A circular, for Save Our Unspoilt Landscape (SOUL), was headlined "Please help us to keep these monsters out of your back yard" and featured images of wind turbines on the front page and across the bottom of pages 2 and 3. Text on the first page of the circular claimed "There is clear evidence that these turbines will do enormous damage to the local environment, to the local economy and to the lives of local people. And there is also clear evidence from countries which have tried the wind power experiment proving that wind power generation is a hugely expensive and massively inefficient failure". On page 2 of the circular, text stated "No wind = no power. Wind speeds over 45 mph = danger = reduced power. Wind speeds over 56 mph = shut down = no power. This means that wind turbines are incredibly inefficient". Headline text in the next column stated "Will wind turbines reduce CO2 emissions? NO". Text on page 3 of the circular stated "This sprawling carpet of vast steel structures will need to be connected to the national grid, which will mean new powerlines, pylons and substations across our countryside. BUT the national grid can't cope with any more input from wind turbines at the moment. 'Wind Farm' builders are now being told it could be 10 yars before their turbines are connected to the grid. Yet still the rush to build goes on ... Surveys carried out in areas of Scotland, Cumbria and Wales where wind turbines have been built or are planned indicate that over 25% of visitors would not return to these areas".

Pendragon Consultants Ltd, on behalf of Force 9 Energy, challenged whether:
1. the claims "There is clear evidence that these turbines will do enormous damage to the local environment, to the local economy and to the lives of local people";
2. "there is also clear evidence from countries which have tried the wind power experiment proving that wind power generation is a hugely expensive and massively inefficient failure";
3. "This means that wind turbines are incredibly inefficient";
4. "Will wind turbines reduce CO2 emissions? NO";
5. "This sprawling carpet of vast steel structures will need to be connected to the national grid, which will mean new powerlines, pylons and substations across our countryside";
6. "the national grid can't cope with any more input from wind turbines at the moment" and
7. "Surveys carried out in areas of Scotland, Cumbria and Wales where wind turbines have been built or are planned indicate that over 25% of visitors would not return to these areas" were misleading and could be substantiated and
8. whether the image of the wind turbines along the bottom of pages 2 and 3 was misleading because it was an inaccurate representation.

Dear Mr Philips,

We represent the SOUL Steering Group, a group of like minded residents who formed a Group with the intention of preserving the English landscape. Mr Worlock, the Chairman of SOUL has forwarded to us your letter dated 19th May to respond to the Complaint raised by Pendragon Consultants Ltd, a Public Relations company ,on behalf of their client, Force 9 Energy, a company within the renewables industry with commercial interests in ensuring the installation of wind turbines.

We respectfully submit that our client’s leaflet does not fall within the remit of the ASA and that as such it is incompetent for the ASA to consider Force 9 Energy’s complaint.

SOUL Steering Group is a non-profit organisation. There is no reference either directly or indirectly within the CAP Code to the ability of the ASA having any jurisdiction to deal with a complaint such as that which is made by Force 9 Energy against our client.

The Code’s purpose is to “police” the written media and principally to ensure fairness by advertisers and marketers towards consumers. The Code has a particular role in relation to political parties. This specification demonstrates that the Code has been drafted to include and exclude particular dimensions of the British forms of communication and its contributors.

Groups such as SOUL are specifically excluded by the Code and with good reason. If groups such as our client were to be included within the “policing” of the ASA then any individual or group of individuals could be gagged by the ASA merely by expressing a written opinion.

It is essential in a free, democratic society that freedom of speech is maintained. It is the cornerstone of any democratic society and to seek to restrict what is an opinion on a matter of consummate public interest, would go some way to create a police state within the UK.

Article 10 of the Human Rights Act sets out the rights of the individual to freely express their opinion without interference by the State or any other third party.

ARTICLE 10
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

SOUL’s publication is not what the CAP Code was intended to regulate nor what was envisaged when the Human Rights Act became part of UK law .
We look forward to receiving your response.
Yours sincerely,
Levy McRae Solicitors

To ASA

21 June 2006

Dear Mr Phillips,

Re: Complaint about SOUL Newsletter from Pendragon Consultants and Force 9 Energy.

Further to your letter of 19 May 2006 regarding this complaint. I am responding on behalf of the SOUL Steering Group, which I chair. As you are aware, we did seek legal advice as to whether our Newsletter fell within your remit. The Steering Group has noted your letter of 19 June to Levy & McCrae, but both ourselves and our legal advisors still retain doubts as to whether or not the ASA is the right body to deal with information presented to the public in a Newsletter. Notwithstanding this, we do have extensive documentation in respect of the information presented and opinions expressed in our Newsletter and are happy to make this documentation available to you, which is all in the public domain.

The Steering Group have carefully considered the complaint. We feel that there is a general point that needs to be considered first, namely that there is a wide diversity of opinion (scientific, professional and lay) regarding the value of wind power. SOUL completely understands why developers will inevitably only put out information which supports the use of wind power. After all, they stand to make considerable sums of money if these wind power stations are built. Nevertheless, there is material in the public domain which calls into question the value of wind power (and, therefore, some of the claims made by developers). The SOUL Steering Group considers that it is only fair that local residents are also exposed to this material and this is what our newsletter was designed to do.

I have attached a large bundle of supporting documentation, in respect of our position, with this letter. Much of this is technical information and some of it is complex. The SOUL newsletter was essentially a distillate of this large mass of information, put in non-technical terms. I am sorry that this will involve much reading for you, but I have tried to highlight some of the key points in each document. I will now try and deal with each area of the complaint (as we understand it) in sequence and will refer to the enclosed documentation that supports our position, as required:

‘Wind power in the UK’: Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) report, May 2005.

We did not specifically comment on this SDC report in our Newsletter, but now that it has been mentioned we are happy to do so. As I am sure you are aware, there was considerable concern about the objectivity of this report when it was first published. The Renewable Energy Foundation (REF), in a press release on 19 May 2005 (Document A), called this SDC report “a stale compendium of wind industry special pleading”. Malcolm Keays (from the Oxford Institute of Energy Studies) produced a critical analysis of the SDC report in May 2005 (Document B) and stated that “the Commission ends up as just another cheerleader for wind power”. In his paper, Keays was highly critical of the way in which the SDC reached their conclusions. We (and many others) think that this SDC report can only be regarded as fundamentally flawed.

