Make this web site credible by cutting out all the misinformation.

To start with, wind turbines have a load factor of 30% which means that they produce, on average, 30% of their maximum rating. In 2004 the UK's power stations had an average load factor of 66.4%. Given the variablity of the wind 30% is great - and the wind, unlike uranium, coal, gas or oil, costs nothing.

No-one in their right mind claims that wind turbines run continually. Generally they spin for 80% of the time with 20% stoppage for maintenance or no wind. All proponents of wind power agree that other means of power are necessary to provide a base load with wind and solar providing essential CO2 free contributions to our total power requirements.

The most significant issue with wind turbines is that under certain circumstances they can cause a noise problem. Study Salford University's Research into Aerodynamic Modulation of Wind Turbine Noise, available at http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file40570.pdf, for a detailed analysis of the problem. OK - it was commissioned by the government so the conspiracy theorists will write it off, but it does provide a valuable resource and states there is a lack of scientific knowledge about Aerodynamic Modulation (AM). Given that Enertrag is quoting ETSU-R-1997 as the noise standard it would be legitimate to claim that this is inadequate in view of the Salford study and perhaps negotiate some form of guarantee of corrective action in the event that AM should prove to be a problem at Baumber.

Clearly these huge machines will be visible for a long way – but why not? What else of interest is there between the wolds and Lincoln? This area of arable wasteland could accommodate many more wind turbines without detriment to the productivity or amenity of the area. Incidentally, the top arc of the rotor disk will be at about 145m above sea level – almost the same as the top of the centre tower of Lincoln cathedral but not nearly as substantial.

For the sake of my grand children I support renewable energy initiatives as essential means of mitigating climate change. We need to consider the issues seriously and solve the problems (such as AM) which will emerge. We can not afford the luxury of objecting to such developments simply because we would rather they were somewhere else.

Ian Shephard

In answer to your definition of this area being considered as 'arable waste land' ... I totally (and I think you will find many others will too,) disagree with you... Yes, there is ongoing research in to noise and AM problems associated with turbines being too closely placed to so called, 'receptors' and Enertrag are not being honest in their 'Factual Promotional Publicity'.... We, as a group support renewable energy ,we are as concerned as anyone about the possible implications of climate change. We want to 'SAVE THE PLANET', as much, if not more so that those who

who are in favour of the turbines or to be gramatically correct ,The Industrial Building of a Wind Power Station. ... But, we value what we have here in our locality now and for the future and will shortly be issuing further information on our specific alternatives.

Also, what we strongly object to is secret deals behind closed doors, with no prior consultation, purely for profit and no other reason... Is this called Democracy ......I don't think so .......

Melvin, your reply contains the sort of half truths I am objecting to. Planning regs require wind farms to meet ETSU-R-1997 and Enertrag say they they will do so. There is nothing dishonest in that BUT there is evidence that ETSU-R-1997 is inadequate and that is the point that needs to be made in the interest of those potentially affected.

What are these 'secret deals behind closed doors' which are apparently not secret to you? If you are referring to agreements between land owner and developer what is wrong with that? In a democracy we all have the right to decide what should be done with our own property – and make a profit if we can. What is important here is that the procedure to obtain planning permission in order to implement the development is followed and that seems to be the case.

Like me, you and your group now have the opportunity to contribute during the consultation but if our contributions are to be taken seriously they must be pertinent and factually accurate.

Melvin, as a mortgage broker can you honestly say you have never sold a product to a Baumber resident who used it to build a house in the face of objections from neighbours (albeit with planning permission).

Melvin, as a mortgage broker can you honestly say you have never sold a product to a Baumber resident who used it to build a house in the face of objections from neighbours (albeit with planning permission).

