Punishing the success?

Renewable energy capacity in the UK has grown in the last few years. The statistics of this show its importance in the energy mix. For example, in the first quarter of 2015 the share of electricity generation reached by renewables was 22.3%. That’s almost a quarter for that annual quarter! Or put another way, renewable energy (RE) generated 21.2 billion kWh[i] – that is equivalent to providing electricity to 21.2 million average UK households for that quarter. That is 80% of all households in the UK[ii]. Impressive! Important? Indeed! Of course, to keep it in context, most of the electricity generated by renewables feeds the national grid and is therefore not only used for households. But, as an illustration, if it was: almost all UK households would be powered by RE in Q1 of 2015! But, oh, the current government seems to think RE is not worth subsidising, that there is enough RE now - that its better to woo the Chinese to invest in nuclear and to support fracking. Nuclear, with its dubious long-term business plan (how do you plan for waste disposal costs that stretch way into the future), and fracking with its dubious short-term business case (wells don’t last very long)….

That first quarter of this year the RE generation was an increase on the same period in 2014 and this was largely due to an increase in RE capacity. Which was an increase on the year before. Imagine if we could keep that up – we’d soar past a quarter of all electricity generated being very low or no carbon! We’d power the equivalent of more than all the houses in the UK. Surely, when a new industry has risen so spectacularly to the challenge, it should be promoted and lauded? Allowed to sprint ahead? Instead its legs are being cut off at the knees. That is what the radical and sudden slashing of feed-in-tariffs (FiTs) is doing. Did you know that 148,000kW of capacity was installed under the FiT in Q1 of 2015. That brought the total up to 3.6 million kW of RE installed, thanks to the support it was getting! You could switch on about 1.5 million electric kettles all at once with a capacity like that!

In fact all RE increased – onshore wind from 6.7TWh for Q1 in 2014 to 7TWh for Q1 in 2015, offshore wind increased by 22%, hydro by 9.5% and PV by 3.6%. In Scotland the stats are really impressive: in 2014 half of all the electricity used came from renewables! In the first quarter of 2015 wind power produced the equivalent of the needs of nearly 4 million Scottish homes for that quarter[iii]. In June wind supplied a third of all Scotland’s electricity needs. This was an increase of 120% over the year before[iv]. Then, as if that wasn’t amazing enough, in July wind broke its own record supplying 36% of all electricity needs (or 72% of all Scottish homes): a whopping 660 million kWh. On eight days of that windy month 100% of Scottish homes were supplied by wind power[v]! A significant player in the energy mix? Yes!

But. I wonder if we will be able to say the same in Q1 of 2016. With the proposed almost 90% cut in FiT for solar PV and the halting of onshore wind, it is likely that very little, if any, new capacity will be added in early 2016. It’s confusing, seeing that the stats are so impressive. You’d think it would be further supported, that the politicians would blow their trumpets. They’d pat each other on the back and continue with the program that has been so successful and produced so many jobs and powered a significant portion of Britain’s electricity needs – all with near zero carbon emissions. How isn’t that a success story?

In the meantime, globally RE electricity has just become the second largest source of electricity at 22% of the total[vi]. Over the last 25 years global solar PV has averaged increase of early 45% a year, while wind increased at just over 27%. Indeed, it is a success story! 

Let’s be clear. RE subsidies do need to be slowly phased out. But this should be done at a rate to allow the industry to mature, to gain grid parity and in consultation with the industry. Let’s be even more clear – its not as if fossil technologies are NOT getting subsidies and support. They are! So then these should be phased out too – maybe more rapidly seeing they are larger and been applied for longer. The International Monetary Fund states that the UK fossil fuel sector is receiving subsidies of more than £26 billion this year – that is more than 7 times that of renewable energy[vii]. Renewable Energy World published that in the OECD states there are 800 ways taxpayer money supports fossil fuel industries and at about $167 billion - far exceeds the value of subsidies for renewables. An example is that the oil industry is able to write off most drilling costs in full and immediately, rather than at normal business depreciation costs[viii]. This is NOT a level playing field! And yet RE is considered “too expensive” compared to fossil fuels….?