Effect of wind power stations on the local environment, local economy and local people.

The wind turbines in the proposed wind power stations will be 110 metres (360 feet) high. Currently, there are proposals to build 63 such turbines in one small area of rural North Northumberland bounded by the River Tweed to the north, the Cheviot Hills (a National Park) to the west, the Northumberland coast (an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty) to the east and Alnwick to the south. This is mainly an area of rolling agricultural lowland and structures of this height and in this number will inevitably have a major adverse visual impact on the environment. Indeed, even Force 9 Energy have accepted that this will be the case in their planning application for the Barmoor wind power station (Documents C and D).

It is difficult to see how the local economy will directly benefit from the construction of wind power stations. The turbines themselves are likely to be built overseas and, clearly, specialist construction workers will be needed to erect them in the UK. It seems unlikely that such specialist construction workers will be available locally and they will need to be brought in. Once built, there is unlikely to be the need for a large number of permanent local staff to maintain the turbines.

There is, however, evidence of a potential adverse effect on the local economy if these turbines are built in North Northumberland. The local economy is particularly fragile, having seen a steady reduction in agricultural employment. Indeed, only approximately 7% of local income is now generated from farming. Conversely, there has been a steady increase in tourism, which now accounts for 36% of the income generated in the Berwick district. Indeed, the Berwick Borough Local Strategic Partnership has estimated visitor numbers within the borough at 75,000 per day in the peak summer period (Document E). Growth in tourism is seen as the major area for economic growth in Berwick Borough (and in the county of Northumberland as a whole) and the BBLSP has a target of increasing visitor numbers to 100,000 per day in the summer months and trying to extend the ‘visitor season’ throughout the year. Any development that could put the expansion of the tourist industry in this area at risk would be disastrous economically.

There is evidence to suggest that visitors are put off from visiting areas where there are wind power stations. VisitScotland published a survey about the potential effect of wind power stations on tourism in Scotland in 2002 (Document F). They found that “as many as 26% of visitors claimed that they would be less likely to visit an area if a wind farm was developed there”. In addition, there was a general consensus amongst visitors that the visual impact was “felt to be sufficiently negative, that as far as possible wind farms should be sited in areas away from those popular with tourists – ideally there was a preference to avoid having to see them at all on their visit”.

A report was prepared by the NFO WorldGroup for the Wales Tourist Board on the ‘Potential impact of wind farms on tourism in Wales’ in 2003 (Document G). Of those surveyed, 67% disagreed with the statement that “it would be an added attraction if wind farms were located in popular tourist areas”. 22% of respondents would be “likely to avoid any parts of the countryside with wind farms” and 11% not return to an area for a further holiday if wind turbines were built there.

Cumbria Tourist Board (CTB) carried out surveys of tourism businesses in Cumbria in 2003/04 and of visitors to the area in 2005, regarding the impact of developing wind power stations. The results were given in the submission of the CTB to the Whinash planning enquiry (Document H) in April 2005. Of those surveyed, 54% of tourism businesses thought that wind power stations would be “visually intrusive and damaging to the landscape”; 39% felt that wind power stations would “deter visitors completely” and 42% thought that wind power stations would “detract from the visitor experience”. In the first survey of visitors, 15% of people aged over 50 (and this group comprises 40% of Cumbria’s visitor base) would “think twice about visiting the Lake District if the proposed wind turbines were built”. In a second survey of visitors, 19% would “avoid areas of countryside containing wind turbines”. A further 10% stated that they would visit the area less often. The CTB stated in their submission that “a reduction of visitors on this scale would have very damaging consequences for the tourism industry and the economy of Cumbria”. In view of the “significant harmful economic impact” of the proposed wind power station, the CTB opposed the application for the Whinash development.

For those local residents who live close to a wind power station, there are auditory as well as visual effects. In 2004, Van der Berg published a paper in the Journal of Sound and Vibration, which was reviewed by the REF in September 2004 (Document I). Significant noise was heard by local residents, particularly at night, up to 1.9 km from the wind turbines. The model used for assessing wind power station noise in planning applications in the UK is ‘ETSU-R-97’. There is now concern about this method and a critique from Bowdler in 2005 (Document J) is attached. Such noise may not only be unpleasant for those living close, but may have adverse health effects. A Working Party of the Academie Nationale de Medecine, in Paris, has recently reviewed data on the effects of wind turbines on human health (Document K). They have recommended that no further wind turbines (of 2.5 Mw or more) should be built less than 1500 metres from human habitation.

Perhaps the adverse effects on local residents can be best summarised by those who live close to an existing wind power station (Document L). Residents of the villages of Marton, Askam and Ireleth (in South Cumbria) have stated that: “The windfarm is noisy, it is a visual blight, it does create flicker shadow, it has resulted in very little benefit to the local economy, it has not resulted in an increase in tourism and negotiating with PowerGen Renewables and Wind Prospect has been a most unpleasant experience for all those involved. Simply put, we want our quality of life back…”

Evidence from other countries that wind power generation is expensive and inefficient.

Electricity cannot be stored in commercial quantities. Electricity generation has to match demand. Peak demand in the UK in 2004 was 61 Gigawatts (Gw) and to guarantee meeting this demand at any time, 80 Gw of conventional generating capacity was in operation (Digest of UK energy statistics; 2005). Conventional power stations are able to increase/decrease electricity generation in line with demand. Electricity can obviously only be generated from wind turbines when the wind is blowing strongly enough to turn the turbine (see next section)!

E.ON Netz Gmbh is a German company which operates the grid for over 40% of Germany’s installed wind capacity. They reviewed their experience in 2003 in Wind Report 2004 (Document M). In 2003, the maximum infeed of power was just under 80% of the installed wind speed capacity. The annual average infeed of electricity from wind turbines was only 16% of their theoretical maximum output. Although some electricity was being generated by these wind turbines for most of the year, for half the year the electricity infeed was less than 11% of the theoretical maximum output of the installed wind turbines. The report also notes that the “wind power infeed changes can occur in a relatively short time” and uses graphs of electricity demand and infeed to illustrate this.

E.ON stated in Wind Report 2004 that: “In order to guarantee reliable electricity supplies when wind power plants produce little or no electricity….traditional power stations must be available as reserve. The characteristics of wind make it necessary for these ‘shadow power stations’ to be available to an extent sufficient to cover over 80% of the installed wind capacity. This means that due to their limited availability, wind power plants cannot replace the usual power station capacities to a significant extent”.

