Navitus Bay Wind Farm
The following is a re-post from the Bournemouth Liberal Democrat website, posted here for some rather obscure technical reasons. Its presence here may be short-lived.
The Navitus Bay Off-Shore Wind Farm
Answers Still Blowin' In The Wind
Dr Martin Rodger
August 2012
It is now three and a half years since a Bournemouth Daily Echo opinion column [1] called for answers about the planned wind farm in Poole Bay. How visible will it be? Will it deliver enough energy to justify its environmental impact?
Since that time there has been lots of consultation, many published reports and rounds of exhibitions. However are we today any the wiser?
Will these wind turbines appear as a smudge on the distant horizon or as giants looming higher than the Needles and Old Harry rocks? Will they significantly cut Dorset's carbon footprint or will they just impoverish us by pushing up electricity prices? Will Dorset folk have gained a grand new wind farm or two parasitic foreign companies exploiting our environment for their own profit?
Sadly the answers provided so far are not as clear as they should be, or indeed as clear as they could be. And also sadly, many folk don't care. They have already firmly made up their minds about wind farms. So for them such answers are irrelevant.
But for the rest of us, it is still not too late for all these questions to be answered fairly and to allow us to give our opinions sensibly.
How visible will it be?
THE 'OFFICIAL' VISIUAL IMPACT
It should not be beyond the wit of man to create a useful image of this proposed scheme, something we can all agree on as a proper visualisation of it. But this has not happened to date.
Certainly there are complications to be overcome in illustrating this scheme but that does not make it impossible. The sizes of the turbines have yet to be decided. Indeed the 205m tall 9MW turbines sometimes mentioned are themselves yet to be designed. Nor is the number of turbines decided, or their exact location. Yet an assumed design could still be illustrated.
Indeed 'official' images of the possible scheme were provided for public consumption at the recent public exhibitions (Feb-Mar 2012) but these images appeared greatly flawed and far from reassuring for the concerned viewer.
(The official Navitus Bay web site [2] now shows the information boards from these exhibitions [3] including a series of montages of the visual impact from different locations. But on-line, no viewing distance is given. Without this essential information, they are entirely useless.)
What appears to have happened at the exhibitions is that guidelines which are presented somewhat ambiguously have become for whatever reason misinterpreted. The source of the guidelines, a 2002 study by the University of Newcastle [4], gives clear advice for viewing distances (300mm – 500mm) in recommending that (larger) A4 or A3 sized montages be used.
“...a typical, comfortable viewing distance for larger images at either A4 or A3 held at arm's length is 50-60cm. We therefore recommend that what is comfortable and natural for the viewer should dictate the technical detail and not visa versa.“
Importantly this is for images “held at arm's length.”
SNH (who commissioned the study) discuss this issue themselves [5]. They recommend a viewing distance of 400mm to 500mm “held at arm's length,” for montages included within any Environmental Statement document and which may then be viewed at the actual viewpoint in question. Importantly, note these are minimum viewing distances. Longer distances are not discussed because this would preclude hand-held viewing.
Other guidelines from the DTI also make it clear that best practice is montages for on-site use, saying -
“A sound judgement of the likely appearance of an offshore wind farm can best be made by viewing photomontages (at the correct viewing distances from the eye) on site where it will be possible to bridge the gap between what is shown on the photographic print and what the eye perceives on the ground.” [6]
The Navitus Bay exhibitions however provided only fixed montages within the exhibition halls. The viewing distances were some 400-500mm and they showed the planned wind farm to be but a smudge on the horizon. In the light of the hall, this viewing was more a test of reading glasses than visual impact. It was also a test of accurately positioning yourself as an observer. And it even mattered how tall you were, as viewing a foot too high or too low would have effectively moved the wind farm 2 miles further off shore!!
AN ALTERNATIVE 'CHALLENGING' VISION
A group called “Challenge Navitus” [7] has been formed with three stated objectives; (1) To provide accurate information, (2) To stop the scheme in its present form, (3) To discuss alternative solutions.
In an attempt to allow the visual impact of the scheme to be judged, the group has provided a series of videos showing views of the proposed wind farm panning across the screen. Viewed according to the instructions, the scheme appears to have much more size than the 'official' views but still appears as ranks of somewhat hazy shapes on the horizon.
