Here at Cliscep some of us are keen to point out the disadvantages of wind turbines, by way of a counter-weight to the enthusiasm of those who fondly think that we can run a modern economy solely (or almost solely) on renewable energy. Regular readers will be familiar with my criticism of the UK’s reliance on infrastructure which is largely foreign-owned; which is environmentally unfriendly; which involves massive (and expensive) extensions to the National Grid to transport the electricity it generates in far-flung locations to the main areas of demand hundreds of miles away; which is intermittent and unreliable; which therefore relies on back-up rendered more expensive than necessary because of the subsidiary role it is condemned to play; which is increasingly supposed to rely on back-up in the form of huge (and potentially toxic) BESS, adding to the woes of those living near wind farms; which involves massive constraints payments when operators shut them down because the Grid can’t cope; and which, in the case particularly of offshore wind farms, are vulnerable to an attack on their cables to the mainland.
However, for those unfortunate enough to live near wind farms, there are other issues. The damage to the views and rural character of the neighbourhood is very real. Blade flicker can be a serious problem. And then there is the noise. Those who haven’t experienced it may suppose that turbines are quiet, but they aren’t. I have had the misfortune to walk beneath turbines in the Southern Uplands of Scotland, while hill-walking, and it was quite a scary experience. The noise they make is not insubstantial. That is probably why the ETSU-R-97 guidance was put in place by the UK government in 1996 (ETSU, by the way, stands for the Energy Technology Support Unit).
Last year the UK government produced a draft guide by way of an update. Given the extent to which wind turbines have proliferated – and are planned to multiply over the next few years – it probably made sense to re-visit the issue. Last year’s draft can be found here. Despite being an extensive document running to 49 pages, it made it clear that:
This draft guidance update does not represent a final position from government….Following this consultation, we will analyse responses and issue a formal government response….
And so it proved, for the UK government has now produced a final version which runs to 59 pages. There are some significant differences. For instance, in the Introduction, clause 1.2 of the draft said:
The technical guidance has been prepared by specialists on wind turbine noise (the ‘Project Team’)….The Project Team has also drawn on the experience of external peer reviewers. [my emphasis].
The final version of clause 1.2 has been subtly altered:
The technical guidance has been informed by advice from specialists on wind turbine noise (the ‘technical advisory team’) [my emphasis].
Unfortunately whoever was responsible for proof-reading the final draft didn’t notice that the specialists are no longer defined as the ‘Project Team’, but for some reason are now known as the ‘technical advisory team’ (possibly because their role seems to have been downgraded). And so it still says:
The Project Team has also drawn on the experience of external peer reviewers.
Has this subtle (or perhaps not so subtle) change made a difference? Well, the section dealing with cumulative noise (which is assuming greater significance in some locations, with more and more wind farm developments crowding in) commences at clause 2.34 in the draft. In some ways, this is one of the most important sections of the document. Clause 2.35 of the draft stated:
Where noise levels from the proposed development are lower than 27 dB LA90, or 10 dB or more below the total noise assessment criteria, a cumulative operational noise assessment is not necessary at that noise-sensitive receptor. All other wind farm developments must be considered in the cumulative assessment where their individual noise level contribution is greater than a level of 10 dB below the total noise assessment criteria. [my emphasis].
The equivalent clause in the final draft is clause 2.40. It is much larger, for the simple reason that it represents a watering-down of the protections to be offered to those adversely affected by the cumulative effects of wind-farm developments:
Where noise levels from the proposed development are lower than 25 dB, or 10 dB or more below both the day and night TNAC, a cumulative operational noise assessment is not necessary at that noise-sensitive receptor. In addition, the noise impacts of small wind turbines are generally localised and could represent a disproportionate constraint on larger wind energy developments. In such cases, the contribution of these turbines should be excluded from the cumulative noise assessment. For the purposes of this guidance, turbines with generating capacities of 50 kW or less can be considered to have localised noise impacts and can therefore be excluded from cumulative noise assessment. Turbines with generating capacities above 50 kW and less than (for example) a few hundred kilowatts can be excluded from cumulative assessment where it can be demonstrated that noise impacts from these turbines are localised and where including these turbines in a cumulative assessment would result in disproportionate constraints on larger developments. All other wind farm developments must be considered in the cumulative assessment where their individual noise level contribution is within 10 dB of the TNAC.