This need for ‘back-up’ generators has cost implications. E.ON stated: “The massive increase in the construction of new wind power plants in recent years has greatly increased the need for wind-related reserve capacity in Germany. In 2003, costs amounting to around 100 million euro were incurred in the case of E.ON Netz alone.” E.ON also drew attention to the inadequacy of the existing grid infrastructure and highlighted the need for significant investment in the grid system to cope with electricity generated from wind.

In Wind Report 2005 (Document N), E.ON reviewed their operating experience in 2004. Installed wind capacity in their area rose by 12.8% from 6250 Megawatts (Mw) to 7050 Mw. The maximum infeed of power was around 85% of the installed wind capacity and the average annual infeed of electricity from wind turbines was just over 18% of their installed maximum capacity. For over half the year, the electricity infeed for wind was less than 14% of the theoretical maximum output of the installed wind turbines.

The issue of the need for ‘back-up’ capacity was reviewed and E.ON stated that, in 2004, two separate studies in Germany had investigated the size of contribution that wind power stations could make to guaranteed capacity within an electricity supply portfolio. Both studies came to virtually identical conclusions: “That wind energy currently contributes to the secure production capacity of the system, by providing 8% of its installed capacity”. However, as the number of wind power stations increases, the lower availability of wind power undermines the stability of the entire system to a greater extent.

In Wind Report 2005, E.ON revised upwards their estimate for the amount of traditional power stations that would be required as ‘back-up’ for wind power. They now state that “traditional power stations with capacities equal to 90% of the installed wind power capacity must be permanently online in order to guarantee power supply at all times”. More worryingly still, E.ON attempted to assess the situation in 2020 when Germany has a forecast theoretical maximum capacity from wind power of 48,000 Mw. They concluded that only 2000 Mw of traditional power production would be replaced by wind – the remainder of the traditional generating network would have to remain in operation to guarantee supply.

This experience (and Germany has the largest number of wind power stations in the world) is manifestly not that of an efficient electricity generating system, if the average annual output of electricity is only 16%-18% of the installed theoretical maximum generating output and if traditional power stations (with an output of 90% of the installed theoretical maximum output from wind) have to be kept permanently operating to maintain electricity supply.

These difficulties were recognised by Martin Fuchs (CEO of E.ON Netz Gmbh) in his annual press conference in June 2005 (Document O). He talked of the “wind integration challenge” because: “1) The wind blows, when it will. 2) The wind blows as it will – despite increasingly accurate forecasts, it is difficult to predict its actual strength. 3) The wind blows, where it will – and sadly, it does not blow where large quantities of power are required.” Mr Fuchs also revealed that 2,700 km of new power lines would be needed in Germany by 2020 to transmit this variable amount of wind power within the grid system. He stated that the total cost of this (depending on how the lines were to be built) would be anything between 3 billion euro and 20 billion euro!

The cost of electricity generation from wind power has also been studied in Ireland by ESB National Grid (Document P). This document reports studies which simulated Ireland’s generation system. The model studied, for estimating electricity generation costs, was of a system with a peak output of 6,500 Mw. With no wind power in the generation portfolio, annual generating costs were estimated to be 1.28 billion euro. With a maximum installed capacity of 2,500 Mw from wind (and the actual amount of electricity generated would, of course, be much lower), the annual generating costs would rise to 1.58 billion euro (an increase of 24% in generating costs alone). This report did not look at the potential additional costs of investment into transmission infrastructure (which the German experience indicates would be necessary), but did comment that “the cost of CO2 abatement using large levels of wind energy penetration appears high relative to other alternatives”.

Efficiency of wind turbines.

Electricity can only be generated by a wind turbine when the wind is blowing! If the performance of the Nordex N80 turbine (a 2.5 Mw turbine) is studied, electricity generation starts when the wind speed reaches 4 metres/second (m/s), which is approximately 9 mph (Document Q). When the wind speed is between 4 m/s and 14 m/s (approx 32 mph) the electricity output varies with wind speed. When the wind speed is between 14 m/s and 25 m/s (approx 56 mph) electricity output is maximum and constant. At wind speeds over 25 m/s, the turbine must be shut down for safety reasons. Some older turbines do operate at a reduced power output at wind speeds over 45 mph, also for safety reasons. Wind speeds are highly variable within the UK, but average 5-6 m/s in lowland areas and rise to 8-10 m/s in exposed uplands in the north and west. When the need for maintenance is added in, it can easily be appreciated that there is considerable variability in the amount of electricity generated by wind power stations (as the German experience clearly shows – see previous section).

The concept of Capacity (Load) Factor allows an attempt to be made to analyse this variability. Capacity factor is defined as the actual power output of a wind turbine over a given period (typically one year) as a percentage of the theoretical maximum output of the turbine over the same period of time. In other words, if a wind turbine with a theoretical maximum output of 2 Mw had a capacity factor of 25%, it would have generated 0.5 Mw of electricity on average. Data has been collected for many years from Denmark and Germany, where there is considerably more experience with generating electricity from wind than in the UK. Over the last few years, the Danish capacity factor has averaged around 20% and the German capacity factor has averaged 15-17%.

In the March 2006 issue of Energy Trends (Document R), the DTI analysed UK onshore wind capacity factors between 1998 and 2004. The average capacity factor for the whole of the UK over this period was 29%. There is considerable regional variability, from the lowest average capacity factor of 21% in North East England to the highest of 36% in Northern Ireland. The capacity factor for a modern gas fired conventional power station is of the order of 75%-90%. Electricity generation from wind power is, therefore, considerably less efficient when compared with conventional generators.

Wind power and CO2 emissions

This was the subject of a detailed analysis by White in 2004 (Document S) and this paper merits thorough reading. Whilst it is true that electricity from a wind power station is free of CO2 emissions at the point of generation, the national emissions picture is considerably more complicated. It is necessary to consider the extent to which wind generated power can displace conventionally generated power from the total electricity supply system on a minute by minute basis. Wind generated power is inevitably variable and unpredictable. However UK consumers require guaranteed power on demand and, as stated earlier, 80 Gw of conventional generating capacity is currently in operation to guarantee electricity supplies.

