From ENDS report Bulletin 12/3/09

[susanreads]

Slash renewables target to protect nuclear, says EDF

The development of new nuclear plant could be prevented if the government allows too much windpower to be built, energy giants EDF and Eon have claimed.

EDF “the world's largest nuclear operator with 58 plants“ is calling on the government to lower its proposed renewable electricity target from 35% of supply in 2020 to just 20%.

The company says building the wind capacity needed to hit a 35% target is 'not realistic or indeed desirable' due to the problem of intermittency.

EDF's views were revealed last week when the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) published a summary of responses to its consultation on its renewables strategy.

EDF's response says that at times of high wind, output from wind and nuclear could exceed demand. As a result plant will need to be curtailed i.e. instructed not to generate. In reality, only nuclear will be curtailed, it says, as wind generation is subsidised so operators will pay to continue generating. The UK will also need windfarms to operate to meet its EU renewable energy target.

If nuclear plants have to be regularly turned off, this 'damages the economics of these projects, meaning that less will be built.' The UK can still meet its EU target with a lower level of renewable electricity by doing more on renewable heat, it says.

EDF's views are partially supported by Eon. Its consultation response says that any curtailment of nuclear 'raises the question of whether it will be possible to recover the fixed costs of plant over its operational life'. Curtailment could become an issue once wind provides 20-25% of UK electricity, it says.

Gaynor Hartnell, director of policy at the Renewable Energy Association, said: 'We don't have a problem with companies taking issue with the proposed split between renewable electricity and heat it is renewables' overall contribution to energy that matters. [Renewable] heat could certainly contribute more, but that's not to say that it needs to. Our electricity network can cope with at least ten times the amount of wind we currently have.'

Article in Gazette, printed 30th December 2008

[susanreads]

'Power bosses due in court'

Power stations bosses will be appearing in court over charges relating to the disposal of radioactive waste - and could face massive fines.

Representatives from Magnox Electric, formerly Nuclear Electric, are due in the dock at Chelmsford Crown Court on Monday, following eight alleged offences involving possible leaks at the Bradwell power station, opposite Mersea Island.

Magistrates decided in January that the case would have to go to crown court due to the complexities of the case and the likely scale of the fines if Magnox is found guilty.

Magistrates' powers to fine in these circumstances are limited to £20,000 per offence.

The trial, which is expected to last for about two weeks, will be investigating the disposal of waste from approximately 1990 to 2004, specifically around a sump at the power station.

Source: Colchester Daily Gazette, 7th May 2009

[susanreads]

Fears that new nuclear power station will destroy oyster fishery.

Fears have been raised that Colchester’s world-famous oyster beds could be decimated if a new nuclear power station is built at Bradwell. Last month, the Government earmarked Bradwell as one of 11 potential sites for a new nuclear power station.

To cool the new generation of stations, 72,000 cubic litres of water would be pumped in and out of the Blackwater Estuary every second – more than twice the volume needed at the old Bradwell power station. And campaigners believe the warm water pumped back could wipe out some sections of Colchester’s native oysters, beloved since Roman times.

Alan Bird, a Mersea oyster fisherman for 45 years, said the shore and seabeds along the Bradwell coast became barren in the late Sixties, more than a decade after the original nuclear station opened. But within a few months of the nuclear facility being decommissioned in 2002, the coastline began to regenerate.

"I have major concerns about a new power station that will pump much more volume than the old one," Mr Bird said. "I would say a year after it closed, we could see the beginnings of new life, and now we have a nice population along that shore. The suction pipe is going to suck in so much oyster larvae, I have grave doubts for the fishery."

Prof Graham Underwood, professor of ecology at Essex University, said native oysters, such as the famous Colchester variety, would be particularly affected by changes in the estuary’s environment. He said research was inconclusive, but the onus was on those bidding to open another nuclear plant to prove their case. "It’s up to the developers to show there will be no impact, not for the people who live around there to prove against them. The people of both sides of Mersea have invested many, many years of building these fisheries up and establishing them. In the absence of good studies it’s just not known what the impact would be."

The Government’s Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science is set to commission research on the effects new water intake pipes would have on oyster stock.

Concerns about the future of oysters was one issue raised at a meeting of Colchester Council’s strategic overview and scrutiny panel. A group tasked with looking into the potential effects of a new station at Bradwell on the borough found the economic benefits of more jobs would be minimal.

Other worries raised included the potential effects of climate change, how residents on an island would be evacuated if there was a disaster, and research suggesting young children living near power stations may be more susceptible to leukaemia.

The Times, July 3, 2009

[susanreads]

France imports UK electricity as plants shut

Robin Pagnamenta, Energy and Environment Editor

France is being forced to import electricity from Britain to cope with a summer heatwave that has helped to put a third of its nuclear power stations out of action.

With temperatures across much of France surging above 30C this week, EDF’s reactors are generating the lowest level of electricity in six years, forcing the state-owned utility to turn to Britain for additional capacity.

Fourteen of France’s 19 nuclear power stations are located inland and use river water rather than seawater for cooling. When water temperatures rise, EDF is forced to shut down the reactors to prevent their casings from exceeding 50C.

A spokesman for National Grid said that electricity flows from Britain to France during the peak demand yesterday morning were as high as 1,000MW — roughly equivalent to the output of Dungeness nuclear power station on the Kent coast.

Nick Campbell, an energy trader at Inenco, the consultancy, said: “We have been exporting continuously from this morning and the picture won’t change through peak hours, right up until 4pm.”

EDF warned last month that France might need to import up to 8,000MW of electricity from other countries by mid-July — enough to power Paris — because of the combined impact of hot weather, a ten-week strike by power workers and ongoing repairs.

EDF must also observe strict rules governing the heat of the water it discharges into waterways so that wildlife is not harmed. The maximum permitted temperature is 24C. Lower electricity output from riverside reactors during hot weather usually coincides with surging demand as French consumers turn up their air conditioners.

One power industry insider said yesterday that about 20GW (gigawatts) of France’s total nuclear generating capacity of 63GW was out of service.

Much of the shortfall this summer is likely to be met by Britain, which, since 1986, has been linked to the French power grid by a 45km sub-sea power cable that runs from Sellindge in Kent to Les Mandarins.