As the Renewable Energy Association puts it, the “bonfire of renewable policies” continues. If I was an outside bystander I’d be interested to see how the UK government is going to respond to high-level criticism of their new lack of support for this important industry, for creating investor non-confidence, for costing jobs. But none of us are bystanders. We are all affected by the UK government’s lack of vision, as the rest of the world seems to be supporting renewable energy.


Alastair Gets

Director of Engineering

---

[i] Electricity consumption 94.9TWh in Q1 of 2015 [gov.uk]

[ii] The average unadjusted electricity consumption per household in 2014 was 4,001 kilowatt hours (kWh), [DECC, ECUK Tables 3.07] and there are about 26.5 million households in the UK

[iii] Calculated from figures from renews (online) article 25/6/15

[iv] Figures from renews (online) article 6/7/15

[v] Figures from renews (online) article 4/8/15

[vi] International Energy Agency as cited by Alex Kirby of Climate News Network, August 19, 2015

[vii] Calculated from renews (online) article 4/8/15

[viii] Article by Kraemer, S. Renewable Energy World, June 10, 2015

TRESOC Spring Share Issue – note from MD, Ian Bright

We have a new look website to make it easier for our members and supporters to stay involved and up to date with the latest TRESOC news – more later in this article!  We’ve also added an on-line Forum where TRESOC members can air their views, raise questions and generally chat about issues of the day. You can register using your name and membership number (on your share certificate).  Only TRESOC members can comment and all posts can be seen on line.

And we’re kicking off the discussion with great news about our 1 MW for Totnes & District Share Issue.  Those of you who came to the AGM in December will know that following refusal of the Totnes Community Wind Farm planning application last year (see previous blog entry) we’ve been extra busy with other projects. All this hard work is now paying off in the form of new consented solar pv and hydro power projects.  Specifically, we have reached agreement with South Devon Rural Housing Association to install solar panels on all of their suitable properties.  The Survey work is nearly complete and over 100 households will soon enjoy a source of free electricity, helping out some of those most at risk of fuel poverty and supporting growth in the local economy through our project partnership with BECO Solar.  TRESOC will benefit from the Feed in Tariff income, enabling payment of dividends to our members.  

We’ve also secured agreement with Dart Renewables for a £500,000 community investment in the hydro project at Totnes Weir, and more at other hydro power sites on the Rivers Teign and Dart.  With extra solar schemes in the pipeline this adds up to a TRESOC investment package in consented local renewable energy projects with a combined value of more than £1.5 million.  

With the Government’s Community Energy Strategy and other measures supporting growth in community renewables this is a huge opportunity for local people to earn a healthy income from large and small investments in local renewable energy installations.  It will also provide TRESOC with working capital to develop more projects in solar, hydro and various forms of biomass – and who knows – maybe another wind project one day!  

We’re finishing off the detailed legal agreements necessary to realise these fantastic opportunities in our Share Issue, scheduled for April.  Meanwhile, we’ll keep you informed of progress and look forward to hearing more from our members through the on-line Members Forum.

Many thanks and best wishes to all TRESOC members and supporters,

Ian Bright, Managing Director

River/tidal energy: The Anchor Stone Project

The story of our Anchor Stone Channel research project demonstrates that making progress with Community Energy is as much about relationships as projects.

Back in March 2013, TRESOC was hopeful that the channel of water passing through the Anchor Stone Channel, near the National Trust's Greenway property would be suitable for producing renewable energy at a small scale (kilowatts rather than megawatts).

It had been observed that the water is around 20 meters deep just there, much deeper than at other parts of the river, and the strength of the tidal flow had carved out the channel at this point.  The Anchor Stone is a pinch point, where large bodies of water from above Dittisham are forced through a narrow channel, by virtue of the topography... the perfect circumstances for a research project.

In the summer of 2013, TRESOC collaborated with Plymouth University's School of Marine Science & Engineering to create a project for Masters student, Francesca Ford, to assess the potential for producing electricity there.  Using the Plymouth University boat, Falcon Spirit, which came around the coast from Plymouth, a sonar measuring device was positioned on the river bed, just south of the Anchor Stone.  Francesca analysed the data and wrote up the project as part of her Master’s degree.  The strength and volume of flows in and out each day were measured for one month, to cover a full lunar cycle.

