Retired RAF pilot wins legal challenge over a wind farm

[hemanthaa@mail.com + 64]

A retired RAF pilot has won a case over the government in court over proposals to build a new wind farm off the coast of Norfolk.

Please follow the link for more:

 

 

 

[markslawson + 1,042]

5 hours ago, hemanthaa@mail.com said:

A retired RAF pilot has won a case over the government in court over proposals to build a new wind farm off the coast of Norfolk.

Without going into the details of the case this is another example of the problems involved in large scale adoption of wind.. these wind towers are in a bunch of water 65 kilometres from shore so they're not near anyone's house and if they're a visual eyesore so what, but a judge still blocked it.. in part the objector was worried that the high voltage cables came onto land about 80 metres from his house..   

[NickW + 2,714]

On 2/19/2021 at 11:17 PM, markslawson said:

Without going into the details of the case this is another example of the problems involved in large scale adoption of wind.. these wind towers are in a bunch of water 65 kilometres from shore so they're not near anyone's house and if they're a visual eyesore so what, but a judge still blocked it.. in part the objector was worried that the high voltage cables came onto land about 80 metres from his house..   

But if they build a CCGT or nuke the power lines would be ok? 

This power cable was going to be buried and 80m from his house. I hope Vattenfall appeal this. 

[markslawson + 1,042]

6 hours ago, NickW said:

But if they build a CCGT or nuke the power lines would be ok?

Oh no - you've misunderstood.. I doubt the source of the power matters to the person making the complaint.. the problem is the high voltage wires comparatively close to him.. or at least that's what he managed to get the judge to agree to.. maybe he was against the offshore wind farm, although I can't see how he would see the turbines from his house, but the sticking point was the high voltage wire.. Vattenfall could redesign the project so that the transmission cables remain offshore.. I think that means they can plug it into existing cables between Europe and the UK (there are several), and that may be easier than appealing the decision. That means considerably more expense, of course.. 

[NickW + 2,714]

8 hours ago, markslawson said:

Oh no - you've misunderstood.. I doubt the source of the power matters to the person making the complaint.. the problem is the high voltage wires comparatively close to him.. or at least that's what he managed to get the judge to agree to.. maybe he was against the offshore wind farm, although I can't see how he would see the turbines from his house, but the sticking point was the high voltage wire.. Vattenfall could redesign the project so that the transmission cables remain offshore.. I think that means they can plug it into existing cables between Europe and the UK (there are several), and that may be easier than appealing the decision. That means considerably more expense, of course.. 

The cables were going to be buried. This massively reduces the EMF signal from the power line to virtually nothing over that distance. 

I would sympathetic if they proposed to build 400KV power lines 80 metres from his house. 

[NickW + 2,714]

8 hours ago, markslawson said:

Oh no - you've misunderstood.. I doubt the source of the power matters to the person making the complaint.. the problem is the high voltage wires comparatively close to him.. or at least that's what he managed to get the judge to agree to.. maybe he was against the offshore wind farm, although I can't see how he would see the turbines from his house, but the sticking point was the high voltage wire.. Vattenfall could redesign the project so that the transmission cables remain offshore.. I think that means they can plug it into existing cables between Europe and the UK (there are several), and that may be easier than appealing the decision. That means considerably more expense, of course.. 

There no Continent to UK interconnectors anywhere near those wind farms. All the existing interconnectors make landfall in Kent. 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

6 hours ago, NickW said:

The cables were going to be buried. This massively reduces the EMF signal from the power line to virtually nothing over that distance. 

I would sympathetic if they proposed to build 400KV power lines 80 metres from his house. 

That may be, Nick, but the fact is it's not your back yard, is it?  As I see it the man didn't have any trust in any of it: he just decided he didn't want massive power lines that close to his house.  And with power company execs and government bureaucrats being so trustworthy.......

[NickW + 2,714]

30 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

That may be, Nick, but the fact is it's not your back yard, is it?  As I see it the man didn't have any trust in any of it: he just decided he didn't want massive power lines that close to his house.  And with power company execs and government bureaucrats being so trustworthy.......

