From Craig Whittaker
Saturday, 23 August 2008

From the outset can I make it absolutely clear that I am not opposed to alternative energy, in fact quite the opposite, I believe that we need to invest much more in R&D of alternative sources for energy for the long term sustainability of our Country and planet.

I am however opposed to the latest Wind Farm proposals for the 8 x Wind Turbines 100m (the other local ones stand at 46m with a 30m blade) – 4 of which are in Calder Valley in Todmorden and the other 4 are in Rochdale – I am of course referring to Crook Hill.

Coronation Power, have done the age old classic tactic of re-submitting a revised application in the Summer time – Council Officers are on holiday, so they presume that Officers can not dedicate enough of the time required – the general public tend to be away so they have fewer objection letters.

People have until September the 2nd to submit letters of objection to Calderdale – the planning application number is 08/01281/WDF

Todmorden Town Councillors will be considering this application also, I think on the 3rd of September, so again please let them know how you feel by writing to the Planning Councillors at Todmorden Town Hall also I have a library of pre-prepared letters, so if anybody wants them from me, please let me know & I can email them to you craig@craig40.wanadoo.co.uk – If people also want emailed versions to email them onto everyone that you know, all they have to do is print them off, insert their address, sign and post them off to Calderdale.

You can also do an on-line objection.

This way we can show Coronation Power that their tactic has failed!

Craig Whittaker is the prospective Conservative Party candidate for the Calder Valley

From Tom Standfield
Sunday, 24 August 2008

The Tory leader David Cameron wants us to believe that his party now has a serious green commitment. But where is it? Here we have a proposal to provide renewable energy, and along comes our local Tory candidate to stop it.

Locally in the Calder Valley, we have the resources to provide a massive amount of wind energy, and really it is our duty to do our bit to combat climate change. Personally, I quite like looking up and seeing wind turbines and think they often enhance the landscape. I know some others don't feel the same way but can't they for once endure a slight (perceived) loss of amenity for the greater good?

At least, wind turbines can be removed, and perhaps in 20-30 years they will have been superseded by another form of energy. For the moment, they need our enthusiastic support.

What's more, as hill farmers' incomes continue to fall, wind turbines are a good option for them to once again enjoy a decent livelihood. But then that's not something Tory politicians have ever had to worry about.

From Craig Whittaker
Monday, 25 August 2008

It's interesting how Tom automatically presumes that because I oppose this Wind Farm that I oppose renewable energy - Not So - Just this type.

More and more evidence is emerging about the true cost of wind farms and not to mention the ineffectiveness of them; the damage (irreparable in many cases) of the environment and landscape – The shear volume of concrete contaminates the land and alters the eco-system.

The amount of Peat and bog damage actually reduces CO2 into the environment, as Peat harbours CO2. The water tables are effected and particularly on Crook Hill, many of the houses around Walsden rely on Spring Water. It is currently a worry about whether some of these springs (some of which are running slow), will or may, dry up as a result of the proposed wind turbines.

Currently, the power companies make far more money from Government subsidies than they do from the power produced by wind turbines. The wind turbines are also very inefficient – They work on average 27% of the time – Wind too low, they don’t turn – wind too high, they become too dangerous. So to get the capacity of one turbine, you need to build 4.

The proposals for Todmorden Moor are for Turbines 135m high (Not much smaller than Blackpool Tower) and after a re-submission to planning, these on Crook Hill have been reduced to 100m – These are over twice as high as the others we see around the Calder Valley.

Many Countries are dis-continuing their failed experiments with wind because they are proving to be in-efficient as an alternative, compared to other forms of alternative energy.

As for this proposal, it is not situated on farmers Land, so there are no worries about loss of income, but apparently as a Conservative Politician, that is something that I have never had to worry about! Naive as well as presumptuous Tom!

From Joseph S
Tuesday, 26 August 2008

Some really really poor arguments here. Most people will be aware that Wind power is an imperfect solution but to dismiss it when we have such geographical advantages in the mid Pennines is daft.