The videos are not without their problems. Given its importance, the viewing instructions are certainly not as prominent as they should be and some links to the videos from the likes of the Bournemouth Daily Echo website bypass much of this instruction. (When viewed at 'full screen' on a 14” monitor, the viewer should be standing back perhaps six feet from the screen.)
Indeed, viewed from the correct distance, the video experience is almost akin to viewing the scheme through a letterbox which is obviously an insurmountable impediment for experiencing the visual impact. (The assertion made that their 14¼o viewing angle “is about the size that humans concentrate on when looking at a scene” is in stark contrast to official guidelines that call this a “naive assumption” and suggest an angle of 45o to 60o [5].)
FOUR ASPECTS OF THE 'PHYSICAL' VISUAL IMPACT
There are possibly four aspects required to appreciate the 'physical' visual impact of the scheme, (1) The effect of elevation, (2) The spread of the scheme across the seascape, (3) The varying visibility of such distant objects and (4) The actual perceived size of the turbines. It is worth considering all four these aspects given the importance evidently attached to the visual impact of this scheme.
(1) A simplistic analysis of the effect of elevation gives two findings. Firstly, when viewed from sea level at any point along the coast, the entire wind farm will appear sited beyond the horizon. However the nearest turbines will be sited within the horizon when viewed at even quite modest elevations.
Secondly, be it just the tips of their blades, all the turbines in the development will be 'visible' above the horizon from a great distance (bar those turbines screened by the coastline). This remains true for turbines with tip heights as low as 150m even as far away as the prom at Weymouth.
(2) From the perspective of Bournemouth Pier, the scheme spreads across 34o of the sea horizon, equal to about one third of the angle between Old Harry and the Needles. The gaps each side of the wind farm cover 36o & 26o to left and right respectively.
From the perspective of Peveril Point at the southern extremity of Swanage Bay, the scheme spreads across 64o of the sea horizon, with the northern limit of the scheme just 3o South of St Catherine's Head at the southern end of the Isle of Wight. From the beach at Swanage, the south-western extent of the scheme would be masked by Peveril Point/Durlston Head (with the gap to St Catherine's Head marginally more pronounced, from the beach pier being 4o).
(Note – These angles were calculated from coordinates shown in Appendix A which were scaled from a map of no great size and may thus be subject to a small error.)
(3) When attempting to gauge the visual impact of a windfarm, one of the most difficult considerations is what is called “atmospheric perspective” [8]. At a distance of miles, even in perfect visibility, an object does not simply appear smaller. The actual details becomes less distinct and colours wash out due to scattering of the light through the air. Perhaps the most well-known example of this phenomenon is the way hills are seen to be progressively more grey with distance.
Wind turbines are coloured to reduce their visual intrusion but two further factors impact on how visible they will actually appear. First there is the contrast between the turbines and the changing sky beyond (a contrast that the turbine's colour attempts to minimise).
Secondly is how well the turbines are illuminated. As the scheme is positioned to the South, it will for most of the time be presenting a shadowed side to the shore (although it will not be so for Purbeck). This shading will greatly reduce the visual impact. The effect is perhaps most easily demonstrated by examining the cliffs of the Isle of Wight either side of the Needles, one side in shadow, the other sunlit.
For much of the time, reduced visibility will render the wind farm invisible in haze, fog or the night. Even in good sunny 'beach' weather, the visibility is often much reduced. Yet the visual impact of the scheme is in the mind of the beholder. A crystal clear evening with the turbines illuminated by a bright red setting sun and a backdrop of dark cloud could present an extremely rare view of the scheme but live long in the memory as the observer's primary image of the scheme; and that despite countless intervening experiences when the scheme is effectively invisible.
(4) The turbines size is yet to be chosen but this should not prevent gaining some appreciation of their apparent size from different viewpoints. The turbine size has been compared to the height of large landmark buildings or the cliffs abutting Poole Bay. But to gauge their visual impact they need to be scaled against the view from the actual viewpoint in question, the view as seen with the naked eye.
An object positioned 9 foot away will appear 6,015 times larger than if it were 16,500 metres away and 9,000 times larger than 24,700 metres away.