--- oakworth 

Well actually yes ! I haven't arranged any new build mortgages in 10 years, where a client has built their own property. I have however, helped many people from various backgrounds, from difficult situations. These include clients seeking to re-establish themselves after bankrupcy, along with saving families from repossession. To give you an example : One particular client who incidentally is disabled, lost her husband. He fell terminally ill, whilst self employed as a taxi driver and was made bankrupt, by the Inland Revenue for £10,000. During the 2-3 years up until he passed away, this debt, with Insolvency charges and Interest mounted up to over £40,000. Even while I was working on her behalf , the trustees in bankrupcy tried to take her home from her. I have many clients from all over the UK, from many walks of life, as far away as Cornwall, Scotland, London, Birmingham etc.This is the reality I deal with on a day to day basis.. Does that help.... ?

Hi Ian,

At the risk of appearing to be pedantic the BERR (formerly DTI) load factor for land based wind turbines in 2003 was 24.1% and bear in mind that this included the more efficient turbines sited on high ground, the load factor for those sited in low lying areas such as ours will be less efficient. You say that you are concerned with reducing CO2 levels so I'm surprised that you seem to support land based wind farms. Off shore installations can provide up to seven times the amount of electricity over their lifespan due to their larger size (as much as 7.5MW), sronger, more consistent wind and up to 50% longer life (Vestas).

I am saddened that you feel that you live in an agricultural wasteland, perhaps a little time spent observing the wildlife (barn owls and bats in particular), listening to the birdsong and admiring the stunning views might change your opinion and you may consider that this beautiful and diverse landscape is a more than worthy inheritance for your grandchildren.

Hi G.Grysa,

I welcome pedantry! It is far better than unsubstantiated claims or opinion dressed up as fact.

Your post promted me to search for better info. The figures for 2006 are available and, because of the rate at which wind farms are being built, a figure for only those which were in operation for the whole year is available. For onshore it is 26.7% and offshore 27.5%.

Yes, it would be nice if all wind farms were offshore but we need as much wind power as possible as quickly as possible. Land based are cheaper and easier to build.

OK, we do have a healthy bio-diversity in this part of the world, but it is under threat. We are more likely to protect it by adopting renewable energy. In my opinion wind turbines sited in agricultural areas offer the least ecological impact.

Sounds plausible Ian,so you obviously have no quarms about subjecting the residents living in these "agricultural areas" to 25 years of misery,will you be living within 700 metres of one of these 410 ft high electricity generating structures? are you intimating like so many other people that we carry the can for an acute lack of investment in "conventional" power generation over the last 15 years? Its just not necessary or required in an area like ours which has residential areas VERY close to the proposed site.i suggest you take a short drive to Skegness( 25 miles from Baumber) and look at a "proper" windfarm site .The Wash as i,m sure will know is a MASSIVE expanse of sea,ideal for huge wind turbine power generation,Centrica's mega site should be operational within the next 18 months so whats your problem? Baumbers proposed site will pale away into insignificance as regards power generation when compared to Centrica's site.Looking at the Laughton failure -that project has been fought tooth and nail for 5 years and still no sign of a turbine! lets just drop this land based wind turbine craving in sensitive rural areas and get on with building loads more offshore windfarms.

The Wash as i,m sure will know is a MASSIVE expanse of sea,ideal for huge wind turbine power generation,Centrica's mega site should be operational within the next 18 months so whats your problem?

--- Greg 

Wait a minute - you are saying that they should, instead, put wind turbines in the sea, which is more expensive, and in the same place as there already are some?

If the site is already taken, that makes in unavailable, the same as I can't build a house where yours is. It's not very complicated.

Congratulations, Greg, your last post was almost free of misinformation. There are a few isolated properties and no 'residential areas' within 1000m of any of the proposed turbine sites. I am particularly concerned about the few people living in these isolated properties. The fog of irrelevant rubbish, half truths and total untruths being generated by BWAG is hiding the real concerns which should be addressed to protect these people. The current noise guidelines are inadequate and there is a remote possibility that noise may prove to be a problem. Enertrag have indicated to me that they aim only to meet the guidelines, therefore, I want to see ELDC impose more stringent requirements as a condition of any planning consent.

Oil, gas and uranium supplies are running out and nearly all are under the control of unreliable nations. Coal is available to us but needs the technology to achieve clean burning and CO2 capture and storage. Wave power is a good long term solution but needs developing. In the meantime we need every watt of renewable power we can get - on land and at sea.