As part of our community engagement efforts, we hosted a meeting in June 2013 in Dittisham where interested members of the community could attend to hear more about the project, and take a trip out on a boat to view the site.  About 40 people came along to discuss what this might mean for the community, with many people in favour, in principle, of the idea.  For a write up of this day with photos, by one of our supporters, visit The Occam's Typewriter Irregulars blog: 

http://occamstypewriter.org/irregulars/2013/07/09/from-raleighs-pipe-to-tidal-power/

The results of Francesca Ford’s research were shared at an event hosted by TRESOC, in the Civic Hall in Totnes on 4th December 2013.  Unfortunately, Francesca determined that the average speed of the current at this particular location is not of sufficient speed to power an existing renewable energy device.  Although the speed of the current is quite high at times, the average speed – including tides and periods of slack water – shows that there is insufficient volume of water and speed of flow to warrant the installation of a device.

It is likely that at a future date, the technology develop such that the energy in low flow rates will be harnessed, opening up possibilities for Community Energy groups located along lots of rivers.  This might take up to seven years, but the industry is moving in this direction, making ever more sensitive devices.  

Just as importantly, our relationship with Plymouth University led to the entire MRE Masters cohort being involved in collaborative research, culminating in a presentation given at the same event (poster below): Investment Opportunities in Marine Renewable Energy in Devon and Cornwall.  Their research highlights 4 possible areas that appear promising.  Their presentation can be downloaded here (very large file size):
 

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/16415034/TRESOC_MRE_4DEC_v2.pptx

We look forward to hearing again from Plymouth University with more concrete proposals. Together we can make things happen.

Alix Riley, TRESOC

Totnes Community Wind Farm: no regrets

The founder members of the Totnes Renewable Energy Society were, and still are, an ambitious bunch of people.  The sheer scale of the challenges of dealing with climate change and fossil fuel depletion demand big solutions.  Nor can the laws of physics be denied, and the simple fact is that wind turbines offer the most abundant and cost effective source of renewable energy available to us.  

Finding suitable sites for wind turbines that meet planning and commercial criteria is a specialist job and a very great deal of professional expertise is needed to prepare a planning application.  And so, in 2008, soon after the formation of the Society in 2007, we contacted Dorset based wind developer, Infinergy, to ask if they would be interested to work with a local community owned renewable energy society to explore the possibility of wind power for Totnes and the surrounding parishes.

When Infinergy ran their wind prospecting software they found, as other wind developers have found before them; that the best local site for wind development, taking all planning criteria into account, is at Luscombe Cross.  There followed 18 months of careful and confidential negotiation with the Agent before all agreements were signed and the first TRESOC share issue was launched in 2010.  

Infinergy confirmed that, taking all planning criteria into consideration the best site for wind developmentIt has been a 6 year journey of discovery and steep learning curves for everyone involved.  From the first desktop studies to find the best site for a wind turbine, contacting the land agent, negotiating legal agreements and preparing the planning application.  We are rightly proud of the quality of the work that was done by TRESOC working in close partnership with a highly skilled and well-motivated team of wind development professionals.  Sir Jonathan Porritt, in his letter of support, describes the Totnes Community Wind Farm Planning Application as “one of the best designed and well supported applications we have seen”  Not good enough though for the local planning authority who turned it down on the grounds of the view.  We had steeled ourselves for rejection by the local authority but were not prepared Infinergy’s decision not to appeal.

The choice to develop a large scale wind energy as the first project amongst our portfolio was a conscious choice. It remains the most cost-effective way of generating renewable energy and we had identified the best suitable site in our locality with the help of the developer. This was an excellent investment opportunity for our members and would be a significant generator locally. 

The substantial public engagement that we provided raised the profile of the development locally. With the benefit of hindsight, this unintentionally hindered the project, as it enabled local opposition to organise and gain strength earlier than in a normal planning application. However we don't believe that this should have been done in a different way. The whole point of community renewable energy is to engage the local population and increase awareness whilst providing social and financial benefits.