Well I used to live in Norfolk......

If a HV power line was going to be installed 80 metres under 2 metres of soil  from my house would I be worried - nope. 

I assume Mr Pilot uses electricity. 

If you don't trust safety regulators you can buy a reasonably accurate EMF meter for about 50 quid. On the same basis though why put any trust in the installation of gas and oil pipelines. 

[markslawson + 1,042]

9 hours ago, NickW said:

There no Continent to UK interconnectors anywhere near those wind farms. All the existing interconnectors make landfall in Kent. 

Oh sure ... like I said it might be expensive to connect but the distance would not be a problem, as such, just an extra expense. As for your other remarks about high voltage stuff I completely agree the actual risk from high voltage line is wildly overblown in the popular imagination and the lines would be buried anyway.. just try telling that it the people living beside them.. if you'll recall a few years back people were crying with terror over living next to mobile phone towers of all things. Vattenfall's other option would be to compensate this guy - pay him to sell up and go away, and whoever buys the property will buy knowing a high voltage cable is buried nearby.. 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

10 hours ago, NickW said:

Well I used to live in Norfolk......

If a HV power line was going to be installed 80 metres under 2 metres of soil  from my house would I be worried - nope. 

I assume Mr Pilot uses electricity. 

If you don't trust safety regulators you can buy a reasonably accurate EMF meter for about 50 quid. On the same basis though why put any trust in the installation of gas and oil pipelines. 

Where you live has what significance?

Hi is not you.

He may not understand what you understand.  Most people, I think you'd agree, probably don't.

Who, other than you, even knows there are such things as EMF meters and what they might be good for.

He may be after what @markslawson eluded to in his comment above: compensation, possibly in the form of a buyout.  Airports do that all the time.  If a power company wanted to install a wind farm next door to me, I'd sue to get them to buy me out.  God knows nobody else would want to after the wind farm went up.

But there is no telling you.  There is no making you understand how average citizens might feel about the barrage of crap foisted upon them by "the authorities".  Everyone should just accept what the authorities throw at them, according to you.  Have a little empathy, man.  Some people don't want big power lines buried next door to them, don't want big power lines to go overhead where previously there were none, don't want a wind turbine farm installed within sight or sound of their homes, don't want billboards erected obscuring the vistas they purchased their properties to enjoy, don't want Big Joe Bureaucrat telling them what they must accept, etc.

In short, many people, it may come as a surprise to you, just want to live out the rest of their short lives without these invasions.  If this veteran wants to sue for relief, can sue for relief, and is granted relief by the courts, who are you to tell him he's just plain ignorant and ought to accept what the authorities throw his way?

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

Man!  Cannot create topics, send PMs, or even edit my own comments today.  

The above comment, 2nd line, should read "He is not you."

@Selva

@CMOP

[NickW + 2,714]

49 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

Where you live has what significance?

Hi is not you.

He may not understand what you understand.  Most people, I think you'd agree, probably don't.

Who, other than you, even knows there are such things as EMF meters and what they might be good for.

He may be after what @markslawson eluded to in his comment above: compensation, possibly in the form of a buyout.  Airports do that all the time.  If a power company wanted to install a wind farm next door to me, I'd sue to get them to buy me out.  God knows nobody else would want to after the wind farm went up.

But there is no telling you.  There is no making you understand how average citizens might feel about the barrage of crap foisted upon them by "the authorities".  Everyone should just accept what the authorities throw at them, according to you.  Have a little empathy, man.  Some people don't want big power lines buried next door to them, don't want big power lines to go overhead where previously there were none, don't want a wind turbine farm installed within sight or sound of their homes, don't want billboards erected obscuring the vistas they purchased their properties to enjoy, don't want Big Joe Bureaucrat telling them what they must accept, etc.

In short, many people, it may come as a surprise to you, just want to live out the rest of their short lives without these invasions.  If this veteran wants to sue for relief, can sue for relief, and is granted relief by the courts, who are you to tell him he's just plain ignorant and ought to accept what the authorities throw his way?