By these ratios, a front rank of 187m tall wind turbines as seen from Bournemouth Pier would appear the same size as turbines of 1.25” high to 0.8” high if they were perched 9 ft away on the top of my telly. These distances do not in any way render the turbines small to the point of invisibility. In the context of the seascape of Poole Bay, objects of that apparent size will be a significant feature unless mitigated by the visibility at that distance. In this context, the Challenge Navitus videos do appear to present the size of the turbines realistically.
THE ASSESSMENT OF 'PHYSICAL' VISUAL IMPACT
What this analysis shows however is solely that (pending visibility data) the 'physical' visual impact of the scheme is an issue. It does not of itself provide a valid visual impact analysis.
And a method of providing such a valid impact analysis has yet to be realised. The small-sized montages at the Navitus exhibitions did not at all provide it, however accurate or inaccurate they were.
For a scheme set entirely within a broad seascape such as this, the use of hand-held montages at the viewing point in question may also be inappropriate. Even when (as at Swanage) the view includes some landscape, the method appears inappropriate as the landscape is only to one side of the view so only a less-accurate vertical scaling is possible. (So perhaps here it should be suggested that A3 montages be provided with an attached string of appropriate length (& end design) to measure the hand-held on-site viewing distance.)
If the official montages are inadequate, so too are the Challenge Navitus videos. They show little more than what has been demonstrated in (4) above – that visual impact is an issue.
What official guidelines surprisingly fail to ask for is a large image of the scheme for use at exhibitions, an image metres in size. It could be a large scaled model, an almost-billboard-sized poster or an image projected onto a screen. The prescribed viewing position should be metres away, not centimetres. And be warned - we will be firmly in the hands of experts with such an image, indeed with any visualisation of the scheme. Human perception of contrast within an image is very important to this process and these human abilities are greatly dependent on the type of image used, whether it is a line drawing, a photo or a projection.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS BEYOND THE 'PHYSICAL' VISUAL IMPACT
Official guidelines also consider more than purely the physical appearance of a planned feature within a seascape. Guidelines (eg [6.]) also consider “The nature of the effect - whether positive, negative or neutral.”. A jolly lighthouse may be seen as an attractive additional feature on the coast. Ranks of moored pleasure craft may be accepted as part of the seascape. Views of a coastline lit up each night by the bright lights of a large conurbation may be accepted only grudgingly.
Such 'other' considerations will affect the analysis broadly in two ways. Firstly the analysis will have to account for the different ways people perceive a wind farm, be it “positive, negative or neutral.”
Secondly, the existing seascape may make some arguments against the 'physical' visual impact of the scheme more difficult. For instance the addition of a few distant lights on an otherwise dark horizon may be less of an issue if the complainant is looking out from a coast lit up millions of times brighter than the object of the complaint.
D.I.Y. 'PHYSICAL' VISUAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
In the absence of a proper image to assess the visual impact of the scheme, it is perhaps a worthwhile exercise to consider the total scheme in terms of the tiny turbines lined up on my telly and so 9 foot away from an observer.
From Bournemouth Pier, a front rank of 187m turbines (at 9ft appearing 1.25” to 0.8” high) would extend horizontally 5' 4” around a horizon 9ft away, with the horizon extending round a further 5' 8” to the left to the Needles and 4' 1” to the right to Old Harry.
Every turbine in the wind farm will be in line of sight with the back rank appearing as 0.56” high turbines but with only 0.38” visible above the horizon. The entire wind farm (at 1,200 MW) would comprise very roughly 18 rows of 12 such turbines. Thus in each row on my telly, the turbines would be 5¾” apart, with average density of turbines for the entire wind farm yielding an average spacing of 0.45”.
This at least would give the size of the 'turbine visual footprint' from Bournemouth Pier. How distinct the turbines will appear in perfect visibility and how often such visibility is encountered is information that should be sought.
According to data from Dover 1978-2007 [9], perfect visibility (50km+) occurs on average 2.6% of the time through the year (about 10 day's worth) with visibility less than 20km for an average 55% of the time. August & September were the 'clearest' months but still with visibility below 20km for 46% of the time. Some may consider the visibility only relevant, for instance, during daytime or during 'beach weather' and such visibility statistics should again be sought.
In the meantime, with the tiny turbines atop my telly, without better information on the matter perhaps they should be entire hidden for about half the time and otherwise obscured by a net curtain for all but 30 minutes per day.