A statement from EDF played down the heat problems, saying that the French system continued to meet customer demands — but similar heatwaves have caused serious problems in France in the past.

In 2003, the situation grew so severe that the French nuclear safety regulator granted special exemptions to three plants, allowing them temporarily to discharge water into rivers at temperatures as high as 30C. France has five plants located by the sea and EDF tries to avoid carrying out any repairs to them during the summer because they do not suffer from cooling problems.

France’s first nuclear power station was built at Chinon, on the Loire, in 1964. Other riverside plants include Bugey (on the Rhône), Tricastin (Drôme), Golfech (Garonne) and Blayais (Garonne). Britain’s ten nuclear power plants, which supply 16 per cent of the country’s electricity, are all built on coastal sites so they do not suffer the same problem with overheating. But long periods of hot weather do still add to stress to the network. Gas-fired plants, which form a big part of Britain’s generating fleet, also need to reduce output during hot weather.

However, the recession has led to a 6 per cent fall in the UK’s electricity requirements because of weaker industrial demand, so the margin of spare generating capacity in Britain has grown. EDF earns about €3 billion a year exporting electricity to countries including Britain.

Middlewick response 15/3/10

[susanreads]

Middlewick Wind Farm Proposal.
Planning application: FUL/MAL/10/00004.

Chris Purvis, Senior Planning Officer
Maldon District Council,
Princes Road, Maldon, Essex. CM9 5DL.

15th March 2010

Dear Sir,

After looking at the planning application and visiting the site of the proposed nine turbines for the Middlewick Wind Farm, Colchester & North East Essex Friends of the Earth support this application by RidgeWind, subject to further information being given to Natural England as requested in their letter dated 8th March. We would support a further extension of the consultation period so these issues can be clarified.

The reasons we support this application are as follows:
1. This site is ideal for windspeeds for an onshore windfarm.
2. The nine turbines will fit well within the windswept coastal and fairly barren landscape.
3. These turbines will provide enough electricity for the equivalent of around 9,250 homes at current electricity usage; with future energy efficiency measures cutting wasteful usage, they could provide electricity for at least double that number of homes.
4. The proximity of the local National Grid connection running to the local communities make it of local benefit as well as reducing losses in transmission distances.
5. Subject to ensuring there is no permanent ecological damage, we support the delivery of the turbines close to the windfarm site from the Crouch estuary ‘delivered by barge to a Marine Access Point, located at the southern end of the access track (near Holliwell Farm). A hardstanding offloading area will be constructed adjacent (landward) to the sea wall to facilitate access for an offloading crane and low loaders to accept turbine components’ (non-technical summary paragraph B.10). .
6. We have to do our best locally to limit climate change gases and support renewable energy projects which will help to limit sea level rises which are threatening to inundate low-lying areas of Essex including our own communities on the Dengie Peninsula.
7. This is only the third windfarm proposed for the windy Essex coastline which is under threat from sea level rises. The Bradwell (ten turbines) and St Osyth Earls Hall (five turbines) windfarms have been approved by three separate Inspectors after high-profile local groups have whipped up local anti-wind hysteria with much misinformation.
8. Noise: Four members of our group visited a similar wind farm of eight turbines at Deeping St Nicholas in Lincolnshire and noted that, standing right underneath one of the turbines the sound heard is a low and rather soothing hum.
9. Visual impact: Two windfarms of fifteen and eight turbines each can be seen from the train from Colchester to Peterborough in the flat Fen farmland at March and Whittlesey in Cambridgeshire. From a short distance away the majestic turbines appear small, as an attractive group, like small copses of trees in the fields. However, if a hedge, a tree, or a building gets in the way they are impossible to see.
10. The Climate Change Act was passed to limit climate change gases by 80% by 2050. We must encourage clean renewable energy sources now including onshore wind. The Government has committed the UK to cut climate change gases by 34% by 2020.
11. The UK is committed to produce 35% of our electricity from renewables by 2020.
12. The Eastern Region is committed to produce 17% of electricity from onshore wind by 2020, with a further 27% from offshore wind, making a total of 44% by 2020.
13. Recent figures show that Austria has 62% renewable energy and Sweden 54%.

Paula Whitney, Co-ordinator,
Colchester & North East Essex Friends of the Earth,
4 Shears Crescent, West Mersea, Essex, CO5 8AR.

Middlewick appeal, 13/3/11

[susanreads]

Appeal by RidgeWind Ltd to refusal by Maldon District Council
Proposed nine turbines at Middlewick Farm near Southminster, Essex
Application reference no: FUL/MAL/10/00004
Appeal reference no: APP/X1545/A/10/2140423/NWF

13th March 2011

We support the proposed windfarm and registered on 8th March to speak at the inquiry.

We submit copies of our original letter of support dated 15th March 2010 (ref A), which is still relevant and would like to read these important reasons to support this application.
 
We note below various developments since then which we would like to draw to the Inspector’s attention.
 
1. We wish to highlight and commend the detailed, up-to-date and careful report written by Chris Purvis, the senior planning officer for Maldon District Council, recommending approval of this application. We hope this report will be considered carefully by the Inspector. He refers to the recent approval by the Inspector at the inquiry we contributed to for the ten turbines at Hockley Farm near Bradwell to the north of the Dengie which has now featured prominently in this inquiry.  We submit copies of a relevant article in the local Maldon & Burnham Standard on 7th July 2010 (ref B) before councillors ignored his report and refused the application.
2. Maldon council previously twice refused the Hockley Farm windfarm at Bradwell which has had two rigorous public inquiries and been approved by two independent Inspectors.  We believe they have been unduly influenced by the anti-wind groups BATTLE and SIEGE who managed to overturn the first Inspector's decision.  BATTLE have just lost their challenge in the High Court to overthrow the second Inspector's approval.
3. Maldon council opposed the Hockley Farm windfarm on visual grounds.  But Mersea Island across the Blackwater River is the largest community close to this windfarm at Bradwell but is in the Colchester district.  Colchester council supports the windfarm.  I asked the Inspector at the second public inquiry if he would visit my beach at Mersea to look across the river at the view we have now.  We see the Bradwell nuclear power station industrial hulk which will remain being decommissioned for around 130 years and around 20 pylons.  Maldon council and MP John Whittingdale support the building of one, two or three new nuclear power stations on this vulnerable shallow estuary with SSSI and Ramsar designations, fishing, oysters and sailing activities.  Massive cooling towers would be required on this unsuitable site, visible across the Dengie and many miles around, making a mockery of objections to small windfarms on visual grounds.
4. We need clean renewable energy in our area, such as from the Middlewick windfarm proposal, Hockley Farm windfarm and the five turbines at Earls Hall windfarm at St Osyth which was approved a year ago.  Nuclear power only provides 3% of all energy (BERR figures 2006) and is unnecessary, costly and dangerous.  It will suck the funding from safe renewable energy which is quicker to set up.  European studies show we can provide 100% of our energy needs from renewable energy in the future to counter climate change.  The Dengie is vulnerable to total inundation if we are not successful in countering sea level rise.
5. The Essex Chambers of Commerce are in support and have said it will bring around £6million into the local economy.  See newspaper article 1st June 2010 (ref C).
6. The Maldon District Council planning meeting was delayed for some weeks until 29th July, during which time Natural England was given more information and fully supported the proposal. It was also supported by the Environment Agency and RSPB.

