Comment posted More melt down in wind ‘industry’ as global giant Vestas hits serious debt burden by Lowry.
For the anoraks (like me) amongst us who have difficulty sleeping
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/28862.aspx?r=7100&mode=pdf
In my view there are some interesting facts revealed in this session about the grid, charges and in particular how energy bills may increase post separation.
Recent comments by Lowry
- SNP meeting on Monday may be testing time for mega-coalition proposal
‘Buffoon’ – as suggested by Simon I believe – seems to fit both personae. - First Minister’s choice not to condemn mob behaviour proves Farage point
Agreed – I often find that some folk muddle UKIP with the BNP. - First Minister’s choice not to condemn mob behaviour proves Farage point
However, sometimes they do go a bit wonky – I’ve seen them add several at one time and then on a couple of occasions they have subtracted ticks. It did happen last night. To be honest, I only see it as a bit of fun so don’t feel it’s anything to get worked up about. - James Robb, as the cordite clears
So, you condone a protest that required the police to protect someone; that person had to stay in a place of safety until a police van could provide transport; a taxi driver was unable to provide transport because of potential damage to his vehicle; and where two people were arrested. What a strange person you are! - Walsh to lead all but Lib Dems, Conservatives and George Freeman
Hey ho – off we go. Feet up and pass the popcorn please.
powered by SEO Super Comments
Sad for the folks that will again lose jobs. The cow for this company, seems to be running dry.
Maybe they should take a look at the obvious alternative: community generation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Beware the self appointed noise assessment “acousticians ” like…..
THE HAYES MACKENZIE PARTNERSHIP (HMP)
HMP are regularly hired by the Government of the day to report on turbine
noise They are the go-to YES MEN for the turbine lobby and they base
their findings on the ETSU R 97 guidelines- SIXTEEN YEARS outdated, much
ridiculed and hugely pro wind industry-biased when written . Guidelines meant
to protect families from intrusive noise, that do no such thing. Guidelines
that their own founding director co-authored-now used by the self same
HMP – working for and making millions from those same wind industry
companies who are RESPONSIBLE for that health threatening noise.
They and others like them ignore the huge and ever growing weight of
evidence
-that large electricity-generating wind turbines cause serious health
problems. They do this by denying these problems, denigrating the writers
and by making a collection of wholly unsubstantiated and contradictory
claims.
When WILL any of their own “move along no health issues here” reports actually
have an input from some, ANY, qualified medical or epidemiological experts who
would surely offer guidance on how all that technical acoustic data actually
translates into human I’ll health.
Study after study emphasises the need for such epidemiological and
laboratory research by medical health professionals and acousticians concerned
with public health and well-being. Not by a bunch of fully paid up members of
the wind turbine lobby with no medical input or expertise whatsoever.
Bottom line if I have health issues Ill call on a doctor. If I want a PA
system I’ll ask Hayes Mackenzie
In the past HMP have outright tried to deny or downplay the effect of wind
turbine noise on nearby residents. Is this the same company who assured us all
that low frequency noise is not a ‘significant problem’.
Saying things like ”Despite media hype, noise output from wind turbines is
not particularly biased towards low frequency and there is no significant
infrasound or vibration.”
And worst of all…” ,infrasound,low frequency noise and vibration is not an
issue for on-shore wind turbine sites.”
Are they having a laugh?
Numerous eminent doctors from all round the world have reported various
noise-related problems with wind turbines and many many peer reviewed
scientists concur about the likely cause: professor Møller,; professor
Pedersen, Henrik, dr hanning, Steffen; Kloster Staunstsrup, Jan; and Sejer
Pedersen, dr Alves-Pereira and Professor Branco, Christian , dr Pierpoint
Philips Rand Ambrose Swinbanks, dr Salt , dr McMurtry, dr Nissenbaum
dr kerin dr Isser dr Amanda Harry, and countless others say YOU LIE HAYES
MACKENZIE
Victims report Annoyance, stress and sleep disturbance together with a
whole bunch of often interconnected illnesses collectively now called VAD-
vibro acoustic disease WTS – wind turbine syndrome and VVVD- visceral
vibratory vestibular disturbance. All these doctors, researchers and scientist
call for more medical studies into the problem. The turbine lobby shows
no such willingness.
As if THAT werent enough, this is the same company why were found out to
have been complicit in the ‘sexing down’ of a Governmental Report. I
quote:
‘The report said the best way to protect locals was to cut the maximum
permitted noise to 38 decibels, or 33 decibels if the machines created
discernible “beating” noises as they spun. ‘It has now emerged that
officials removed the warnings from the draft report in 2006 by Hayes McKenzie
Partnership (HMP), the consultants. The final version made no mention of
them.’ http://www.windbyte.co.uk/noise.html.