The eagle-eyed among you will have noticed that small wind turbines, and their effects, are now largely to be ignored. It seems that nothing must be allowed to operate as a “constraint on larger wind energy developments”.
Aileen Jackson, of campaign group Scotland Against Spin (SAS), tells me that small wind turbines, of the kind often used by farmers, demonstrate worse noise characteristics than large ones, due to their faster rotation speeds, making them sound like helicopters. Because of their smaller size, they receive little scrutiny in the planning system, compared to larger ones. Having set up SAS 16 years ago, after being surrounded by small farmers’ wind turbines (which proliferated when Feed-in Tariffs arrived on the scene) she feels as if this recent development has sent her back to Square One. And, very regrettably, she may be correct.
It seems that the UK government (aided and abetted by the SNP government north of the border) is fighting on all fronts to get what it – or what Mr Miliband – wants with regard to renewable energy developments. Enthusiasts for renewables might argue that this represents laudable determination and single-mindedness to drive through the agenda. Others, including myself, might consider it a worrying assault on human rights, which sits uncomfortably with a government headed by a human rights lawyer. Then again, the way things are heading, perhaps we won’t have to ponder that strange anomaly for much longer.
Climate Scepticism 
It’s long overdue time to cut to the chase, as in David Turver’s latest post asserting the obvious truth that Everything About Net Zero is Fake.
LikeLike
The sound of a wind turbine seems to come about when a blade passes in front of the tower (i.e. 3 times per revolution). It would presumably be much lower for a turbine with a vertical axis, which would also be far less lethal for birds, as well as having a far greater lifespan (think of the stress on the monstrous turbines with huge ratings and horizontal axes – redoubled with a great bang every time a blade passes the tower). What price a better efficiency?
LikeLike
Sort of related to this story, because of the cumulative impact point:
“‘Energy invasion’ fears raised by protesters”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdxdvgz7gvlo
Taken into account….and then ignored.
Yeah right. Stamping on human rights (and food security) “for the greater good”.
LikeLike
In a presentation Dr. Bernd Fleischmann dissects a number of climate notions, one of them being Wind Turbines and Their Unexpected Consequences. A couple of quotes:
The soils dry out more with wind turbines. And if you plaster the whole world with wind turbines, if you switch the entire energy supply to wind and sun, then there is a Temperature increase that people have calculated. For the case that 40% of the total energy is generated by wind turbines, the temperature increases by 1 to 3°, so more than carbon dioxide.
But not only the Chinese have found out, but there is a marine research center, the Helmholz-Zentrum Hereon. They have investigated this for wind turbines in the sea and they have found that these wind farms are changing the North Sea.
And we don’t just change the climate with wind turbines, some people get sick with the infrasound of the wind turbines.
Not everyone may be so sensitive, but these infracircuits are the pulsed pressure changes that result from such a propeller blade passing the mast. This creates a pressure that spreads. You can’t hear it, but you can feel it. These are enormously high switching pressures and just like they are in the Discoen bass, you can feel it when you’re around. And sensitive people can still do that in 5 km distance, via petzo channels in our cells.
There are publications for this discovery, the Pzukanal even won the Nobel Prize in 2021. So that’s science, that’s not whirlwind. And the organ that suffers the worst from these pressure fluctuations is our brain.
https://rclutz.com/2026/05/14/climate-hysteria-surgically-dissected-by-dr-bernd-fleischmann/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mark, That statement from the National Grid echoes one from DESNZ, quoted by Paul Homewood:
“Will Lochhead, a deputy director of DESNZ, told delegates: “The electricity grid we rely on today was largely built in the 1960s and was never designed for the scale of home-grown energy generation now being deployed, or the future levels of electricity demand.”