Will it deliver enough energy to
justify its environmental impact?
WIND FARM BENEFITS & COSTS ENUMERATED
The Navitus Bay scheme is a major opportunity to reduce our CO2 emissions. The quoted rating of the Navitus Bay wind farm is still not fixed but it is planned to be in the range 900-1200MW, generating 2,800 Gwh - 3,500 Gwh annually (0.75% - 0.94% 2011 UK total electricity use [10]). This equates to a 35.5% - 33.3% Load Factor which is higher than the average UK off-shore Load Factor track record [11] but considered a conservative figure for eventual industry performance. It was exceeded by the 2011 national off-shore average of 36.8% [12].
The reduction in CO2 emissions is given as 1,138,000 tons CO2 pa (given for a 900MW scheme) which equates to about a quarter of Dorset's 2006 total CO2 emissions [13] , or about 0.25% of the UK national figure [14] . This reduction in CO2 (at 114gC/kWh) assumes it is electricity from gas-fired power stations that is replaced by the scheme's renewable electricity. Although it may not be the official method, it would perhaps be more realistic to expect the scheme to replace coal-fired power stations. (At 200gC/kWh, coal still provide 25% of our electricity). For the larger 1,200MW scheme, that would equate to reducing CO2 emissions by 2,662,000 tons CO2 pa, 56% of Dorset's emissions or 0.59% of national CO2 emissions.
The scheme will therefore deliver an encouragingly large reduction in our CO2 emissions when set against Dorset's emissions.
There are those who argue vociferously that wind power is too undependable or too expensive for electricity generation. Such arguments are mostly superficial and seldom properly compare wind with other power sources like coal, gas, hydro or nuclear. As an example, wind power is often wrongly denigrated for its low Load Factors [15] ignoring that other technologies have Load Factors of their own as well as other limitations (for instance the flexibility limitations of even the most modern nuclear power plants [16]).
The need for stand-by or reserve power stations is a situation the electricity suppliers face with all forms of power source. There have always been power stations waiting on stand-by or in reserve to cope with peaks in demand or with breakdowns. Intermittent supply is simply not an issue when wind-power supplies a small proportion of our electricity. As the proportion increases there will be an additional cost but, even if wind power provided 40% of our electricity, additional stand-by/reserve capacity is expected to add less than 0.3p/kWh to bills [17] or less than £12 on the average household annual bill.
The present cost of all renewable subsidies (which are not just wind power subsidies) totals about £20 on the average household annual bill, while other energy efficiency schemes add £60 [18]. In context, energy bills have risen in recent years overwhelmingly due to wholesale fuel prices, with gas adding £320 to the average household annual gas bill over the last four years alone [19]. With wind power, the fuel is effectively free.
The subsidies provided for the various parts of the energy industry is however a most convoluted subject and it is perhaps simpler to concentrate discussion on the central issue - the differing costs of electricity generation.
Electricity from existing off-shore wind farms costs some £150/MWh. The question of whether this figure would rise or fall in future [20] is now replaced with talk of falling costs [21], perhaps to £100/MWh by 2020 [22]. Today's gas-fuelled electricity costs some £65/MWh but this figure has almost tripled in the last decade. The majority of the cost of gas-fuelled electricity is the cost of the gas itself which is dependent on highly volatile and unpredictable wholesale gas prices [23]. The future cost of gas or even alternatives like undeveloped CCS-coal technology or the latest (and unproven) nuclear fission designs will likely not be cheaper than off-shore wind but they could well prove to be vastly more expensive.
As well as having significantly more predictable costs, a further attraction provided by off-shore wind is that the maintenance costs (which could equal a fifth of total costs) and much of the capital costs will be largely spent locally and not all syphoned off into the ample pockets of Russian oligarchs or middle-eastern potentates as happens to our money expended on the rising cost of fossil fuels.
MICRO-CLIMATIC ALTERATIONS IN A TEACUP
There is presently speculation doing the rounds that a wind farm would alter the micro-climate of Poole Bay. It is worth here describing the extent of academic work and other reports that have managed to spawn this speculation.
While there is some academic work modelling such effects, studies using actual real-world data are rare [24]. Indeed only two such studies appear to exist and serious on-site anecdotal evidence of any effects is entirely lacking.