Integrating wind-generated power into the UK system is not just about shutting down conventional power stations when the wind is blowing. Starting up and shutting down power plant can take minutes or hours, depending on the type of plant, while power may be needed in second or minutes. Any calculation of CO2 emission reduction must take into account the amount of conventional generating capacity that has to be kept in varying states of readiness to meet demand. In practice, significant capacity has to be kept operating and synchronised to be available for rapid response, which essentially means fossil-fired capacity operating in parallel with wind. This supporting capacity will be operating below its optimum efficiency and such operations will produce more CO2 per kWh than if plant operations were optimised. The more wind capacity that is introduced, the more of this lower efficiency plant will be required to operate on part-load, with increased CO2 emissions.

As White pointed out, data is available from some of the power generators and equipment manufacturers showing an increase in CO2 emissions as a result of any decline in generating efficiency with reduced load. Indeed, in an address (Document T) to the Institution of Mechanical Engineers in 2003, David Tolley (Commercial Manager of Innogy plc) described the experience of one UK generator (Innogy) in accommodating a modest amount of electricity generated from wind into its system and stated “….it has been estimated that the entire benefit of reduced emissions from the renewables programme has been negated by the increased emissions from part-loaded plant….”

In 2005, the Environmental Change Institute (ECI), of the University of Oxford, produced a report (Document Q) for the DTI on the characteristics of the UK wind resource and the implications of these for security of electricity supply. The ECI noted that the average capacity factor for wind in the UK at that time was 27%. Despite this, the authors then used a capacity factor of 35% in their subsequent calculations. The use of this figure is somewhat dubious as even the most up to date data (see previous section) only gives an average capacity factor for the UK of 29%!

The authors used as a model an electricity network with a peak demand of 70Gw. They considered that 84Gw of conventional capacity would be required to guarantee meeting demand (the 2004 UK situation was peak demand of 61 Gw with generating capacity of 80 Gw). Using the inflated capacity factor of 35%, they stated that 13 Gw of wind power capacity would be needed to generate an average of 5.3 Gw of electricity (this would require 6500 wind turbines of 2 Mw maximum output). The ECI report stated that 13 Gw of installed wind capacity would allow 3 Gw of conventional generating capacity to be retired – meaning that 81 Gw of conventional generating capacity would need to be retained and kept in operation. In other words, even with this huge number of turbines in operation, 96.4% of conventional power stations would need to be kept in operation. This is the background to the section on page two of our Newsletter.

However, this report from the ECI seems overly optimistic when examined further. If the up to date UK average capacity factor of 29% is used, 20 Gw of installed wind power capacity would be needed to generate (on average) 5.8 Gw of electricity – just under 10% of current UK peak demand. This would mean that 10,000 wind turbines of 2 Mw output would be needed. As indicated above, the German experience suggests that the more wind power stations are brought into operation, the more ‘back-up’ conventional capacity is required. The figure of retaining 96.4% of conventional power stations is likely to be an underestimate and more conventional generating capacity would need to be retained in operation. Much of this conventional capacity would be operating at low output/efficiency for part of the time, with powering up and down to meet electricity demand. This will result in increased production of CO2 per kWh.

The DTI reviewed CO2 emissions by source in Energy Trends in March 2006 (Document U). In 2005, the UK produced a total of 157.4 million tonnes of carbon (MtC). Electricity generation from power stations accounted for 46.8 MtC (29.7%) of this. Using the model of 20 Gw of installed wind power producing 5.8 Gw of electricity, it is likely that approximately 97% of conventional power stations would need to be kept in operation. Using the 2005 data, if a 3% reduction in CO2 emissions from power stations could be achieved with such a massive wind power station building programme, total UK CO2 emissions would fall to 156 MtC (a reduction of 0.9%) with power generation accounting for 45.4 MtC (29.0% of total CO2 emissions). If it were possible to achieve a 5% reduction in CO2 emissions from power stations, total UK CO2 emissions would fall to 155.1 MtC (a reduction of 1.5%) with power generation accounting for 44.5 MtC (28.7% of total CO2 emissions). This is what we stated in the first paragraph of page two of our Newsletter – that wind power will not reduce our CO2 emissions by more than 1-2%.

This figure is close to the DTI’s own estimate (see Document A) that attainment of the 2010 renewables target (of generating 10% of electricity from renewable sources) would achieve a reduction of carbon emissions in the UK of only 2.5 MtC (approximately 9.2 million tonnes of CO2). That is just 1.7% of UK emissions of CO2 (550 million tonnes) and 0.0004% of global CO2 emissions (24,000 million tonnes). Such a massive (and expensive) wind power station programme in the UK could not, therefore, have any effect on global warming – which is often stated (by developers) as the rationale for building wind power stations in the UK.

Connection of wind power stations to the national grid.

It is surely self-evident that any wind power station will require connection to the national grid, so that any electricity produced can be distributed. SOUL has not come across any suggestion that such connections from power station to grid system will be by underground cables and, therefore, new overhead transmission lines will clearly be required. This is recognised by Force 9 Energy in their application to build a wind power station at Barmoor (Document C).

The size of the overhead transmission line will obviously be determined by the amount of power it will have to carry – the more wind power stations that there are in a small area, the bigger the transmission line linking them with the main grid system. The length of any overhead transmission line will be determined by the distance from any wind power station(s) to the main grid system. It is already clear that in Scotland, where much of the UK wind power station development is currently taking place, there are already major problems with the grid infrastructure (Document V). Existing lines are having to be upgraded and new grid capacity built. Some developers have been told that it may be 2016 before they are connected to the grid system.

The need to improve and enlarge grid infrastructure has also been recognised in other countries. As indicate above E.ON Netz has commented on this very point in Wind Report 2004 and Wind Report 2005. Their CEO has stated that 2,700 km of new transmission lines will be needed in Germany by 2020 to cope with the projected number of wind power stations. It seems inevitable that if more wind power stations are built in England and Wales, then there will also need to be upgrading of existing lines and the building of new grid capacity in both countries.

Surveys on effect of wind power stations on tourism.

This has, I think, already been dealt with in the second section above (pp 2-4). The relevant documents in respect of the surveys carried out in Scotland, Cumbria and Wales are attached. There is remarkable consistency in all three surveys, in that a significant number of visitors to an area (approximately 20%-30%) say they would either not return or would visit less often if wind power stations were built.