What we find totally unacceptable is the misinformation which has been peddled by the two anti-windfarm groups BATTLE and SIEGE against the Hockley Farm and Middlewick Farm proposed windfarms, running public meetings where they play the sound of a wind turbine over a loudspeaker, tell people their health will be affected and whip up a kind of mass hysteria. Until recently SIEGE had a picture on their website and elsewhere of three turbines leaning over the Southminster High Street which was blatant misrepresentation.
 
It has been difficult to counter this misinformation but I have had letters in the local press to try to correct the misleading claims.  The Essex Chronicle highlighted my letter and illustrated it with the inaccurate mock-up photo BATTLE used for the Hockley Farm at Bradwell (ref D), which I would like to read out.
 
Anti-wind letters in the local press peddle ridiculous nonsense such as saying that the Middlewick windfarm 'would only provide homes with enough electricity to boil a kettle'!  My letter in response to this in the Maldon & Burnham Standard on 8th September 2010 is included on ref C (from one of our displays), explaining that 'calculations are made nationally to assess the average annual household use of electricity and that the average annual energy produced by the nine wind turbines at Middlewick would provide electricity for more than 9,000 homes.'
 
They say that wind is intermittent and ineffective and my letter explains that 'Oxford University did a study of wind speeds over 30 years and showed we have the best wind resource in Europe.  While wind speed varies, electricity is fed into the National Grid from wherever it is blowing around the UK.  Electricity from windpower in the UK has risen to more than four gigawatts, enough to power 2.5 million homes'.  The National Grid shows windpower is already providing 6.6% of the UK's electricity.
 
In spite of the misinformation, members of our group have found the local Dengie residents mainly supportive of this windfarm, particularly young people, with many finding wind turbines ‘majestic’, ‘benign’, ‘beautiful’ and ‘clean renewable energy for our children’s future’. This autumn two of our members, including Maike Windhorst who gave her evidence on the first day of the inquiry, walked round homes in Southminster talking to the residents and found around two-thirds were supportive.
 
Because SIEGE members had gathered opposition in the carpark at the Co-op in Burnham without the Co-op's permission and against their policy, the management allowed us to have an information table outside their store last summer for just two hours.  During this time over 50 people from the local area, including some Southminster residents, signed letters of support.

Paula Whitney, Co-ordinator,
Colchester & North East Essex Friends of the Earth,
4 Shears Crescent,
West Mersea, Essex, CO5 8AR.

letter to East Anglian Daily Times sent 4/3/07

[susanreads]

To: EADT Letters
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 12:43 PM
Subject: 'Wind farms just a huge stealth tax' letter response

EADT, Letters page.

Dear Editor,

Your correspondent Christopher Cordingley (EADT 27/2/07) thinks that wind farms don't produce much energy and are 'a huge stealth tax'. He feels that 'the future is nuclear'.

Did he realise that we paid 10% of our electricity bills to subsidise nuclear power before Britain was made to stop this subsidy? Did he know that the taxpayer has picked up the £80billion or so decommissioning costs of the present generation of nuclear stations?

Electricity generation produces a fifth of climate change gases. Of this, less than a fifth has been provided by nuclear power. So if we replaced all current nuclear power it would contribute less than 4% to climate change reduction.

During eight years of a nuclear plant's construction, enormous amounts of pollution and climate change gases are produced, as well as other gases during their few years of intermittent electricity production and the decommissioning for a hundred years or more.

But by the time they would be built, at the earliest in 15 years, we would have passed the point of no return for reversing climate change while we should be funding windpower and other renewables, investing in energy efficiency and stopping profligate waste of energy.

A thirty year Oxford University study found there is always strong windpower somewhere around Britain and it is strongest when we need it most. It is fed into the National Grid so balances out variations. We have the best wind availability in Europe.

Germany already provides 12.5% of their electricity from wind, and a new report shows that by 2050 they could produce 50% of their electricity from renewables and would not need any nuclear power.

When calculating how many homes would be provided with their electricity needs the actual amount of windpower produced is taken into account. The ten wind turbines proposed on the Dengie Peninsula, which Colchester council supports, would provide the equivalent electricity needs of a third of Maldon district, and the five turbines proposed at St Osyth would provide the equivalent for the whole of Brightlingsea and St Osyth districts.

Yours sincerely,

Paula Whitney, Co-ordinator, Colchester & NE Essex Friends of the Earth,
4 Shears Crescent, West Mersea, Essex, CO5 8AR.

Gazette, Postbag, printed Thursday 13th November 2008

[susanreads]

We can reject nuclear

Some people believe that we will have to put up with the hazards and costs of new nuclear power stations because of climate change or 'the lights going out'. Not so.

Electricity production is only a fifth of climate change gases. Of that, less than a fifth has been produced from nuclear power - a mere 4% of total energy if all the current ageing nuclear power stations are replaced with new plants.

Far more energy can be saved through energy efficiency and by stopping wastage. Funding would go into nuclear power instead of clean renewable energy. Minister John Hutton has already moved £15million from renewable funding into supporting nuclear.

