Report to Officers and Members of Barnstaple Town Council on two conferences attended by Cllr Ricky Knight:

• “Locating Renewables in Community Contexts” (OU) – Milton Keynes, 15th Nov. ’05
• “Renewable Futures” (Regen SW) – Weston-s-Mare, 16th Nov. ’05

Despite the apparent similarity of topics, these two conferences were complimentary and fitted together really well, with little irrelevant overlap.

Preliminary disclaimer: this is not necessarily to be read as an objective report. My commitment to renewable energy is increasingly unconditional; indeed, it was taken as read at both venues that those there were on-side. Both conferences were excellent – well-organised, interesting, informative, stimulating and provocative. I am very grateful that I was allowed to go as a representative of Barnstaple Town Council.

Locating Renewables in Community Contexts.

The theme for this conference was looking at the relative local unpopularity of on-shore wind-power in the UK, when compared to Scandanavia, Holland, Germany and Spain. The following web-link will allow you to read or download all the inputs, speeches, Powerpoints and papers from the conference, plus various academic links:
http://eeru.open.ac.uk/conferences.htm#book1

The morning session concentrated on planning issues. A number of speakers referred to existing guidelines, the extent to which developers can work with local people, an analysis of Nimbyism, issues that persuade and dissuade negative reactions to schemes and potential benefits to local communities from larger projects.

• Colin Palmer (from “Wind Prospect) took us through the initial stages of an approach for a renewable energy scheme – he reminded us that the EA (Environmental Audit) alone can cost hundreds of thousands of pounds potentially, with no guarantee of a satisfactory outcome – it is hardly surprising that so few communities are either willing or able to contemplate finding or investing such sums privately. He pointed out that communication was absolutely vital; early, frequent and clear; with mail-shots, newsletters, questionnaires, meetings, exhibitions, councillor briefings and specific liaison with focus and other interest groups. In recommending the early setting up of a conspicuously “democratic” Trust, he did highlight the potential problems of turbine failure, ij so far as who would be expected to finance repairs.

• Dave Toke (OU Lecturer on renewables and Energy) talked about the Renewable Obligation and PPA’s (Power Purchase Agreements).  His talk specifically referred to the practicalities of setting up of local schemes, how to find the finance, draw up the contracts and get the thing off the ground with more pliant local authorities and less antagonistic local attitudes.

• Joyce Loring (OU energy research fellow) continued with this theme, pushing the protocols and strategies that locally-controlled schemes must adopt to progress through the various complicated procedures, one of the most vital conduits being local interest groups (pro- and anti-). Her research on the anti- groups however was conclusive: opposition was always far more effective than the campaigns of proponents, for a variety of reasons, not least, vehemence, coherence and intimidatory tactics, whereby the forcefully-held opinions of a minority will nonetheless hold sway, because the opinions of others are never so determinedly expressed or pushed. She referred to the make-up of such groups and how they should be organised:

-     there should be clear policy statements, aims and objectives

• supporters networks should be developed at as early stage as possible
• there should be a variety of skills and strengths within the group
• lots of different approaches should be used tactically
• frequent letters to Councils, Councillors, authorities, Planners, media etc

• Sylvia Breukers (University of Amsterdam) referred to her research on the phenomenon of Nimbyism, with specific reference to why it is so strong in the UK and much less so in the countries where wind power is far more popular and prevalent. Essentially, this is because the involvement of national public utilities on the continent is far less likely. In the UK, large “outside” developers are perceived as having scant regard to local preferences, to the environment (!), they do not seek local consultation, provide few incentives to local people to consider offering their support, are seen as simply out for maximum financial gain at the expense of local communities etc. She compared the rarity of local schemes in the UK with the Nordrhein-Westfalen area of Germany, where grass-roots support had been nurtured from the outset  and where national government policies did not discriminate against smaller projects. She maintained that there was a overdue need to establish a modus vivendi between local and national bodies; moreover that the “Common Good” (concerns on Climate Change; the need to consider the whole raft of renewable options; at what stages Government grants should apply; the level of local involvement; and the extent of Community benefits) should overrule Nimby reaction but that open negotiation and democratic involvement were essential.