Background picture across bottom of pages 2 and 3 of the newsletter.

Clearly, this is a background image only and the important part of pages 2 and 3 is the text. The photograph was taken from the south-west boundary of Barmoor Castle Caravan Park, looking across the southern half of the proposed site of the Barmoor wind power station towards the Cheviot Hills. The Cheviot is the highest hill, on the right lower border of page 2. Barmoor Castle lies approximately 2 km to the north-east of the site of the proposed Barmoor wind power station and is marked on the map in the top right hand corner of page 3 of the Newsletter. The images of the wind turbines that have been overlaid on this image are not supposed to represent the exact sites of the proposed wind turbines at Barmoor and, indeed, we made no claim to this effect in our Newsletter. This Newsletter was produced before the detailed site maps were available to us giving the exact locations of the proposed turbines. The objective of this background image was to give local residents an idea of the size of the turbines. Care was taken to ensure that the images of the wind turbines were as close to the correct scale as possible, so that a reasonable impression could be gained of the size of these turbines (over 360 feet high). The line drawing on page 1 is there for the same reason – to try to relate the size of a turbine to everyday objects. Given the huge cost of producing computer-generated photomontages, this is the best we could do.

Conclusion

I hope that this letter and your review of all the attached documentation will convince you that there is material in the public domain which supports the opinions expressed in the SOUL Newsletter. As I stated above, SOUL recognises that there is a diversity of opinion about the value of wind power and that it is inevitable that developers will only use material favourable to their case. However, we believe that it is entirely reasonable for us to put forward the opposite point of view and to make local residents aware of the information which supports our position. It is obviously not possible to put all the detailed scientific and technical data in a Newsletter, but we did give details, on page 4 of the newsletter, of websites where the more detailed information could be found.

If there is any further clarification I can give you, particularly in respect of the attached documentation, please get back in touch with me.

Yours sincerely
Peter H Worlock
Chairman, on behalf of the SOUL Steering Group.

Schedule of documents accompanying response from SOUL to ASA.

Document A: Renewable Energy Foundation press release (of 19 May 2005),
commenting on SDC report ‘Wind power in the UK’.
www.ref.org.uk

Document B: Critique by Malcolm Keays (Oxford Institute of Energy Studies)
of SDC report (May 2005).
www.countryguardian.net/OIES%20comment_0605.pdf

Document C: Non-technical summary of Environmental Statement prepared
by Force 9 Energy for their planning application for a wind power
station at Barmoor (February 2006).

Document D: Pages 6-29 to 6-31 of the full Environmental Statement prepared
by Force 9 Energy for their planning application for a wind power
station at Barmoor (February 2006).

Document E: Berwick Borough Local Strategic Partnership,
Community Plan 2005-2015.

Document F: Summary of VisitScotland investigation into the potential impact
of wind farms on tourism in Scotland (2002).

Document G: Pages 19-21 of investigation into potential impact of wind farms
on tourism in Wales (prepared by NFO WorldGroup for Wales
Tourist Board 2003).

Document H: Statement of Cumbria Tourist Board to the Planning Inquiry for
the Whinash wind farm (April 2005).

Document I: Renewable Energy Foundation press release (of 20 September 2004),
commenting on paper by Van der Berg (‘Effects of the wind profile at night
wind turbine sound’) published in Journal of Sound and Vibration (2004)
277: 955-970.
www.ref.org.uk

Document J: Critique by Dick Bowdler (New Acoustics) of ETSU-R-97, July 2005.
www.countryguardian.net

Document K: Report of a working party of the Academie Nationale de Medecine on
‘Le retentissement du fonctionnement des eoliennes sur la sante de l’homme’. March 2006.

Document L: Home page of Marton, Askam & Ireleth Windfarm Action Group
(MAIWAG) website.
www.windfarm.fsnet.co.uk

Document M: Wind Report 2004, E.ON Netz Gmbh.
www.eon-energie.de

Document N: Wind Report 2005, E.ON Netz Gmbh.
www.eon-energie.de

Document O: Statement of Martin Fuchs (CEO of E.ON Netz Gmbh) at his annual
press conference, June 2005.
www.eon-energie.de

Document P: Executive summary of report on ‘Impact of wind power generation in
Ireland on the operation of conventional plant and the economic
Implications.’ ESB National Grid, February 2004.

Document Q: Report on ’Wind power and the UK wind resource’ prepared by
Environmental Change Institute (University of Oxford), 2005.
www.eci.ac.uk/renewables/ukwind

Document R: UK onshore wind capacity factors 1998-2004. In Energy Trends,
March 2006 (Department of Trade and Industry).
www.dti.gov.uk/files/file27084.pdf

Document S: Report on ‘Reduction in carbon dioxide emissions: estimating the potential
Contribution from wind power’, by David White. Renewable Energy
Foundation, December 2004.
www.ref.org.uk

Document T: NETA: the consequence; a keynote address. Given by David Tolley to the
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, January 2003.

Document U: Carbon dioxide emissions and energy consumption in the UK. In Energy
Trends, March 2006 (Department of Trade and Industry).
www.dti.gov.uk/files/file27084.pdf

Document V: Transcript of article in The Sunday Times, 5 February 2006.

Dear Mr Philips,

Re: ASA Draft Report

Thank you for your letter of 4 September, enclosing your Draft Report. The SOUL Steering Group have reviewed this in some detail. Thank you for giving us some extra time to respond. You will appreciate that your Draft Report raises issues that go beyond the simple issue of our Newsletter and, therefore, we will try to make this a comprehensive response. There are some general issues that we will raise and then we will go through the specific areas of the complaint in detail. In the second section of this letter, we will refer to the documents sent to you with my letter of 21 June (Documents A to V) and would suggest that you have those documents available to you. We also enclose additional documentation with this letter (Documents 1 to 8) and ask that you have those available as you go through this letter.

The first point that we must reiterate is that the SOUL Steering Group does not accept that this issue falls within your jurisdiction. The Collins English Dictionary defines advertisement as: “any public notice, as a printed display in a newspaper, short film on television, etc., designed to sell goods, publicize an event, etc.,”. Our Newsletter does not meet any of the definitions laid down in Section 1.1 of the Code of Advertising Practice. SOUL does not meet the definition of marketer as laid down in Section 1.3.g of the CAP. SOUL is not trying to sell or market any product, but is a voluntary group fighting a planning application - acting politically within our democratic framework to try to persuade our District Councillors to oppose Government policy and refuse this application. If anything, our Newsletter would fall into Section 1.2.j of the CAP as public relations material about a political campaign.