Totnes Community wind farm has given us a good degree of experience from which we have learnt from. We want the embryonic community energy industry to gain from our insights, so if you have any questions please get in touch.

Ian Bright
Managing Director

Buffeted by political winds

This article was first published in August 2013, in the Transition Free Press.  Since it was written, TRESOC's industry partner, Infinergy, has determined that the commercial risk was too high to proceed with Totnes Community Wind Farm and protesters have joined forces to defeat any proposals in the area (with no distinction made as to whether they are private or community applications).  What a tragedy for clean energy in community ownership.

It’s increasingly likely that the UK will miss its European Union energy target, which is to generate 15% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2020.  The European Renewable Energy Council (EREC) ranks the UK a depressing 25th out of 27 states on progress towards the 2020 green energy target.

This doesn’t come as a huge surprise to the 500 members of Totnes Renewable Energy Society (TRESOC).  Nor did the rejection in February of our flagship project – two wind turbines in rural Devon.  We expected our local Planning Committee would reject our proposal.  We just didn't know what reason they would give.  In the end it was “substantial harm” to the view.

Rejection is the fate of most onshore wind farms in planning, but many are passed on appeal because planning inspectors conclude that they meet government policy and that local impact is not as great as councillors fear. 

We did take the bull by the horns with this proposal – 2.3 megawatt (MW) turbines are big. But it was the best site for wind in our area, we had chosen the most cost-effective technology and in theory the government has a policy of encouraging renewables. It seemed like a huge opportunity. 

Unfortunately, in June, the political wind changed direction.  In what felt like a huge blow to the government's vision for renewables and our attempts to power 2,500 households, the Communities Secretary, Eric Pickles, wrote to councils giving them extra reasons to reject wind proposals.  Lib Dem Energy Secretary, Ed Davey, stressed that there would be more financial benefits for communities who accepted wind farms, but the media seemed to revel in the news that additional obstacles were being created.

The Pickles letter doesn’t constitute new legislation, but it will cause confusion. In particular, it cuts across the National Planning Policy Framework, which is in favour of sensibly sited wind farms.  So which should take precedence?  Giving communities the right to have more of a say is a good thing, but it must come with the responsibility to contribute to society's wider, collective needs.  

In the words of the Centre for Sustainable Energy's Chief Executive, Simon Roberts: “Rights without responsibility is a recipe for short-term, self-interested decisions that pass the buck to others; someone or somewhere else will make up for any poorly informed, parochial decisions.  Yet this is what the Government seems to be doing with on-shore wind power; giving local views the upper hand over national interests in planning decisions on onshore wind farm proposals.”

Where does this leave TRESOC?  Buffeted certainly, but we’re not giving up.  Although we have only kilowatts of power production from our other schemes to show for huge amount of energy we’ve used to debate the pros and cons of onshore wind, we are now using knowledge gained and team resilience to move forward with the right solution for our wind project, and build our portfolio using a range of technologies including solar and river/tidal turbines.

It’s not all bad news – lobbying by community energy groups, including TRESOC, can work. In response to feedback on the type of financial incentive that works best for us, DECC is planning to increase the Feed-In Tariff threshold for community projects from 5MW to 10MW to enable larger installations to benefit.

Mostly, however, it's a real struggle to make progress on community renewables in the current political climate.  But if politicians are finding onshore wind complex, one wonders how they'll do when fracking companies start asking to blow up the countryside in search of gas.  Will fracking make wind seem more of a blast?

Jane Brady is Communications Director of TRESOC, www.tresoc.co.uk, and a member of Transition Town Totnes.

Do we need wind turbines and solar parks? Or should we just use less energy?

A frequent reason quoted for refusing or dismissing any new wind turbine applications, is that if we reduced demand for energy, then there would be no need to build any and we could carry on as we are. Is this a rational claim?

Firstly, there is still a growing need to produce electricity. Our current grid generation is based on fossil fuels, that are finite and becoming increasingly costly to source in the quantities required. So even in a basic economic sense, maintaining our vulnerability to foreign fuel markets that are becoming more and more competitive, is not sensible. What we need is a mix of sources, with a preference for local generation, to improve energy security.