• Patrick Devine-Wright, an environmental psychologist (!) from Leicester University continued in this vein with his critical analysis of Nimbyism (and I quote): “a strident anti-development individual or organisation that is essentially unrepresentative but is so confident and influential, that it skews the whole planning process”. Further, Nimby’s are ignorant, selfish, irrational and resistant to all local development; they mistrust top-down, superimposed projects. However, he stressed – do not invoke “Nimbyism” as an argument to assist the pro-cause – it will backfire, mainly because Nimbyism is within us all! Instead, he put forward the case “Beyond Nimbyism”, one of the major tools of which would be to trump the negativity with a relentless reminder of the benefits, the implication that a local community is sitting on a gold-mine, that its most remarkable asset, the Wind, was a modern-day gold-rush, about to generate, potentially, millions of pounds for their own well-being, regardless of benefits to the environment.

• Andrea Davies from CPRE attempted to find common ground with wind-energy enthusiasts while referring back to costs, visual intrusion, ecological imbalance and the need to decentralize energy production. She touched upon a popular theme – the lack of coherence from the government on energy policy, the fact that much of what they do is seen as tokenism, there is no joined-up thinking, with money going into motorways and road improvements, while airports expand and fuel remains untaxed; billions is invested in nuclear while renewables get next to nothing. CPRE are most definitely up for local involvement and despite being seen, literally, as conservative, they too are concerned about the unrepresentative power of those that oppose these schemes.

• Finally, Stephen Ward from the Centre for Sustainable Energy, looked at the ways in which local communities can benefit from large-scale projects. There is a Protocol in existence (cf: www.regensw.co.uk for a South West one) but the whole process is shadowy and cloaked in secrecy and innuendo, almost as if it is tainted. As a general reference point, however, here are some of his Centre’s guide-lines:
• developers must produce an early engagement plan
• there must be pre-application discussion forums
• there must be discussion of local and wider benefits
• there must be open public engagement/debate

Community benefits, he continued, are nonetheless voluntary, such that a far more precise “tool-kit” is required; there is a great need to legitimise the whole process. He compared this situation with abroad, where planning benefit agreements are much more open, clear and expected. This may well help to partly explain why wind-power projects over there are more generally supported by the community.

There was a buffet lunch from 12.45 until 2.00 p.m., giving the opportunity to talk with other delegates. I had the opportunity to have a good discussion with the only other Devon representative, Stuart Coleman from DARE.

After lunch, there were three speakers offering a European dimension to the presentations on Community involvement, highlighting their high profile successes and contrasting them with our own low-key failures.

• firstly, Henning Holst from North Germany referred to the 50 MW scheme he had been involved with and to the general situation there. This represented, more or less, saturation-point, in terms of location-sites.

There were around 17,000 wind-turbines in the BRD, over 40% of which were ”privately” (locally) owned – the “Bürgerwindparks”. These were loosely set up thus:

• Board of Directors
• Planning – land, finance, “gain”, legal etc
• Construction – contracts, machinery, connection, insurance etc
• Operation – maintenance, warranty, energy supply contracts

He used the Fehmern Island Project as a working example, generating 46.3 MW, soon to be upgraded x3 to 158 MW.The connection to the grid (cf: off-shore wind) from the island had been very expensive but very important to the local stake-holders, the islanders (4,300 of them), who are now benefiting to the tune of approx. £2,200 per person per annum!

