I have several articles at various stages of completion, but I could not resist commenting on the flurry of publicity linked to a DESNZ press release concerning planning procedures for onshore wind farms.
Great article it should be essential reading for any journalist who wants to comment on this matter in a constructive way and hopefully your in contact with a few. I have been wondering myself how on earth Millbrain believes he can get to his 2030 NZ goal, well the 95% version, with how long it takes to translate decisions into intermittent electricity production but hadn't realised how many "shovel ready" projects are still parked. My real concern though is the triumvirate of Miilbrain, Starkie and Sly read this and realise their plans aren't going to deliver and double down again on the pursuit of this daft goal that will generate neither UK jobs nor lower energy costs.
I have very mixed feelings about journalists. The majority of them just top and tail press releases. The era when specialist journalists had deep knowledge of their beat has long gone. I deal with a small number who write more analytical pieces for specialised outlets - for example David Rose who is now writing for Unherd. They may have the space to write stories that are not full of sound-bites. Radio & TV are mostly awful and not worth my time. Interesting stuff has largely moved online - very dispersed but not subject to severe time and space constraints.
On "shovel ready" projects I will follow up with more information on solar, offshore wind and other types of renewable projects. Most offshore projects are bigger and are rarely parked like onshore projects.
I don't usually separate the numbers for Wales because they are so much smaller than Scotland. However, I have checked this morning. The pattern in Wales from 2016 to 2021 was similar to the whole of the UK. There were 10 consented projects of which 3 have been built. There are 3 projects consented from 2022 to 2024, none of which have started construction. The consented capacity was 207 MW of which 65 MW has been built.
Thanks. The Bute Energy Twyn Hywel proposal has just been consented which includes 220 m turbines ca 700 m from housing near Senghenydd
I see the clean power action plan has about 5,000 MW to be built by 2030, which will be facilitated by NGETs new transmission line from Bodelwyddan to Llandyfaelog
A quite separate point about Twyn Hywel. 700 metres from the nearest houses is ridiculous in noise terms. If I were affected I would make it clear to the developer that one would make their life unbearable with noise nuisance complaints. Planning consent does *not* give exemption from common law noise nuisance litigation and the current British Standard limits on environmental noise exposure are quite strict. From what I can see of the project you it would possible to bury the developer in requirements to switch off turbines, etc.
On the face of it, that is never going to happen. Over the last decade Wales has consented 450 MW of onshore capacity and built 128 MW - not including the one you mention. So they must be expecting offshore wind to contribute 4+ GW to that total. Given the lead time for offshore projects and the huge supply constraints in the industry that seems pretty unlikely.
I live in Scotland so this was of great interest to me especially. There is a small range of hills called the Ochil Hills which already have three turbine installations , so they are a dominant part of the landscape up there. But there are currently three more developments applied for, which is ridiculous as the hills are an important recreation facility, apart from all the other problems these things cause. To make it worse, the main application is for 200 mtr blades which would be visible from 30 miles away. However, I was a bit heartened to read the tables you attached, showing the approval rate has dropped back significantly. There is also a lot of concern about placement of the battery units , now that the hazard of blazes which cannot be extinguished is becoming more widely discussed. Thank you for the writing on this subject.
The key change that the Government has, in my view, correctly taken is to remove the effective ban on onshore wind planning applications in England. However since the large bulk of proposed schemes (certainly in terms of capacity) have been elsewhere, mainly Scotland, this will not have a massive effect. But it will still produce a significant number of extra schemes. That is good as far as I am concerned. Indeed repowering of existing sites could add a lot to UK onshore wind capacity. I discuss this in my blog, see 'Repowering could boost onshore wind to over a third of UK electricity supply' https://davidtoke.substack.com/p/repowering-could-boost-onshore-wind
I don't accept your interpretation of Rebecca Windemer's data. Her figures are dominated by three "repowered" wind farms - Hagshaw Hill, Tangy & Llandinam. The first two involve significant expansion in the area of the wind farm - e.g. at Hagshaw Hill you could not fit 14 200m turbines in the space taken up by 26 57m turbines. The Llandinam case is genuine but there are not many sites with 100+ 300 kW turbines which can be replaced by 3 MW turbines that are not much higher.
I accept that repowering can increase capacity, especially for wind farms built before 2000 or even 2005, but the increase will more typically be less than than 2 times.
