TGO Challenge 2012: Cheese & Wine Party

With our route in and approved, the next step is to decide where to host the annual cheese and wine party. If we are lugging bottles of wine, rounds of cheese and hunks of speciality breads, we don’t want to be doing that for too long.

We also need to pick a spot that some Challengers will be able to make without disrupting their schedule by too much. It would be pointless to hold a party in the middle of sod-all if it didn’t coincide with anyone’s route. Great swathes of our Challenge are likely to to be quite lonely and so we have to choose carefully.

After a bit of a chat with Mad’n’Bad Andy we came up with this year’s venue and the invitation has now been posted on the Challenge Message Board.

It’s a nerve wracking time. Who will turn up? What cheeses will be available? What shall we wear? Us girls do like to be at our best at the parties….

TGO Challenge 2012: Vetted

You know there might be trouble when your vetter emails your mates and says:

“Here's something to cheer you up a bit. John Manning sent me Al's Challenge route, I haven't stopped laughing for two days!”

Pete Goddard, aka “Mr Grumpy” did indeed receive our route for vetting. And a fine job he made of it too. A few days after sending our route in to John Manning, (the new TGO Challenge Co-ordinator), the Vetter’s comments winged their way back to me. Pete made a few comments that set me thinking about the route:

“Thanks for sending such an entertaining route – I have laughed my way through the first ten days thinking of you up to your oxters in bog!”

“I do have some concerns about your second and third days as you will have a first time Challenger with you. If you manage to average 2kph I think that you will be doing very well, especially remembering that you will have full packs and that Dave will be carrying all that extra wine & cheese. Seriously, both days could well extend to 12 hours of walking and from experience it is very easy to burn yourselves out by overdoing things early on.”

“I will admit that I have not walked the ridge but I have been along your FWA and would suggest that the FWA will take more time and possibly be more difficult than your chosen route”

“Last time I passed through Gairlochy there was no ice cream”

“I thought Beinn Dearg a horrible mountain but then I did need to erect the tent at lunch time in order to get enough shelter to light a stove, wet, windy, cold and very miserable!”

“Your FWA is not the best”

“Although I do not personally favour your FWA for 21st I am prepared to let this go forward as long as you understand the difficulties that might arise due to the extreme weather that can develop on the plateau.”

Okay, so these are the edited highlights but Mr Grumpy does have a point, here. Even knowing that our team has pretty good experience of backpacking in Scotland, he is letting us know, gently, that we have bitten of a big mouthful this time around. But, hey! That’s what this is about. It’s a Challenge that we have set ourselves. There are a couple of days where we can cut out some of the toughest bits but still leave an interesting route. He also gave some really handy advice that we have incorporated into the route, especially for our Foul Weather Alternatives.

The Vetters do a fantastic job and Pete has probably made our walk next year a far better stravaig. Cheers, fella!

The wind industry & small communities.

All over the British Isles and Scotland in particular, big business is approaching small communities to encourage them to have wind power stations built in their community. They pick off small communities, one by one to get what they want: the industrialisation of the countryside.

The first chance the public get to air their views is usually at the community council meeting. At this meeting the developers typically send along four or five members of the development team which normally includes two people who never seem to have a job description apart from ‘Developer’ but who seem to pop up at similar meetings throughout Scotland, a Community Benefits Officer, a Community Consultation Consultant and a Planning Officer (from the developer)

The meeting is usually rammed with local folk who would never normally turn out for these meetings and they all want answers.

Of course, they don’t get any. That’s not the job of these five representatives from the developer. Their job is to smooth down any objection and gloss over any gritty details.

One such person who seems to crop up a quite a bit is Jennifer Gascoigne of nPower Renewables. She appeared recently on STV as the public face of the developer for Allt Duine Wind Power Station slap bang next to the Cairngorm National Park Boundary.

She also visited Kilninver and Kilmelford Community Council in February 2010 to represent the wind farm developer.

This is as good an example as any to show how the developer operates when attempting to pick off a small community.

At the meeting it was explained that the only planning issue they would be discussing was that of the wind turbines. Of course, the connection to the national grid (the chain of pylons required), the change of use of the local yacht harbour to industrial harbour to take delivery of the turbines and all the borrow pits required for the haul roads and foundations of the turbines were separate planning issues and so could not be discussed.

Of course this is ridiculous and that is what the developers like. They pick the communities off bit by bit and so decisions are asked to be made without all the facts being available.

The minutes from this particular meeting are enlightening; You can see how the developer works. The only fact that the developers team are clear about is the community benefit: They dangle a carrot of £2000 per year per megawatt generated. All others details are skimmed over.

I have pasted the relevant part of the minutes of the meeting below:

“6.  Proposed Wind Farm at Raera: 

Attending for this part of the meeting were representatives from NPower and associates as detailed:

Karen Fox- Developer.
Jennifer Gascoigne- Developer.
Katy Woodington- Community Benefits Officer.
Gary Parker- Community Consultation Consultant                                                 Gareth Mills- Planning Officer.

The application for the proposed wind farm is now in and the period for opinions to be lodged with the Council closes in 2 days time. From the telephone call survey (detailed below in Planning Applications) made a compilation of questions had been presented to NPower and they had produced a handout detailing the questions and answers.
Copies of this handout were distributed at the meeting with a copy being held with the Community Council for reference.  Questions leading on from the discussion that followed the exploring of this handout and new questions were dealt with by the NPower team and also led on to lengthy discussion within the room.  The main areas of concern were –

1. The application for the turbines is the application that has been lodged but this does not include the proposed jetty that will be required in Loch Melfort for the turbines to be transported to or the power lines that will be required to remove the generated electricity from the turbines.  It was felt that it is difficult to consider the development when not all the information is present regarding all 3 facets because they will be proposed as 3 separate planning applications. Regarding the proposed jetty, Karen Fox pointed out that this is the subject of a Scoping Exercise happening at present so there is information within the public domain about this. Appendices to the application also detail alternative proposed routes to Taynuilt (likely point for introduction to the grid) on wooden poles carrying overhead lines.