• Soren Hermansen from Samsoe, Denmark, a very colourful, erudite and engaging pioneer local activist from this show-case, virtually self-sufficient island community, where the mythical “whole raft” of renewable options (on- and off-shore wind, biomass, solar and tidal) has been assembled, talked of the way in which the whole community worked together, positively and resourcefully over a designated 10-year period to achieve all but 100% energy efficiency. As with all the other speakers, he re-emphasised the need to talk to everybody, anybody, all the time! Uniquely for them, it was the very survival of the island that was the catalyst and the urgent motivation for the islanders. He identified outsiders, those coming to the island as a retreat, a retirement investment, as being the ones who were most vociferously against all their development ideas. The video produced by the OU in conjunction with Hermansen and the Island representatives, is an excellent 15 minute “advert” as to the real possibilities and potential for local community ownership and real control of renewable energy schemes.

• Then, Wolfgang Paulsen, another “hands-on” instigator of local ownership of wind-farms, from the “Bürgerwindpark” in Bohmstedt, in Sachsen, a small community of 650 people, presented their scheme – 9 x 600KW turbines, enough for  about 3,000 householders, making them net-exporters – and a nice little earner! His group had done all the spade work; found the site, got the finance, chosen the turbines – and gained the supporters. Each of the 30 investors in the scheme pledged £30,000 (mostly farmers! but all local). So successful that they are now planning an off-shore wind-“park” for 2008.

After a question and answer session came the final part – UK case studies.

• Paul Gipse, the celebrated Canadian energy expert, a surprise guest at the conference, talked about the (by now”) obvious attributes of local involvement from his experiences in Ontario: get the farmers involved! Direct ownership may well be high risk but leads to a much higher return - but there are easier, less risky ways forward with straight-forward “royaly” returns form the Grid. See: www.ontario-sea.org & www.wind-works.org

• Dave Toke showed a Powerpoint of the experience of the three welsh hill farmers who have successfully (but painfully) diversified into renewable wind energy as a “cash-crop” as it were – the Moel Maelogen Co-operative: Phase 1, a Triodos Bank and EU- financed 3.9MW scheme (subsequently sold on to an energy company!) Phase 2 is a 15MW scheme, which needed an investment of £9.5 million.

Prof.Toke has gone in to the financing carefully - it is very complicated, but the money is there and it is possible, regardless of what the Utilities say. Defra is supposed to help!

• Adam Twine, an indefatigable local-ownership campaigner from the Westmill Wind Co-operative, maintained, that despite the anguish and frustration of his 15-year battle, plus £150,000 of his own money, to make his scheme a reality, he still considers it was worth it. Bay Wind and Energy4All had helped with finance – shares from minimum of £250 to max of £20,000 for individuals are available, with co-op-type groups up to £100,000.

Unfortunately, due to transport difficulties (the last train to Bristol!), I had to leave at 4.30 and was unable to be there for the discussion on the Peninsular Power Winkleigh Biomass plant (“Winbeg”), one of the original incentives for my wishing to take part! However, in retrospect, I note from the Powerpoint available on-line, http://eeru.open.ac.uk/conferences/upham/11.Upham_files/frame.htm the research undertaken by Tyndall Research, into the whole process is familiar to me and is in fact already out of date. It is still a fascinating confirmation however of all the above, in that the local community was all but unanimously against the project from the outset, even before the detail of the scheme was clear and even though the company proposing the scheme was not a large utility at all but a relatively small, locally-based business. It is also worth noting that the local people approached in the survey, seen as representative of the whole, were not just against Winbeg, but against any renewable scheme, indeed against any development in their area at all! 

Renewable Futures

By way of introduction, this was an exceptional conference and should be deemed a contractual obligation for all officers and elected councillors involved with and interested in the economic development of the south-west. There were some serious big-hitters addressing over 300 delegates for the main morning plenary, with four syndicated sessions in the afternoon. Throughout the day, there was an extensive exhibition in the main Winter Gardens hall, with over three dozen major exhibitors, all with economic interests in the south-west.