Secondly, reducing demand is thought to be easier and faster than changing how we generate energy. The new Green Deal and ECO funding policy is designed to transform the energy efficiency industry in the UK. Our poor housing state, increasing fuel poverty and spiralling energy bills make these new mechanisms more and more vital. The reduction in costs for consumers and businesses can be a massive incentive and once a few pioneers in a street make the investment (e.g. external wall insulation), others will follow. Delay and media speculation has damaged the industry, but the drivers are growing and it will be only a matter of time until the step change takes hold.
The technologies involved in energy efficiency improvements take days or weeks to install, compared to months, and more likely years, for low carbon energy generation, so it's not a case of one or the other - both need to be tackled. We can't rely on either to deliver the savings required.

We should attempt to ensure is that the energy generation that does occur locally is directly benefiting the community. The best way to provide that is through local ownership - which is what TRESOC amongst the National Trust, Cooperatives UK, forum for the future, and many others, is campaigning for, in the Community energy manifesto. We have been making our voices heard at the heart of government and the signs and sounds from ministers are encouraging. Hopefully a community energy revolution is appearing as a viable alternative to the current stale condition.

Beyond Megawatts - the social significance of community energy

My generation and all of those following have little or no experience of blackouts. When we flick on a switch we expect the electricity to flow, with a lack of knowledge of where and how it is produced. As we become increasingly dependant on media and gadgets this reliance has hit record levels. If you were to ask a teenager today, to spend a few hours without electricity, the majority would be utterly incapable.

Modern life has distanced us from the production and impacts of what we rely on and in doing so, reduced how much we value it. This is particularly true for food, clothing, and electronics - but I want to focus on electricity.


One way to bridge this gap is through local generation. The idea being, if I can see electricity being generated, I am going to value it more. Add in the opportunity for people to not only view electricity being generated, but to directly benefit from it, and you get a sense of why community-scale renewable energy is such a powerful idea. From being dis-empowered uninterested consumers, we become active aware generators of electricity.


My enthusiasm for community energy first took hold when I read this and other scientific papers, but was reignited by a blog a read a few months ago. In short, community energy offers:

1. A huge opportunity for our local economy to reduce the leakage - money flowing out. Local people benefiting from local resources. 
2. Improves our awareness of where our electricity comes from. This helps us to value it more and conserve. 
3. The ability for communities to take responsibility for some of their energy use by generating rather than consuming and contribute to a stronger more resilient society. 

The current centralised national grid relies on a few large power stations, that are a large distance away, to keep the lights on. As our antique infrastructure struggles on, many power stations are being turned off - most recently Didcot coal power station in Oxfordshire. This looming gap of generation has to be filled somehow. Currently the easiest and cheapest option is onshore wind turbines. We want to retain the benefits locally, so Totnes Renewable Energy Society (TRESOC) was formed, with Totnes Community wind farm as its flagship project. There are other generation options available and we are actively investigating them.

We want to help build a renewable future at the community scale, which we can be proud of for years to come. There are strong economic and social benefits for us to cherish when we succeed.

Cultivating energy farmers

A 50kW turbine at a height of 30m has eased into the landscape in Rattery. Having sighted the structure from afar I decided to investigate via bicycle, which allowed me to fully appreciate the high elevation of the site. Standing underneath the blades spinning at full capacity there was definitely some sound, but the feeling that me most gripped was of wonder.

The rejected Luscombe Cross turbines are three times the size, but provide 46 times the generation capacity. Yet this turbine has caused no controversy. If we are at all  concerned about the growing generation gap, then surely the wrong decision was made.

