ASA Adjudication on Bucks Lacks Enough Wind

Ad

A magazine ad, for the pressure group Bucks Lacks Enough Wind (BLEW), stated "7 wind turbines near Emberton Here are 7 reasons why they don't make sense for Milton Keynes ... 1. Building wind turbines in areas of low wind like ours goes against common sense Experts say that anything less than a 30% load factor is inefficient, but wind farms in this region are struggling to get 20%!!! There just isn't enough wind! That's why Your Energy wont [sic] let anyone see the wind data they have collected from the site! 2. Your money will pay for Your Energy's inefficient wind factory Up to 60% of wind farm revenues come from subsidies paid for by your electricity bills - £600 million to wind farms alone this year, that's up to £90 per year per household ... 3. Wind industry experts say that underperforming wind-farms supported by heavy subsidies are pushing our electricity costs up Without the subsidies, no-one [sic] would build wind farms in this area. Bad investments in inefficient energy infrastructure waste our subsidies and push electricity costs up for years to come, making the UK less competitive! 4. The proposed site will devastate one of the last unspoilt areas of deep countryside and a haven for wildlife in Milton Keynes As our city grows the greenbelt countryside is disappearing - this development would turn an area rich in rare species like birds of prey, bats and newts into an industrial 'brown field' site ... 6. Nearby footpaths of total tranquillity will be scarred by turbine noise, light flicker and the corpses of dead and dying birds! Birds hit by the blades are flung for hundreds of metres around the turbines - who would want to walk their children and dogs down paths littered with dead and dying birds? 7. The damage done to the countryside will be forever Not only will investors want the turbines to stay for as long as they keep working, but the proposals do not cover the huge costs of removing the wind factory and its vast concrete foundations. They will want to leave the foundations behind, a brown-field site ripe for re-development! ...".

Issue

Your Energy Ltd challenged whether BLEW could substantiate the claims:

1. "Experts say that anything less than a 30% load factor is inefficient", because they believed no experts had made that claim and argued that a wind farm operating with a load factor of less than 30% was not inefficient;

2. "£600 million (in subsidies was paid) to wind farms alone this year, that's up to £90 per year per household";

3. "Wind industry experts say that underperforming wind-farms supported by heavy subsidies are pushing our electricity costs up  Without the subsidies, no-one would build wind farms in this area.  Bad investments in inefficient energy infrastructure waste our subsidies and push electricity costs up for years to come, making the UK less competitive!";

4. "an area rich in rare species like birds of prey, bats and newts", because they believed birds of prey, bats and newts were not rare species and were not in abundance in the area;

5. "this development would turn (the) area ... into an industrial 'brown field' site", because the development did not require the local authority to change the land classification of the site;

6. "Nearby footpaths of total tranquillity will be scarred by ... the corpses of dead and dying birds!  Birds hit by the blades are flung for hundreds of metres around the turbines ... paths littered with dead and dying birds"; and

7. "The damage done to the countryside will be forever ... the proposals do not cover the huge costs of removing the wind factory and its vast concrete foundations.  They will want to leave the foundations behind, a brown-field site ripe for re-development!", because the planning application allowed the wind farm to operate for 25 years, after which time the site had to be returned to its former state.

CAP Code

Response

BLEW explained that the ad was used in their campaign to stop a wind farm being built at Petsoe End near Emberton in Milton Keynes.  They said the application for the wind farm was granted by Milton Keynes Council's Development Control Committee on 17 December 2007 and therefore the ad would not appear again.  However, they believed all its claims were accurate.

1. BLEW said a BBC Radio 4 programme called 'Costing the Earth', that was broadcast on 30 August 2007, supported their argument that the recommended load factor for a viable and efficient wind development was 30%.  On the programme, an engineering consultant called Jim Oswald stated that wind farms were delivering 28% of their rated power annually; he said they should be operating at a load factor of around 30% but the average for the last two years was 27-28%, because it was not particularly windy in the UK.  