2. Effects on Health.

3. Traffic and transportation.

4. Height of turbines and visual impact. It would appear that the proposed height is higher than those in the pictorial montages.

5. Effects on local tourist industry.

6. Felling of some ancient woodland and quantity commercial forestry removal.

7. Noise levels during construction period.

8. Community Benefits.

Karen Fox, on the issue of height of turbines suggested that if individuals care to supply her with the name or location of a wind farm they are familiar with she will ascertain the heights of those turbines for comparative purposes. She also left with the Community Council a copy of the Seil Community’s Question and Answer handout. Also issued was a leaflet re Community Benefits Packages.  NPower broadly state they work along with Argyll and Bute Councils Policy of £2,000 per megawatt installation on an annual basis for the duration of the wind farm.

7.  Planning Applications:
1. Proposed wind farm at Raera Forest comprising 15 turbines of height 125m.
The Community Council, as decided at the last Community Council meeting, have conducted a straw poll of the community.  It was intended to obtain an up to date copy of the Electoral Register to do this, however, as a Community Council we are only entitled to a copy of the unabridged Electoral Register for election of Community Councillors.  For our purpose we could only purchase the edited version that many people opt out of which would have been inaccurate for our task.  It was decided to use the Kilninford Phone Directory as this was deemed to be the most accurate representation of our community.  People were contacted by telephone, with messages left where possible and recalls done where no answer gained.   It was acknowledged that this was not a standardised or all encompassing survey as only 55% of the community had been able to be made contact with by the 5 members of the Community Council completing the survey.

The intention was to try and gauge the general feeling of the community at large for the Community Council to see if there was a strong feeling for or against this proposed development. Of the 168 people whose opinion was gained the following results were obtained (the electorate as of 01.04.09 was 305)

For = 63
Against = 74
Don’t know = 31

Lengthy discussion ensued as to how best use this information accepting its limitations.  Of those present in the hall the majority opinion was against the proposal, with 19 people stating they had not been contacted and of those 1 was for and 18 against the proposal.  Again, discussion ensued as to how best to utilise this information in a valid way.

It was decided that AM would write to the Planning Department listing the areas of concern regarding the development as discussed in the previous part of the meeting.
Cllr MacDonald added it was useful to strenuously comment on the 3 elements of the development as separate planning applications causing difficulty in considering the overall proposal.
Cllr MacKay clarified that should more than 20 individual objections be received then an automatic public consultation process would begin. He added that, the exception of himself, due to Planning Committee obligations, the Local Councillors can be petitioned and asked for support and advice on planning issues.

Cllr Robertson commented she felt the Community Council had endeavoured to consult with the community and encouraged the community as individuals to write with their concerns.”

 

But Kilninver and Kilmelford Community Council have a pretty switched-on Planning Officer in Antoinette Mitchell. This is the letter she wrote to the Planning Office:

 

LETTER SENT TO THE PLANNING OFFICE BY THE COMMUNITY COUNCIL
PROPOSED WIND FARM, RAERA FOREST
Kilninver and Kilmelford Community Council
c/o  'Barochreal'
Kilninver, By Oban, Argyll  PA34   4UT

February 10th. 2010
Application No.   09/01874/PP
RAERA WIND FARM

Dear Ms. Knox,
As the Planning Officer for the Kilninver and Kilmelford Community Council it is incumbent upon me to write on behalf of the community council to register the communities concerns/objections to the above application.  I would like to thank you for extending that period of registration thus enabling me to present the views of the two village communities as fairly as possible.

In an attempt to alert everyone in our community and invite their comments, a flyer was put into the Kilninford Newsletter/Magazine before Christmas 09,  (this is received freely by all households in the community),  inviting people to contact their local councillors with their opinions as to the proposed erection of a wind farm in the Raera Forest.  This met with a number of phone calls, but not a sufficient number to gain a good enough general feeling on which to base this letter.  So those of the councillors who were able to took it upon themselves to contact members of the community either face to face or by phone.  The result of this poll was that 166 people were contacted, over half the community, of which 31 had no opinion either way, 63 were for the wind farm and 74 were against.

On the evening of the 9th. February at the bi-monthly community council meeting, 5 representatives of 'RWE npower'  attended and answered questions put to them by the community.  I enclose a copy of some of those questions and their answers on which a number of our concerns/objections are based.  Apart from the 5 npower representatives, 6 community councillors and 3 Argyll and Bute Councillors, there were 41 members of the community in attendance.  The vast majority of those in attendance certainly over 80% were against the project and wished me to register their collective objections.  It would also appear that  those supporting the Wind Farm are understandably and mostly those least affected by it.  However, I think it would be fair to say that some of  the objectors would not necessarily object to all wind farms but are objecting to this one for the reasons I will be giving below.  In a similar way there are supporters of the project that have some real concerns about this wind farm as described in it's present application.

The concerns/objections listed below are not in order of importance but just some of the many questions that the community generally feel have not been addressed satisfactorily by npower as yet.

1.  The majority of land in Argyll and Bute suitable for the erection of wind farms has already been allocated.  It would now appear that the renewable companies are trying to encroach upon the constrained areas.  Raera Forest is a constrained area and one of Panoramic Quality.  Should permission for Raera be granted it then lessens objections to other constrained areas being developed not only for WF's but other
projects, and has made a number of people question if anywhere is 'safe' from development? Guidelines for these areas were obviously put in place for good reason, it makes people nervous if they see 'major companies' being allowed to flout those guidelines.

2. Originally we were told by npower at their exhibition in August 2009, that they proposed  to 'keyhole' the turbines  in Raera Forest.  The application now states that 720 hectares of forest is to be removed, as well as some ancient woodland.  Even some of those strongly in favour of this project are alarmed by this prospect. Whereas we appreciate that this is a mature forest and possibly ready for felling, to be removing this amount of forest so quickly, in less than 18 months, with no intentions of replanting is unacceptable for countless reasons, better addressed by SEPA, The Forestry Commission and the RSPB.  We acknowledge that the Forestry Commission also object to this application in it's present form. Forests  have a very significant role
when it comes to tackling climate change and we believe the Scottish Government's Forest strategy is to expand the woodland cover of Scotland from 17% to 25% over the 21st century.  This felling of Raera without the routine re-planting does not address the Scottish Government's 'Policy on control of Woodland Removal' and the majority of us find this unacceptable.