Did you know that taxpayers have picked up the bill for decommissioning the old nuclear power stations such as Bradwell, to let the nuclear industry off the hook? It has just risen from £73billion to £83billion - rising as the decommissioning problems are discovered.

That latest £10billion could have funded 20% electricity from renewable power by 2020. Portugal is aiming to have 60% from renewable energy by 2020.

Meanwhile there is nowhere to store new radioactive wastes safely for hundreds of thousands of years, and we are told that any new nuclear plants will have to store high level wastes onsite for a hundred years. No wonder the Scottish Parliament rejected nuclear.

Yours sincerely,

Paula Whitney, Co-ordinator,
Colchester and North East Essex Friends of the Earth,
Shears Crescent, West Mersea.

Note: this letter was mistakenly printed with a figure of £15billion instead of £15million in the third paragraph.

Letter to Clacton Gazette, 2/12/08

[susanreads]

Clacton Gazette, Letters.

Dear Editor,

J Monk (letter last week) misunderstands how the amount of electricity produced by wind turbines is calculated. he variability of windpower is taken into account when saying they would provide power sufficient for around 6000 homes.

He also clearly doesn't know that Oxford University ran a thirty-year study of wind speeds, which showed that there is around the UK suitable wind speed all year round to feed into the national grid. We have the best availability in Europe.

During the next few years energy efficiency and the need to cut profligate waste of electricity will mean these five turbines will provide enough electricity for at least 10,000 households. Onshore turbines are more efficient than those offshore.

Very detailed studies have to be made on the effect on birds and other wildlife and the Government's Natural England expert ecologists have given approval to these wind turbines at Earls Hall farm.

Local members of our group made a lot of visits to look at the position of the wind turbines and walked all round the local roads before we supported it. We also went to Deeping St Nicholas in Lincolnshire to see and hear the eight turbines there.

Nuclear power is not cheap as suggested by J Clark. It is currently costing the taxpayer £83billion to decommission the current nuclear stations, which only provide less than a fifth of our electricity.

Yours sincerely,
Paula Whitney, Co-ordinator,
Colchester & NE Essex Friends of the Earth,
4 Shears Crescent, West Mersea, Essex.

Letter submitted to Mersea Courier 13/4/9

[susanreads]

Emergency planners fail to address Strood issue ?

After a series of exercises, including the simulation of plane crash at the Bradwell site, the Government's National Emergency Planning Liason Group (NEPLG) concluded in a recent report that the Detailed Emergency Planning Zones (DEPZ), in effect the evacuation zones, around new nuclear power stations should be extended to 4 kilometres, which in the context of Bradwell would include West Mersea. It was acknowledged that although new nuclear power plants were inherently safer by advances in design, new risks had since emerged such as risk of terrorist attack, flooding due to climate change and the storage of spent fuel on site that may increase the overall level of risk to nearby communities.

The evacuation plan for the Detailed Emergency Planning Zones (DEPZ) around the Sizewell nuclear site requires that the transient poulation of summer visitors, such as those at caravan and camp sites, without the shelter of permanent accomodation are evacuated first while local residents are required take shelter inside their own homes and await instruction from the emergency planner on local radio. In the context of Mersea Island, with such a large additional summer population of perhaps 5,000 tourists, a similar plan would require that 7,500 residents remained in their homes while tourists are evacuated first. If such a plan was adopted here the local population would appear to be at increased risk.

In the context of global warming one scenario is of a tidal surge causing flooding at any new nuclear power plant which by definition would occur at the same time as the tide covered the road off the Island. It is anticipated with the effects of global warming that sea levels will rise and tidal storm surges will become higher and more frequent. Irrespective of the evacuation of the Island, which would appear impossible under such a scenario, it is unlikely that the emergency services would be able to cope effectively with both an incident at the power station and the flooding caused by a tidal surge. The scale of the flooding along the coastline in 1953, before the existing power station was built, supports this assertion.

In addition the record to date of the nuclear industry in releasing accurate and timely information to the public about incidents is poor, with the extent of some incidents only becoming known many days or even months later. This has caused distrust amongst the public of information about incidents given by emergency planners at the time they occurred. It is unlikely that in practice people would remain in their homes even if told to do so but would "self-evacuate" in panic, not believing any official reassurances given to them about the nature and risks of any incident and fearing that the risks from the incident were being understated and also that they may be later trapped on the Island by the tide if it was rising.

The protest on the Strood organised by BANNG against the building of a new nuclear power station and radioactive waste store at Bradwell was justified as to date this community has received no reassurances from planners on these issues.

Ian Clarke

from Ian Clarke to Evening Gazette Newsdesk, June 5 2009

[susanreads]

A nuclear powered vacuum cleaner ?

While the recent debate in your newspaper has concentrated on the effect of the water outfall on the Estuary, recent research suggests that the cooling water intake can cause as much if not more damage

New research has suggests significant damage could be caused to fish stocks in the confines of the nearby Blackwater estuary from a new nuclear power station at Bradwell by cooling water intakes proposed of many cubic metres per second

This is in addition to concerns about the hot outfall water causing the heating up of the shallow estuary also resulting in less oxygen being dissolved in the water nearby and biocides used to prevent the fouling of pipework affecting marine life.

It has been calculated that the mortality rate due to intakes is up to 50 % for some species of fish with particular relevance to cooling water intakes in a confined and shallow estuary, also affecting birds and other creatures in the food chain.

In addition the marine life in and estuary location such as the River Blackwater is particularly vulnerable as the slow refresh rate of water between the estuary and the sea means the same water passes through the system more than once.

It appears the environmental assessment of the existing power station did not take this into account and it is important any further new plant(s) are judged for environmental impact against a much earlier baseline before such an effect occured.

While it may be cheaper, before the impact on fish stocks is taken into account, it is unneccessary for nuclear plants to use water as a primary method of cooling, as dry cooling technology is available also obviating use of coastal locations.

This apparent significant impact on the marine eco-system further discredits the claims by the industry, despite acknowledged problems of disposal of radiocative waste, that nuclear power is an "environmentally friendly" source of electricity.

