The trouble with turbines

One of the most controversial issues among local people is that of wind turbines.  While they are appearing in many places around the UK, Lincolnshire - and eastern Lincolnshire in particular - is becoming known (or notorious) for these structures.

At present there are 11 ‘wind farms’ in Lincolnshire, with 50 plus turbines presently being built offshore near Skegness. There are also many more planned for North Cotes, Anderby, Tetney, Great Carlton and Baumber, plus a huge complex off the East Yorkshire coast, from where they will be visible from many parts of Lincolnshire. (A county map showing existing and planned installations, and the numbers and heights of the turbines at each site, may be found at www.bwag.co.uk)

Turbines come in different sizes, so the technical specifications are different for each one. To take the example of the turbines at Vine House Farm at Deeping St Nicholas near Spalding, the turbines (from which the blades radiate) are 59 metres (approx 180 feet) high. Each turbine weighs 70 tons. Each blade is 42 metres long (approx 126 feet), and weighs eight tons. The accumulated energy is channeled down the shaft to a gearbox at ground level. Each shaft rests on 15-20 15 metre concrete piles, around which is wrapped reinforcement material and then another 500 tons of concrete (1). The need for this large quantity of concrete means that fields used for turbines are no longer suitable for agriculture – which is why wind farm sites are immediately re-designated as ‘brownfield’ land.

As with many other ‘green’ initiatives, wind turbines divide public opinion strongly. Some people detest them, believing them to be both inefficient and a blemish on the landscape, while others believe they are rather attractive, and that renewable energy is, or could be, the solution to tomorrow’s (if not today’s) energy requirements (2).

Our Group’s view is that while renewable energy is a good thing in itself in an era of oil shortages (although the primary emphasis of any wise energy policy should always be on energy conservation), there are other considerations that should be taken into account.

The mere presence of turbines alters a landscape greatly. Whatever their merits as producers of energy - and they do present difficulties in calm weather, and when it comes to storing energy - they are by any standard industrial installations. Their presence turns a rural vista into a part-industrial vista. At present, the chief landmarks in the Marsh area are the towers of medieval churches; if these are dwarfed by power plant structures, the landscape character and local quality of life will be altered in subtly devastating ways. And because they are so tall, they do not just affect the places where they are situated, but a much wider area. Some may be seen from over 20 miles away.

There are also reportedly adverse effects on bats and birds in flight, and of noise and light flicker nuisance for those downwind. There is accumulating if admittedly still only anecdotal evidence that windfarms are starting to affect property values, with property owners reporting that they are finding it very difficult to sell houses in the shadow of turbines or near proposed sites. One Lincolnshire estate agent has estimated that a proposal to erect a wind farm has meant that up to £70,000 has been knocked off the value of some nearby houses.

This alteration in an area’s character has definite, if admittedly unquantifiable, effects on both residents and visitors. Turbines can have a highly depressing effect on some. For example, two recent (and unsolicited) comments from people seeing the forest of turbines arising off the Lincolnshire coast were “I feel like I’m living in a prison!” and “It’s like a cemetery”. That some (maybe many) local people can feel like that about the place they live does not bode well for their attachment to that place.

Some opinion polls have suggested that over 60% of people would not mind living with three miles of a turbine, and that the presence of turbines has not yet registered as a deterrent for tourists. But for urban residents, the question will only ever be an academic one, as few will have turbines built in or near to them - while it is reasonable to assume that turbines will become less popular among tourists as they become as common as electricity pylons (which were also regarded as exciting novelties when they first appeared). Tourists come to this area because of its “big skies” and feeling of remoteness – but turbines on the horizon have the effect of foreshortening space and narrowing horizons.

These may sound like airy-fairy abstractions, but people make important choices (where to holiday, where to live, how to treat the places they live) for such reasons. Will visitors or locals love the Marsh so much if every vista is blocked by gigantic PVC propellers? With Russia, China and India showing few signs of reducing their usage of fossil fuels, are we sacrificing Lincolnshire’s rural beauty and character fruitlessly? 

East Lindsey planners must think about these possible long term effects before they grant yet more approvals for turbines. They should ask themselves some serious questions – such as:

1. Why are other parts of the country resisting these structures?

2. Have we done enough to cut our own energy use, or discourage waste by businesses and householders? A lot of streetlights, for instance, could be dispensed with, or turned off in the early hours. Couldn't planning permission specify movement-activated external lighting rather than permanent lighting? Could there be special penalties for energy-wasters and rewards for energy-efficient businesses and households?

3. How about subsidizing solar panels for householders and businesses?

4. What about prioritizing wave energy schemes, like the one now being tested in the Humber, where these can be installed without affecting tidal flow, wildlife or sea defences?

5. Why not encourage biomass power instead?

6. Are there better places for turbines than in productive farmland or overshadowing tourist destinations – for example offshore, or in the large urban areas where most of the demand is located?

We appreciate that local planners are to some extent at the mercy of national government, but if that government is pursuing shortsighted policies it then becomes the duty of local planners to defend local rights. If London insists on turning a blind eye to waste and new technologies (for example the cleaner coal-burning technology recently unveiled in Germany, or the hydrogen cells now being used in Shetland), and continues to allow the UK’s population to balloon beyond sustainability, there is little Lincoln or Manby can do, except to protest and shield the area to the best of their ability from the worst effects of London's irresponsibility. But they must do this - and be seen to do this. Local politicians’ and officials’ prime responsibility is to this area and the people who live here.

This area has already made great sacrifices in the battle against climate change and Peak Oil. We’re willing to do yet more – but it’s about time other parts of the country pulled their weight too.

NOTES

1. Source: The Deeping St Nicholas Wind Turbines, published by Vine House Farm

2. Onshore wind energy costs 5p per KW to build nd produce, as compared with offshore wind (10p per KW), oil or gas (8p per KW), coal (3p per KW) and nuclear (3p per KW). Source as above