3. Another Government Guideline which 'npower' seem happy to ignore is the Scottish Planning Policy PAN 45 which advices that all dwellings both multi-settlements and single dwellings should be outside a 2Km radius of the WF.  This was suggested for a 20meggawatt wind farm.  The proposed Raera WF is 45megawatts which one would naturally suppose would increase this distance.

However, there are 8 dwellings, possible more well within the 2Km radius of 8 of the 15 turbines, one only 1.1Km away from 2 of the turbines, and a whole village and Primary School within 3Km radius.  This 2Km radius has obviously been ignored. This was an issue hotly debated at the meeting on the 9th, as presumably this distance is considered necessary for health reasons.  It is interesting to note that a number of European countries now are only considering erecting off shore WF's not onshore for health reasons.  When n'power was asked about the studies on Wind Farm Syndrome, and there is a lot of scientific and independent research being carried out by Universities  both here at home and abroad, the answer we were given is that there was 'no real proof that wind farm's caused any health problems'.  Surely it is not for the public to prove that WF's can adversely affect people's and animal's health, but for Wind Farm developers to prove that they don't. I know one cannot prove a negative but we need substantially more reassurances.  So for those of us so close to these turbines health issues remains a very real concern.

4. At the exhibition in August 09.  We were shown a number of photos of Wind Farms, but none of these showed any turbines of the height proposed at Raera Forest.  At the time I personally asked that the community  be given photos of 125m turbines, as many people find it difficult to imagine this size.  This has not been done.  We are told that these 125m or 360ft. turbines would be the biggest in the UK and are among some of the biggest in Europe.  Twice the height of those at Beinn Ghlas, which most of us are familiar with and 4 times the height of Lismore Lighthouse.  This is a real issue for a number of the objectors who may find the project more acceptable if the turbines were only the height of those at Beinn Ghlas.  This could then, maybe, negate some of the problems, certainly some of the visual ones.

5.  Question 5 on the enclosed sheet refers to the often vague semantics of the application, which to one who has read all the statements appears to rely upon a lot of 'guesstimation'.   When this was discussed at the meeting we were told that of course the representatives there had not written the document but that it was given over to 'experts' in the field of composing such 'tomes'.  As none of these were naturally available for comment it again left most of the audience feeling unhappy about many issues.

6.  Whereas most of those interested in the proposed WF appreciate that the problem of transmitting the electricity to  Taynuilt has to be a separate application, nonetheless we find it difficult to separate the two as one is dependent upon the other.  There are some people who would be more inclined to support the wind farm but object because of the thought of hundreds more poles and wires stretched across our glorious
countryside, and particularly if the chosen route happens to be the iconic and as yet unspoilt Braes of Lorn.

Likewise while appreciating again that a separate application has to be made for the possible erection of a Pier at Loch Melfort, clearly a different site, again it is difficult to consider all the implications of the WF without considering this too. This would change a Yacht Haven into a commercial port, as it would be permanent, and a lot of other
people would find this unacceptable, even if they support the WF.  Again I appreciate it is a separate application and should not be commented upon here, but you can understand the community's frustration and their even greater confusion on learning that separate applications will have to be made for the borrow pits??  Some people are inclined to feel that this is neither necessary and perhaps an 'unconventional' way of
n'power trying to manipulate the outcome of the project in their favour, as well as presumably involving the community in the study of yet more applications with requests to register opinions.  It makes one lose the will to live!

7.  Another very heated debate has been the noise implications for which there is very little evidence that the general public can understand to assure them that they will not be affected.  A number of people including myself have stood under turbines and had a conversation, but this has been a brief interlude during the day. At night, when most of our world in this area is silent the constant thrum of these enormous turbines has
been likened to a Jumbo jet taking off at source, this based upon the decibels and tables produced by n'power themselves.  Whereas this may be alarmist it remains evident that for this size turbine the nontechnical/scientific amongst us have no real assurances that for those living within a few kilometres of them noise and subsonic noise won't be a real issue.

8.  The sheer size of these turbines poses a very real concern for all the objectors and some of the supporters when they consider the visual implications upon this glorious county of Argyll.  The A816 is a scenic route and a much used tourist route down to Kilmartin Glen, especially Glen Gallian and the Oude dam area where in the applicants own statement 8.88 of the Technical Report the turbines 'would cause a prominent
change in the character and quality of the view.' For many of those living and visiting Argyll for the scenery this is unacceptable.

9.  However, altruistic renewable companies would like to appear to be, they are businesses and into renewables to make money and to gain their government certificate which allows them to operate.  Their prime concern is not the planet or CO2 emissions and the answer to Q8, in the light of other independent studies is vastly different.

The fact that none of the electricity produced would benefit the communities of K and K, that the WF affects, but is being sold on to England, does little to add to it's support.  If the local community was to receive 'green' or 'free electricity from this project then doubtless it would have many more supporters.  The so called 'monetary' enhancement that the communities could be offered will always fall far short of the
enormous profits the developers and the landowners would receive from such a project, and a number of locals object to the scarring of their landscape to provide England with electricity and to the lining of the pockets of non local investors.

As the Turbines are produced outside the UK and the Towers in England the local economy will receive very little boost from local employment and that only over the construction period.  Many feel this will not compensate for the loss of income that could be felt from the possible decline in tourists.  Little was said to re-assure us that the tourist industry won't be affected even if only marginally by the WF.  Many supporters of WF's don't choose to holiday near or in site of them and this area is very dependent on Tourism.  It is interesting to note that none of the Council's promotional videos that show the wonderful views of Argyll shows a wind farm!