Anyhow, the opportunity renewable energy offers to farmers is discussed in a recent article - "Is 2013 the year of the energy farmer?". Rising costs, horrific harvests and unsympathetic banks, made 2012 a year of hardship for many farmers. The need to protect against future energy price rises and a new  financial income stream, leaves the opportunity too good to refuse for many. Indeed there is a growing number of solar parks going through planning locally of some serious size - 13 hectares (5MW) and 15 hectares (8MW) within a few miles of each other near South Brent. A hectare is the area of Trafalgar Square in London or alternatively an International rugby pitch - in other words, big. Undoubtedly these renewable energy installations will have an impact on our countryside, but to deny farmers a rare opportunity in gloomy economic times does seem a little unfair. I maintain my reservations that I stated in a previous post: solar is highly variable (2012 was a bad year for solar); provides little or no energy in winter and at night, when we use most; and is still expensive and carbon intensive compared with other forms. However it will surely form part of a diverse set of renewable energy technologies that we need urgently. Furthermore, the two large solar parks in question, offer no opportunity for local ownership, and therefore a much lower proportion of the financial benefits. This is in direct contrast to the model that Totnes Renewable SOCiety (TRESOC) and the Community energy coalition is striving to publicise and celebrate - local people finding resources and sharing the benefits with local investors.

There is space for all scales of renewable energy to play their part in securing a renewable future locally. Farmers can help cultivate a renewable future for all.

Legacy or an historic view?

What will be the legacy we leave for our children, and our children's children?
We normally consider our legacy towards the end of our lives, but why not reflect continually throughout our existence? 

When we look down the trail of lives, will we be proud?

The Children's fire is an idea that I came across recently thanks to those at Embercombe. It states that no law or action can be taken that may harm the children (now and in the future). How would this impact the way you live your life and the decisions you make? What kind of society would not have this idea embedded at the heart of decision-making? 

When we evaluate the Landscapes officer report for Totnes community wind farm, particularly the huge value given to maintaining the view from sites of history and heritage, confusion sets in. We assume that conserving these views is a duty that must be upheld for future generations at all cost. Would your children prefer an historic view over a secure source of renewable energy? Will these views help keep their lights on for many years to come?  

I don't have the answers, but what I do believe is that we should make decisions with our children's rights in much higher regard. There is no doubt that the conservation of local history is an important task, but it must be set within the current context and with future needs in mind.

Totnes community wind farm offers us the opportunity to create a legacy to be proud of - that invests in our future and is part of the remedy for one of the most sinister diseases in modern life - myopia - also known as short-sightedness. 

"Children are one third of the population and all of our future", Panel for the Promotion of Child Health, 1981.

Dividing communities or taking responsibility?

There are two broad definitions of community:

• a geographically-based community
• and a community of interest.

The contentious nature of onshore wind turbines means that the they are often blamed for dividing  geographic communities. In the case of our development - Totnes Community Wind Farm - the opposition often seek to drive a wedge between Totnes and the parishes Harberton/ Harbertonford  - where the turbines will reside.

If the parishes of Harberton and Harbertonford were independent, the argument would have some justification. However, we are living in an increasingly inter-connected society, and therefore we are  reliant on other communities for our high standard of life. In energy terms, we impose the impact of living next to nuclear power stations, pylons, gas turbines, refineries, coal mines onto to other communities to maintain the status quo. Is this a fair imposition? We don't question it, because it is so embedded as acceptable in our society. Our addiction to the existing system, means that we ignore these inequalities - we forget the current and future victims, that may suffer for us. A conservative estimate puts the number of serious accidents (more than 5 fatalities) in the coal, oil and gas industries as 2592 (1970-2008) within the EU (10 times that in developing countries). All communities are liable for these hidden discrepancies.

Now I'm am not suggesting that the two turbines proposed will totally transform this inequality, but they are a step in right direction.

If we take the second definition and broaden our view of community, from small geographic differences to a more general, community of interest, the discussion becomes very different. It is in the interest of every community to secure a vibrant local economy and produce renewable electricity. As I have explained previously (in my first blog post/ letter) the smaller parishes do not have the resources available for such a substantial development, that produces enough electricity for 2500 homes. So as a joint community of interest we respond to the needs locally in any way we can.

If we widen the geographic boundaries, accept we share common interests, and take into account the current energy system has many less publicised victims, we come to very different conclusions.

Can we ignore wind and just use solar?