The CAP and the ASA were not designed to adjudicate in this area, but are there to ‘police’ the written and broadcast media in respect of selling goods and services to consumers. As your website makes clear, your job is to protect consumers and the vast majority of the complaints you investigate come from consumers. We do not consider that it is part of your remit to help commercial companies trying to ‘gag’ those who hold differing views about their commercial activities. As we have already pointed out to you, we consider that Article 10 of the Human Rights Act covers our right to express our opinion (“1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and to impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.”).

In your letter of 4 September, you state: “…the ASA does not adjudicate on matters of opinion: it is matters of fact with which we are concerned…”. There does, therefore, need to be clarity as to what is meant by the word “fact”. Collins English Dictionary gives a definition of: “1) an event or thing known to have happened or existed. 2) a truth verifiable from experience or observation. 3) a piece of information.” It must be appreciated that in the world of science/technology, knowledge is constantly improving and truth is a dynamic concept. We know as ‘facts’ that the Battle of Hastings took place in 1066 and that Charles Dickens wrote David Copperfield. These ‘facts’ will not change with the passage of time.

However, this is not the case in science/technology. To take an example from the field of Medicine, 25 years ago it was held as a ‘fact’ that gastric/duodenal ulcers arose from over production of gastric acid. Major operations were performed to excise ulcers or to selectively divide the nerves controlling gastric acid production. Pharmaceutical companies around the world invested millions of dollars developing a whole family of drugs to selectively reduce gastric acid production. Then, two Australian researchers discovered that gastric and duodenal ulcers arise after a bacterial infection of the intestinal wall and can be cured with a one week course of simple antibiotics. This is the way that science and technology works: as new knowledge comes on the scene, the old ‘truths’ are overturned.

In the world of science and technology, it is the norm for there to be opposing views on a subject and both sides are entitled to put forward their opinion supported by their interpretation of the scientific data. With time, experience and the availability of more data a consensus emerges which remains the given ‘truth’ until new knowledge comes on the scene to cast doubt on the perceived wisdom. The views expressed in our Newsletter can be supported by review of the published data and observations in the field of power and energy. As we will attempt (again) to show you, they are not unique to SOUL and are held by a significant number of people including many in the engineering world. They may be views that the Government, Force 9 and yourselves do not like to hear, but they are valid, supported by scientific data and we believe that we are entitled to put them forward in the debate on an issue of major public interest. Local newspapers all over the country regularly put similar information (from the same sources) into their articles and express similar opinions to our own without any problem. We consider that it is iniquitous that an attempt should be made to try and silence a legitimate protest group.

SOUL is concerned that when assessing the complaints, you have not given due weight to the analysis we (and other interested parties, as sent to you in the accompanying documents) have performed. You have, presumably, reviewed the documentation yourself and seem to have come to a different opinion as to what they mean. You then prefer your opinion (or interpretation, if you prefer) of a given set of data to ours. It is entirely unreasonable for you to assume that your opinion/interpretation is inevitably correct and then imply that your position represents a ‘fact’. It is quite appropriate to have a reasoned scientific/technological debate about the relevant information and data, but SOUL is not alone in our interpretation of the data and our views are clearly legitimate in this debate. It must be recognised that the debate about electricity generation from wind power will proceed for some time and will only be resolved as more data/observations become available.

We will now try and deal with each of the complaints in turn. Please bear in mind that the Newsletter was produced to give local residents some background information about the proposed developments in North Northumberland and about electricity generation from wind in general. It was not specifically about the proposed development at Barmoor and, indeed, information about the planning application was on the back page – away from the general information about wind power. We are concerned that both you and Force 9 are misinterpreting the general statements on pages 2 and 3 as being completely specific to the Barmoor proposal.

1) Effect of wind power stations on the local environment, local economy and local people.

SOUL is concerned about the all of the proposed developments of wind power stations in North Northumberland and South-east Scotland. Since we wrote to you in June, another power company has indicated that they wish to build turbines in this area and there are now plans for 69 turbines (each over 110 metres high) in this small area. In addition, further developments are proposed just over the border. If you go to www.windbyte.co.uk/sites you will find detailed maps of the proposed developments locally. This area, north and south of the River Tweed, is rolling agricultural lowland and everyone accepts that these structures will have an adverse visual impact on the environment – even the developers! The only argument is how severe it will be.

You imply in your letter that the visual impact of the proposed Barmoor wind power station would not be adverse. You must understand that the whole of the Visual Impact Assessment required in the planning process is concerned about the adverse effect of any development. If anyone thought there was a positive visual impact from these developments, the arguments would not be taking place. We can send you all 678 pages of the Planning Application for the proposed development at Barmoor (and the other ones from the area) if you wish, but can assure you that the vast bulk of this deals with the visual impact and Force 9’s attempts to suggest that this will only be major close to the development. We can also, if you wish, send you a copy of the Visual Impact Assessment that SOUL have commissioned, which draws attention to the flaws in the Force 9 assessment. However, to imply that there will not be an adverse visual impact from these developments is not a sustainable position.

There is data to suggest the effect on the local economy will be adverse. In 2004, the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors carried out a survey of its members. 60% of them stated that “wind farms decrease the value of residential properties where the development is within view”. The report concluded that “once a wind farm is completed, the negative impact on property values continues, but becomes less severe after two years or so after completion”. The significance of this lies in the fact that rising house/land prices are a reliable indicator of the economic growth of an area. Reduced house prices and land values inevitably indicate reduced economic activity.

It is also, we think, unhelpful to dismiss so cavalierly the data from three of the largest tourist boards in the UK (Scotland, Wales and Cumbria). The data from all three is consistent in that over 25% of visitors sampled said that they would visit tourist areas less often (or not at all) if wind power stations were built there. Cumbria Tourist Board calculated (at best) a loss of 1 million visitors and £75 million to the local economy. This data was such as to persuade them to oppose the Whinash development. The view of such a major player in the UK tourism industry cannot be ignored. Most wind power stations built so far have been in remote parts of the UK away from the main tourist areas and it is only now that planning applications are coming in for developments close to or in major tourist areas. Conwy Council has recently objected to the development of a wind power station offshore at Llandudno, partly because of the potential effects on tourism (Document 1) and the Chairman of Northumberland Tourism has just called for an independent enquiry because of his concerns that the building of wind power stations in Northumberland will deter visitors from coming to our area (Document 2).