10.  As yet n'power cannot tell us whether they are extracting north or south. So which village will have the 44-52 HGV movements a day for the 18 month construction period and the noise and C02 pollution accompanying those movements.  Whatever they decide I think all the community both for and against this project have very, very real concerns as to how the A816 is ever going to cope with this additional traffic movement, clearly it won't.  Although at the meeting they have said that they would make the Kilmelford Village Bridge suitable to take the width, weight and length of the enormous turbine lorries they are not prepared to do anything to the bridge at Oude dam.  At the moment we fail to see how this can possibly be negotiated and apparently n'power are waiting for the council to re-locate this bridge, a project I believe has now been put off until 2013 for financial reasons?  The whole torturous route of the A816 from Loch Feochan through to Kilmelford is a dangerous road at the best of times with all these additional HGV movements, the community is gravely concerned about the number of serious/ fatal accidents that could happen.

From the last 3 pages you can see that there are a  number of 'real' concerns that the community of Kilninver and Kilmelford have about this proposed Wind Farm in Raera Forest.  In general the feeling seems to be that there are still so many unanswered questions and uncertainties that as it stands at the moment the application should be rejected.  However, if there is a public meeting at sometime a number of other questions may be raised and hopefully answered, as the above are just a few of the questions that I have been asked most often and that I feel are of predominant importance to our communities.  Again I reiterate that there are a number of people who support the general idea of Wind Farms but not this one mainly because of the site, the size of the towers and their proximity to the community of Kilninver.

I thank you again for extending the period of time to allow us to register these concerns and objections with you and thank you for your patience in considering them.

I remain,
Yours sincerely

Antoinette N.M. Mitchell,     BA, ACP, TEFL. 
(Planning Officer for Kilninver and Kilmelford Community Council)

BUT: However good the local planning officer is, if it is a large windfarm and the locals say “NO,” it is then referred up to The Scottish Government and invariably, they say “Yes”

So, the planning system is totally discredited. And the local communities’ lives are trashed. Jenny Gascoigne continues onto her next target and the developers will make millions in profit.

All this is paid for by the chap paying his electricity bill. That’s you and me, that is.

Members of our congregation: Part 3

Imagine yourself in a warm summer’s evening, sitting in the vestry, behind the heavy purple curtain, halfway down a good bottle of ‘communion red.’ It’s a good place to start.

You have found the Evangelists in rude health. Often vulgar, discordant and indeed tuneless, they are going forward full of vim & vigour in their tatty community centre. So why is it that friends in your own choir, who have perfect pitch, whose voices melt the most frozen of hearts are struggling to pull in the congregation on a Sunday evening?

Pour yourself another glass and have a nibble of that Cashel blue. Wafers? We have box loads. Help yourself.

GRATUITOUS CALMING PICTURE

The answer is that it’s all our own fault.

Yes. Quite simply, we found the Evangelists difficult to get on with and so took a couple of steps to the right of the melee and carried on without them. After all, why sing beautifully if everyone else is screaming and shouting and no-one is listening?

So, we spruced up our own places, so that they are fresh and beautiful. Now the calls and responses are once more a wonder of cadence and style. Gone are the strident hoodlums who wrecked our happiness; they have all joined the others in the shabby hut.

However, as wonderful as it is to sing with like-minded folk, we are generally singing the same material every Sunday with the same accompaniment. It’s a beautiful experience but every now and then it’s good to try a little modern music. The lyrics may not always be to our taste but just occasionally there is a blinding flash of brilliance: a new voice soaring above the hubbub with such clarity and strength that everyone is drawn to it.

But why did the new chorister gravitate to the brash community? This is easily answered: Why would he go anywhere else?

The Evangelists advertise themselves constantly. They are magnificent at ‘networking’. When new choristers appear, straight away they are welcomed into the bosom of that family. The new boy may be inexperienced, raw perhaps, but all can see his qualities. Over time, more and more new boys arrive and so the other place becomes more vibrant with every recruit. The lights are brighter than ever whilst over at our place we are singing to our friendly but dwindling, ageing congregation.

What we should never forget is, as well as being members of the choir, we are part of the same congregation. Broadly, we hold the same beliefs. We should take an active part in all the community’s affairs. Not all the other services are ‘shouty’ and brash. I suppose we can ignore the worst of those places, as that is good for our blood pressure. I am aware of a few high profile choristers who rarely make an appearance at others’ services and are bemused when there is the occasional remark made about their apparent aloofness.

So, this is a call to re-populate the other places. Putting your fingers in your ears and ignoring it is not a healthy option. There are choristers out there who need to get down and dirty and mix it with the new crowd. When you meet them in the flesh, they are not a bad lot. Try it. You’ll love it.

I’ll have another glass of that ‘communion red’ now, thank you.

Members of our congregation: Part 2

The choir sings its heart out and the invisible congregation comes along each Sunday. So that’s fine then?

That all depends, really. Some problems are becoming apparent: One or two members of the choir aren’t turning up anymore and the occasional glance down the nave into the congregation in the winter months, when the magical curtain of light isn’t filtering your view, shows a thinning out of the audience.

So what can be wrong? The choir still sings its heart out, with the trusted selection of beautiful anthems, hymns and psalms. The calls and responses are still there and the architecture still impresses; in fact it has improved since the new lighting scheme was installed.

Oddly, the Evangelists down the road seem to be pulling them in so you pop over to see what they are doing. They worship in the old community centre. It’s a bit knocked about and the paint is peeling here and there. You step inside and within minutes you realise that it’s ghastly. You hate it. They have guitars, the music is happy-clappy pureed pap. The priest wants to be known as Wayne. They advertise their services on big lurid boards and they all proclaim their faith at the top of their lung and embrace each other for no apparent reason. They are all “brothers and sisters in Christ.”

But worse than that, the choir is just appalling. They try hard, but it is quite obvious that some are completely tone-deaf! How can they lead the congregation in song when they don’t have the simple skills of musicality themselves? But there it is. Every Sunday, their place is packed to the rafters.