BLEW understood from information quoted at a planning meeting that the load factor at the Petsoe End site was expected to be around 18%.  They intended the claim "Experts say that anything less than a 30% load factor is inefficient, but wind farms in this region are struggling to get 20%!!!" to convey that the output at the Petsoe End site was likely to be less than two-thirds of what an expert had suggested was needed to be efficient.  They said they had not intended to claim that the turbines were 70% inefficient.

2. BLEW said renewable energy schemes were supported by public subsidies from bill payers.  They gave an example of how the figure of £90 per year per household could be calculated, which involved multiplying the cost of a MWh by the annual UK household energy usage in MWh but said, because of the complexities in the electricity pricing field, they had not based the claim on those calculations but instead on a figure taken from the BBC Radio 4 programme 'Costing the Earth'.  

In that programme, Michael Jefferson, Policies Chairman of the World Renewable Energy Network, said business and domestic electricity consumers were paying heavily for subsidies that went to wind farm developers and the wind element of those subsidies was now about £600 million a year.  He also said each household was paying up to £90 per year for renewable energy but the amount varied enormously depending on the size of the house and its electricity consumption.

3. BLEW said the claim was based on the same programme, 'Costing the Earth'.  In the programme, Jim Oswald said the cost of electricity would go up by 50% because wind was very volatile, alternating between no wind and maximum wind; it was not consistently windy enough to generate a regular energy supply and wind energy could not be stored.  Michael Jefferson also said consumers were paying more for wind energy because of subsidies.

BLEW submitted a report, prepared for the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) in August 2005, entitled "What is the impact of limiting ROC eligibility for low-cost renewable generation technologies?".  They pointed the ASA to the Executive summary of the report, which stated " ... For onshore wind, the viability of projects with reduced ROC support will depend on site-specific factors, particularly average wind speed.  While projects sited in areas with high average wind speeds (8.5 m/s or more) would be clearly viable with reduced support, the same conclusion cannot be reached with confidence for sites with lower wind speeds ...".  They argued that it supported the claim "Without the subsidies, no-one would build wind farms in this area.  Bad investments in inefficient energy infrastructure waste our subsidies and push electricity costs up for years to come, making the UK less competitive!".  

4. BLEW sent a report dated October 2006 from the countryside officer of Milton Keynes Council, which stated " ... Buzzard ... is believed ... to nest nearby ... or the reintroduced Red kite which is returning to the area ...".

They also sent a report, conducted in 2003 by an environmental consultancy on behalf of a developer for a barn conversion on a farm less than 1000 m from one of the proposed turbines, which stated that up to three myotis bats had been spotted flying inside one of the barns and it was 90% certain that they were Natterer's bats.  The report continued " ... Natterer's bats are widespread but generally scarce in the UK.  This record of the species in Milton Keynes Borough may well be significant ...".  As a result of that report, a licence was required to implement the planning permission.  The application for a licence stated " ... Natterer's bats are uncommon to scarce in many counties, including Buckinghamshire, and they are likely to be particularly scarce within the administrative area of Milton Keynes ... The numbers concerned would appear to be small.  Up to three Natterer's bats were observed ...".

They said a Biological Notification site had been established on the wind farm site and argued that that meant the development area was rich in wildlife.  

5. BLEW acknowledged that the development would not cause a change in the land classification of the site but said the words 'brown field' were put in inverted commas to indicate that the area would be perceived by laymen to be a brownfield site, because the development would turn greenfield land into an industrial landscape.

6. BLEW referred us again to the report from the countryside officer of Milton Keynes Council; it stated " ... it is considered there is little scope for collisions between the existing fauna and turbines or traffic ... the risk of blade-strike for most birds is shown to be minimal.  However, there is a risk to some large, high-flying species - e.g. Buzzard ... Heron, migrating swans or geese, or the reintroduced Red kite which is returning to the area.  It is invidious to state ... that the risk is low as such species typically occur in low numbers or at low densities: arguably, the loss of a single individual is then more, not less, significant.  Moreover there is evidence that birds may be attracted to turbines ...".

They said the reason why the RSPB had not objected to the planning application was that they believed global warming presented a greater risk to birds than the impact of wind farms, not that they believed the building of the wind farm would not result in any bird deaths.