One of these two studies [25] examined data previously collected over a seven week period during the summer of 1989 near Palm Springs, California. The data showed that down wind from the wind farm nights were warmer and afternoons significantly cooler. This cooling achieved statistical significance (averaging 2.3°C cooler) although this finding was not the substantive part of the study. With average local summer temperatures peaking well above 40°C [26], it is unlikely any near-by residents were unhappy with these lower daytime temperatures although probably nobody noticed. After all, the data shows 1989 was already a cool summer in Palm Springs.
The second study [27] relied on satellite data from the area around four large Texan wind farms collected between 2003 and 2011. A night-time warming of less than 1°C was identified, but no daytime cooling.
There are many off-shore wind farms now in operation around the world. To date, no changes in local micro-climate have been reported reaching the shore, even for schemes as close as 2 miles from shore [28]. Much is made of one instance of fog spectacularly blown away from the Horns Rev wind farm off Denmark [29], caused by a particularly rare set of circumstances on 12th February 2009 [30].
In conclusion, occasionally off-shore wind farms can disappear within banks of fog and exceedingly rare conditions could allow that fog to spill down wind. This may be an issue for maritime navigation and turbine corrosion but for landlubbers micro-climate appears a non-issue.
A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE SCHEME
Reactions to the proposed wind farm scheme in Poole Bay will probably depend greatly on an individual's appreciation of the science of global warming. Indeed, in light of impending Anthropogenic Climate Change, the question could sensibly be to ask why the scheme could not be made bigger. Yet, in the face of a vocal opposition, a reduction in size could perhaps be proposed. In making this proposal, it is here assumed that a 1,200MW scheme can still be achieved.
Taking the most northerly 6km triangle out of the scheme would reduce the area of the scheme by some 11%. At Bournemouth Pier, the distance to the nearest turbine would then be 21km away, 4.5km further off. From Peveril Point the distance would increase only marginally (by 700m) but the spread of the scheme across the horizon would reduce from 64o to 54o. This would represent a considerable reduction in any visual impact of the scheme.
Conclusion
HEARTS & MINDS
The company who won the Zone 7 'Isle of Wight/Purbeck' off-shore wind farm licence in 2010 [31] is Eneco, a Dutch energy company [32]. In April 2012 they were joined on the project by EDF Energy [33], one of the “big six” that dominates both UK energy 'production' and UK energy distribution [34]. EDF Energy [35] is a wholly-owner subsidiary of the nationalised French energy company, Électricité De France [36]. Xenophobes may rail at this foreign involvement but, wherever the company's head office, almost all energy companies have a poor track record for keeping all the public happy with their activities.
The scheme has the scope to deliver quantities of renewable electricity that would reasonably justify some negative visual impact on Poole Bay. Not everybody will agree with such a conclusion and importantly that visual impact is presently less than well explained. While some will never be reconciled to the scheme, others will see even the visual impact as a positive development. What is certain is that the arguing will be long and loud.
Despite all the brouhaha, the Navitus Bay scheme remains undesigned (officially) with the consultation phase of the planning process still on-going. Consultation phase 2 has just ended with phase 3a beginning, to be followed by 3b and then phase 4 which is still scheduled for Spring 2013. Regarding the visual impact of the scheme, the official situation as of June 2012 remains thus:-
4.58 The Seascape and Landscape Visual Impact Assessment (SLVIA) will evaluate baseline conditions against predicted potential impacts from the proposed Project during construction, operational and decommissioning phases of the development. The assessment will also identify and assess the significance of these impacts based upon receptor sensitivity and the magnitude of impacts. [37]
Additionally to this we have been given sight of some seemingly useless (and likely misleading) photo-montages, to which we could add the videos of 'Challenge Navitus' plus a set of maps and tables from a Dr A. Langley [38] and, commissioned by the BBC [39], Dr Nigel Garland's “one third the height of a thumb held horizontally [40].” This is all woefully inadequate and none of it good PR for the scheme in which many “receptors” are already experiencing increasing “sensitivity” of a high “magnitude.” If the scheme is to engage with local hearts and minds, we surely do need an end to this admixture of silence and anodyne officialese. But for such a change, we are entirely dependent on the companies behind the scheme.