Inevitably, therefore, there is a lack of data about the actual long term effects on tourism as these developments have yet to occur in large numbers in major tourist areas. However, there are enough indications to show that the effects on an area highly dependant on the tourist trade for local income could be significant.

We have drawn your attention to concerns about the effects of noise on those living close to wind turbines (Documents I and F), but this does not seem to worry you. We have also drawn your attention to a report from France regarding the possible adverse effects on health from wind turbines and the recommendation from the French Academy of Medicine that no more turbines should be built within 1.5 km of dwellings until further research is done. The statement from those residents living close to a wind power station in Cumbria cannot be summarily dismissed. They are, after all, currently living next to wind turbines (which you and we do not, at present) and can thus be expected to give a real human dimension to the difficulties faced by those living close to such developments. They are, after all, simply giving the ‘truth’ of their experience and your letter of 4 September suggests that it is such ‘facts’ that concern you.

Finally, there is the issue of local employment as a result of the building of a wind power station. You criticise SOUL for not demonstrating that labour would have to be imported to build such stations. These turbines are built in Denmark or Germany and are then shipped to the UK. There are no construction companies in North Northumberland that specialise in wind turbine construction so expertise will have to be brought in. The maintenance of the turbines will be done by the manufacturers. We cannot find any data to show that these developments create significant long-term employment in an area and are, therefore, entitled to make that point.

2) Evidence from other countries that wind power is expensive and inefficient.

We do have to ask you to read again Documents M, N and O. Your letter of 4 September seems to imply that because you could not find the word ‘failure’ in the reports, our assessment of the data presented was incorrect. We submit that from a scientific point of view, it is entirely reasonable for us to analyse the published data and come to a view as to whether or not a particular system is a success or a failure. We enclose two further documents for your attention: the submission from the Renewable Energy Foundation to the 2006 Energy Review (Document 3) and a paper from White in 2004 reviewing the Danish experience with wind power (Document 4).

The submission from the REF is long and detailed, but we would ask that you read it thoroughly as you will see that this report echoes our views in many areas and you will be able to cross-reference their points with the primary sources they have indicated. We can only endorse their view that the experience from Germany and Denmark has to be considered as significant and we draw your attention to pages 25-32 in particular.

The data and the views published by E.On Netz have major importance as this company has the largest experience in the world of trying to integrate electricity generated from wind turbines into a grid system. We will not repeat everything we have already stated in our letter of 21 June or what is stated in the REF submission, but ask that you read it carefully.

However, by 2020 it is estimated that there will be 48000 Megawatts (Mw) of installed wind turbine capacity in Germany, but that this will only allow 2000 Mw of conventional generating capacity to be replaced – the rest will have to be maintained in operation to guarantee reliable electricity supplies at all times. The current generating capacity in Germany is 125000 Mw (125 Gigawatts) and this will inevitably have increased by 2020. This means that, at best, this massive programme of building wind power stations will only allow 1.6% of Germany’s current conventional generating capacity to be retired. The fiscal arrangements to subsidise wind power in Germany may allow companies such as E.On Netz to make a profit from this, but from a scientific and technological point of view such a programme can only be regarded as a failure – no matter whether the word ‘failure’ appears or not.

It is also instructive to review the Danish experience (Documents 3, 4 and 5). Although wind turbines in Denmark have the capacity to generate 20% of the country’s electricity demand, Denmark suffers from the intermittent nature of wind electricity generation. She has cable connections with Norway, Sweden and Germany and is able to export electricity when the wind is blowing and import electricity when the wind does not blow (a situation not available to the UK). Unfortunately, the wind frequently blows when demand is low and in 2003, 84% of electricity produced from wind had to be exported. In 2003, Danish electricity consumers effectively subsidised Norway and Sweden for the privilege of operating wind power stations to the sum of DKr1 billion. Danish electricity was amongst the most expensive in Europe. Again, although the word ‘failure’ does not appear in print, the Danish programme cannot be regarded as a success.

3) Efficiency of wind turbines.

We do not consider the DTI to be unbiased here. It is responsible for pursuing Government policy and there is concern about the accuracy of many of its statements/publications (we refer you to pages 33 to 47 of Document 3). You have not sent us the publication you refer to from the DTI. However, what is indisputable is that wind turbines have a lower capacity factor (actual power output of a generator over a given period compared to the theoretical maximum output of the generator over the same period) than conventional power stations. The average capacity factor for wind turbines in the UK is 29%. Modern gas fired power stations have capacity factors of the order of 75%-90%. In practical terms, there is no debate amongst power engineers that electricity generation from wind is inefficient, because of the inherent variability in wind (no wind, no power), compared to conventional power stations which can run continuously. The problems associated with this inherent variability are amply demonstrated in the documents sent to you (Documents M, N, Q, and S; together with Documents 3, 4 and 5). We submit that your response is using semantics to avoid the obvious.

4) Wind power and CO2 emissions.

Can we ask you to return to Document U (Carbon dioxide emissions and energy consumption in the UK). Table 1 gives the net CO2 emissions in the UK. In 2000 these were 149 million tonnes of carbon per year (MtC/Yr), 153.1 in 2001, 148.6 in 2002, 151.8 in 2003, 152.5 in 2004 and 153.0 in 2005. In other words, there has been a slow increase in CO2 emissions since 2000. For power generation the figures were 42.4 MtC/Yr in 2000, 45.2 in 2001, 44.0 in 2002, 46.5 in 2003, 46.5 in 2004 and 46.8 in 2005. Again, a steady rise in CO2 emissions since 2000.

By July 2005, there were 1316 wind turbines in the UK (Document 5) with a theoretical maximum electricity generating capacity of 1100Mw. The introduction of increasing numbers of wind power stations over the previous five years had, therefore, no effect on reducing CO2 emissions from the UK – based on the DTI’s own data.