You wander back to your place, shaking your head in wonderment. Is this what people really want? You slip comfortably into your surplice and ruff and have another go at the communion wine and start to think things through.

Members of our congregation: Part 1

In my tender years I had a delightful time as a church choirboy. Evensong was my favourite service, especially in the summer months when the dust would sparkle, slowly spiralling in the warm shafts of sunlight flooding the nave. Sitting in the choir, the congregation were all but invisible, hidden behind that magical curtain of light.

Evensong’s audience appeared more friendly than the those of the morning services; they seemed at ease. The choirboys were drawn from the town, a pretty rough and ready lot but we had a fine choirmaster who teased out some glorious performances.

The service had a liquid structure that flowed effortlessly; the calls and responses a wonderful rhythm that felt utterly timeless, embedded in the gothic architecture of the church stonework.

Looking back on it forty five years later, we never considered for one moment whether or not those turning up every Sunday evening enjoyed the choir’s efforts. It was just what we did.

TGO Challenge 2012: Route Sheet: Done!

I have returned after spending a few days in the bowels of the Midlands. Amongst a list of stuff completed was a mini-run through of our TGO Challenge route for 2012 with Dave “Wee Willy” Wilkinson. This was necessary as Andy Walker & I had already been through it at some length and so it was important to get Dave’s “buy-in” as well. You can’t have a chap grumbling all the way across Scotland about the bloody route, can you? No. He will anyway though….

OLD SCHOOL PALS: BIGGLES LAMBERT & DAVE “WEE WILLY” WILKY, IN TRAINING

We discussed the route over half a dozen games of pool, quite a few beers, a few bottles of wine and then some rather fine single malts. We discussed it over dinner, over a fry-up breakfast and then another pint at lunchtime too. We can consider the route properly discussed.

I have spent the larger part of today actually getting it down onto electronic paper including the various Foul Weather Alternatives. This year I have also included some “Storm Force Weather Alternatives” as well, such is the nature of the beast: a true beast of a walk!

I just need some details from Mr Walker now so that i can complete the Admin Form and Robert is your Uncle! It can then be squeezed down the telephone wires to John Manning to pass on to one of his hand-picked Vetters to give me some pointers in case I have mucked anything up. It’s always good to know what beers are available in the various villages that we pass through.

Renewable Energy: Vision or Mirage?

Over the last year I have written quite a few posts about wind power stations.The posts have discussed their situation on wild land, the economics of wind power, the distribution of the electricity and how National Grid is trying to cope with its unbalancing effects. I have shown how the wind energy businesses dramatically exaggerate the benefits of wind power in the reduction of greenhouse gases. I have included posts that show how the lives of people forced to live next to wind power stations have been wrecked.

The politicians and the wind industry would have you believe that wind power creates jobs and i have linked and posted papers on here that show exactly the opposite is true: Wind power actually has a net effect of costing jobs . 

You will have gathered that I am not a fan.

Well today the Adam Smith Institute published a document that neatly summarizes everything I have been banging on about in a very polished way. The front cover looks like this:

The report covers the whole gamut of renewable energy so that, for the first time that I can recall, this is a report that deals with renewables in the round. It comes up with pretty damning conclusions. I have posted just the executive summary and the main conclusions. For an in-depth read you can go HERE. It’s an incredibly interesting read.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

1. EU and UK national government policy is driving a move towards progressive replacement of fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) by renewable energy sources and nuclear power. However, with a few notable exceptions (hydro power in Norway, geothermal energy in Iceland, for example) available renewable power technologies are neither economically competitive nor easily capable of providing the degree of energy security demanded by a developed society.

2. This report reviews the options from a technical and economic standpoint and assesses the real contribution they can make to a future secure, affordable energy supply. At the same time, we consider the efficiency with which they can achieve one of their primary objectives: to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide.

3. We conclude that the renewable energy technologies which are commercially available or in development cannot form more than a minor part of the overall mix without putting the security of supply at jeopardy. The need for increasing amounts of conventional backup capacity as renewables form a larger part of the overall mix severely limits their contribution to emissions reduction.

4. On-shore wind is the lowest-cost option, but still requires financial incentives to encourage investment and has limited scope for expansion because of public opposition and lack of appropriate sites. Its viability would be reduced even further if developments had to carry the cost of the additional gas-fired generating capacity needed as backup. 28% of Ireland’s installed electricity generating capacity is in the form of wind farms, but only 13% of power consumed was generated by wind in 2010/11. UK capacity factors are lower.

5. Experience from other countries with larger percentages of wind generation shows that only limited savings can be made in fossil fuel consumption and that security of supply can only be guaranteed by having a large-scale backup capability or a high degree of interconnectivity with neighbouring countries having surplus capacity. Wind farms supply only about 10% of Danish electricity consumed, despite generating more than double this.

6. Burning of biomass to generate electricity has some merit and may be economically competitive as fossil fuel prices rise. However, its relatively low energy density increases transport costs, and in practical terms it can never make more than a minor contribution to the overall energy supply. To meet DECC’s targets for the UK, by far the greater part of the biomass would have to be imported. For example, UK-grown straw could generate less than 2% of the country’s electricity needs.

7. Solar power – the most expensive of currently available technologies – has little contribution to make in northern Europe. Germany has become the world’s leader in solar cell installations, paying billions of euros annually to provide just 2% of the country’s electricity from photovoltaic panels with a capacity of 17GW but which operate at a capacity factor of only about 10%.

8. A high contribution from intrinsically intermittent renewable power generation without matching conventional capacity as backup – even if demand and supply were to be better balanced via a Europe-wide grid – would require affordable and reliable large-scale energy storage capacity capable of providing backup over a period of days or weeks. No technologies capable of providing this exist or are in development.

9. The economically extractable supply of fossil fuels is not infinite and our dependence on them must inevitably decrease as their real price increases and viable alternatives are developed. Some public support will be needed to bring these new technologies to market. However, governments are currently indulging in the dubious practice of providing guaranteed, long-term subsidies to technologies which have little hope of becoming truly competitive for the foreseeable future.

