues mentioned by Chloe Green I suggest that Patrick looks at the government’s companion guide to PPS 22 it states that a jet aicraft at 250m generates 105bda of noise, a Vestas 2Mw turbine generates between 101-106DBA of noise, so I am sure you would agree is in the same region, it is worrying that an npower employee doesn’t already know these facts. Both these figures can be verified by looking at the Vestas web site and the DTI web site. Interestingly at the opening of the Black Law turbine site in Scotland, Nicol Stephen, Scotlands Deputy Minister said that standing under a turbine was as noisy as “a very low flying aircraft”. Patrick, I find your statement,without any evidence, that the information given by Chloe Green is totally untrue, amazing, give us some facts proving this, not the usual propaganda. RWE who own Npower are one of the most polluting energy producers in the EU, and we would need to build between 5000 and 6000 wind turbines to get rid of the CO2 their power stations produce. It is time for these massivly rich power companies to get their own houses in order before they ask others to see their homes and the tranquil, rural countryside ruined by the building of these tokens to saving the world. Noel, I would ask you to do some homework and see how little these things will do, by how much the wind industry overstate all aspects of their operation. Recent evidence shows that the changing pattern of weather and the reduction and maybe stopping of the Gulf Stream could render turbines even more useless than they already are. This will probably not be researched fully, whilst the likes of the British Wind Assiociation spend millions trying to show how good the wind is, they never look at any evidence that proves that they are building the white elephants of the next decade. Children deserve better than to be fed the sales talk of companies in it just for the money. If Npower were building turbines because they wanted to mitigate the mess their power stations are making of the Worlds climate, with no subsidy (sorry) incentive, then they can come to forums like this, and have a say. I also ask what right Npower think they have to ask you to move information, without proof that it is incorrect. It is impossible to get them to change misleading information on their own leaflets. Remember, Npower are only in it for the money, millions and millions of pounds, all Chloe Green and many like her want is to save the Devon Countryside and prevent the population from being brainwashed by the the likes of Npower and the “Emperors New Clothes”.
Re noise. Although I’m trying to keep out of the whole debate, I can say with certainty that there is a world of difference standing next to a jet aircraft at Exeter airport and underneath a wind turbine. Neil I think the noise statistics are a little disingenuous; wind turbine noise is rapidly reduces with distance from the source, compared to aircraft noise.
If / when the Gulf stream stops I think we’ll all have more things to worry about than 9 turbines at Batsworthy. In any case, variables in wind energy due to climate change would be pure speculation on your (or anyones) part.
As a local resident, I would be reluctant to concur that tourism in Mid Devon would be adversely affected. I have a far greater reservation about the plans for Fullabrook Down, North Devon, however the BC site would be quite spectacular from the link road, and may well result in tourists spending a longer time in the area. Finally even the most cursory glance at the map reveals that there are no settlements in the immediate area, so I’m fairly happy with npowers plans. If a majority of local people are against the development, then I would support their view, however, as you know, this seems not to be the case.
On the point of pollution Neil, you are right to point out that npower have a highly dubious heritage – owned by RWE who also own Thames Water, the UK’s most polluting company. Obviously all comapnies are in it for the money, however the environmental claims of npower hardly withstand close scrutiny!
I would support switching the green subsidy paid to outfits like npower, directly to householders wanting to make their homes more energy efficent, and to help finance the development of small scale domestic energy generation through solar panels, small wind turbines, photovoltaic cells and biogas generators. I’m not at all happy at the prospects of more investment in nuclear, although it’s pretty clear that will be the option for Labour after the next election.
Noel
There are many houses near the site. It is morally wrong for the public to expect the people living near turbines to suffer loss of property value, not being able to sell their homes and the noise of the turbines. There is noise, I have to disagree with you here, all noises reduce with distance, with lower frequencies attenuating more than high ones, but the noise level turbines produce near many homes is higher than the levels the World Health Organisation give for uninterrupted sleep. As for the health issues, with all areas of science where the “experts” are advising us, we must show caution, experts only know what we now know, not everything there is to know, tomorrow the expert witness may find out he was wrong! None of the wind power companies have provided proof that wind turbines do not harm our health, they speculate very eloquently, rubbish any report that points at health problems from turbines, but fall short of saying anything they could be held to. We must all bear in mind the outcome of the recent almost tragic “safe” drugs testing on humans.
On the change in global wind patterns and the gulf stream, my statement was based on a paper by Professor Em. Peter Cobbold, type his name in google and download it. You may view it as speculation, that is your right, but global warming had the same reception not so long ago, are you brave enough to say he is wrong? The wind industry is unlikely to fund research that will kill the golden goose, they will however probably fund their own report to rubbish the paper, but not disprove it, that is their usual tactic.