Everybody is entitiled to their view about whether wind farms are ugly blots on the landscape or elegant structures performing a vital role but I think most people are prepared to accept them for the benefits they provide for the whole community. However, in the unlikely event that this wind farm will get planning consent (I think MoD will stop it because of radar interference) we must ensure that any approval contains adequate protection for those few of our neighbours who may experience problems.

I repeat my original plea when I started this thread. Cut out the nonsense generated by nimbyism, recognise the need for sustainable and renewable energy and focus in on the real problems.

Ian, that has got to one of the best posts ever on these forums. Thank You (I am not being sarcastic here.)

However, there is one thing that I feel I should reply to in your post.

The noise issue. The audible noise emitted: The decibels produced by a wind turbine 350 metres away is LESS (before any BWAG butts in here) than a car 100metres away. My house is well over 350metres away from the turbines and the majority of houses in the area are too. (I suspect a few of those isolated farms etc fall into the minority here.) In fact I would bet on the fact the majority of BWAG members have a road closer than 100metres away and are FURTHER than 350 metres away from the turbines. So at BWAG can't protest about that. (Well they can, just wrongly so.)

The inaudible noise appears to form a lot of the concern. There is no concrete evidence it does cause illness and there is no concrete evidence that it doesn't. So no-one can formulate facts arguing either until there is sufficient evidence in either's favour.

Here we go again... so the same line is being peddled... there is a genuine problem with health issues arising from turbines being sited too close to peoples houses..

If you need any proof of this the click into the onterio links on this site and others...

They said Gulf war syndrome, ME, white finger, & amongst others.. asbestosis.... the battle the miners have had & so on..

When health becomes an issue against money...nearly every time people have to suffer for some time before those who really should be concerned take any notice... but then we have been here before and remedies and causes are denyied or fobbed off.

It saddens me that people are be -littled and made out as moaning minies... You can't dismiss symptons as 'there all in the mind', when the same symptons are consistently reported throughout the world... When the truth is finally acknowledged, I hope the wind turbine industry has massive compensation claims levelled at it and the Directors are personnally held financially responsible and if necessary bankrupted....

Sea Wind. DO I HAVE TO REPEAT MYSELF. STOP MAKING ASSUMPTIONS.

'The inaudible noise appears to form a lot of the concern. There is no concrete evidence it does cause illness and there is no concrete evidence that it doesn't. So no-one can formulate facts arguing either until there is sufficient evidence in either's favour.'

Sea Wind. DO I HAVE TO REPEAT MYSELF. STOP MAKING ASSUMPTIONS.

'The inaudible noise appears to form a lot of the concern. There is no concrete evidence it does cause illness and there is no concrete evidence that it doesn't. So no-one can formulate facts arguing either until there is sufficient evidence in either's favour.'

--- Derek(guest) 

Indeed. Exactly the same as flying saucers, religion, time travel, magic, telepathy, faster than light travel......

The list goes on. But for all of these, and for the 'damage' caused by wind turbines, it is a matter of irrational belief, as you think believing in it will somehow make things better - in this case, you hope that the plans for wind-farms will be abolished as a result. But they will not be, for the same reason they would not be if you complained god told you to get rid of them; nobody cares.

Lets get this thread back to reality. Today there are over 170 operational wind farms in the UK. Of these only a handful have caused any complaints about noise and then from only isolated properties. Investigations have revealed problems caused by aerodynamic modulation in one or two cases only. Modern turbines are designed to take the maximum amount of energy from the wind and not waste it in producing noise. The likelihood of any property being affected by the Baumber turbines is therefore almost nil but it can not be gauranteed to be nil. I will not support a project if I feel the interests of 1 of my neighbours will be adversely affected. Hence I advocate tightening up the noise specification, which would eliminate the risk.

BWAG claim in their literature that noise will blight local communities - untrue. For the reasons above there is only a very remote chance that an isolated property close to a turbine might, under certain conditions, experience a problem.

BWAG claim in their literature that flicker will blight local communities - untrue. Flicker is the moving shadow cast by a rotating turbine and is entirely predictable. The turbines are sited so that no property will be in the shadow area or, if this can not be achieved, turbines are programmed to shut down during the time their shadow could cause a problem.

