AND WHAT IT MIGHT MEAN FOR DEVON

·	The company
·	The technology
·	Transport and highways
·	Residues and emissions
·	Receptors
·	Cultural heritage
·	Visual impact
·	Ecology
·	Land use
·	Tourism
·	Employment and economy

As this pamphlet is intended as an introduction to WINBEG and its perceived implications, only a general picture is provided, with much detail and information necessarily omitted. If you feel that any question has been left unanswered, please contact DUST at the addresses given at the end of the pamphlet, and we will try to help.

THE COMPANY
PPL started life as a £100 share capital company with all shares owned by a Roger Barton of Chulmleigh. At the time of writing the company is reported to have sold a little over £14 of shares, allegedly to its own management team. The company has no business record. The company also has no experience of building or running an electricity generator of any sort, let alone one employing an unproven technology.
It is suspected by some, although DUST would never state as much, that the government, through the South West Regional Development Agency (SWRDA), is already supporting this private company with public funds. SWRDA have now purchased the land required for the system, spending over £338,000 to buy less than 40 acres of poor agricultural land. This was done without public consultation. SWRDA have also paid for the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the proposal. This is a document required as part of the planning application and usually paid for by the developer. It is far from cheap.

The Technology
PPL plan to employ the FERCO SilvaGas system. This technology has never been commercially successful. FERCO, the company that developed the system, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the US in November 2002, after their system had run for 'around 1000 hours' (FERCO figures), or 265 hours (from technical papers), over a two year period. The Chief Executive of FERCO summarised the results of their trials in December 2002 by stating that 'I think that there is a great demand for the technology, but it has to be applied to specific solutions….rather than considered as power.' The plant remains closed.
Even a senior ex-FERCO employee, while enthusiastic about the long-term potential of the SilvaGas system, has expressed surprise that anyone would back the technology before they have demonstrated it capabilities. The DTI however, have stated that they have 'received assurances that the technology…is viable'. They will tell us little more, despite continued requests for information.
DUST acknowledges that this type of technology may one day provide a supplementary role in electricity production, but not yet. DUST believes that every pound of public money spent by the government at this time in supporting a commercial scheme employing this technology will be a pound thrown away.

Transport & Highways
The operation of a biomass electricity generator is attached fundamentally to road haulage, being dependent on it for the delivery of all fuels. Experts in the field have continually emphasized the importance of a developed highways infrastructure for the efficient running of a power station of this type. Rural Mid Devon has one of the least developed road systems in the country.
PPL have indicated that they will be utilizing biomass materials shipped from abroad. For example, palm kernel, grown predominantly in Asia, would be transported to WINBEG from Avonmouth. DUST seriously questions the greenness and both the economic and practical sense of this idea. The majority of the fuels however, will come from the northern half of Devon, all transported by Heavy Goods Vehicles. This will result in an increase in lorry movements in the area. Our estimates indicate at least a doubling of lorry movements on all approaches to the site, and these figures do not account for the construction phase, or the daily movement of staff.
By necessity, much of this additional lorry activity will take place on small rural roads between the fuel sources and the site. Who will pay for any required upgrading of the road system? Who will pay for the additional repairs caused by this increase? How will it affect safety, particularly close to the site, and in surrounding villages on the approach roads such as Beaford, Sampford Courtenay and Monkokehampton? How much diesel will be burnt?

Residues and Emissions
No hard and fast figures can be given for residues and emissions, although serious concerns were certainly raised over the FERCO system in America. The Environment Agency is charged to assess the potential risk and determine safe levels, but on what evidence they will base these decisions is not known, as the system has never been used properly before.
PPL certainly seem confused. In an answer to the Winkleigh Parish Council Working Party, PPL stated that 'We are not burning anything!', yet in part of an answer to another question they went on to explain that 'the char once burnt….'. Our experts tell us that burning will take place.
What has been acknowledged by Mr. Barton, in August 2003 at his presentation to the TDC Scrutiny Committee, is that PPL would be including MSW (municipal solid waste) as part of their fuel for WINBEG. Guaranteed details of what constitutes this material have not been provided by PPL.
Odour from both the plant and various assorted ancillary industries must be expected. A fin-fish processing and a cellulosic fibre plant, both mentioned by PPL, are well known for their smell.

Receptors
This unpleasant term is used to represent those individuals living or working within the immediate vicinity of a proposed development site. They are the unfortunate souls with the potential to be directly effected by the scheme. In a document produced by PPL's environmental consultants to describe the parameters of the intended environmental assessment, the residents and businesses on or near the airfield were almost completely overlooked.
Our studies have shown that as many as 174 people live, and 327 work, within ¾ mile of the site. Over 80 of these people live in homes situated at not much more than 500 yards. Twenty three 6 berth holiday homes, licensed for use for 10 months annually, are also situated within this area. It is impossible to believe that the living and working environment of these people will not be adversely affected by the building and running of this station and its ancillary businesses, and at what risks to their health? Can a company that seems willing to overlook the very existence of these people really have their welfare at heart? To date, no contact with, or reassurance to, these local residents and businesses have been made.
Safety is also an issue for the local population. A risk from both accidents at the power station and its ancillary industries, and a hindrance to emergency vehicles delayed by the increase in traffic on the narrow roads approaching the site are feared. SWRDA's only attendance at a meeting in Winkleigh to date was delayed by over half an hour by a single accident on the A road approaching the village.