That is total BS. He should take a minute to look up the records. The Govt’s own figures show that electricity supply in the early 2000s was over 370 TWh per year. In the 20 or so years since that has shrunk to 271 TWh in 2024.
He cited DESNZ analysis suggesting that annual electricity demand will rise 10pc by 2030, 50pc by 2035 and more than 100pc by 2050, driven by the increased use of clean power technology such as electric cars and heat pumps.“
So, if their figures are accurate (ha!), by 2035 we will be using a bit more electricity than 30 years previously.
What isn’t mentioned – and never will be – is the simple observation that, if we had stayed with a fleet of dispatchable thermal plants, refurbished/replaced/expanded where necessary, we would now have ample, reliable power well into the next decade and probably beyond. Critically that power would be generated where it is needed without the need for all this new infrastructure despoiling the countryside and crippling our power bills.
LikeLiked by 2 people
MikeH
“Will Lochhead, a deputy director of DESNZ, told delegates: “The electricity grid we rely on today was largely built in the 1960s and was never designed for the scale of home-grown energy generation now being deployed, or the future levels of electricity demand.”
“The Govt’s own figures show that electricity supply in the early 2000s was over 370 TWh per year. In the 20 or so years since that has shrunk to 271 TWh in 2024.”
An electricity (and gas) grid is sized, designed and costed to meet peak instantaneous flow; from generation sources to centres of demand. Annual throughput is relatively irrelevant.
Britain’s electricity grid was sized and designed to deliver power from relatively few power stations, most of which (the FF ones) to areas of demand. All delivered synchronous electricity and grid-stabilising inertia; and all the FF generators were fully dispatchable.
Net Zero has added multitudes of highly variable, non-dispatchable, asynchronous, inertia-free, grid-disrupting (wind) capacity. Much of that wind capacity is located in where demand is low and/or already oversized (N Scotland), or non-existent (N Sea).
Infrastructure supporting (wind) generation is sized, designed and costed to meet maximum output, yet its contribution to the grid (and costs amortisation) is at its annual Capacity Factor.
Onshore wind’s CF is ~36%
Offshore wind ~48%
Solar – a laghable ~12%
See pages 12/13:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6880d6f8f47abf78ca1d3550/cfd-ar7-administrative-strike-prices-methodology-note.pdf
The major energy demands targeted for electrification are EVs and heat pumps.
For the former, transmission and distribution infrastructure will need not insignificant reinforcements. However, their electricity demand is spread nearly uniformly over 365 days.Recharging can arguably be carried out at night, when demand is lowest anyway. Some EV power demand can possibly be time-shifted by 1, 2 or more days.
Heat pumps, on the other hand, draw most power, most of the time in Winter when demand is already maximised. Additionally, their demand is virtually un-timeshiftable. If it’s cold, heat is needed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
MIke H and Joe P, thank you both for a great combined/collective summary of so much that is now wrong with the UK’s electricity system (and the apparent failure of those in charge to understand it).
LikeLike
Joe P, Further to your comment about peak instantaneous flow, I went back to the Govt spreadsheet which provided the supply figures I quoted:
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/historical-electricity-data
From the capacity sheet it looks as if the max load peaked in the early 2000s at around 61 GW and has now fallen to c. 47 GW. The corresponding capacity figures changed definition in ’06 but appear to show an increase through that period from approx 70 GW to 82 GW (the impact of wind and solar?) before dropping to 60 GW in 2024.
I haven’t tried to unravel how much of that capacity is dispatchable. However the supply figures show very little from W & S in the 2000s whereas they account for 35% in 2024, suggesting that the dispatchable figure may be less than 60 GW.
LikeLike
Mike – may I remind you of an old post where I put up some of these statistics. Maybe not quite what you are after, but along the same lines. Reading it back now, the “bonus figure” in comments may be the most significant, though all are quite indicative of the mess we are in.
LikeLike
Hi MikeH.
Thanks for your link to “Historical electricity data”, I didn’t know that existed. (There’s lots I don’t know exist!!)