BWAG claim in their literature that vibration will blight local communities - untrue. This claim appears to be based upon a study to determine the effects of wind farms on a seismic laboratory at Eskdalemuir in the Scottish Borders. This site houses the UK's most sensitive vibration detecting instruments - designed to detect earthquakes and explosions from anywhere in the world. Having a source of vibration close at hand could render the site deaf - hence the research. The report concluded that windfarms over 10km away would be unlikely to cause problems. This conclusion has been spun by the anti wind farm brigade to mean that wind farms DO cause vibrations out to 10km, conveniently forgetting that you need the world's most sensitive instruments to detect them. When the authors of the report (Prof Styles, President, Geological Society of London & S Toon, Keele University) read the anti wind farm press reports they issued a rebuttal in which they say "To put the level of vibration into context, they are ground vibrations with amplitudes of about one millionth of a millimetre. There is no possibility of humans sensing the vibration and absolutely no risk to human health.". Incidentally, the Baumber turbines will be built on clay which will absorb vibrations and not transmit them.

I am also very concerned about the ecological impact of wind farms. At Baumber the turbines will be sited in arable fields where routine farming practice regularly destroys habitat by ploughing and encourages the desired crop by fertilisers and pesticides at the expense of all else. (Farmers also put up windmills as bird scarers - not to mention the noise of gas guns for the same purpose!!!) From the ecological point of view Baumber's fields present the perfect site.

Enertrag claim a 30% load factor for Baumber. If we assume they will only achieve 20%, then, in a full year (8,760hrs) the wind farm, rated at 24MW, will produce 24 x 0.2 x 8,760 = 42,048 MWhrs per year. My home uses about 4MWhrs per year so, on these figures, Baumber will be able to supply as much electricity as is consumed by 10,500 such properties.

Lets stick to facts and not beliefs based upon spin. The only effects wind farms can have on our health, welfare and the ecology of our area are beneficial ones - less poluted atmosphere and sustainable power supplies. Provided we protect the interests of the tiny minority who might just possibly be adversely affected then the only reason we can offer for denying the community at large the benefits is that we don't like the look of wind turbines - and that is pure NIMBYism - but at least it is honest.

The choice is yours. Is the provision of safe, clean, renewable power supplies worth more than having to endure the sight of 8 large turbines (if we choose to look in their direction)?

Incidentally, in 1400, yes 1400, there were 10,000 windmills in the UK, today we have just over 2000 wind turbines. William Cobbett of Ipswich commented in 1830:

"The windmills on the hills in the area are so numerous that I counted whilst standing in one place, no less than seventeen. They are all painted of washed white, the sails are black...and their twirling together added greatlly to the beauty of the scene, which having the broad and beautiful arm of the sea on the one hand and the fields and meadow studded with farm houses on the other appeared to make the most beautiful sight of the kind that I ever beheld."

I wonder if anyone will have a similar opinion of Baumber? Perhaps that is too much to hope for, but underlines the fact that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Ian,

It seems you've already highlighted my issue with that post we got from these people.

In it, BWAG claim that noise will blight everyone. Yet, in the information form Enertrag that came from it, it says that it is sited more than 700m from properties, that is far further than the audible noise can be heard from (it's something like 40 decibels from 300m), so I seriously doubt that 700m+ is going to 'blight' people.

Thank you Ian, you also cleared some of the confusion caused by that thing. The 'light' that would blight us, I assumed was lights one the turbines so aircraft could see them, and previously they were moaning about depleted Uranium (emphasis on depleted) being in the wings so they glow. I was thinking, at least keep the story straight! Thanks for associating that with the 'flicker'.