• Key-note speaker, Allan Jones, was quite outstanding. He is the Chief Development Officer at the London Climate Change Agency, asset-stripped by Ken Livingstone from Woking Borough Council, where his work on energy, electricity and water efficiency, CHP systems (Combined Heat and Power), alternative fuelling for urban transport and renewable energy technologies earned Woking the Queen’s Award for Enterprise - the first time a local authority has received such a distinction. His Powerpoint delivery was quite brilliant but all speakers were honed to 20 minutes – the scope and speed was a bit awesome and there is nothing on the web-site (http://www.regensw.co.uk ) to help my notes. Suffice to say, he was compelling and convincing – here is a driven man, whose deeds and actions have more than matched his words – and they were pretty sensational. I eulogised pretty shamelessly about Ian Bateman – but I’m not suggesting that I’m easily impressed – this guy the business – ask fellow Barnstaple Town Council councillor Rod Hawes and/or follow the links from http://www.lsx.org.uk/news/allanjonesappmt_page1922.aspx

Taking as read his conviction that municipally-led initiatives can render all towns and cities carbon-neutral and 100% energy efficient, given the will (and he should know, because he has done it for Woking and, mark my words, will do it for London as well, there were a few points that hit home: trump any accusations of “inefficiency” with regard renewables by reminding people that every single unit of electricity is only 20% efficient anyway – the other 80% is divided up and disseminated in a myriad different ways. If a local authority manages to generate and control its own power, then instantly, there can be massive savings made simply by cutting out the multitude of middle-men. This he did in Woking. His message to the world? The Future is Hydrogen!

• Dr Brenda Boardman’s theme was the 40% House, essentially research into the practicalities of reducing the energy consumption of all domestic households by 60%, by 2050, a target which she maintains is both viable and absolutely vital. She is the head of the Lower Carbon Futures research team at Oxford Uni and was awarded an MBE for her work on fuel poverty and fuel efficiency in low-income families. Her booklet is in the Barnstaple Town Council offices. Her brief is how to get today’s average energy consumption the minimum and today’s best as tomorrow’s average – that’s in approx 25,000,000 houses. Energy-efficient light bulbs, micro-generation of heat and power (CHP), low and zero-carbon-rated appliances, insulation, triple-glazing, solar-panels (and particularly, solar roof-tiles), recycling of waste water, domestic micro-wind power and even, outside the box, domestic tradable quotas, whereby those households which attain certain higher standards of efficiency, are rewarded financially, directly or indirectly, for their efforts.

See: http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/lowercf/index.html for more info.

• Matthew Spencer is the Chief Executive of Regen SW, an ex-Greenpeace activist, environmentalist, biologist by profession and expert on Climate Change. He was (is) very up-beat about the direction and increasing relevance of this organisation.  He announced with pleasure the confirmation that day of the Marine Current Turbine’s tidal-wave power plant for Lynmouth, North Devon. He talked positively about the potential in the SW for Green/Bio-fuels and Green Heat (Biomass) and for (geo-)Thermal and Solar heat pumps. He said that the possibility of 300,000 new homes being built in the region within the next 10 years presented developers with a golden opportunity to go for Green Energy. For him, the first priority is for energy efficiency and domestic, business and industrial reduction, followed by Micro systems and then domestic CHP units before any approach to the public utilities is considered.

• Sir Ben Gill was typically robust and uncompromising. He was also extremely colourful and “easy-listening”. Sir Ben is the Chairman of the Government Biomass Task Force, charged with identifying the barriers that have inhibited the use of Biomass as a renewable energy source and with making proposals to remove such barriers and develop the industry – of real local relevance to us, then!  His message to the world? Ignorance! He was incensed at the wilful ignorance, worn almost as a badge of honour, displayed at all levels by those involved in this process. He is not a man to mince words! Sir Ben is a former President of the National Farmer’s Union – he was to give them short shrift, along with civil servants, government departments, the developers themselves and those involved with trying to prevent the process from taking off, using totally spurious and hypothetical data. One shot to keep us awake – we waste enough electricity to heat the whole country for free! Yes, Biomass, let’s be having it, he maintains; it has huge potential and we haven’t even begun to appreciate this fact. Get it from anywhere – from crops, forestry materials, household and municipal waste, sewerage, food and animal waste; use any method – combustion, pyrolysis, gasification, autoclaving – just get started. He dismissed all pretence as to the viability, even in the short run, for fossil fuels, with coal efficiency as low as 25% - Biomass is, he concluded, the “unrecognised” heat source of the future. See: http://www.forestry.gov.uk/srcsite/infd-65v9tt – very impressive!