This was confirmed in Parliament in 2010
”Mr David Davis MP : I want to pick him up on his kindness to Hayes McKenzie
and his gentle language about what was, without doubt, a cover-up of the World
Health Organisation guidelines, which said that people, when they sleep,
should have an environment at 30 dB. What was said by the Government was
something much louder than that-35 to 40 dB. That was a very bad cover-up.
Hayes McKenzie was clearly complicit, because it did not put in the public
domain what was said.”
And this damning indictment in Parliament was Followed up by The Minister of
State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Charles Hendry) in the same
debate: My right hon. Friend Mr Davis spoke about the previous report. I
understand that certain issues were removed before I became involved in this
work..”
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm101013/halltext/101013h0002.htm
Back to ETSU R 97. How many millions have Hayes Mackenzie made from their wind
farm associates, using wholly unsatisfactory guidelines – guidelines called
‘nonsense’ and ‘laughable’ by eminent acoustician and Governmental noise
working group member Dick Bowdler. Guidelines that THEY co authored. Guidlines
that trample over people’s well being….that still today fail to accommodate
the latest and far more credible WHO Guidelines for Community Noise…as
they have NEVER been updated in sixteen years despite the immensity and
power of turbines increasing hugely since ETSUR97 was written back in
96/97.
Doesn’t this remind you of those doctors and academics who used to work for
the cigarette lobby – paid for lackies…who would tell us bare faced of the
BENEFITS OF SMOKING CIGARETTES reassuringly backed up by scientific research
all bought and paid for by the Tobacco industry. I say to you, Plus ca
change Eh?
So, We know that HMP have been criticised in the House of Commons for being
complicit in the ’dumbing down’ of their own 2006 report. They were ALSO
criticised in the House of Lords for peddling outdated WHO figures regarding
acceptable noise levels.
Again in that 2006 report they state on pages 2,10,46 and 66 that the World
Health Organization guidelines , say that ‘there is no reliable evidence
that infrasounds below the hearing threshold produce physiological or
psychological effects’.”
BUT THIS IS DISINGENUOUS BECAUSE HMP DAMN WELL KNEW THAT THAT COMMENT WAS
SUPERSEDED AND UPDATED IN 1999 - the WHO Guidelines for Community Noise
1999 clearly states in section 3.8: “The evidence on low frequency noise is
sufficiently strong to warrant immediate concern”.
And
“Health effects due to low frequency components in noise are estimated to be
more severe than for community noises in general)”.
Furthermore. The 1999 WHO guidelines say: ” If the noise includes a large
proportion of low frequency components, still lower guideline values should be
applied”.
The “WHO 1999, Guidelines, Critical health effects”for sleep disturbance,
sets a limit of total noise in the bedroom at night at 30dBA, before
additional reductions are applied to reflect the presence of LFN and the
pulsating character of the noise.
And yet in 2006 Hayes McKenzie/Dti Report concluded that:
“… infrasound associated with modern wind turbines is not a source which
will result in noise levels which may be injurious to health of a wind farm
neighbour”.
More lies and obfuscation!
I am always amazed at the absolute certainties of such as wind turbineists and
atheists.
What medical qualifications do hayes mackenzie have to make this statement,
NONE .was any medical experts consulted. NO
Hayes Mackenzie are laughing all the way to the bank – at our expense – and
threatening the health of families living near turbine installations
Time they were called out!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
VESTAS Technology is not using permanent magnets,when you talk about windenergy future, do you know wich is the cost per Kwh generated?, solar?, coal?, or maybe you prefer the nuclear like japanese?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Actually, odd as it may seem, we have come to think that new nuclear may be as green as it gets. And that is not a position we ever expected to find ourselves in.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Perhaps they should go back to selling matches!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The significance of the Vestas and Gamesa developments is that (a) Vestas has the largest designed off-shore turbine (7.4Mw) awaiting a customer to justify prototype testing and (b) Gamesa was trying to play catch up-with its Bellshill office designing a comparable unit. These developments amount to a stall in what Government and Developers perceived to be seamless progress.
The cynic may suggest that Vestas and Gamesa are s posturing to lobby Govt to clarify it subsidy policy. The lobbying by Vestas in this regard, prior to deciding just a few months ago to go ahead with, what is now, an abandoned manufacturing plant, was at the time , aggressive and blatant.