10. In the meantime, taxpayers’ money would be far better spent on measures to increase energy efficiency, plus investment in proven nuclear and gas generating capacity to provide energy security as many of the UK’s coal-fired stations – and nearly all existing nuclear reactors – are decommissioned over the coming decade.

11. Neither can we ignore the possibility of building new coal-fired stations, or commercialising underground gasification, to make use of the large reserves of coal in the UK and other European countries, which could contribute to energy security for many years to come.

 

MAIN CONCLUSIONS:
This review has shown that the renewable energy technologies which are commercially available or in development cannot form more than a minor part of the overall power supply without putting the security of supply at jeopardy. On-shore wind is the lowest-cost option, but still requires significant financial incentives to encourage investment and has limited scope for expansion because of public opposition and lack of appropriate sites. Its viability would be reduced even further if wind farms had to carry the cost of the additional gas-fired generating capacity as backup. Experience from other countries with larger percentages of wind generation shows that only limited savings can be made in fossil fuel consumption and that security of supply can only be guaranteed by having a large-scale backup capability or a high degree of interconnectivity with neighbouring countries having surplus capacity.

Our more detailed conclusions are:

•     Given that there is very little scope for development of new hydroelectric schemes, the only technologies which are sufficiently developed for large scale deployment in the UK are wind and solar power (both photovoltaics and concentrated solar thermal), together with burning available biomass.

•     Use of biomass is relatively attractive, having none of the drawbacks of wind or solar power, but the contribution it can make is constrained by the need to grow food and provide raw materials for transport biofuels and industrial processing. It can only be a minor part of the overall energy mix.

•     On-shore wind is the least expensive of the other options, but is still uncompetitive without continuing subsidies. It is also both intermittent and unpredictable, requiring conventional capacity to be on standby to balance the supply, and is subject to increasing public opposition. Service life, at 20 years, is short compared with conventional generating technologies.

•     Off-shore wind is considerably more expensive, although more acceptable to the public.

•     Despite the cost of cells having come down recently, photovoltaic systems are far more expensive than wind and require large subsidies. Their use in such high latitudes is not to be recommended, and the willingness of the government to provide large subsidies, particularly for small-scale installations, is difficult to understand.

•     Solar thermal systems are also only suitable for much sunnier environments than northern Europe.

•     Heat pumps are suitable as a source of heating in some circumstances, but only on a local basis. They are efficient at producing low-cost heat, but are costly to install.

•     Tidal barrage schemes, such as the proposed Severn estuary project, have limited potential. There are relatively few appropriate sites, they have a large environmental impact, and they are intermittent (although predictably so). Nevertheless, they cannot be ignored.

•     Neither wave nor tidal stream technology is close to commercialisation. The need to harvest energy during normal conditions while withstanding storms presents enormous engineering difficulties. However, tidal power currently seems to offer greater practical possibilities and neither can be completely ruled out as long-term options. That said, there is no foreseeable prospect of them becoming competitive with gas or nuclear  power generation.

•     Wind and solar power generation schemes operate at a fraction of their installed capacity.

•     Because – with the exception of biomass – renewable energy supply is intermittent, conventional generating capacity, particularly gas, has to be kept running on standby to balance the grid. This means that actual reductions in carbon dioxide emissions are lower than theoretically possible and that the cost per tonne is relatively high.

•     Intermittency also causes significant problems with balancing the grid to maintain energy security. While not insurmountable for modest levels of renewable energy, these problems limit the effective contribution which renewables can make to the energy supply.

•     With the exception of pumped storage, there are no means of storing energy on a large scale and for a significant period to smooth the contribution of wind and solar generation, which often peaks at times of low demand. Even pumped storage can only provide backup over a timescale of hours rather than the days or weeks necessary to guarantee continuity of supply in a renewables-based system. With the current state of knowledge, there is no foreseeable possibility of developing practical and affordable options.

•     There is no prospect of most renewable technologies – particularly solar and off-shore wind – being competitive with conventional power sources in the foreseeable future.

•     In light of this assessment, we conclude that taxpayers’ money would be far better spent on measures to increase energy efficiency, plus investment in proven nuclear and gas generating capacity to provide energy security as many of the UK’s coal-fired stations – and nearly all existing nuclear reactors – are decommissioned over the coming decade.

 

© Adam Smith Research Trust 2011
Published in the UK by ASI (Research) Limited Some rights reserved. Copyright remains with the copyright holder, but users may download, save and distribute this work in any format provided that: (1) the Adam Smith Institute is cited; (2) the URLs www.adamsmith.org and www.scientific-alliance.org are published together with a prominent copy of this notice; (3) the text is used in full without amendments (extracts may be used for criticism or review); (4) the work is not resold; and (5) a link to any online use is sent to info@adamsmith.org.
The views expressed in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the publisher. They have been selected for their independence and intellectual vigour, and are presented as a contribution to public debate.
ISBN 1 902737 81 4
Printed in England by Grosvenor Group (Print Services) Limited, London

An example of how the wind industry misleads the planners

I found the video posted below on James’ blog and it has been reposted by Geoff Edwards’ blog, “My Wild Camping” as well.

It features a chap who was actually pro-wind – until the day dawned when the wind power station was built and he realised that he had been fed a pack of lies by the developers. He now has to live with a lot of noise and flicker. Flicker is not usually mentioned a lot on posts about wind power stations but it is worth noting.

The developers have helped frame the guidelines used to determine how far turbines should be built from habitation. The current guideline is 10 times the rotor diameter. You will see from the video that this chap is experiencing flicker at twice these distances.

So: Why is he experiencing this dreadful flicker when he lives almost twice the prescribed distance away? It’s down to simple maths that the overly simplistic guidelines simply ignore. There’s a slot of “simples” in there aren’t there? Yes – the wind industry likes that because, as we shall see, it serves their purpose well.

