Controls are needed on micro wind generation

It’s always interesting when you get a convergence of information on a subject and, in my case, that has happened with micro-generation of electricity using wind power.

First was the deluge of television ads from the DIY chain B&Q, advertising the WindSave micro-wind turbine as one of the solutions that will have us sailing off into a sunny, green future.

Then there were the sometimes heated discussions on Selfsufficientish as to whether micro-wind turbines really can be as good as claimed.

The Press and Journal in Aberdeen then ran a story about the difficulties faced by an Ellon pensioner in obtaining planning permission to fit one of those B&Q wind turbines to his house.

A neighbour of mine then told me about a friend of his who has suddenly decided to fit a micro wind turbine and solar hot water to his house, mainly on the basis of the advertising campaign. I tried to point out that he’d get a better result for his money by spending on insulation but to no avail.

While all this was happening, I was also re-reading Paul Gipe’s book Wind Energy Basics: A Guide to Small and Micro Wind Systems.

In particular, I found myself drawn to two comments in particular:

“Nothing tells you more about a wind turbine’s potential than rotor diameter–nothing. The wind turbine with the bigger rotor will almost invariably generate more electricity than a turbine with a smaller rotor, regardless of their generator ratings.”

As for roof mounting: ” ‘Don’t bother,” he warns. “It’s not worth the trouble.’ “

Both comments tie in with what I read in other sources.

And finally, I read the latest on Liberal Democrat MSP Sarah Boyack’s proposed Energy Efficiency And Micro-generation (Scotland) Bill.

All of this has led me to change my mind.

I was initially in favour of ditching most planning controls over the micro wind turbines.

However, my research and exposure to the marketing campaigns of the manufactuers and re-sellers would suggest that while controls definitely need to be eased (as evidenced by our own and others experiences with Aberdeenshire Council), there also needs to be a rigorous but simple means of control.

It’s clear that some wind turbine manufacturers are not prepared to back up their marketing claims by making available real-world data on the outputs achieved by their turbines.

They’re also not prepared to make access available to pilot and demonstration projects.

Then, it’s also clear that while some marketing may imply micro and small-scale wind turbines can be installed anywhere, the reality is quite different.

Our croft house is built of stone with lime mortar and it’s clear that mounting a wind turbine on this structure would be inviting eventual damage to the building, particularly given the extreme wind speeds we experience (87mph peak gust during last Thursday’s gales, for example).

And even if the turbine was mounted on a mast away from the building, there should be some consideration for the environment, including wildlife habitats, and, in some cases, noise impact on neighbours – particularly in built-up areas where the noise should not be above existing background noise levels.

There is also the need for the turbine to make a genuine impact on energy consumption.

There seems little point in allowing people to put in turbines if they are simply going to consume the same amount of (or more) energy as before.

In the hope that someone in authority might stumble across this post, I’d like to propose a few suggestions that could be considered when deciding how to change planning controls over micro and small wind turbines.

While the presumption should be that small-scale turbines are acceptable and indeed necessary, people planning to install a wind turbine should still have to submit a basic preliminary planning pack to their council.

The pack should provide details of the specific turbine, its primary proposed installation site and a couple of secondaries, details of the theoretical energy output in those locations (using at least the DTI wind speeds, but preferably with actual figures as well), photos of the site with the turbine superimposed to scale (easy to do in Photoshop), details of existing “green” improvements to the structure that will utilise the electricity, and details of annual energy consumption by that structure/household.

Should the proposed installation pass all those checks, it could be installed quite quickly.

But, if someone proposed a wind turbine mounted on, say, a gable wall of a house the council could ask for an engineering assessment. Properly guyed and anchored masts or fitting to purpose engineered steel-framed industrial/agricultural buildings could be the accepted norm, for instance (as some manufacturers recommend).

If the turbine did not generate sufficient electricity over a given time frame (so it was carbon negative and not neutral or positive) then it would be rejected.

If there were wildlife habitats nearby, then it could be either rejected or further assessed.

If the turbine was to be erected in a built-up area, it could be sent for noise assessment and further wind analysis.

If in a more rural area, it should be enough to show on a map that either there is no-one living within, for argument’s sake, 200 metres of the turbine or that they have indicated in writing that they are aware of the noise level and have no objection to it.

Thinking about it, manufacturers should be able to build a demonstration trailer, like a lighting tower, that could be towed on site, erected and used for a couple of days so neighbours could see and hear it.

If the structure utilising the energy could be further insulated, draft-proofed or made more carbon neutral first, then the application could be rejected until other improvements were made, eg insulating, fitting high-efficiency solar hot water, etc.

This would to be within reason – so no demanding gas-fired central heating boilers for people in rural areas where gas is both expensive and non-renewable – so passive technologies would probably be best.

If the energy consumption of the structure/household was well above average or, better still, a set target for that type of use, then the application would be put on hold for a 18 months while an energy conservation plan was put together, submitted, implemented and then assessed.

So, yes, I have changed my mind about complete allowance of micro and small-scale wind generation of electricity.

The more I read about micro and small-scale wind turbines, the more marketing and advertising I see, and the more naivety I come across, the more I worry that wind turbines will be used by cowboys in the same way that double-glazing has been.

At the same time, wind turbines should also not be seen as just a means for energy hogs to get away with their current excesses.

* * *
For more on the roof mounting argument, read:

Hugh Piggott’s Rooftop wind turbines are a load of nonsense (scroll down to read) and Windspeed Measurement in the City.

Paul Gipe’s Rooftop Turbines: Rooftop Mounting and Building Integration of Wind Turbines and Roof Top over the Top in Britain.

Stewart Russell’s WindSave: All Betz Are Off! and Windsave Again.

The Observer’s Lower bills may not be blowing in the wind.

For the manufacturers’ views on micro wind turbines, have a look at:

Renewable Device’s Swift Turbines.

Windsave

Eclectic Energy’s D-400