Hi Ian,

May I pick up on one or two points in your last email? My maths might be rusty but I make eight 2MW turbines to have a combined output of 16MW not 24MW. The accepted figure for domestic consumption is 4.7MWhr so the number of homes supplied would be 5,964. This is still an impressive number but very much insignificant in the U.K.'s targets for renewable energy. Consider the five sites off the Lincolnshire coast, Lynn, Inner Dowsing, Lincs, Docking Shoal and Race Bank, together they will produce 1,430MW with a much higher load factor (probably 40%) and supply electricity to 1,066,000 homes, that is every home in Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire. Not one single home will be blighted by the POTENTIAL noise, amplitude modulation, visual impact, or property value decrease and there is another huge bonus to the environment - the offshore turbine has a much smaller carbon footprint than the land based thanks to the greater load factor (fewer are required to produce the same amount of energy) and the ability to use larger capacity turbines. Remember these are five of many offshore sites which will be built over the next few years, the U.K. has one of the world's greatest offshore wind resources and unlike the miniscule development at Baumber, can have a serious effect on global warming. The question is simply this - why build at Baumber and sacrifice so much for so little when to build offshore would sacrifice so little for so much?

Kind Regards, Gary.

The question is simply this - why build at Baumber and sacrifice so much for so little when to build offshore would sacrifice so little for so much?

Kind Regards, Gary.

--- G.Grysa(guest) 

Because Off-shore costs more. To run and to maintain. The only sacrifice will be the people who can't stand the sight of them moving away, I say good riddance, we need less people less willing to accept change around here.

& please note the only people to gain significantly round here, will be the farmer and oops Enertrag we suffer they gain nice one ian... bit one sided you might think it is a good idea I suggest you go & buy a property in conisholme there are people there desperate to sell and that is a FACT

We are not against change but not this devastation.. its very sad you obviously dont appreciate this area and the unique character, then do the best thing and move out....... if Conisholme doesnt suit then maybe try Horncastle Lincoln or Grimsby

or derek ...this is change we could do without mate

I would just like to know why everyone keeps saying the farmer in question is making a fortune from Enertrag? Yes, I'm sure he is going to get what most of us would count as a large sum of money per year but none of us know how much though. Has anyone stopped to think that the farmer is running tractors and soon,the combine will be out too. These cost hundreds per day to run. He also has haulage lorries aswell and with the cost of fuel rising over and over again,he may well need the money to keep these things running and keep people in work. Who knows?

Local contractors will be sought to carry out as much work as is possible to the site and construction preparation on behalf of Enertrag(should they get planning permission of course). There will also be workers brought in who will need somewhere to stay and eat whilst here,bringing money to our local businesses. Will these people not be benefiting from the work and trade then?

Enertrag will also be giving all the villages (only in the immediate area of the turbines) grants; all these villages will get a share of £25,000 per year for every year the turbines are up. That is alot of cash the villages could put to great use-maybe for security for village halls to stop thefts or play areas???

Considering ELDC has just said Baumber cannot even have a flashing speed sign due to budget allocations and the fact they see no problem with parents and children crossing the VERY BUSY main road and Enertrag have said they would give a grant to have a sign put up,who would not benefit from an effort to slow moterists down in the area? Enertrag have just put these signs up at the school in Norfolk which is close to the turbines.

Of course,there will be those who will say they are trying to buy people and that's why Enertrag haven't made a big thing of it.

As for people trying to sell their houses in Conisholme;people may not be buying due to the economic status and lack of lending rather than the turbines. I'm sure they will put some people off but it's not right to blame just the turbines and them alone for the lack of house sales. It is a nationwide issue at the moment and many people are struggling to sell their houses and having to knock alot off the asking prices. If they have a problem they should take it up with good old Gordon Brown.

These cost hundreds per day to run.

--- Charlie(guest) 

You're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong. Yooouuu're Wrong!

They cost little to maintain. And they cost nothing to run, as wind is FREE. Offshore cost tons to maintain, as they have to actually go out to sea just to maintain them.

Derek.

Please re-read my quote-you will then see that I was in fact stating that tractors and combines cost hundreds per day to run. I think you'll find I was right,right,right about this.

I am also well aware that wind is free...I never said it wasn't!!!!

Sorry about that, as soon as I spot the word 'they cost a lot to run', I automatically assume the poster is one of these ignorant people, and I feel the need to correct them.