The guy is an ex military and civilian pilot - that would equip him with more than adequate skills to risk assess the 'hazard' from EMF from a cable buried underground 80 metres away.

I assume you will be defending the protesters against gas / oil pipelines with equal vigour? On that basis you must empathise with  the Keystone Pipeline protesters who have effectively blocked and got the project thrown out? 

[NickW + 2,714]

9 hours ago, markslawson said:

Oh sure ... like I said it might be expensive to connect but the distance would not be a problem, as such, just an extra expense. As for your other remarks about high voltage stuff I completely agree the actual risk from high voltage line is wildly overblown in the popular imagination and the lines would be buried anyway.. just try telling that it the people living beside them.. if you'll recall a few years back people were crying with terror over living next to mobile phone towers of all things. Vattenfall's other option would be to compensate this guy - pay him to sell up and go away, and whoever buys the property will buy knowing a high voltage cable is buried nearby.. 

The distance would be at least another 100 miles. Anyway its a nonsense proposal. The Interconnectors max capacity s less than the wind farm and when the wind farm is using it it would be unavailable to import electricity. 

Perhaps the entire development of the UK (and other nations)  should be subject to individuals psychogenic origin 'illnesses'. The high priestess of Psychogenic illness, 'Dr' Sarah Lawrie could be called in as a witness. 

I guess in view of your opinions on this you fully endorse objections to energy transmission routes like for example:

• NE Gas Interconnector (Oz)
• Keystone Oil pipeline

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

9 minutes ago, NickW said:

The guy is an ex military and civilian pilot - that would equip him with more than adequate skills to risk assess the 'hazard' from EMF from a cable buried underground 80 metres away.

I assume you will be defending the protesters against gas / oil pipelines with equal vigour? On that basis you must empathise with  the Keystone Pipeline protesters who have effectively blocked and got the project thrown out? 

First point: You presume.

Second point: Absolutely!  If someone wants to install a major pipeline 80 meters from my house.

Third point: Not so much.  Their reasons, I believe, are the more general "environment", and I believe pipelines are comparatively safe.  But I don't think it is a good idea to install them through existing residential neighborhoods without the express consent of the people in that neighborhood.

[Selva + 252]

5 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

Man!  Cannot create topics, send PMs, or even edit my own comments today.  

The above comment, 2nd line, should read "He is not you."

@Selva

@CMOP

Dan, Sorry about that. I’ll check with our tech team and get back to you. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

5 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

Man!  Cannot create topics, send PMs, or even edit my own comments today.  

The above comment, 2nd line, should read "He is not you."

@Selva

@CMOP

I constantly am confronted with messages that say:  "You are not authorized to view this material."   And here I was thinking that it was the artwork of the Black Hand, again. 

Anyway, I won't be posting any more, given that Management likes the idea of lockouts.  You fells take care, now. 

[Selva + 252]

It's  not an artwork of any kind or a lockout. Our tech team  updated the platform this morning that caused this problem. They are working on it right now. Apologies for these inconveniences. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

5 hours ago, NickW said:

On that basis you must empathise with  the Keystone Pipeline protesters who have effectively blocked and got the project thrown out? 

Well, I sure do  (empathize with the Keystone Protesters).  Keystone is a Canadian corporation with the profits from operations to flow to Canadians, apparently at this point the Canadian Government itself. That pipeline is penciled in to run right smack over the Oglala Reservoir, which contains the fresh water for farm crops in seven States.  Anybody who wants to build an oil pipeline right sack over a giant reservoir of water is an idiot.  In the alternative, the idiot is callous toward risk and uncaring about the consequences of an oil line rupture.  And don't tell me that pipelines never rupture, that the computer controls are so great that it would sense any malfunction and shut it down, and the rest of it.  I have no faith in such electronics.  To understand that, I invite readers to review the disaster of Air France Flight 447 - a flight taken over by computers, that failed, that the pilots could not understand the displays, and it went into a deep stall at 38,000 feet and dropped like a stone out of the sky.  No survivors.   Congratulations, computers.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9eVau8ejWQ

[NickW + 2,714]

6 hours ago, Dan Warnick said:

First point: You presume.

