| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:renewable energy in Brentford | |
| Posted by: | Jim Pooley | |
| Date/Time: | 11/07/09 16:02:00 |
| Councillor Dakers states that "Neither Tesco (in their application - they didnt send a representative to committee) nor the Council officer that spoke at the previous meeting could give councillors information on the full lifetime benefit of installing these wind turbines, if any, once repair/ construction emmissions were factored in." However, the committee report for the meeting (which Councillor Dakers did not attend). "Carbon dioxide embodied in the manufacture of the turbines ranged widely. In the best case it was 180kg. In the worst it was 1,444 kg. Delivery, installation and maintenance over a 20-year lifespan could add from 18kg to 147kg of CO2". Assuming a worst case scenario for manufacture and minimum for maintenance (as it is a low maintenance wind turbine as it has no gearbox) it would give an embodied energy of 1462KgCo2 and a payback of 2.23 years, well within its 20 year lifespan. Over the life of the installation the predicted carbon saving is 11,638 Kg of CO2 or 11.6 tonnes for each of the turbines. Wind turbines often continue to operate well in excess of their 20 year predicted life. Tesco would say "every little helps". The wind turbines will therefore help to contribute to the requirements of the London Plan Policy 4A.7.” So Councillor Dakers appears to be mistaken. I am surprised by this as I though Councillor Dakers was for renewable energy. If a car park in a supermarket is not a suitable location for a wind turbine would he care to suggest where a suitable location is. I agree with Councillor Dakers comments that solar panels should be installed to the roof. The reason I think Councillor Reid has grudge against Tesco's is I can't think of any other other reason why the Lead Member for Environment would reject a renewable energy project on the grounds of renewable energy produced when it has been should to be of benefit. paragraph 20 of the supplement to PPS1 'Planning and Climate Change’ it states that planning authorities should 'not require applicants for energy development to demonstrate either the overall need for renewable energy and its distribution, nor question the energy justification for why a proposal for such development must be sited in a particular location'. In addition, PPS 22 does state in paragraph 5.10 that 'planning authorities should 'recognise that a small contribution cannot be in itself a reason for refusal of permission'. Therefore based on this guidance the amount of electricity generated is not a material consideration. |