You cannot summarily dismiss Document T. This was a paper read at a major international meeting by the Commercial Director of a UK energy producer and subsequently published by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. It is quite clear what Innogy’s experience had been.

In May 2004, Elsam (the Jutland power generator) stated at a meeting of the Danish Wind Energy Association with the Danish Government that increasing wind power does not decrease CO2 emissions (Document 4). This data also reinforces the lack of success (or, perhaps, the term ‘failure’ could be used) of the Danish wind energy programme.

SOUL was, therefore, quite correct to say in March 2006 (the time of the publication of the Newsletter) that wind power had not produced a reduction in CO2 emissions in the UK. The best Government estimate is that if the 2010 target of generating 10% of electricity is met, then a reduction of 1.7% of UK emissions of CO2 could be achieved. SOUL (and many others) are concerned that this optimistic. If it were possible to achieve a reduction of 3% in CO2 emissions from power generation by retiring conventional plant as wind power generation increases, we think it might be possible to achieve a 0.9% reduction in overall UK CO2 emissions. However, the available data does not suggest that the major wind power station building programme envisaged in the UK will produce a significant reduction in UK CO2 emissions.

5) Connection of wind power to the National Grid

In our Newsletter (on page 3) we did not specifically refer to the Barmoor development. When you read the Newsletter, you will see that we make general observations on pages 2 and 3 regarding electricity generation from wind power and do not refer specifically to Barmoor. Indeed on the front page, we specifically draw attention to all the developments being proposed for North Northumberland.

It is not sustainable for you to argue that there will be no requirement for investment in grid infrastructure. The experience from Germany clearly indicates massive investment is needed when electricity generation capacity from wind is increased (Documents M, N and O). In 2004, Ofgem approved investment of £560 million pounds by Scottish Power and Southern Energy (Document 6) to build a new overhead power line between Beauly (in Inverness-shire) and Denny (near Falkirk).

In July 2005, the Renewable Energy Foundation submitted evidence to the Royal Society of Edinburgh (Document) on Issues for Scotland’s Energy Supply (Document 7). On page 5, the REF noted the recent confirmation from National Grid Transco of the scale of applications from wind power developers for connection to the National Grid in Scotland and tried to estimate the cost of this.

In the Daily Telegraph of 31 July 2006 (Document 8), there was an article reporting the financial guarantees that National Grid Transco were asking developers to put up to guarantee connection to the grid and noted that NGT had stated it would also have “spend money to further increase the bulk transfer of power from the north to the south”.

Sharman (Document 5) has also identified the problem with generating electricity from wind in the North and West of the UK and then having to transport this electricity to the South and East. He concludes: “the planning and budgeting procedures for getting Scottish wind power to consumers in England do not appear to be adequate”. All these documents appear to confirm that there will be difficulties with connection to the National Grid and that significant investment in grid infrastructure will be needed to move this electricity around the UK. Our statement that “new powerlines, pylons and substations” will be required is factually correct. Clearly, the location of such structures will depend where wind power stations eventually end up being built.

6) Surveys on effect of wind power stations on tourism.

Can we ask you please to return to Documents F, G and H. In their survey, VisitScotland found that 26% of visitors claimed that they would be less likely to visit an area with a wind power station. In the survey carried out for the Wales Tourist Board, 22% of respondents said they would avoid any parts of the country with wind power stations. In the survey performed for Cumbria Tourist Board in February 2005, 19% of visitors would avoid areas with wind turbines and a further 10% said that the presence of wind turbines would mean they would visit less often (a total of 29% of visitors affected). If the data from the three surveys are combined, the average number of visitors who would be deterred from visiting areas of the countryside with wind power stations would be 26% and this figure is completely in accord with what is stated in our Newsletter.

7) Background picture across pages 2 and 3 of the Newsletter.

We are concerned here that the ASA is getting involved in expressing an opinion, rather than dealing with fact. I am not sure if you or any of your staff have visited the site of the proposed wind power station at Barmoor, but it is a fact that this photograph was taken from the south-western boundary of Barmoor Castle Caravan Park, looking across the southern half of the site of the proposed development towards Cheviot. It is a fact that the representations of the wind turbines overlaid on the photograph are to scale. It is your opinion that they are a misleading representation and you have no basis on which to assume that “readers were likely to assume that the image was intended as an exact representation”. Given the way in which they are clearly overlaid on a photograph, it is just as reasonable to assume that readers would see them as there to give an idea of the height of the turbines in relation to the local environment. SOUL is concerned about your apparent bias in favour of the complainant.

Summary

SOUL remains of the view that it is not appropriate for the ASA to deal with this complaint. The fact that you have dealt with similar complaints before does not negate our opinion that this lies outwith your own terms of reference.

SOUL is concerned that while you state that the ASA is only concerned about fact and not opinion, that you have misunderstood the nature of scientific/technological debate and that, in this community, ‘truth’ is a dynamic concept. Analysis of the primary data shows that our views are legitimate in the on-going debate.

SOUL considers that the ASA has been too ready to take its own opinion/interpretation of the primary data as ‘fact’, rather then recognise that full consensus has yet to be achieved in the on-going scientific/technological debate about energy production in the UK.

SOUL is concerned about the quality of advice you may have received regarding the documentation we have sent to you. Was this analysed “in house” or was an outside agency involved? If an external opinion was sought, who was it that you approached and what were there terms of reference?

We appreciate that this letter and accompanying documentation will require further review. If there is any further information you need, please let us know and we will try to supply it.

Yours faithfully
Peter H Worlock
Chairman, SOUL Steering Group.

Schedule of documents accompanying second response to ASA.

1) Coastal wind farm tourist fears.
BBC News Wales. 9 February 2006.

2) Tourism fears at windfarm impact.
BBC News England / Tyne. 8 September 2006.

3) Response of the Renewable Energy Foundation to the 2006 Energy Review.
April 2006.

4) Danish wind: too good to be true?
White, DJ. The Utilities Journal. 2004: pp37-39.

5) Why UK wind power should not exceed 10Gw.
Sharman H. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers. 2005: pp161-169.

6) Power duo to spend £560m on upgrades.
Article in The Scotsman, 20 December 2004.

7) Issues for Scotland’s energy supply.
Evidence submitted by Renewable Energy Foundation to Royal Society of Edinburgh, July 2005.

Article in Daily Telegraph, 31 July 2006.