The immediate problem is it’s based on DUKES, a data source designed to befuddle everyone. The second row of the spreadsheet’s Cover Page informs “This spreadsheet forms part of the National Statistics publication Digest of UK Energy Statistics (DUKES) produced by the Department for Energy Security & Net Zero (DESNZ).”, and that’s the problem. It’s an amalgamation of Britain’s and Northern Ireland’s electricity.
However, Northern Ireland doen’t have its ‘own’ electricity grid, it’s part of the Republic of Ireland’s EirGrid. But AFAIA, DUKES/DESNZ does not separate-out Britain’s electricity & NI’s.
Another issue is that the likes of Elexon report Britain’s generation details, but only from metered sources. Unmetered (i.e Embedded) wind & solar are not included. Solar is not included because none of it is metered; ‘Sheffield Solar’ guesses / estimates solar’s contributions. Energy Dashboard explains:
“When embedded generators supply energy onto the distribution network, NG ESO do not see an increase in generation/supply, rather a reduction in demand and this can be clearly seen on windy and/or sunny days.”
https://www.energydashboard.co.uk/data
Unmetered generation is not insignificant. It’s estimated to add around 30% to the metered generation figure. The trouble is, NESO cannot ‘see’ unmetered sources, so can only ‘estimate’ them.
This then means that the figures “max load peaked in the early 2000s at around 61 GW and has now fallen to c. 47 GW.” become questionable, because Britain & NESO are only concerned with Britain’s grid. Britain’s max load peaked around 60GW in the late 1990s/early 2000s, and that *was* max load – there was no embedded generation then.
Grok informs “In 2025, Great Britain’s (GB) peak electricity demand (transmission system demand) reached 49.1 GW on 9 January 2025 at 17:00.” HOWEVER, it also warns that that “excludes some embedded/distributed generation.”
https://x.com/i/grok/share/276bb6830971464c9c21e57a4e98e5dd
Since EnergyDashboard informs Unmetered generation can add approx 30% to metered generation, that means our GRID was, in 2025, actually handling ~64GW.
As I’d originally posted, grids are designed, sized & costed against Max flow, and that means there are many who imagine Britain’s grid has a ‘cushion’ between the earlier true max of ~61GW and current metered max of 49.1GW. The reverse is true, our grid already transmits more power than it’s ever done. And that ‘unmetered’ GWs will only increase. Worse – NONE of the unmetered wind & solar capacity is capable of generating dispatchable, synchronous electricity OR grid stabilising inertia.
Apols if this appears a convoluted ramble, the more one tries to identify facts regarding our electricity supply / demand & grid capability, the more loose ends appear.
One last Factoid: Our 2019 lightning strike / Little Barford / Hornsea1 blackout – the straw that broke the camel’s back was the loss of ~1.5GW of embedded generation that Nat Grid couldn’t see. That ~1.5GW exceeded the combined outputs of Little Barford + Hornsea1 that totalled 1.384GW!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Joe P,
Thanks for shedding more light on this very murky subject. I can really identify with your remark “the more one tries to identify facts regarding our electricity supply / demand & grid capability, the more loose ends appear.“
Wrt the max demand, is the influence of the unmetered stuff really as high as 30%? Peak demand typically occurs on cold winter evenings when solar – obviously – is out of action. How much wind is unmetered? I have no idea but it’s my impression that it is the smaller of the two components. Further, I would imagine that the peak demand is a relatively instantaneous figure, probably recorded on a cold “dunkelflaute” evening when wind would also be AWOL.
So, taking an optimistic view (which usually means me not having the full facts and/or not understanding the situation!), the grid probably does some capacity margin, at least for now. Coincidentally, Energy Voice reports that NESO is forecasting a margin of 5.4 GW for next winter How much salt do we take with that?
LikeLike
Hi MikeH
“Wrt the max demand, is the influence of the unmetered stuff really as high as 30%?”