While fish stocks are already depleted and fishermen are subject to strict quotas and fines, how can the nuclear industry be allowed to construct in effect a "giant underwater vacuum cleaner" sucking the life out of the Blackwater estuary ?

Ian Clarke

letter to the Gazette and Standard, 30/11/09

[susanreads]

Letter dated 30 Nov. 09
Printed in the Gazette as the main letter under the headline 'Climate Change: The answer is renewables' and in the Standard with a colour picture of the Earls Hall windfarm and the title 'Windfarm is good news'.

Exciting news of first Essex windfarm approved at Earls Hall farm

Dear Editor,

It is exciting news that the very first Essex onshore windfarm at Earls Hall farm, Clacton, has just been approved after a public inquiry. We strongly supported this proposed windfarm of five turbines, which would provide the equivalent electricity needs of the whole of Brightlingsea and St Osyth - or far more homes when they are energy-efficient!

We had walked around the site and surrounding roads on many visits. We visited Deeping St Nicholas in Lincolnshire to see a similar windfarm of eight turbines. We stood underneath them to hear the sound - it was a gentle hum.

We have just supported another windfarm of ten turbines at Hockley Farm, Bradwell, at the recent public inquiry, which would supply the electricity for the equivalent of a third of the Maldon District. Colchester council supports it. We have to cut climate change emissions by 80% by 2050 which is why we have to act now.

Catastrophic climate change and sea level rises put our Essex coastal districts at risk. We must support renewable energy sources including windpower. The Eastern region has a commitment to produce 17% of our electricity from onshore windfarms by 2020 and 44% including offshore wind by 2020. Norfolk and Cambridgeshire already have many windfarms.

But electricity is only 18% of our climate-changing energy use. Government figures (BERR 2006) show 34% of energy used is from transport and 48% from heating. The UK has a commitment of 15% of ALL energy to come from renewable energy by 2020 - the equivalent of the majority of current electricity production! The EU calculates renewables can provide a third of all energy by 2020.

Is nuclear power necessary to stop 'the lights going out'? No - it provides only 13% of electricity and 3% of all energy. Taxpayers have picked up an £83billion bill to decommission the current reactors. Now the nuclear industry is demanding funding is taken from renewables to support hugely costly new nuclear plants with high level radioactive waste stored onsite for the first time.

Yours sincerely,

Paula Whitney, Co-ordinator,
Colchester & NE Essex Friends of the Earth,
4 Shears Crescent, West Mersea, Essex, CO5 8AR.

Sent to EADT letters page, 16 Feb. 2010

[susanreads]

No need for nuclear power - urgent responses to nuclear consultation by 22nd Feb

Dear Editor,

Most readers will be aware that the Government have included Bradwell as one of ten sites possible for new nuclear power stations and that now the old Bradwell power station will not be fully decommissioned for over a hundred years instead of being within 25 years from when it closed, as originally supported by the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority.

A national nuclear consultation is at www.energynpsconsultation.decc.gov.uk, ending on 22nd February. Please make a response if you can by email to energynpsconsultation@opm.co.uk or by post to Robin Clarke, OPM, 252b Gray's Inn Road, WC1X 8XG. There is no need to answer all the questions or give long answers - just make key points.
Please include criticism of the consultation process which is difficult and biased in favour of nuclear. Please ask for a separate consultation on the proposed long-term storage of highlevel radioactive waste at the Bradwell site for 160 years.
Please point out why the Bradwell site is unacceptable. You may wish to include flood risk, onsite storage of highly radioactive waste, impact on the estuary, wildlife, fishing, emergency evacuation planning, proximity to large island population, damage to the estuary from vast amounts of cooling water drawn from the shallow estuary killing sealife, etc.
A Spanish company has suggested the possibility of three nuclear plants at Bradwell together with massive cooling towers on our beautiful Blackwater estuary which has the SSSI and Ramsar environmental designations and is so important for our beaches, sailing, fishing and the famous oyster industry.

Some people believe nuclear power is vital to stop climate change. But nuclear power only provides 13% of electricity in the UK or 3% of all energy used. Electricity is less than a fifth of total energy use, with about a third of energy used for transport and nearly half of all energy used for heating. We must cut these by at least 80% by 2050 to stop climate change.

Some people think nuclear power is needed to 'stop the lights going out', but it is hugely costly and so it would be drawing funding from renewables which are far quicker to build and from energy efficiency measures. The UK is committed to 34% of electricity and 15% of total energy use from renewables by 2020. Austria already has 62% renewable energy and Sweden 54%.

Yours sincerely,

Paula Whitney, Co-ordinator,
Colchester & NE Essex Friends of the Earth,
4 Shears Crescent, West Mersea, CO5 8AR.

letter to the Standard, 10/8/10

[susanreads]

Standard letters page.

Maldon councillors opposed the Middlewick windfarm which would help to stop sea level rise and inundation of the Dengie

Dear Sir,

The new coalition Government has just set out its energy policy and said that renewables are crucial to decarbonisation and that we need to increase both onshore and offshore windpower as quickly as possible.

The UK is already committed to 34% reduction of CO2 and other climate change gases by 2020 and 80% by 2050 to combat the effects of climate change including sea level rise. Essex is vulnerable to inundation, in particular the low-lying Dengie Peninsula including the old nuclear power station's hulk and radioactive waste which will be left at Bradwell for over a hundred years.

Anti-windfarm groups BATTLE and SIEGE have fought the proposal for ten turbines at Hockley Farm near Bradwell for many years yet two independent Inspectors have approved it at two separate public inquiries and Colchester council supports it. Maldon council opposed it on visual grounds yet supports new nuclear power stations at Bradwell!

The UK anti-windfarm movement is centrally orchestrated and repeats its successful technique for setting up anti-windfarm local groups with clever names, which generate a kind of local anti-wind hysteria based on hype and misinformation.

They hold similar public meetings where they play the sound of a wind turbine over a loudspeaker and tell people they will suffer noise and health effects. They produce posters, placards and t-shirts. Residents wanting to support windpower for clean renewable energy feel intimidated. Members of our group have attended these meetings which have misled local residents.