In real life, rather than the abstract world that wind power station developers live in, the world isn’t flat. In fact it suits the power stations’ efficacy not to be so; To be situated on top of a hill increases the mean wind speeds so the turbines have a better chance of spinning at the required rate. So – Let’s put the turbine on a modest hill of 150m above the nearest house:

(CLICKABLE DIAGRAM)

I have chosen, for illustrative purposes only, to select a fairly common turbine; 125m to tip height with a rotor diameter of 80m and a hub height of 85m. Fairly standard,

Just by looking at the very simple maths, above you can see that the house will experience flicker at over twice the wind industry's current planning guidelines.

So – If you have a “windfarm” coming near you, Be Aware of these horribly simplistic guidelines that the Wind industry loves using and which seem to satisfy the planners.

TGO Challenge 2012: Firming things up

This afternoon, Mad’n’Bad Andy Walker booked our B&B for our start point. This is a Good Thing. This means that all my dithering over routes has at last had to cease. We now know where we are starting. We had been flitting between a few start points and were going no-where very quickly until the chap decided enough was enough.

He has also booked our accommodation at Braemar for Saturday night, nine days later, This is also a Good Thing: Mind you, not being at Braemar for Saturday night would be a pretty Piss-Poor Thing! (There are the Fife Arms and ‘Bingo Wings’ parties to attend. To miss them would surely be a crime.)

Perhaps you can see a thread developing here? This chap is a Man of Action. He has forced my hand so to speak. He has made me pull the metaphorical digit out of the slightly less than metaphorical derriere and so forcibly encouraged my planning of the route.

Now, you would have thought that planning the the first day’s route would have been a straightforward operation. But it wasn’t to be so.

Its length has been determined, to a degree, by the fifth, sixth and seventh days’ route plans. They were each panning out to be monsters, and so our first day is now a little longer than I would customarily prepare, to ease the burden later on; Not that strolling through sun-drenched mountain-scapes could ever remotely be described as burdensome. Incorporated into this Fine Weather Route, is an ice-cream stop mid afternoon on the fourth day to soothe our sweat-furrowed brows and to allow my fellow stravaigers to ease their bones, relaxing for that blissful, all too brief, moment.

The first section of the second day looks like this, so perhaps they will need the ice-creams.

(CLICKABLE IMAGE)

The plan is for 194 miles with 32,000 feet or so of “Up”. That’s quite enough, thank you very much, as we have a First-Timer aboard this time around: Dave “Wee Willy” Wilkinson. Dave had applied with me for the 1995 Challenge but had to withdraw before starting as he contracted dreadful wimpishness a sudden attack of ill health. Time has moved on and so this will be Andy’s seventh and my seventeenth Challenge.

So, now it’s just a question of working out the Foul Weather Alternatives and putting it all onto paper. And then of course sending it all off to the Vetters.

Something beautiful…

You are going to have to turn your speakers up for this one, as the sound is very quiet, but it really is quite beautiful.

For Aunty Babs

Breaking News…..

Tonight's front page, just in from our Raving Roving Correspondent, Lord Elpus:

It has been reported that Mr Sloman’s phone had been hacked to gather this information and ‘Snapper of the Yard’ has been informed. And that Leveson chap too.

On Being Warm and Dry

I learned quite early on how important it was to be warm and dry in the hills. I walked the northern chunk of the Pennine Way as a lad of fourteen with my ‘brother with the hair’, who was twelve at the time. We were wearing Blacks of Greenock cotton anoraks: Mine was a natty orange, and my brother’s  a tasteful blue. We were wearing ‘TUF’ work boots. I remember quite vividly the cold water seeping down my back and into my pants as we clambered down into the Hen Hole looking for a spot to put up the Good Companions single skin cotton ‘A’ tent… We were wet. miserable and knackered. We continued our walk as far as the Roman Wall before baling out to a warm & dry youth hostel.

I suppose, ever since then I have searched for outdoor clothes that would keep the nastier of the elements outside my skin.

When I was seventeen I invested in a bright red cagoule, which was great for the first half hour or so, until the humid air of the interior fug condensed onto the cold shell and then slowly soaked first my anorak, then my jumper and finally my shirt and of course, me.

After university, there was a gap in my outdoor pursuits of ten years or so as I had a young family. When I started to look again at waterproof coats (for Wainwright’s Coast to Coast some twenty years or so ago) Gore-Tex had been out for quite a while and I bought a bargain 2-layer job in bright red. It was a bargain, of course, because no-one else wanted it. It had a lousy floppy hood, was a size too big (I realise now) and because of its size, it flapped furiously in the wind

However! I did stay moderately dry and warm. The only water that got in really was through the gaping hood and the cuffs that wouldn’t do up tightly enough around my girly wrists.

My first Great Outdoors Challenge in 1995 demanded that I sorted out this deficiency. There were better funds available now and so i went straight out and without thinking too much about it splashed the cash on a Berghaus “Mera Peak” jacket. This was the business! But it weighed a ton. I had combined it with a 300 wind-stopper fleece (deep purple, very fetching) that could be zipped into the jacket. This assured a very clammy crossing, again being very damp, in the humid conditions of the crossing that year.

There then came a blinding flash of light! I was told i could ditch all this fleece and Gore-Tex and undershirts and just wear this stuff called Buffalo. (Richard Bannister, it was, I shall never, ever forgive him…) Unfortunately my walking mate at the time also believed this buffoonery and we spent a miserable two weeks walking across Scotland in the wild & wet Challenge of 1998. I damn near died of hypothermia and mould grew in great patches all over my skin for weeks afterwards that had to be treated with creams and pills from the doctor.

So – it was back to Gore-Tex, but this time with a lighter weight fleece and a lighter weight jacket, from Mountain Hardwear. It was a bad buy. I had gone for light weight but it was of a voluminous cut that billowed like a sail in the wind. Again, I had chosen a jacket with a crappy hood – unwired and flappy. The result was a sodden backpacker once again.

And then, along came my first Paramo Velez jacket.