Re subsidy policy, UK Govt has a more balanced energy policy than Scottish Government. The political gossip is not “if” there will be a cut in subsidy but “when” and by “how much “. It remains to be seen who wins the battle between the DECC and the Treasury
NTA has to correct your report where you say with regard to the Tiree (Argyll) Array when you state ” ….that the Scottish Government has postponed taking a decision on this until well after the proposed date for the Independence Referendum “. It is the developer SPR that has postponed any possible decision. Not only has SPR postponed any possible consenting decision till after the Independence Referendum, but it has delayed its final investment decision till after the March 2016 Scottish elections. This confirms the NOV 2011 CITI Group report which at the time was dismissed by Scottish Government. SSE has also adopted what at best can be described as reviewing any post independence investment decisions pertaining to current proposed projects .
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Thank you for fine tuning the position on SPR’s postponement of the Tiree Array / Argyll Array application.
Is there any sense of government collaboration in this move?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There seems to be two points at which the government can step into the planning process…one by the front door and one by the back.
Final grantings of permissions to proceed in development and deployment are via the front door…ministers have the final say, the final YES or NO.
And then there is the back door entry…convoluted and seriously not acceptable. The area under scrutiny is within 5 km of Tiree’s SW/W shoreline…and huge. It covers the shallow and dramatic Skerryvore and shallower areas. The area is recognised as JNCC and SNH put it…”lease damaged/most natural”…under this search criteria the area has been found to contain large numbers of endangered and at risk species: Basking Shark/Great Northern Divers of internationally important numbers use the area…Black Guilemot, Fulmar & Kittywake, Kittywake and Terns feed in the nutrient rich waters…we have visiting White Tailed Sea Eagle and other avian species. Killer/Minke whales are regulaly seen. This especial area has been put forward for full MPA and SPA accreditation…it far exceeds the necessary criteria. It this warrented accreditation is granted, as expected…SPR will have to pack their carpet bag and move on…mitigation will simply not be possible to any level of acceptance…Following a joint stakeholder meeting,we NTA should have a better idea in Dec 2012 of when accreditation will take place. However: The Back Door option is that the Government, and very same ministers who grant permissions to build are also the same key holders who say YES or NO to the environmental protection accreditation.
Lets not kid ourselves: these ministers are ECONOMISTS and business men…NOT Environmentalists or Conservationists…
The December meeting will decide on the fate of much of our West Coast wilderness shores and sea…!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
NTA does not think so.
The reasons given by SPR were environmental. These do not stack up, as these environmental issues were there from the outset ie since 2009. However Scottish Government’s selection of MPA’s,SPA’s has still has to be finalised. That may have a significant bearing on what off-shore Array’s, or part thereof, may be or may not be consented.
This may be co-incidental.
There are many other inputs to the Tiree(Argyll)Array which are taking longer time to resolve eg transmission issues Iberdrola had hinted, well in advance of any formal announcement of any delay,that Tiree (Argyll) Array was not its priority project.
Irrespective delay in making consenting applications, and /or final investment decisions lie with the developer, and may compromise Scottish Government reaching its unilateral targets .
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Pingback: Seems a Wind Giants Hitting Tough Times « newburghwindfarm
Newsroom – I am continually in awe of your ability to research and assimilate information and reissue it in such a clear and explicit manner.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It’s called re-cycling Malcolm…:)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Don’t totally agree there Karl – you and I and all the other ‘extremists’ have posted a lot of good/bad stuff on these forums over many months – I think ‘newsroom’ has been following it all, and as a professional journalist, has issued a clear resume above of current issues, and hopefully there will be more in the future. It’s the ease of reading that makes any article stand out.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Tongue in cheek comment…from me.
I agree with your round up…off to eat humble pie.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Pingback: More melt down in wind 'industry' as global giant Vestas hits serious debt burden › wind power pros and cons
Seems a shame that Newsroom is gloating over Vestas’ troubles after all her previous concern about rare earth magnets.
Vestas are the only player in the big offshore turbine market to go for a design with a gearbox. As a result of this Vestas’ machines use much less neodymium than their main competitors, Siemens, who have gone for a gearless design using huge rare earth magnets.
It seems that on this blog any news about wind turbines is good news – as long as it is bad news
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I believe that Enercon produce a large (7.5MW) direct-drive turbine that does not use permanent magnets (and hence neodymium) but instead, like all their smaller models, use electrically-excited rotors. Don’t know if it has been tested for offshore use though.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Newsroom – I am curious to know how you justify your statement: “And all of this is happening in the context of a national grid infrastructure almost wholly unable to deal with it. There has never been a larger cart built before any prospect of the motive power to draw it.”