These two in particular

"The amount of Peat and bog damage actually reduces CO2 into the environment, as Peat harbours CO2. The water tables are effected and particularly on Crook Hill, many of the houses around Walsden rely on Spring Water. It is currently a worry about whether some of these springs (some of which are running slow), will or may, dry up as a result of the proposed wind turbines."

are really weak.

If you don't like the look of them fine, thats ok, but its best if you just come out and say it as opposed to creating arguments out of straw. I'd be happy to have 100 on the hills above Heptonstall if it meant that when my children visit the seaside it is in Bridlington not York.

. . . Oh, and thanks for the link, and for bringing it to our attention. I have now registered my support of the application.

From Jacob G
Friday, 29 August 2008

Joseph, your rhetoric is somewhat flabby. To say 'when my children visit the seaside it is in Bridlington not York in defence of wind farms is ridiculous. There is no wider context for these discussions. What about using the abundant supplies of water in the Calder valley to generate energy for example. Furthermore, to introduce arguments about climate change without addressing our attitudes to car use, waste disposal, purchasing of cheap imported goods and air freighted foods, among many behaviours we can change to radically address global pollution, is careless.

From Joseph S
Sunday, 31 August 2008

Thanks for the comments Jacob. I agree that my comment about the seaside in Bridlington is ridiculous, and for clarity, it was intended to be. I also agree with you that recycling, reusing, and rethinking the way that we use and conserve energy, and organise our society is much more important than how we generate more power.

However, the thread was about Wind power, and that was what I responded to. Wind power is a valid and sensible way of meeting a portion of our energy needs in this area. To oppose it seems wrong.

Is it flabbier to say that I disagree with Craig Whittaker's assessment of the merit of Wind Power in the Calder Valley. Or that i disagree with Craig Whittaker's assessment of the merit of Wind Power in the Calder Valley but only in the context that there are million of other things that we can do to reduce our consumption of energy to change our behaviours, to legislate against greedy cars, to tax more effectively, to use all forms of alternative energy provision, to stop buying takeaways, to stop buying mange tout from Kenya, to walk more and fly less, to eat less meat (if any at all).... etc

From Tom Standfield
Sunday, 31 August 2008

I wonder if David Cameron knows how strongly the prospective Tory candidate for the Calder Valley opposes wind turbines. After all, the Tory leader was so enthusiastic about them that he even had a wind turbine installed on his roof - until he discovered that it wasn’t quite the right model for his particular roof! Mind you, the fact remains as Tim Dowling has written in the Guardian that "The Tory party remains full of people who object to any windmill that isn't in a Constable painting".

Craig Whittaker is wrong about the efficiency of wind turbines. There is a lot of confusion about the reliability of wind power. Reliability and intermittency are not the same thing. No power facilities are able to operate all of the time without stopping. Many so-called reliable sources such as fossil fuel-fired and nuclear plants suffer from unexpected “outages” and are often shut down on a moment’s notice. Unreliability of this kind is harder on electric system operations than the intermittency of wind power. They are also shut down for long periods for routine maintenance. Unlike other power plants, wind energy systems require minimal maintenance and have low operating expenses. Modern wind turbines are very reliable and are available to generate electricity approximately over 85-90% of the time. Wind turbines generate electricity from a fuel that is free and will never run out, but which isn’t available all the time.

The output of a wind turbine depends upon the wind regime where it is located. In the UK the average capacity factor is around 30%. This means that over the course of a year the turbine would produce 30% of the amount it could theoretically have produce if it was working flat out all through the year.

“Wind power is a large-scale, reliable source of power that's already having a major positive impact; it provides enough electricity to supply 1.2 million UK homes every year. But we've barely scratched the surface. Despite the fact that our wind is stronger and more constant than theirs, Germany has built more than ten times our wind farm capacity. Spain has built over five times more than we have, in just a few years.” Greenpeace.