On tourism, I hope you will point out to affected children why their parents Bed and Breakfast enterprise may go bust, who wants to stay near a noisy wind farm, and they can not sell. I have never seen a brochure for a farm holiday saying, “near to wind turbines, or, close to motorway”, I do think you are in a tiny minority if you think they will enhance the countryside and your idea of a holiday is staying down wind of the monsters.
Education should be based on the full facts, not the bits that sound good and follow your own views, that by contrast is called indoctrination and is usually the domain of the wind industry. Wind turbines need back up, that is a power station, nuclear or whatever, if we build turbines we need power stations, it is not an “either or” situation. I would also like to know where you get the idea that there are more than a handful of people in favour of this development, a couple of letters from the Green party in the press, and Npower who admit to incorporating anonymous replies in a pseudo poll is hardly a ground swell of support. Get out a bit and talk to the locals like I do, over 90% hate the idea of ruining the countryside for such a little return in CO2 saving.
One recent article in the Western Morning News summed up in reality the effect of wind turbines on global warming. It would be like peeing into the Atlantic at Lands End hoping to flood New York. With China building 562 new large coal power stations by 2012 (that is a new large coal power station every 5 days for 7 years) and India and Brazil likely to follow suit *. We must look at the figures and the global picture, it is no good saying we must do something, we must do something that actually works. Spend the money on research, we know wind is no use, that is why we gave up milling flour with the wind and ships turned to steam and diesel engines hundreds of year ago. We must find something that really works and saves the planet, do not let the children of tomorrow suffer because we did nothing of any worth, building turbines is as close to doing nothing as you can get.
* Lord Lawson reporting in The Spectator 11 March 2006
I totally agree with you neil. Of course Patrick Spink is going to say all that he can to promote the wind tubines that are due to be produced by his company as he is being payed hansomely by the government! I feel that Patrick Spink is polluting the minds of people who this website are trying to teach, in the same way that he is polluting the courtyside with 100m high white steel monsters! His view should be void as he is one of the few people who are going to profit out of this goverments knee jerk reaction to the energy problem! I have lived under a mile from Batsworthy cross for over 18 years and am a keen landscape photographer, this being partly due to the fact that i have lived in this area of natural beauty. However if these wind turbines go ahead then this area will just become another of englands ever growing eyesores, not to mention all of the other implications that go with them! Also does anyone know when planning permission goes in for these turbines as apparently this is the chance for the people living in the area to protest against the wind farm. I aslo feel that the people in the surrounding area are very ill informed about the impact these turbines will have. If anyone can help answer these few questions it would be much appreciated! 1. How much devaluation will there be on the surrounding properties and how far away will people be affected? 2. Why haven’t NPower put up some sort of helium baloon or other such thing to show just how high these wind turbines will be? 3. How long will they take to construct? 4. Are there any benefits for the local people such as compensation or cheap electricity for having to put up with all of the disadvantages? 5. What is the real impact on the enviroment (i have read alot about horses having problems with the turbines and that the RSPB are also against wind farms) 6. If NPower are so confident that these wind turbines dont make a huge amount of noise and will not be an eyesore then why dont they offer a coach trip to another wind farm so that the local people can see first hand what the wind farms are like and what impact they might have? 7. Why does NPower only have the so called advantages to local people on their website and not disadvantages to local people also such as the thousands of pounds that they will loose from the value of their homes!
James – you and others who oppose the development are welcome to make your case to a group of local students who are making a film about the issue. Pleaae get in touch via the contact form.
Noel Jenkins
As the majority of people contributing to this site appear to be against wind turbines, does anyone have any bright ideas about just how we go uncoupling ourselves from our reliance on fossil fuels???
I added your site to my bookmarks. I’ve got this growing list I’ll actually be coming back to.
Yeah, other than the ones we all ignore. For now though I have to go back to work. No rest for the weary!
According to the documentary film “Wind” (2003) about Vestas installations, the high strength of the wind is not an overriding factor: the consistency, and non-gustiness of wind, is more important. Interestingly, there is more power in cold winds than hot winds. Nearby woods, valleys and buildings are a put-off for consistency. Does the Google map add much clarity to this?
It looks as if the future for the biggest height windfarms is offshore: the wind is likely to be steadier, more reliable and consistent than onshore, and with easier installation ( a big turbine has over 7000 parts.) Predicting wind patterns is a big and complicated subject but an important one for onshore windfarms.
I Think that its a good idea because it will provide more renewable energy, I’m very interested in wind farms could you supply me with some more information please thanks
Regards
Gerold …