After, it must be said, a very civilised lunch, the delegates were divided into four groups for syndicate sessions. I attended the Biomass one, having “o-d’d” on Wind the previous day and leaving Cllr Hawes for the Marine input. In retrospect, I wish I had attended the remaining Micro session, something about which I know little and which is still, relatively, in its infancy. The Biomass session added very little to my existing knowledge but was still fun, when Archie Montgomery from the NFU and Dr Mike Carver from Bical clashed on fundamentals – good job Sir Ben wasn’t there!

However, the input from Sam Whatmore from South West (Wood-chip) Fuels was worth a listen, despite the narrow parameters, if only because of the precise logistical detail he offered re: the wood-chip fuel-pellet business and his obvious sincerity, experience and commitment.

Similarly, the sorry saga of the Holsworthy Anaerobic Digestion plant, as related by Jake Prior, whose firm, Summerleaze, rescued it from liquidation - another unfortunate object lesson of small-scale “local” ownership falling foul to the bureaucratic red-tape and fiendishly complicated financial strategies necessary to gain sound business practice without any capability of investment.  It is an interesting story and one which did not really come out in the local press. The plant took 10 years to plan – over £12 million was invested, only for it to collapse in 2003, despite the fact that essentially, it was working. Major problem was the unsustainable nature of the contracts they had to adhere to – for instance, 80% of the input was from animal slurry, which was simply not an economical ingredient, while most of the rest, chicken manure, played havoc with the machinery. Nor was there any “buffer” capacity – the plant had to receive and deliver on the same day, more or less. Summerleaze had to invest £100,000 just to gain closure on the remaining regulatory restrictions from the original contracts. They reckon they have managed to deal with the smell, we’ll be pleased to hear. Now, he maintains, the plant produces top-quality fertiliser and is regarded as a centre of excellence nationally for Anaerobic digestion energy production.

The Bical v NFU was “un dialogue des sourdes” (just checking to see if you’re still reading…), good knock-about stuff but an unfortunate reminder that unlike poles do indeed repel and never the twain shall meet, sadly – because it is absolutely vital for the Biomass industry that farmers and developers get into bed together – indeed they already have, but such is the extent of ignorance, fear and mutual hostility, not to mention intimidation, that no-one dare mention its name. Ian McChesney, from ESD Biomass, attempted to be a mediator and steady voice of reason, concentrating on existing good practice, despite his concerns about pathetic central financial assistance.  The session was well facilitated by Simon Roberts from the Centre for Sustainable Energy and was followed by a question and answer session.

A quick word on the exhibition – a most impressive display, huge amount of information, very visual, hands-on, videos, booklets etc. However, I got the distinct impression that here is an industry on hold but raring to go. The investment opportunities are there, the expertise is increasingly there, there is the will to go and there is massive public support for renewables, stimulated by public concern over climate change. They may well be under starter’s orders, but the starter is seemingly AWOL or awaiting his/her own orders. Industry and Business are most concerned about the lack of robust governmental guidelines, the fact that the playing field is not just uneven, it is positively pock-marked with valleys, craters and mine-fields. I, for one, am desperately hopeful that the horses don’t bolt off in the wrong direction or simply pass away from lack of stimulation or simple sustenance. I cannot wait for next year’s conference – that statement may well be prophetic.

Cllr Ricky Knight – Delegate from Barnstaple Town Council – December 2005

Return to North Devon Green Party news