The Bournemouth Daily Echo reported in July 2012 [41]
In a bid to reassure councillors and local residents, Navitus Bay project director Mike Unsworth told the Daily Echo that his team “remain committed to engaging with local groups and interested individuals including local councils.”
At least Mr Unsworth, whose main message was to announce that the scheme would create about 1,000 jobs during construction with 100 long-term maintenance jobs, seems to be providing something of the right sort of message (although possible locations for these jobs may have added more weight and credibility to his message). Let us hope he can keep up the good work and that the 'accurate scale visualisations which have been developed by independent experts' (emphasis added) showing what the scheme may look like will soon be available for us yokels to have a good gawp at. Because I reckons some of us 'ere 'bouts are needin' bit o' practice at this 'ere new past-time.
REFERENCES
[1] 'Answers blowing in the wind?' Bournemouth Daily Echo Opinion Column 20th February 2009.
http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/opinion/4140563.Answers_blowing_in_the_wind_/
[2] Navitus Bay website.
http://www.navitusbaywindpark.co.uk/
[3] Eneco exhibition information boards, including montages of scheme from different viewpoints.
http://www.navitusbaywindpark.co.uk/news-detail.aspx?newsID=341
[4] 'Visual Assessment of Windfarms Best Practice' University of Newcastle (2002) (Scottish NaturalHeritage Commissioned Report F01AA303A) Section 6.1.21.
http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/A305437.pdf
[5] 'Visual Representation of Windfarms - Good Practice Guidance' Scottish National Heritage (2006)
http://www.snh.gov.uk/docs/A305436.pdf
[6] Guidance on the Assessment of the Impact of Offshore Wind Farms: Seascape and Visual Impact report, DTI (2005)
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file22852.pdf
[7] Challenge Navitus website.
http://www.challengenavitus.org.uk/index.html
[8] Atmospheric perspective – Wikipedia entry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_perspective
[9] 'Reducing Risk in the English Channel/La Manche Traffic Separation Schemes.' UK/France Formal Safety Assessment: (2009) – Annex C: Weather data.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/mca/reducing_risk_in_the_english_channel_bmt_isis_final_report_v-3.pdf
[10] 'Digest of UK Energy Statistics 5.2 Electricity Supply & Consumption.' DECC.
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/statistics/energy_stats/source/electricity/electricity.aspx
[11] 'Renewables Obligation Generators.' Renewable Energy Foundation.
http://www.ref.org.uk/roc-generators/
[12] 'Energy Trends.' DECC. June 2012.
[13] Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Energy Efficiency Strategy and Action Plan – November 2009.
http://www.dorsetforyou.com/media.jsp?mediaid=141714&filetype=pdf
[14] Local Authority CO2 emissions estimates 2009 – DECC 2011.
[15] 'Wind Energy – Can We Rely on the Wind?' Renewable UK.
http://www.bwea.com/energy/rely.html
[16] “GROWTH SCENARIOS FOR UK RENEWABLES GENERATION AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS AND OPERATION OF ELECTRICITY NETWORKS.” Sinclair Knight Merz. BERR Publication URN 08/1021 June 2008
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file46772.pdf
[17] 'Managing Variablilty' David Milborrow, Energy Consultant, A report to WWF-UK, RSPB, Greenpeace UK and Friends of the Earth EWNI, 2009.
http://assets.wwf.org.uk/downloads/managing__variability_report.pdf
[18] 'Estimated impacts of energy and climate change policies on energy prices and bills' DECC November 2011.
[19] 'Electricity and Gas Supply Market Report' OFGEM ref - 133/11, October 2011.
http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Markets/RetMkts/rmr/smr/Documents1/SMR_Oct_2011.pdf
[20] 'Great Expectations: The cost of offshore wind in UK waters' Technology and Policy Assessment Function, UK Energy Research Centre September 2011.
http://www.ukerc.ac.uk/support/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=1112
[21] 'Graphic - In-year mean (Europe) and UK forecasts' Robert Gross at Imperial College London, February 2012.