Having pointed out what you meant by that, I see your for the Wind Turbines. I have nothing against you, in fact, you bring up some brilliant point that no-one else has thought of. Congratulations.

YES TO WINDFARMS

Thanks to G Grysa for correcting my example - I had it in mind that the Baumber turbines were to be 3MW not 2MW. As far as offshore/onshore is concerned, offshore achieved a load factor of 27.5% in 2006 compared with 26.7% for onshore (see the Digest of UK Energy Statistics 2007). If we are to achieve the (inadequate) government target of 20% of all our power needs from renewables by 2020 then we need every watt we can get as cheaply and quickly as possible. Offshore is not only more expensive in both construction and maintenance but also in bringing the power to shore to connect it to the grid.

My thanks to Sea Wind for the invitation to leave the area - not exactly a valid answer to the facts I have presented. Sea Wind claims to be concerned about health but shows no concern for the thousands who suffer from asthma - agravated by the polloution spewed out by fossil fuel burning power stations - and who will benefit by the switch to wind. To Sea Wind the almost undetectable vibration and noise from wind turbines will blight communities - those same communities that already live next to roads, work in factories and travel in transport which exposes them to prolonged high levels of noise and vibration with no adverse effects.

The fact is that the Baumber wind farm will make a small but nontheless valuable contribution to achieving our national wind energy target which will benefit all of us - in particular our children and grand children.

We live in a democracy and we can not allow the benefits the majority will gain from wind energy to be lost because a tiny minority do not like the sight of the turbines. However, the genuine concerns of this minority must be respected and everything possible should be done to mitigate any real problems. This could be achieved by working with the developer but will be impossible if Sea Wind and the like continue to blow up a dust storm of irrelevant rubbish.

'we value what we have here in our locality now and for the future and will shortly be issuing further information on our specific alternatives.'

I'd be very interested to hear about these alternatives and feel they should take centre stage along with your objections towards the proposals for wind turbines. From my assessment of the situation, many of the 'Anti-Wind Farm' lobby have a lot to say in opposition to wind farms, but have next to nothing to suggest as an alternative to our dependancy on finite resources. Of particular relevance to Baumber is the high dependancy on diesel, gas based nitrogen fertiliser and oil based pesticides for agriculature, which I'm sure is becoming of increasing concern to local farmers. I do congradulate you considerably however on the production of this website and forum which obviously lets views and information be shared.

Lets get this thread back to reality. Today there are over 170 operational wind farms in the UK. Of these only a handful have caused any complaints about noise and then from only isolated properties. Investigations have revealed problems caused by aerodynamic modulation in one or two cases only. Modern turbines are designed to take the maximum amount of energy from the wind and not waste it in producing noise. The likelihood of any property being affected by the Baumber turbines is therefore almost nil but it can not be gauranteed to be nil. I will not support a project if I feel the interests of 1 of my neighbours will be adversely affected. Hence I advocate tightening up the noise specification, which would eliminate the risk.

BWAG claim in their literature that noise will blight local communities - untrue. For the reasons above there is only a very remote chance that an isolated property close to a turbine might, under certain conditions, experience a problem.

BWAG claim in their literature that flicker will blight local communities - untrue. Flicker is the moving shadow cast by a rotating turbine and is entirely predictable. The turbines are sited so that no property will be in the shadow area or, if this can not be achieved, turbines are programmed to shut down during the time their shadow could cause a problem.

BWAG claim in their literature that vibration will blight local communities - untrue. This claim appears to be based upon a study to determine the effects of wind farms on a seismic laboratory at Eskdalemuir in the Scottish Borders. This site houses the UK's most sensitive vibration detecting instruments - designed to detect earthquakes and explosions from anywhere in the world. Having a source of vibration close at hand could render the site deaf - hence the research. The report concluded that windfarms over 10km away would be unlikely to cause problems. This conclusion has been spun by the anti wind farm brigade to mean that wind farms DO cause vibrations out to 10km, conveniently forgetting that you need the world's most sensitive instruments to detect them. When the authors of the report (Prof Styles, President, Geological Society of London & S Toon, Keele University) read the anti wind farm press reports they issued a rebuttal in which they say "To put the level of vibration into context, they are ground vibrations with amplitudes of about one millionth of a millimetre. There is no possibility of humans sensing the vibration and absolutely no risk to human health.". Incidentally, the Baumber turbines will be built on clay which will absorb vibrations and not transmit them.