SIEGE has been campaigning against the Middlewick Farm proposal for nine turbines three kilometres east of Southminster. They promoted a totally inaccurate mock-up picture of turbines towering over Southminster which was blatant misrepresentation. They raised many letters of objection, yet nearly 400 people sent in letters of support.

This windfarm would provide enough electricity for over 9000 homes, 38% of the Maldon district, at today's wasteful usage - and far more when energy efficiency measures are installed in the future.

It is shocking that Maldon planning councillors have ignored their officer's report recommending approval for the Middlewick windfarm and they have opposed the application. Maldon council must get serious about fighting climate change.

Yours sincerely,

Paula Whitney, Co-ordinator,
Colchester & North East Essex Friends of the Earth, 4 Shears Crescent, West Mersea, Essex, CO5 8AR.

letter to the Gazette, 19/8/10

[susanreads]

Gazette letters page

Benign and powerful wind energy

Dear Editor,

Oxford University did a study of UK windspeeds over thirty years and showed we have the best wind resource in Europe. While wind speed varies, electricity is fed into the National Grid from wherever it is blowing. Electricity from windpower in the UK has now risen to over 4 gigawatts, enough to power two and a half million homes.

Ron Levy doesn't seem to realise that when calculating how much electricity will be produced from a windfarm, and how many homes it will provide power for, the variability of wind is of course taken into account and tested over many years to assess the average power provided. It is pretty obvious that the wind doesn't blow the turbines at 100% all the time.

Nick Medic, of Renewable UK, which represents the wind industry, says "Other types of energy, from hydro to nuclear, operate at 50 per cent efficiency at best due to factors including maintenance shut downs and fluctuating demands." Other forms of power are intermittent and only operate to a certain efficiency. Around half of gas is lost during transmission.

Nuclear power stations are shut down for months as at Sizewell in Suffolk at the moment. French nuclear plants had to close in hot weather during the last two summers when their heated outfalls kill riverlife and France had to import electricity from the UK.

As for cost, we tax payers have picked up the £79billion bill to decommission the current ageing nuclear power stations and for many years we all paid a 10% subsidy on our electricity bills to support nuclear power.

Anti-windfarm groups BATTLE and SIEGE on the Dengie and STAPLE at St Osyth did indeed blatantly misinform residents at public meetings. The sound of a wind turbine was played over a loudspeaker. People were told they would suffer health effects. SIEGE used a fictitious mock-up picture of wind turbines towering over Southminster High Street.

Once a windfarm has been erected in a few months farmers can continue farming around the turbines and farm animals can graze underneath them. The energy used to build a turbine is worked off in around five or six months of operation. Windfarms do not emit noxious fumes or leave toxic residues.

I believe we have a duty to do the best we can to stop climate change including dangerous sea level rises. We should support clean renewable energy to help cut damaging climate change gases by 34% or more within ten years and by 80% by 2050 as the Government has committed us to.

Yours sincerely,
Paula Whitney, Co-ordinator,
Colchester & North East Essex Friends of the Earth,
4 Shears Crescent, West Mersea, Essex.

letter to Maldon & Burnham Standard, 4/4/11

[susanreads]

Maldon & Burnham Standard, letters page.

Middlewick windfarm has a lot of local support

Dear Editor,

Sue Hilton of 'Address supplied' (MBS 30th March) criticised members of local Colchester & North East Essex Friends of the Earth group for supporting the Middlewick windfarm proposal at the recent public inquiry.

We had spent a long time looking at the site and the surrounding area, as well as the reports from statutory consultees after their years of necessary research, before we unanimously agreed to support it.

Your picture outside the Maldon council offices (MBS 23rd March) showed some of us with some local people holding placards pointing out that RSPB, Natural England and the Essex Chambers of Commerce also support this windfarm.

But Ms Hilton states "The people of the Dengie have emphatically objected to them. Residents' views should take precedence." Two of our members went to Southminster and spent a few days asking residents their views at the doorstep. The majority were in support. RidgeWind submitted nearly 300 letters of support from Southminster residents to the Planning Inspectorate.

Ms Hilton also mentions the Bradwell windfarm proposal which we and Colchester council supported. It went through two public inquiries because of years of opposition from anti-windfarm group BATTLE and Maldon council. Two independent Inspectors approved it and the High Court threw out the recent High Court challenge.

Mersea Island is the largest community close to that windfarm and our view of them across the Blackwater would include the industrial hulk of the closed nuclear power station while being decommissioned and about 20 pylons.

New nuclear plants at Bradwell would need massive cooling towers 200 metres high by 100 metres wide. These would be seen from far and wide across the Dengie and beyond - dwarfing the Bradwell windfarm. As we said at the Middlewick windfarm inquiry this makes a nonsense of Maldon council objecting to the windfarm on visual grounds while supporting new nuclear plants!

Yours sincerely,

Paula Whitney (Mrs), Co-ordinator,
Colchester & North East Essex Friends of the Earth,
4 Shears Crescent, West Mersea, Essex.
01206/383123

letter to the Standard, 18/4/11

[susanreads]

Essex County Standard, letters page.

Three local windfarms ARE supported by environmentalists and the public

Dear Editor,

A recent ECS letter from Peter McCarthy suggested environmentalists oppose wind turbines which are needed to combat climate change. But after many years of studies on wildlife impacts, windspeeds, etc, the RSPB, Natural England and the Environment Agency all supported the three proposed north east Essex windfarms at St Osyth, Bradwell and Southminster.

It is centrally-orchestrated anti-wind groups who have opposed these three local windfarms. They held public meetings, playing the sound of a wind turbine over a loudspeaker and saying they will affect people's health, to whip up a kind of mass hysteria.

Mersea Island is the largest community in sight of the ten-turbine windfarm proposed at Bradwell. It was supported by Colchester council and all the environmental bodies but was opposed by anti-wind group BATTLE and Maldon council. An Inspector approved it after a rigorous public inquiry, but it was challenged by the opponents and a second inquiry was held.

Maldon council opposed the Bradwell windfarm on visual grounds yet supports new nuclear power stations at Bradwell, so we asked the Inspector to visit Mersea to look across the Blackwater at the industrial hulk of the old nuclear power station and about 20 pylons. New nuclear plants would require cooling towers 200 metres tall by 100 metres wide!

