House of Commons Hansard Debates for 1 May 1996 (pt 13)

Mr. Evans: I would be delighted to attend future meetings. We must examine a variety of energy resources, but also what measures can be taken to ensure that the fossil fuels that are burned contribute less to sulphur dioxide and carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere. Certain measures must be taken by the energy companies to reduce harmful emissions into the air.

That does not mean that we should do away with one energy source and cover the United Kingdom with windmills. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that the biggest wind farm in Europe is in Powys; it has 103 turbines that produce in a year what a conventional 2,000 MW power station produces in two days. It would require 16,000 windmills to produce that energy.

As well as driving up the costs, the intermittent nature of wind brings other disadvantages. According to the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology:

"the variable and unpredictable nature of wind energy may mean that . . . not all of the potential savings in emissions will be realised."

That failure to fulfil its potential is caused by two main deficiencies. First, there is the need to provide reserve capacity. Secondly, there are cycling losses caused by the additional fossil fuel used in the increased start-up and shut-down of stations due to the need to adapt to unpredictable changes in the supply of wind. Fossil fuels would still be needed.

1 May 1996 : Column 1120

Wind power supplies up to 0.1 per cent. of our national electricity needs. To reach the potential that is often talked about, which is in the region of 10 per cent. of the nation's energy, we would need between 30,000 and 40,000 wind turbines. That would occupy 1,500 square miles. It is not only a case of not in my back yard, but not in my front yard as well.

The Countryside Council for Wales said in its policy document on wind turbine power stations:

"while they are welcomed as a source of renewable energy, the scale of their contribution to meeting energy needs does not justify overturning established planning policies and safeguards".

Sir Donald Thompson (Calder Valley): I have no interest to declare. My hon. Friend will agree that the wind factories are blown. The biggest U-turn in politics this decade has been that by the Greens, the conservationists and the rest against wind farms. They are recognised as blights on the land.

My hon. Friend can frighten them away. He can be Don Quixote. We frightened them away from the Bronte moors by sticking to the truth and by putting the facts to the people, not by hiding behind the spurious figures and comparisons that are turned out by a business that is in the honourable profession of making money, but also in the dishonourable profession of irreparably scarring the landscape.

Mr. Evans: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is his own Don Quixote. I congratulate him on his success in preserving the natural beauty of his countryside. Up to now, the argument in favour of windmills has been dominant. People have been afraid to say that there is a downside to them. That is why I have initiated this debate.

Even Friends of the Earth, which recently wrote to me saying that the best way to stop pollution and save energy is to

"turn off the light and the television set",

admits:

"most of the best areas for wind energy, due to the high mean annual wind speeds, correlate with areas that have . . . landscape and conservation value."

Those are often beautiful areas.

Mr. Colin Pickthall (West Lancashire): I thank the hon. Gentleman for introducing the subject in the way he has. Does he agree that the point is not so much the existence of wind turbines, which have an important part to play in renewable energy, as the problems that he mentioned with their location? To speak selfishly, that is especially true in his constituency of the uplands that form an important part of the landscape for many thousands of my constituents who live miles away from them. Does he agree that it is invidious to put the biggest windmills so far all the way down Kirby moor in south Cumbria, blighting an important landscape?

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. It is not only people who live in such places who suffer from the visual impact of wind turbines. Thousands of people visit those places because of the beauty of the countryside. The last thing they need is industrial activity--and that is what it is--created by the imposition of wind turbine factories.

1 May 1996 : Column 1121

The siting of such turbines must be handled sensitively. That is one of the major reasons that I sought the debate. It is not only the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry but of the Department of the Environment to take action to review PPG 22, which has done some damage in respect of where turbines are to be sited.

Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley): I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have seen the wind farm at Cliviger, between my constituency and Calder Valley. It is in a most beautiful area, and is visible wherever one is in Burnley. The planners said that it would be possible to see it only in close proximity. It is very damaging, and further wind farms in our area would be unacceptable.

Mr. Evans: I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman.I know his strong feelings on the issue. One would have to have extremely impaired vision not to be able to see the windmills in his constituency.

Mr. Pike: They can be seen from your constituency.

Mr. Evans: Indeed, I can see them from mine. I know about his problems, and wish him well in any future fights to prevent further intrusion on the open countryside in his constituency.

Not only is the north-west suffering. In Scotland, there is a proposal for 37 turbines at Helmsdale. I have spoken to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland(Mr. Maclennan), whose constituency includes Helmsdale. He has fought the proposal.

It is amazing that such an application has been accepted, particularly in the face of opposition from Scottish National Heritage, the community councils, local landowners, tenants, tourists and most of the local inhabitants. There is a very strong campaign. I understand that those 37 turbines would be visible from one of the most scenic stretches of road in the country. It would have a devastating impact in the area, and I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland will use his power to look at the decision, and--hopefully--his good sense and judgment to overturn it.

As the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) has intimated, some of the turbines are far taller than Nelson's column and can be seen for miles around. I agree with my noble Friend Lord Parkinson, who said about wind turbines when he was Secretary of State for Energy:

"nobody could call them beautiful, in fact they are extremely ugly".

Lord Stoddart made the point succinctly when he said:

"wind turbines are visually ugly and destructive of the landscape. The best way of obtaining energy is to conserve it."

When applications to erect wind factories have reached a public inquiry--there have been four to date--they have always been defeated, because the environmental impact has always outweighed the energy they produce.

Apart from the problems that I have already mentioned, there are also problems of noise and electromagnetic interference. The latter affects television signals, and people have to switch to cable television to overcome interference. Unfortunately, the noise problem is not so easily overcome. Mechanical noise has resulted in several turbines on a wind farm in Holland being stopped for eight hours each night due to complaints from neighbouring residents.

1 May 1996 : Column 1122

One victim of wind factory blight said in The Daily Telegraph a couple of years ago:

"The 'thrump' of the blades and grinding gears is driving us to distraction. My kitchen amplifies these noises sickeningly. Since commissioning in July, the house has frequently vibrated with penetrating soundwaves. At night, these disrupt sleep, even when all the windows are closed. As I write, turbine droning is audible above the computer's hum. For my family and those in a similar plight on windfarm sites in Wales and Cornwall, there is a distressing human cost to this supposedly environmentally friendly electricity. For us, this is no brave, new, clean energy but a rapacious industrial giant."

Research in America, Japan and Germany predicts that people living within two miles of wind farms may have medical effects from infrasonic vibration. One person is the first in Wales to achieve a council tax reduction because the value of his house has fallen. The Select Committee on Welsh Affairs has even admitted that the noise is clearly disturbing and unpleasant, and may have some psychological effects. If we want the green and the peace, turbines are not for us.