A frequent response from those opposing onshore wind is that we should use more solar energy as it has a lower impact. While I agree there is a huge potential for solar energy (PV and thermal), particularly in the South West, it is not a perfect solution. We live fairly far North, which means that in the winter months, when are energy use peaks, the energy from the sun is very low. We also use more energy at night - when there is no generation from solar.
There is also variability from cloud cover that can have an impact, which can be easily seen at the Civic hall and Leatside surgery in Totnes, with the live output (kW) shown on the screens.

You could argue that solar PV is much more variable than onshore wind, however it is far more predictable and reliable. I found a report on renewable energy targets for Devon completed by the University of Exeter which states:

"...one large 3MW wind turbine generates more electricity in a year (at 25% load/ capacity factor) than over 3000 domestic (2kW) PV arrays at a tenth of the capital cost" 

(NB. as the report is a year old, the price of the PV panels has come down since). 

This remains a staggering statistic, that should needs to be taken into account when analysing the different options. It also shows the difference between micro-generation of renewable electricity and that of large scale production. It is far more efficient to do it at a larger scale, but then you have to also take into account the larger impacts. This was also mentioned in my last post - 92 small turbines needed to produce as much as the two large turbines proposed in Totnes Community wind farm.

If we look at the renewable production of energy in 2011 from the 2012 DUKES report, there was an interesting change - wind and hydro performing much better than previous years (windier and wetter). There has also been a lot of media attention on the extreme weather observed in 2012 in recent reports. Given these developments it is surely better to use a diverse set of generation technologies, including onshore wind, so we can weather the 'perfect storm' of resource scarcity, extreme climatic events, retiring power stations and increased demand. All communities should be responsible for generating some of their energy and conserving their use. The scale of the challenge and the lack of time means we cannot afford to ignore any low carbon technology.

Windfarms - "pros and antis: it's disconcerting how decent they all seem..."

Last Friday TRESOC held a Christmas party in the civic hall in Totnes. Updating our members on our numerous projects, we then continued to the OSTAS - where TRESOC awarded specific members for their commitment by giving them a trophy of huge significance - a cabbage (Savoy, if you're interested). Then wine and cheese to end evening. 
I was having a discussion with one of the lucky winners - Dan Findlay - about our flagship project -Totnes Community Wind Farm (TCWF). One of the key aspects that seems to surround onshore wind projects, is the divisions it can create in the community - as well as the Government. This reminded me of an article I had read the previous week on the issue, which struck a chord:

"Pros and antis: it is disconcerting how decent they all seem....... Vexingly, the two sides of this debate do not organise neatly along opposite straits: it's not as though the antis are fighting for the landscape, while the pros are fighting for the economy. Everyone's a conservationist; everyone's trying to secure a long-term energy future......"

These observations have become more and more obvious to me, after the talking to people on both sides during the past year. Both sides agree on the a lot of things other than onshore wind, and often have the same priorities and motivations. It is quite ridiculous - I don't fall out with my friends because they use an Apple Mac computer rather than a PC to blog. The one difference is amplified, whereas the similarities are acoustic whispers. This is the case in many issues that trouble society, including the debate surrounding onshore wind. So when there are headlines from the media claiming a 'broken community' due to TCWF, I am perplexed. Why should neighbours that have been friendly for decades, fall out over one issue they disagree on? They didn't agree on everything before. 

Clearly it's a highly emotive issue, that touches the core of what we value, and often, becomes part of our identity. So when disagreements occur they are undeniably personal. People are genuinely worried and concerned about their standard of life. But, there needs to be some sense of proportion. Our sense of community and neighbourliness is of more value than any one issue. 

We all want a viable future for our fragile environment and society. When we look objectively at the problem of securing our low carbon energy future locally, we simply cannot afford to ignore our cheapest and most widely available resource - onshore wind. 

We need to acknowledge the many similarities between the opposing sides, and also the difficulties people are experiencing, in order to have better conversations. I think this quote from the same article sums up some of my sentiments: 

"We are still the Saudi Arabia of wind, but you have to imagine us as an oil-rich country with a very strong objection to the extraction of oil, for reasons that are absolutely self-evident to half our parliament (and our communities) and totally obscure to the other half."