Great article it should be essential reading for any journalist who wants to comment on this matter in a constructive way and hopefully your in contact with a few. I have been wondering myself how on earth Millbrain believes he can get to his 2030 NZ goal, well the 95% version, with how long it takes to translate decisions into intermittent electricity production but hadn't realised how many "shovel ready" projects are still parked. My real concern though is the triumvirate of Miilbrain, Starkie and Sly read this and realise their plans aren't going to deliver and double down again on the pursuit of this daft goal that will generate neither UK jobs nor lower energy costs.
I have very mixed feelings about journalists. The majority of them just top and tail press releases. The era when specialist journalists had deep knowledge of their beat has long gone. I deal with a small number who write more analytical pieces for specialised outlets - for example David Rose who is now writing for Unherd. They may have the space to write stories that are not full of sound-bites. Radio & TV are mostly awful and not worth my time. Interesting stuff has largely moved online - very dispersed but not subject to severe time and space constraints.
On "shovel ready" projects I will follow up with more information on solar, offshore wind and other types of renewable projects. Most offshore projects are bigger and are rarely parked like onshore projects.
When inevitable failure is recognised, effort will go not into an alternative, better plan, but avoidance of responsibility and diversion of blame.
A really interesting article, thank you for the analysis and sharing. I would be interested in your thoughts on the situation in Wales
I don't usually separate the numbers for Wales because they are so much smaller than Scotland. However, I have checked this morning. The pattern in Wales from 2016 to 2021 was similar to the whole of the UK. There were 10 consented projects of which 3 have been built. There are 3 projects consented from 2022 to 2024, none of which have started construction. The consented capacity was 207 MW of which 65 MW has been built.
Thanks. The Bute Energy Twyn Hywel proposal has just been consented which includes 220 m turbines ca 700 m from housing near Senghenydd
I see the clean power action plan has about 5,000 MW to be built by 2030, which will be facilitated by NGETs new transmission line from Bodelwyddan to Llandyfaelog
A quite separate point about Twyn Hywel. 700 metres from the nearest houses is ridiculous in noise terms. If I were affected I would make it clear to the developer that one would make their life unbearable with noise nuisance complaints. Planning consent does *not* give exemption from common law noise nuisance litigation and the current British Standard limits on environmental noise exposure are quite strict. From what I can see of the project you it would possible to bury the developer in requirements to switch off turbines, etc.
On the face of it, that is never going to happen. Over the last decade Wales has consented 450 MW of onshore capacity and built 128 MW - not including the one you mention. So they must be expecting offshore wind to contribute 4+ GW to that total. Given the lead time for offshore projects and the huge supply constraints in the industry that seems pretty unlikely.
And the infamous Hendy wind farm was consented, built but not connected to the grid!
I live in Scotland so this was of great interest to me especially. There is a small range of hills called the Ochil Hills which already have three turbine installations , so they are a dominant part of the landscape up there. But there are currently three more developments applied for, which is ridiculous as the hills are an important recreation facility, apart from all the other problems these things cause. To make it worse, the main application is for 200 mtr blades which would be visible from 30 miles away. However, I was a bit heartened to read the tables you attached, showing the approval rate has dropped back significantly. There is also a lot of concern about placement of the battery units , now that the hazard of blazes which cannot be extinguished is becoming more widely discussed. Thank you for the writing on this subject.
The key change that the Government has, in my view, correctly taken is to remove the effective ban on onshore wind planning applications in England. However since the large bulk of proposed schemes (certainly in terms of capacity) have been elsewhere, mainly Scotland, this will not have a massive effect. But it will still produce a significant number of extra schemes. That is good as far as I am concerned. Indeed repowering of existing sites could add a lot to UK onshore wind capacity. I discuss this in my blog, see 'Repowering could boost onshore wind to over a third of UK electricity supply' https://davidtoke.substack.com/p/repowering-could-boost-onshore-wind
I don't accept your interpretation of Rebecca Windemer's data. Her figures are dominated by three "repowered" wind farms - Hagshaw Hill, Tangy & Llandinam. The first two involve significant expansion in the area of the wind farm - e.g. at Hagshaw Hill you could not fit 14 200m turbines in the space taken up by 26 57m turbines. The Llandinam case is genuine but there are not many sites with 100+ 300 kW turbines which can be replaced by 3 MW turbines that are not much higher.
I accept that repowering can increase capacity, especially for wind farms built before 2000 or even 2005, but the increase will more typically be less than than 2 times.
Thank you for this remarkably informative piece.