It’s difficult to be certain, because that generation is …. unmetered. 😀
Leo Smith’s GridWatch replicates the explanation given on EnergyDashboard (or vice versa!). Hover mouse over the ‘Wind’ dial to reveal the explanation.
https://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk
In the absence of any other reasonable figure, it’s hard to argue that ‘30%’ is not a reasonable figure for unmetered’s impact on *Maximum* Demand.
“So, taking an optimistic view (which usually means me not having the full facts and/or not understanding the situation!) ….”
No offence, but does ANYONE have full facts and/or understanding of the full situation? Certainly, our present and past Secretaries of State for Energy Security and Net Zero haven’t! 😀
I agree ” …the grid probably does some capacity margin, at least for now.”
But as the numerous localised blackouts on August 9th 2019 highlighted, can ‘some’ always be ‘enough’? We must also remember that it’s not only ‘electricity’ ‘generating capacity that is needed, but dispatchable, synchronous, inertia-generating capacity that prevents blackouts.
“Coincidentally, Energy Voice reports that NESO is forecasting a margin of 5.4 GW for next winter How much salt do we take with that?”
I hope management at NESO have polished their crystal balls.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Joe P,
I fear I am missing the point here!
Surely the maximum demand visible to the Grid occurs when demand is high and the output of embedded wind and solar is low?
Clearly that peak figure you found for 9-1-25 would not have included any solar as it was at 5 pm. I have tried to dig up a figure for wind generation at that time to see if the embedded portion may have contributed but I’ve failed to find a number!
Whatever it might have been, I still think that the peak visible demand probably occurred when embedded generation was at – or close to – its minimum.
LikeLike
Jit, Thanks for that link to your prior article of last autumn. Whichever way we look at things, we’re in dire straights!
LikeLike
MikeH
“Surely the maximum demand visible to the Grid occurs when demand is high and the output of embedded wind and solar is low?”
NESO can ‘see’ only metered generation sources. It has to make assumptions about unmetered sources. In the absence of facts, I assume NESO assumes there’s a broad correlation between metered & unmetered outputs.
I’ve just asked Grok. Here’s its response:
https://x.com/i/grok/share/7333d26f06cd462fb898ba98e79b0446
LikeLike
Joe P, I understand that NESO has to allow for embedded generation in its day-to-day operations. However, when it comes to peak demand, the highest metered value will occur when there is zero contribution from the unmetered sources: the grid has to carry the whole load.
That peak of 49.1 GW occurred at 5pm on 9-1-25 when there would have been zero contribution from solar so the “true” peak demand would depend on the output of embedded wind. DDG AI tells me: “The UK’s embedded wind generation capacity is estimated at about 6.5 GW (i.e., wind connected at distribution level, not transmission-level metering). energydashboard.co.uk“.
So, if embedded wind was running flat out at that time, the true peak would have been 55.6 GW which is 13% above the metered value, not 30%.
LikeLike
Hi MikeH
“However, when it comes to peak demand, the highest metered value will occur when there is zero contribution from the unmetered sources: the grid has to carry the whole load. That peak of 49.1 GW occurred at 5pm on 9-1-25 when there would have been zero contribution from solar so the “true” peak demand would depend on the output of embedded wind.”
To balance the system 60/24/7, NESO has to estimate what ‘peak demand’ will be for every minute of every day. Not just the absolute peak that as you point out, was at a time when solar was zero.
The 2019 blackout-event occurred at 4:52pm on 9th August. At that time “in total across the event, the loss or embedded generation is estimated to be in the range of 1300MW to 1500MW.” Some of which would have been solar.
The Final Report informs “The third loss was due to embedded generation shutting down at a frequency of 49Hz; this was not expected and resulted in a further net reduction of 200MW.”
That indicates that the margin for error was relatively small in the context of nearly 3,000MW being lost within a few minutes.
LikeLike
MikeH – BTW, NESO’s track record of short-term forecasting of wind’s generation leaves much to be desired. At 1am this morning when it knew solar would generate nowt, it overestimated wind’s contribution by 3GW vs its 23:30 forcast from last night.
https://bmrs.elexon.co.uk/wind-generation
LikeLike