7. BLEW argued that Your Energy were likely to apply to redevelop the site at the end of the 25-year period, because redevelopment had occurred at a number of wind farm sites.

They asserted that, even if Your Energy did not redevelop the site, farming operations could not continue normally unless the whole concrete turbine base was removed; however, in reality, the foundations would be removed to below ploughing depth but would not be removed completely.  They said ploughing depth was usually 20-25 cm but rooting depth for many crops, including wheat and oil seed rape, was 2 m.  Although a machine could plough over the foundations and the area could be tilled, crops would not grow efficiently on it.  They said if there was a drought the crop would wilt, and from an aerial view the area would look different in colour from, and would age faster than, the surrounding field.  They therefore believed the places where the turbine bases had been would always be visible, because no crop would be able to root properly through a concrete slab.

They said there would be economic and environmental costs involved in removing the turbines, because large structures were notoriously expensive to take down and dispose of and there would be hazardous materials such as oil both during and after decommissioning.

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA considered readers were likely to infer that most experts held the view that anything less than a 30% load factor was inefficient, whereas BLEW had produced the view of only one engineering consultant to support the claim.  Moreover, we understood that efficiency normally referred to the actual amount of energy extracted as a fraction of the total energy available.  By contrast, we noted the load factor, or capacity factor, referred to the amount of energy extracted as a fraction of the theoretical maximum amount of energy and not the amount of energy actually available to a turbine in the course of a year.  We considered the load factor was not an appropriate method of assessing the efficiency or inefficiency of a wind turbine.  We concluded that the claim was likely to mislead.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 and 3.2 (Substantiation), 7.1 (Truthfulness) and 49.3 (Environmental claims).

2. Upheld

We considered the claim suggested that, in 2007, wind farms received £600 million in subsidies from consumers' electricity bills, which equated to up to £90 per year per household.

We considered that, because it was presented as an objective fact, readers would expect the claim to be backed by officially sourced figures and calculations.  We considered that a quote, which may have been merely speculative, from one person on a radio interview was insufficient to support the claim and, even if the ad had given the source of the quote, BLEW would still have needed to explain from where Michael Jefferson had derived the figures of £600 million and £90 per year per household.  We concluded that the claim was likely to mislead.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

3. Upheld

We acknowledged that wind farms were supported by subsidies.  We considered it was clear from the programme 'Costing the Earth' that Michael Jefferson and Jim Oswald thought some wind farms were underperforming because they were not sited in windy areas; we also noted Jim Oswald said turning to wind power would result in a large increase in household electricity bills.  We considered that, in the context of an ad placed by a group campaigning against wind farms, the claim "Wind industry experts say that underperforming wind-farms supported by heavy subsidies are pushing our electricity costs up" was unlikely to mislead.

However, the claim continued "Without the subsidies, no-one would build wind farms in this area.  Bad investments in inefficient energy infrastructure waste our subsidies and push electricity costs up for years to come, making the UK less competitive!"  We noted that part of the claim was not derived from the views expressed on the 'Costing the Earth' programme.  BLEW had pointed to an extract from a DTI report which they believed supported the claim; we understood the extract referred to the fact that subsidies were likely to be needed to support wind projects sited in areas where the average wind speed was below 8.5 m/s.  However, we considered the claim suggested that wind farms would not be built in the Emberton area without subsidies and noted BLEW had not sent evidence to show that the average wind speed at the proposed wind farm site was below 8.5 m/s.  We also considered BLEW had sent no evidence to show that wind farms would be responsible for high electricity costs for many years, which would make the UK less competitive.  We concluded that part of the claim was likely to mislead because BLEW had not sent sufficient substantiation to support it.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 and 3.2 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

4. Upheld

We understood there was a Biological Notification Site (BNS) within the land of Petsoe Manor Farm called Petsoe Manor Ponds and Scrub.  BNS sites were identified in the 1980s, before guidelines on their status were established, and were currently being reviewed to find out whether they met the criteria for Local Wildlife Sites.  A BNS was regarded as being of local, not national, importance to wildlife, but that did not mean it could not contain rare or protected species, although the fact that a BNS was established did not mean the area definitely contained rare species.  We noted the report from the countryside officer of Milton Keynes Council stated " ... There is no species list for the existing Biological Notification Site ...".  We understood that, although Petsoe Manor Ponds and Scrub must have been considered important for local wildlife in the 1980s, no official records were held of the presence of any rare species at that site.