I am also very concerned about the ecological impact of wind farms. At Baumber the turbines will be sited in arable fields where routine farming practice regularly destroys habitat by ploughing and encourages the desired crop by fertilisers and pesticides at the expense of all else. (Farmers also put up windmills as bird scarers - not to mention the noise of gas guns for the same purpose!!!) From the ecological point of view Baumber's fields present the perfect site.

Enertrag claim a 30% load factor for Baumber. If we assume they will only achieve 20%, then, in a full year (8,760hrs) the wind farm, rated at 24MW, will produce 24 x 0.2 x 8,760 = 42,048 MWhrs per year. My home uses about 4MWhrs per year so, on these figures, Baumber will be able to supply as much electricity as is consumed by 10,500 such properties.

Lets stick to facts and not beliefs based upon spin. The only effects wind farms can have on our health, welfare and the ecology of our area are beneficial ones - less poluted atmosphere and sustainable power supplies. Provided we protect the interests of the tiny minority who might just possibly be adversely affected then the only reason we can offer for denying the community at large the benefits is that we don't like the look of wind turbines - and that is pure NIMBYism - but at least it is honest.

The choice is yours. Is the provision of safe, clean, renewable power supplies worth more than having to endure the sight of 8 large turbines (if we choose to look in their direction)?

Incidentally, in 1400, yes 1400, there were 10,000 windmills in the UK, today we have just over 2000 wind turbines. William Cobbett of Ipswich commented in 1830:

"The windmills on the hills in the area are so numerous that I counted whilst standing in one place, no less than seventeen. They are all painted of washed white, the sails are black...and their twirling together added greatlly to the beauty of the scene, which having the broad and beautiful arm of the sea on the one hand and the fields and meadow studded with farm houses on the other appeared to make the most beautiful sight of the kind that I ever beheld."

I wonder if anyone will have a similar opinion of Baumber? Perhaps that is too much to hope for, but underlines the fact that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

--- Ian(guest) 

Hi Ian,

May I pick up on one or two points in your last email? My maths might be rusty but I make eight 2MW turbines to have a combined output of 16MW not 24MW. The accepted figure for domestic consumption is 4.7MWhr so the number of homes supplied would be 5,964. This is still an impressive number but very much insignificant in the U.K.'s targets for renewable energy. Consider the five sites off the Lincolnshire coast, Lynn, Inner Dowsing, Lincs, Docking Shoal and Race Bank, together they will produce 1,430MW with a much higher load factor (probably 40%) and supply electricity to 1,066,000 homes, that is every home in Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire. Not one single home will be blighted by the POTENTIAL noise, amplitude modulation, visual impact, or property value decrease and there is another huge bonus to the environment - the offshore turbine has a much smaller carbon footprint than the land based thanks to the greater load factor (fewer are required to produce the same amount of energy) and the ability to use larger capacity turbines. Remember these are five of many offshore sites which will be built over the next few years, the U.K. has one of the world's greatest offshore wind resources and unlike the miniscule development at Baumber, can have a serious effect on global warming. The question is simply this - why build at Baumber and sacrifice so much for so little when to build offshore would sacrifice so little for so much?

Kind Regards, Gary.

--- G.Grysa(guest) 

Hi Gary.

I've just been re-reading the A4 sheet that was delivered to households way back at the start of the campaign and I'd just like to point out it states that BWAG are opposing 8 three megawatt turbines. It jogged my memory to the reply you sent to someone called Ian in which you questioned his maths and stated that the turbines would be 2 megawatts,giving a total output of 16 megawatts for the farm. If Ian was working from the same sheet as I've mentioned,then he was correct in the total output being 24 megawatts.

Please don't think I'm having a go as that wasn't my intention;I just wanted to state where he may have got the figures from in the first place.