Cultural Heritage
In addition to an undefined mix of vegetable waste, WINBEG will be using Short Rotation Coppice (SRC) willow and poplar, and miscanthus as a fuel. PPL estimates shrink by the month, but their latest figures still suggest over 4000 hectares of such fuel crops will be required for Phase 1 alone.
The Forestry Commission has acknowledged the need for deep ploughing in advance of the planting of both the willow and poplar. This will result in the destruction of almost all archaeology in these fuel growing areas. What is left will be under threat from root growth, a recognised cause of damage to archaeological remains. Even the rhizomes from miscanthus are now thought to possess the potential to disturb buried remains.
Only previously suspected archaeological sites would be checked before planting. As Mid and North Devon has seen relatively little research, the location of the majority of these sites remains unknown. These sites would be ploughed before we know they exist. The little work that has been undertaken in the area has uncovered a rich level of archaeological preservation in an area protected, up to the present, by a predominantly pastoral agriculture.
The studies undertaken by PPL to look at the environmental impact of the scheme will not address the threat to the archaeology beyond a general review. Irreplaceable archaeological remains in an area of limited study will be lost.
The proposed development site for WINBEG is a redundant World War II airfield, primarily built to serve the D-Day landings, but used extensively in anti-submarine work in the North Atlantic. The industrial complex will be built directly over the main east-west runway, still well-preserved. English Heritage has only recently produced a document highlighting the importance of these sites.
Concern over the project has been expressed by English Heritage, the Council for British Archaeology, Devon County Council Archaeological Services and The Devon Archaeological Society.

Visual Impact
This falls under two main categories, the site and the fuel crops. It is evident that the large industrial complex, situated on high ground, with its chimneys, gasification towers and any potential smoke/steam plumes, will be visible from miles around, not least from the National Parks of Dartmoor and Exmoor. All traffic, including tourists, driving from the Crediton region towards Torrington and beyond will be unable to miss the vast site, placed close by the road.
Thousands of hectares of fuel crop will also alter the landscape in Mid Devon and beyond. This area is known and loved around the world as countryside of dairy farming and unspoilt small villages.

Ecology
Thousands of acres of fuel crop would replace grassland, set-aside, or arable land if this scheme goes ahead. This dramatic reduction in biodiversity must have a detrimental impact on the ecology of the area. Much of the immediate vicinity of the site is represented by Culm grassland. The potential loss of this species rich and rare ecological environment is a particular concern.
The issue of water is still very confused, with PPL claiming the need for hardly any, and users of a similar system in the US stating that thousands of gallons of water would be required every hour. If this proves to be the case, where will it come from, and where will it go? The area of the airfield eventually drains into the River Torridge, a watercourse that has seen a recent and welcome return from a heavily polluted past. All figures show wildlife in the river to be recovering. What impact will water runoff from this plant have on the flora and fauna?
The airfield is the feeding ground for lapwings over winter. What happens to them?

Land Use
As mentioned above, a very large area of land will be ploughed for SRC crops and miscanthus. This can only have a dramatic impact on land use in the area. DUST believes this environment will be threatened by such significant change in land use, with implications to the ecology and tourism of the region.
Members of DUST have consistently argued that the Mid Devon area is not suitable for the profitable growing and harvesting of biomass energy crops. So far, the DTI have chosen to ignore these concerns.
Both willow and poplar are harvested between November and mid March, when the sap is not rising. Miscanthus is harvested in late spring, requiring cold dry weather before this can be undertaken successfully. The crops also need to be grown on free draining ground. With our relatively small fields, frequent slopes and clay soil, it is estimated that only a maximum of 20% of farmland would be suitable for growing and the necessary harvesting operation within a 25-mile radius of WINBEG. Taking account of the fact that the production of energy crop is unlikely to take place within Dartmoor or Exmoor National Parks and other areas of outstanding natural beauty, the DTI press release statement that the WINBEG 'will be fuelled by locally grown energy crops' can never be realised. And what of the materials shipped in from abroad?
Peninsula Power has stated that no contracts will be signed with farmers until planning consent is given, and that the company 'will also encourage active and passive drying by growers before delivery'. As can be imagined, many farmers are extremely sceptical about the scheme, particularly after the failure of a similar scheme, ARBRE in Yorkshire, in May 2003.
An important question regarding these fuels also remains to be answered. As the SRC willow and poplar will require up to 4 years to reach cropping maturity, what will PPL use during the intervening period? If, as is suspected, this proves to be cheap, or even free organic waste, what incentive will PPL ever have to purchase crops off farmers? What will the farmers do with these crops if PPL do not require them, either for economic reasons, or because they have gone bust like FERCO? Will there be a compensation scheme to cover reinstatement, and who will pay for that?
Is it possible that WINBEG is simply a not very cunning plan to build a municipal waste disposal system?