[22] 'Offshore wind power cost “could fall one-third by 2020”' Guardian article, 13th June 2012.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jun/13/offshore-wind-power-cost
[23] 'Natural Gas Price Volatility in UK and North America' The Oxford Institute for Energy Studies ref- NG60, February 2012.
http://www.oxfordenergy.org/wpcms/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/NG_60.pdf
[24] 'Simulating impacts of wind farms on local hydrometeorology' Somnath Baidya-Roy, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. (2011), doi:10.1016/j.jweia.2010.12.013
http://www.atmos.illinois.edu/~sbroy/publ/jweia2011.pdf
[25] 'Impacts of wind farms on surface air temperatures' Somnath Baidya-Roy and Justin J. Traiteur, pnas.1000493107 (2010)
http://www.atmos.illinois.edu/~sbroy/publ/PNAS2010.pdf
[26] Palm Springs Climate – Wikipedia entry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palm_Springs,_California#Climate
[27] 'Impacts of wind farms on land surface temperature' Liming Zhou, Yuhong Tian, Somnath Baidya Roy, Chris Thorncroft, Lance F. Bosart & Yuanlong Hu. Nature Climate Change 2, pp 539–543 (2012) (Abstract only)
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n7/full/nclimate1505.html
[28] 'The climate changers: How wind turbines make their own clouds' Andrew Levy, MailOnline, 20 February 2010
[29] 'Wind Turbines Leave Clouds and Energy Inefficiency in Their Wake.' Jeremy Hsu, Blog Post, 22 January 2010.
http://www.popsci.com/node/42937
[30] 'Meteorological Explanation of Wake Clouds at Horns Rev Wind Farm.' S. Emeis; Institute for Meteorology and Climate Research, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology
http://www.dewi.de/dewi/fileadmin/pdf/publications/Magazin_37/07.pdf .
[31] “New UK offshore wind farm licences are announced.” BBC. 8th January 2010.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8448203.stm
[32] Eneco Energie - Wikipedia entry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eneco_Energie
[33] EDF Energy website.
[34] 'The Big Six - A Guide to the UK's Top Energy Providers' Which Energy.
[35] EDF Energy – Wikipedia entry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EDF_Energy
[36] Électricité de France – Wikipedia entry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lectricit%C3%A9_de_France
[37] Navitus Bay Wind Park Preliminary Environmental Information 2 (PEI2) June 2012
http://files.opendebate.co.uk/files/eneco/enecowindpark/Full%20PEI2%202012.pdf
EXTRACT
4.59 The approach will be based on recognised guidance, namely:
Guidelines for Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment 2nd edition, IEMA and LI, (2002);
Guidance on the Assessment of the Impact of Offshore Wind Farms: Seascape and Visual Impact report, DTI (2005); [6]
Cumulative Assessment of Wind Farms, version 2, SNH (2005); [http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/strategy/cumulativeeffectsonwindfarms.pdf]
The Visual Assessment of Wind Farms: Best Practice, SNH (2006); [5] and
Guide to Best Practice in Seascape Assessment, Maritime Ireland/Wales Interreg, (2001).
[http://www.ccw.gov.uk/idoc.ashx?docid=8854f9b5-03ee-4485-83fe-c822bca0ca09&version=-1&lang=en]
4.60 However, it is noted that an updated guidance on seascape characterisation methodology has been drafted by Natural England and SNH and, if formally issued within the foreseeable future, this will supersede the 2001 GSA methodology.
[38] 'Navitus Bay Windfarm Visibility Data and Statistics' Dr. A. Langley 9 January 2012 (Last updated: 2 February 2012)
http://www.poole.gov.uk/EasysiteWeb/getresource.axd?AssetID=8615&type=full&servicetype=Attachment
[39] 'Offshore wind farm “will look taller than Isle of Wight.”' Maisie Gibson, Bournemouth University. 26th July 2012.
http://www.bournemouth.ac.uk/newsandevents/News/2012/july/ne012-navitus-wind-farm.html
[40] 'Navitus Bay wind farm fears: turbines “could be higher than the Isle of Wight.”' Bournemouth Daily Echo Article 25th July 2012.
[41]'”1000 jobs” to be created by Navitus Bay wind farm.' Bournemouth Daily Echo Article 20th July 2012.
http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/9829016._1000_jobs__to_be_created_by_Navitus_Bay_wind_farm/
APPENDIX A.
Coordinates of wind farm position scaled from maps within Eneco promotional material and calculated distances & bearings from Bournemouth Pier, Peveril Point & Swanage Pier. (Note. The scaling may be subject to some small error.)