The second Inspector also approved it. BATTLE challenged it again in the High Court, which has just also given it the go-ahead.

We spent a long time investigating the Earls Hall Farm proposal for five turbines at St Osyth before supporting it, as did all the statutory environmental bodies. They would provide the equivalent electricity usage of Brightlingsea and St Osyth. It was opposed by local anti-wind group STAPLE and Tendring council turned it down against their officer's advice.

But there were over a thousand letters of support and only 152 against. It was approved after a public inquiry.

The proposed Middlewick windfarm of nine turbines, 3km southeast of Southminster, would supply the average electricity needs for 9,250 households. After opposition by anti-wind group SIEGE, Maldon council turned it down last summer.

Our FoE group looked at the site and the environmental studies and supported the windfarm, as did the Essex Chambers of Commerce, who said it would bring about £6million into the local economy. 300 letters of support were collected from local Southminster residents last autumn by proposers RidgeWind. It has just had a public inquiry. We hope it will be approved.

Yours sincerely,

Paula Whitney, Co-ordinator,
Colchester & North East Essex Friends of the Earth,
4 Shears Crescent, West Mersea.
01206/383123

Press Release from BANNG, 24/9/08

[susanreads]

EDF buys British Energy - but pockets of opposition are emerging

With the purchase of British Energy by Electricite de France (EDF) the battlefront over nuclear energy is now focused firmly on the proposed sites. Bradwell in Essex is one of the sites where it is proposed to have a mega nuclear reactor and storage of highly radioactive spent fuel on site.

In an innovative - and well timed - move, Colchester Borough Council's Strategic Overview and Scrutiny Panel, held their meeting in public in West Mersea, which is situated on the Blackwater estuary directly opposite and downwind of Bradwell. This could be the beginning of a process of genuine public engagement which other communities might copy.

In a packed hall, many anxieties were aired and questions asked by both residents and Councillors. The Panel engaged in a discussion of the various issues with experts: Andy Blowers, OBE (Professor of Social Sciences, The Open University, and member of the Government's first Committee on Radioactive Waste Management - CoRWM), Steve Thomas (Professor of Energy, University of Greenwich), Robin Grimes (Professor of Materials Physics, Imperial College) and Dr. Bill Nuttall (Senior Lecturer in Technology Policy at the Judge Business School, Cambridge). Representatives of the regulators and one from the Department of Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) were also present.

During the meeting, one thing became clear, to the dismay of all there. Adam Dawson, of the Government's Office for Nuclear Development (set up on 18 September by BERR), confirmed that "new stations will have to store waste on site for 100 years" from the start of operations. In addition it was confirmed that the wastes from the old Bradwell station would not be cleared up for 100 years. Given that there is at present no solution for the long-term management of these wastes, the Blackwater faces the prospect of a high-level rate of radioactivity on a site that is liable to inundation, until at least well into the 22nd century.

Among the many other anxieties raised during the evening were:

• the illogicality of having a new power station on a site which is a long way from the centre of demand - London;

• the costs and problems of defending a site that is liable to sea-level rise, flooding, storm surges and retreating coast;

• the volumes of cooling water required for a mega station, which might require the building of cooling towers;

• the impact of heating in a shallow estuary with implications for its seafood and sealife, recreation and its environmentally sensitive and protected areas;

• the impact on the landscape of upgrading to new and tall pylons and the blight that these would cause over a very wide area;

• the problems of emergency planning and the evacuation of Mersea Island in the event of a serious incident and the possibility that information might be given to residents too late, as happened with the radioactive leaks in France last July;

• the possibility of a higher incidence of childhood cancers and effects on pregnancy in proximity to an operating power station;

• concern that although the Government says there will be no subsidies for new nuclear power, the reality has always been that if new build happens, the public purse pays when things go wrong;

• concerns that nuclear would provide no solution to the energy gap and have only a minimal impact on climate change, so if it was not needed anywhere, it was certainly not needed at an unsuitable site like Bradwell.

Residents were pleased at the concern shown by the Panel who listened very carefully to the issues and agreed to investigate some of these further.

After the meeting, Professor Andy Blowers, who is also the Chair of the Blackwater Against New Nuclear Group (BANNG), said: 'This was a significant meeting for which the Scrutiny Panel took the time to meet with people who are most anxious about a new nuclear power station. The idea of putting people and the environment at risk both now and in the far future by building a power station and high-level radioactive waste facility on a vulnerable site frankly beggars belief.'.

[END]

Note to Editors

Andrew Blowers is Professor of Social Sciences at the Open University and was a member of the first Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM). He is Chair of the Blackwater Against New Nuclear Group (BANNG).

He can be contacted as follows:

Tel. No.: 07932.644482

e-mail: a.t.blowers@open.ac.uk

PRESS RELEASE: 22nd November 2009

[susanreads]

PRESS RELEASE: 22nd November 2009
COLCHESTER & NE ESSEX FOE
01206/383123

EXCITING NEWS OF FIRST ESSEX WINDFARM APPROVED AT EARLS HALL FARM, CLACTON-ON-SEA!

Colchester & North East Essex Friends of the Earth strongly supported this proposed windfarm of five turbines at Earls Hall farm, which would provide the equivalent electricity needs of the whole of Brightlingsea and St Osyth with current wasteful use of electricity.

Paula Whitney, Co-ordinator for Colchester & NE Essex FoE said:

"We are facing a huge global problem of climate change with the threat of sea level rises which put our coastal regions at risk. We have to cut CO2 and find clean renewable energy sources including from onshore and offshore wind. Whereas Norfolk and Cambridgeshire have windfarms, Essex has none. Yet the Eastern region has a commitment to produce 44% of electricity from windpower by 2020 including 17% from onshore wind.

Members of our group attended a crowded meeting set up by anti-wind group STAPLE at St Osyth which peddled myths and misinformation, including playing the sound of a wind turbine over a loudspeaker. A kind of anti-wind mass hysteria had set in.

We also attended the Tendring council planning meeting where councillors rejected their officer's detailed and careful report recommending approval. They unanimously voted against this proposal in front of an audience of vocal STAPLE members waving placards. They told their officers to find reasons to refuse it.