Second point: Absolutely!  If someone wants to install a major pipeline 80 meters from my house.

Third point: Not so much.  Their reasons, I believe, are the more general "environment", and I believe pipelines are comparatively safe.  But I don't think it is a good idea to install them through existing residential neighborhoods without the express consent of the people in that neighborhood.

I presume because as an ex RAF and commerclal pilot the guy must have a good grasp of physics and therefore EMF issues. 

The cable is running through farmland rather than a residential neighbourhood.

If I were in his shoes the only concern I might have is during the installation phase which however is temporary and fairly well regulated in terms of hours of operation which are pretty much restricted to 8am to 7pm (Mon to Friday). 

Once installed their is no potential hazard whereas with a pipeline......

[NickW + 2,714]

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

Well, I sure do  (empathize with the Keystone Protesters).  Keystone is a Canadian corporation with the profits from operations to flow to Canadians, apparently at this point the Canadian Government itself. That pipeline is penciled in to run right smack over the Oglala Reservoir, which contains the fresh water for farm crops in seven States.  Anybody who wants to build an oil pipeline right sack over a giant reservoir of water is an idiot.  In the alternative, the idiot is callous toward risk and uncaring about the consequences of an oil line rupture.  And don't tell me that pipelines never rupture, that the computer controls are so great that it would sense any malfunction and shut it down, and the rest of it.  I have no faith in such electronics.  To understand that, I invite readers to review the disaster of Air France Flight 447 - a flight taken over by computers, that failed, that the pilots could not understand the displays, and it went into a deep stall at 38,000 feet and dropped like a stone out of the sky.  No survivors.   Congratulations, computers.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9eVau8ejWQ

Quite which is why if I had a preference I would far rather have a sub surface high voltage cable installed 80 metres from my house than an oil or gas piepline. 

[Gerry Maddoux + 3,627]

1 hour ago, Jan van Eck said:

Well, I sure do  (empathize with the Keystone Protesters).  Keystone is a Canadian corporation with the profits from operations to flow to Canadians, apparently at this point the Canadian Government itself. That pipeline is penciled in to run right smack over the Oglala Reservoir, which contains the fresh water for farm crops in seven States.  Anybody who wants to build an oil pipeline right sack over a giant reservoir of water is an idiot.  In the alternative, the idiot is callous toward risk and uncaring about the consequences of an oil line rupture.  And don't tell me that pipelines never rupture, that the computer controls are so great that it would sense any malfunction and shut it down, and the rest of it.  I have no faith in such electronics.  To understand that, I invite readers to review the disaster of Air France Flight 447 - a flight taken over by computers, that failed, that the pilots could not understand the displays, and it went into a deep stall at 38,000 feet and dropped like a stone out of the sky.  No survivors.   Congratulations, computers.  

Jan, there have been at least a dozen iterations of the pathway of the Keystone. The last one avoided the Ogallala Aquifer, as well as the Sandhills where the cranes nest. Yes, there would be spills, and if one occurred near a river it would contaminate drinking water. However, the heavy oil from Canada doesn't travel very fast, nor permeate very deep. It would be more like a glob of tar dolloped out. 

In the final analysis, it comes down to U.S. national security . . . which depends still today on energy-independence. We need heavy oil for refinery feedstock: it's either buy it from Nigeria, or the Saudis, or if Mr. Biden has his way from Iran, or let a very good pipeline company skirt the Ogallala and bring Canadian oil down to the Cushing Hub and on to the refineries. 

And I might say that in North Dakota where the Indigenous Peoples own some of the "federal land" on which fracking would initially be banned, they became truly irritated--so much that Biden's people quickly exempted tribal lands from his ban. Some of that drilling is in the edge of a large lake. So much for worries about the water!

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

1 hour ago, NickW said:

I presume because as an ex RAF and commerclal pilot the guy must have a good grasp of physics and therefore EMF issues. 