Your Energy provided us with a letter from Natural England to Milton Keynes Council about the proposed wind farm.  The letter stated ... "there is a small population of bats present in the study area ... Natural England is satisfied with this conclusion and I advise that we have no further concerns in regard to protected species at the proposed development site at present ...".  

Although we considered BLEW had shown that a rare species of bat was present in small numbers about half a mile from the site four years before the ad appeared and buzzard and red kite were believed to be nearby, the information submitted by BLEW contained no reference to the number of birds of prey present and no reference to newts at all.  We considered that, to substantiate the claim "rich in rare species like birds of prey, bats and newts", BLEW would need to show that a large variety of rare species of bats, birds of prey and newts were present at the site of the proposed wind farm at the current time.  Because they had not, we concluded that the claim was exaggerated and likely to mislead.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

5. Upheld

We considered readers were likely to expect from the claim "this development would turn (the) area ... into an industrial 'brown field' site" that the building of the wind farm would result in a technical change to the land classification of the site.  We thought the use of inverted commas was unlikely to convey the message that the term was not being used in an official or technical capacity.  We considered the term 'brown field site' was likely to have negative connotations for readers, because such sites were sometimes known to be contaminated.  Because the land classification would not change to a brownfield site as a result of the wind farm being built, we considered the claim was likely to mislead.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

6. Upheld

We noted the letter from Natural England to Milton Keynes Council, which Your Energy had provided us with, stated " ... (The bats) are unlikely to put themselves at regular risk of collision due to the nature of the site, low numbers of foraging insects and the apparent lack of regular flightlines through the proposed turbine cluster ...".

We also noted the RSPB had not objected to the wind farm proposal, although their website stated that they did object to specific wind farm proposals if there was insufficient knowledge about the threat to sensitive bird populations or their habitats to conclude that there would not be a problem.

Although the possibility of birds flying into the turbines could not be ruled out, we considered the claim " ... scarred by ... the corpses of dead and dying birds ... flung for hundreds of metres around the turbines ... paths littered with dead and dying birds" suggested a large number of dead birds would be scattered hundreds of metres around the turbines, and BLEW had sent no evidence to support that level of damage.  We concluded that the claim was exaggerated and likely to mislead.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

7. Upheld

We noted Your Energy said the planning application was for a finite term of 25 years and, when the turbines were decommissioned, the foundations would be removed to below ploughing depth and farmers would be able to resume normal farming activities over the foundations.  They submitted the signed and dated lease on the Petsoe Manor Farm land which stated that, at the end of the term of the lease, the site would be reinstated to a depth of 1.8 metres and the land would be restored to the state and condition it was in prior to the date of the lease.

We noted BLEW's comments about the remains of turbine foundations affecting crops.  We took informal advice and understood that the roots of most commercial crops extended up to a metre below ploughing depth and extracted moisture from the soil to that depth; therefore, if the turbine foundations were removed to just below ploughing depth, their presence would become increasingly visible from crop marks.  However, if the turbine foundations were completely removed, good restorations of the soil ought to return yields to normal.  We noted the foundations would be removed to a depth of 1.8 metres and understood that would be deeper than the roots of most commercial crops.  We therefore considered it unlikely that, when the foundations were removed after 25 years, the spot where the turbines had been would be marked on the landscape forever.  We concluded that the claim was likely to mislead.

On this point, the ad breached CAP Code clauses 3.1 (Substantiation) and 7.1 (Truthfulness).

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form.  We told BLEW to remove the claims we had identified as problematic and advised them to contact the CAP Copy Advice team if they intended to produce similar advertising in future.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)