We had walked around the site and surrounding roads on various visits before we decided to strongly support the proposal for five wind turbines. We took a specially-organised coach trip to Deeping St Nicholas in Lincolnshire to visit a similar windfarm of eight turbines in order to hear for ourselves the sound of wind turbines.

Standing right underneath one the sound was a gentle and rather soothing hum. Unfortunately only a dozen or so Clacton people were on this interesting trip. At the Earls Hall windfarm public inquiry we asked the Inspector if he would include a trip to see these turbines, which he did in fact manage to do as he has mentioned in his report just released.

In spite of the vociferous STAPLE anti-wind campaign over a thousand letters of support were received for the windfarm application and only around 150 against.

We also took the Friends of the Earth's Regional Campaign Co-ordinator around the site for her to confirm our support for the windfarm and subsequently national FoE supported us. She agreed the Earls Hall farm was a suitable site for contributing clean renewable energy to support the regional target for the Eastern region of 17% of onshore wind by 2020."

In the meantime the Climate Change Act has been passed, committing the UK to 80% cut in climate change gases by 2050.

This is the first windfarm permitted in Essex since a previous Inspector's decision to permit the ten turbines at Hockley Farm, Bradwell was quashed and has been to a second inquiry over the past three weeks. Colchester & NE Essex FoE have just given our submission at this second inquiry, strongly supporting the ten turbines which would supply the equivalent electricity needs of a third of Maldon district.

ENDS

PRESS RELEASE: 23RD MAY 2011

[susanreads]

COLCHESTER & NORTH EAST ESSEX FRIENDS OF THE EARTH
PRESS RELEASE: 23RD MAY 2011
01206/383123

EXCITING NEWS - INSPECTOR APPROVES MIDDLEWICK WINDFARM ON THE DENGIE PENINSULA

Paula Whitney, Co-ordinator for Colchester & NE Essex Friends of the Earth said:

"It is exciting news that the Inspector, Elizabeth Fieldhouse, has approved the RidgeWind appeal against Maldon Council's refusal to allow the Middlewick windfarm on the flat farm fields 3km south east of Southminster.

These nine turbines will provide the average electricity usage of over nine thousand homes - and far more than those as energy efficiency measures become normal in the future.

When we were asking people in Southminster and Burnham for their views, the majority were in favour of these slender and graceful wind turbines to provide clean energy.

The Inspector says (76): "In the light of my conclusions at the end of each issue, on balance the wide landscape and huge skies have been found suitable to accommodate the proposal."

This is the third windfarm now approved on our east coast of Essex. The Hockley Farm ten turbines behind the Bradwell nuclear power plant has been approved by two separate inquiries and a High Court challenge thrown out recently. Near St Osyth five wind turbines at Earls Hall Farm were approved after a public inquiry - they would provide the equivalent electricity needs of the whole of Brightlingsea and St Osyth.

Although the UK has the best wind resource in Europe, we have been slow to follow the lead of countries where windfarms are normal. Denmark has a third of its electricity from wind. However, last year the National Grid reported that wind provided 6.6% of the UK's electricity."

ENDS

PRESS RELEASE: 29th July 2010

[susanreads]

PRESS RELEASE: 29th July 2010
Colchester & NE Essex Friends of the Earth
01206/383123

DENGIE PENINSULA IS AT THREAT OF INUNDATION FROM SEA LEVEL RISE - TIME TO HALT CLIMATE CHANGE WITH LOCAL RENEWABLE ENERGY - MALDON COUNCIL CAN HELP BY GIVING APPROVAL TO THE MIDDLEWICK WINDFARM

The UK is already committed to 34% reduction of CO2 and other climate change gases within ten years and cuts of 80% by 2050.

The new coalition Government has just spelt out its energy policy and said that renewables are crucial to decarbonisation but UK performance remains poor (see ENDS report below 27/7/10). We need to increase both onshore and offshore windpower as quickly as possible.

Onshore windfarms are more efficient than those offshore. We also need to urgently cut wasteful electricity usage with energy efficiency measures.

Paula Whitney, Co-ordinator of Colchester & North East Essex Friends of the Earth said:

"Maldon council must Get Serious about Climate Change. We hope they will approve the application for nine wind turbines at Middlewick Farm, about three kilometres east of Southminster.

The low-lying Dengie Peninsula is under threat of inundation from sea level rise if we don't stem global warming according to various reports, including from the Environment Agency. Yet anti-windfarm groups BATTLE and SIEGE are fighting the proposed Middlewick Farm windfarm of nine turbines 3 kilometres east of Southminster which would help limit climate change.

This windfarm would provide enough electricity for over 9000 homes at today's wasteful usage - and far more when energy efficiency measures are installed everywhere in the district."

---

From ENDS report 28/7/10

UK government spells out new energy policy

The British coalition government has fleshed out its latest thinking on how it aims to tackle the twin challenge of boosting energy security to avoid price spikes for business consumers while cutting emissions by 80% by 2050 relative to 1990 levels.
Launching the first ever annual energy statement in the parliament on 27 July, together with a raft of other policy documents, energy and climate secretary Chris Huhne said the UK was on track to cut emissions by 34% by 2020 compared with 1990 levels.
But he pointed out there were still serious short-term challenges, and an accompanying memorandum lists no less than 32 priorities for further action. Several additional measures will be announced by spring of 2011 following consultation.
Renewables are crucial to decarbonisation but UK performance remains poor. The government has asked a climate committee to report on the scope for higher renewable targets, promises a clearer delivery plan with milestones and costs by the end of 2010, and confirms support for marine energy.
The government has been forced to re-consult on new nuclear power plants, as a result of the risk of legal challenge to strategic environmental assessment in its national policy statements. But it insists delivery of the first reactor by 2018 is still on track with safety assessments due out in June 2011.
It has also published its long-awaited '2050 Pathways Analysis', a first comprehensive, long term look at energy supply and demand out to 2050. The analysis, based on six scenarios, explores various energy mixes, mostly assuming nuclear generation, with various levels of renewables and CCS.
In addition to this, the government published an online calculator enabling users to explore different energy mixes. The analysis draws back from stating a preferred option, but instead aims to inform debate on policy gaps beyond the government's low carbon transition plan, which focused only on the period to 2020.

Follow up:
Government press release