The cable is running through farmland rather than a residential neighbourhood.

If I were in his shoes the only concern I might have is during the installation phase which however is temporary and fairly well regulated in terms of hours of operation which are pretty much restricted to 8am to 7pm (Mon to Friday). 

Once installed their is no potential hazard whereas with a pipeline......

You repeatedly talk about you, "presume" and pass judgement.  Go interview the guy!  Until you do, let's "presume" you don't know.  Again, he had the right to sue, he did sue, and the courts ruled in his favor and against that of the "authorities".  Hello?  

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

3 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

Well, I sure do  (empathize with the Keystone Protesters).  Keystone is a Canadian corporation with the profits from operations to flow to Canadians, apparently at this point the Canadian Government itself. That pipeline is penciled in to run right smack over the Oglala Reservoir, which contains the fresh water for farm crops in seven States.  Anybody who wants to build an oil pipeline right sack over a giant reservoir of water is an idiot.  In the alternative, the idiot is callous toward risk and uncaring about the consequences of an oil line rupture.  And don't tell me that pipelines never rupture, that the computer controls are so great that it would sense any malfunction and shut it down, and the rest of it.  I have no faith in such electronics.  To understand that, I invite readers to review the disaster of Air France Flight 447 - a flight taken over by computers, that failed, that the pilots could not understand the displays, and it went into a deep stall at 38,000 feet and dropped like a stone out of the sky.  No survivors.   Congratulations, computers.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9eVau8ejWQ

That's a great case to reference, although tragic.  Sitting on an aircraft flight deck at night with no point of reference, such as visible terrain, and then developing a complete reliance on electronic indications is dangerous.  Contrary to popular belief, there is very little true sense of speed, altitude or attitude of the aircraft in nighttime flight over an ocean.  Pilots around the world know this.  The pilots continue to lobby for changes to revert back to old school flight school, if you will.  But the corporations and the OEMs, usually supported by the "authorities" push back and put full faith in the computers.  Pilots are trained nowadays on how to operate the systems, to rely on the systems.  Results?  Judge from that flight investigation.  That once in years occurrence.  

Would the pilots have avoided that situation and avoided that crash?  Yes, they would have.  They would have because they would have been in manual control and awareness long before they relied on the computer systems to "handle it" and they, being human, would have taken the more cautious approach.  They would not have taken the chance to fly into weather that other pilots that night decided to avoid.  As one of the pilots on that video alluded to, by the time the human pilots were alerted to the fact that the computers had gotten them into a disastrous situation, it was nearly impossible for the human pilots to figure out what was what, rendering them also as impotent as the computers that had taken themselves off-line.  Can computers be called cowards?  They (the computers) essentially threw up their hands and said "I dunno, you take it".

The pilot/investigator at the end of the video said as much.  And anyone reading aviation journals will find a consistent murmur from pilot organizations in the EU and the US that they are not happy with their training regimen and want it changed.  But flight training costs money and the corporations spend billions of $$ on aircraft that are supposedly heading towards replacing the humans, so they don't always listen to the humans as much as they should

Relate this scenario to the power outages in Texas: One might find similarities.

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

2 hours ago, NickW said:

Quite which is why if I had a preference I would far rather have a sub surface high voltage cable installed 80 metres from my house than an oil or gas piepline. 

Well, I'll give you this: You would have been a great leader when they pushed the railroad across the U.S.  Nothing would have stood in your way or the company's.  We should appoint you in charge of pipelines in North America!  😉

[NickW + 2,714]

50 minutes ago, Dan Warnick said:

You repeatedly talk about you, "presume" and pass judgement.  Go interview the guy!  Until you do, let's "presume" you don't know.  Again, he had the right to sue, he did sue, and the courts ruled in his favor and against that of the "authorities".  Hello?  

He didn't sue for damages which is normally a recourse for compensation on the basis of harm or loss. He had not suffered any loss so would not have been able to sue. 

He got the decision overturned on the basis it wasn't in accordance with policy. A judicial review in effect

Judicial review in English law - Wikipedia