What a revelation! It had a sturdy feel to it, a detachable hood that fitted reasonably well and it was really breathable. It did come out at a hefty 950 grams though. It kept me reasonably dry, though you couldn’t lean on wet ground on your elbow as water would force it’s way though the fabric. But, all in all I was pretty happy and it lasted three years, with only minor niggles – holes were beginning to appear under the hip-belt and the Velcro tabs were wearing out so that the sleeves would gape. It was replaced in 2005; the new black jacket was 200 grams lighter.

This jacket did sterling service: five years of TGO Challenges and a four month LEJOG in 2007. It was fantastic. It weighed 775 grams. In the end though it had to be pensioned off, as the side zips kept splitting in the wind, the Velcro cuffs gave up the ghost and I got fed up with the wind whistling through the gaps between the hood and the collar.

I replaced it with this Paramo Velez Adventure jacket in a natty ‘stealth’ green combination:

This jacket had the hood permanently attached and weighed in at 765 grams. not too heavy. I avoided the lighter weight alternative as I felt that the nylon covering was just too flimsy, having had two previous jackets develop holes through wear around the hip-belt area.

I have now been the proud and happy owner of Paramo jackets for ten years or so, but I was beginning to detect an unpleasant  pattern.

On my LEJOG, back in 2007, I was very, very aware that you really had to keep the jacket constantly clean and re-waterproofed. I kept to a regime of washing and proofing it every four weeks or so, which I felt was surely enough. Well, it wasn’t. On a few occasions later on in the walk I was soaked literally to the skin.  HERE is a fine example – and that was only four weeks or so after it had been totally re-proofed.

This year, on the TGO Challenge, there was Stormy Monday. I was soaked to the skin in the morning and after drying out in front of the fire in the Fife Arms, again in the afternoon. I had re-proofed the jacket prior to the PreWalkDaunder, so the jacket had been dealt with properly just four weeks prior to my soaking. I might just as well have been wearing my old Blacks of Greenock cotton anorak from forty two years ago, the amount of protection it offered.

Now I know that those conditions were pretty dreadful, but Phil Lambert had stayed dry in his Paramo because he had re-proofed his immediately prior to setting out for the Challenge.

On the recent trip to the Yorkshire Dales, Martin Rye was soaked to the skin in his two-piece Velez jacket whilst I was fortunate in staying dry, because I had spent the preceding days washing and proofing my Paramo.

The thing is, I am just getting fed up with the constant worry of washing and proofing the thing with the constant nagging doubt that if i don’t do it prior to every trip I am going to get a miserable soaking. I have enough hassle in my life and I don’t want to have to nanny my jacket on top of everything else. When it works, Paramo is an absolute dream. When it fails, it is a complete and utter nightmare.

The new Gore-Tex jacket weighs some 300 grams less than the Paramo Velez Adventure. I know i am sacrificing some warmth, but that just means taking a slightly heavier fleece, say adding half the weight saving back onto the weight of the replacement fleece. I also realise that I will have to keep the Gore-Tex jacket clean and proofed, but I am sure it won’t need the continual fussing that the Paramo jacket requires.

I am not doing this to shave a few grams here and there. I am going back to try Gore-Tex again to see if it is a more trustworthy system that I don’t need to nanny on a continual basis.

What do you think? Will this end in tears? (whichever way that is pronounced).

Have your say and leave a comment.

Berghaus Temperance II Pro Shell Jacket: 1st Look

Having been a Paramo enthusiast for a dozen years or so, lately I have been considering changing my backpacking clothing set-up. I’ll write about my reasons for this in another post. So, when a couple of weeks ago a chap representing Berghaus was in touch asking if I would like to test some kit for them I was interested. Another good bit of news was that I could have whatever I chose for free.

I spent a few days trawling through the Berghaus website to find something that i thought would fit the bill. I was looking for a waterproof jacket that was both tough and light enough for backpacking. Recently, there has been a huge amount of PR on the new Gore-Tex Active Shell jackets, but I was concerned about it’s robustness. You have to remember that I am used to Paramo’s legendary  toughness. Rucksack straps and hip-belts soon destroy flimsy waterproofs on a long backpacking trip and I have no wish to have a jacket fail mid-walk. I wanted a jacket with few bells & whistles, as bells & whistles add weight. When it’s sunny and warm I’ll be carrying the jacket in my pack. I was looking for a good wired hood and a couple of pockets that don’t foul the hip-belt.

That’s why I chose the Temperance II Pro Shell Jacket from the waterproof jackets section of the site.

It looks like this: You can click on each of the pictures to zoom in.

Gore-Tex 3 layer Pro Shell is supposed to be a hard wearing material so it should fit the bill. It is advertised as weighing 470 grams in the large size and mine came out at 469 grams. The main zip is a water-resistant design from YKK with two pulls for good venting, backed up with a decent rain gutter. The wired hood is adjustable at each side and also at the back to ensure a snug fit. There are drawstrings at each side of the bottom of the jacket to make it snug in breezy conditions.

You’ll see that it has two external chest pockets with water resistant zips that are big enough for Ordnance Survey maps.

The picture above shows that different material is used on the shoulders that’s going to take the wear from the rucksack straps.

The picture below shows the pit-zips, again with double zip pulls for ease of use. I like this a lot as in the past I have had jackets with pit-zips that were swines to open and close!

I like the cuffs: Velcro with that natty rubber stud design rather than the old hook design that used to destroy your merino baselayers:

Lastly there is also an internal chest pocket on the left hand side of the jacket:

Prior to Berghaus getting in touch I had been doing quite a bit of browsing around the internet for outdoor clothing in Pro Shell suitable for backpacking and it seems that this jacket is less expensive than other brands using Pro Shell.

So: first impressions? I was worried that going back to Gore-Tex would be a noisy experience (Paramo is very quiet) but in fact this is not so, which is good. It’s a slim fit, which I like as it means that stormy winds won’t whip it about. The fabric isn’t flimsy, which I like.

I haven’t been out in the rain yet as it arrived after I had set out for the Yorkshire Dales (that would have been an excellent test for it) but with the weather forecast looking stormy I am sure it won’t be long before it will get a decent work-out.