A contract has been awarded for 2.2GW of HVDC import/export capacity between Glasgow & NW England (due to be commissioned around 2015), and this comes on top of some major upgrades to the existing Scotland/England interconnectors. The Beauly/Denny upgrade, following a very protracted consenting process, is under construction. SSE is working on other projects including a subsea link from Skipness to Hunterston, upgrade of the east coast transmission system and preparatory work for a further HVDC subsea link to the east coast of England from Aberdeenshire. These are just a few examples.
In other words there are plenty of active projects in the pipeline to ensure adequate interconnection between renewable generation capacity in Scotland and demand centres in the south. There is an element of ‘catchup’ going on, partly because of the rate of installation of wind farms, and partly because investment in network capacity has to be made on the basis of demonstrable need, in order to minimise the economic risk of ending up with a huge horse and a very small cart (to reverse your analogy).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
About ten years ago SSE sought planning approval for a new 132kv line from the Glen Shira substation outside Inveraray to Inveruglas / Sloy west of Loch Lomond north of Tarbet, to cope with predicted windfarm output in Argyll, but as far as I’m aware it wasn’t built.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Could you put a few £££ signs in your post Tim so that we can get an idea of the cost of upgrading the Grid over and above the £475 million per annum that wind farms are costing us at the moment. The amounts must be available on the net somewhere. Thanks.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Malcolm – that’s a fair question – I don’t have any figures to hand, but I would expect that, like the wind farm subsidy total, the sum will be impressive in itself but relatively small when divided by the consumer base.
Much of the investment needed will be in local distribution networks – either beefing up the lines & equipment or introducing ‘smart grid’ management systems to make better use of existing capacity. Bear in mind that the cost of building and maintaining rural networks in places like Argyll is very high, and so our electricity costs are already heavily ‘subsidised’ by consumers in city areas.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For the anoraks (like me) amongst us who have difficulty sleeping
http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/28862.aspx?r=7100&mode=pdf
In my view there are some interesting facts revealed in this session about the grid, charges and in particular how energy bills may increase post separation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Lowry – thanks, I haven’t read that one yet but will do so later.
The question of what happens to subsidies, connection charges etc. in the event of separation is very interesting and will surely need to be a central part of the independence debate.
Also expect both sides in that debate to use it as part of their campaign, which will make it difficult to separate the technical/regulatory issues from the politics.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Have not had time to go through this in any detail but it is at least up to date – it maybe that all sides can get something out of it :-
http://www.civitas.org.uk/economy/electricitycosts2012.pdf
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This report was based on a series of false assumptions, the greatest of which was the misapprehension (which you also suffer from Malcolm) that there was a need need to build a new fleet of OCGT stations to back up wind generation on a MW-for-MW basis. These assumptions significantly and artificially inflate the cost of energy from wind.
Are wind turbines increasing carbon emissions?
RenewableUK slams Civitas wind power report as inaccurate and outdated
Civitas wind power report ‘relies on the work of cranks’
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“wind power can increase carbon emissions”
“Wind energy remains a highly controversial way to generate electricity for a variety of reasons, not least the costs and aesthetic impact. Claim and counter-claim dog any discussion on the topic and it is very hard to source impartial information. Therefore, when making a claim as grand and as eye-catching as “wind power can increase carbon emissions” (in order to support their objection to wind power), you would expect Civitas and Ruth Lea to cite some nailed-down, compelling research. But, instead, Civitas offers up a non-peer reviewed report published on the website of a long-standing critic of wind power. That is clearly not a high enough standard to convince someone of your argument and I feel Civitas and Lea are wrong to give this unsubstantiated claim such emphasis in both their report and the accompanying press release.
Such an important question needs to be discussed and analysed – advocates of wind power shouldn’t shy away from such a debate (as they do) – but we are no nearer to uncovering the truth about this issue, despite the best efforts of Civitas and Lea. Until some independent, peer-reviewed research is published on this matter, this question will remain unanswered. Unsatisfactory, but true.
Until rigorous, comprehensive research is conducted on this specific subject the debate is, sadly, sure to rage on.”
Note> The last paragraph, note the last 4 words…the balls is still in your court on this one.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You have confirmed what I suggested above ie it may be that all sides can get something out of it. Been busy all day so have not actually read it in full but am happy to accept your summary. Cheers !
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It Seems that the supply chain is having major fiscal problems…remove the subsides and the industry will collapse…In the current global economic slow down, the cash is just not available/or indeed justifiable to keep this sector going…2016 the date set for stand alone by the industry looks ever more doubtfull…especially given the now obvious knock on effects in asia and the far east.
http://www.offshorewind.biz/2012/07/04/denmark-challenging-conditions-in-global-wind-power-supply-chain-says-report/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0