Cumbria Wind Farm Project; Site Selection Proposal

Executive Summary:

o Background – Cumbria County Council, in the interest of becoming carbon

neutral, has paired with a private energy company to construct a small wind
farm of 5 turbines. This report contains information on two potential sites and
recommends which of the two is most ideal. The conclusion was reached
through analysis of available data as well as relevant literature.

o Methods – GIS analysis of spatial data was conducted by processing and

eliminating unsuitable areas under sets of specific criteria accounting for
safety concerns, accessibility, elevation, wind speed, and proximity to nearby
settlements.

o Results – For Site A, the grid reference is SD 64057 83919 and nearby
villages include Patton Bridge, Grayrigg, Watchgate, Garnett Bridge, and
Selside. For Site B, grid reference is NY 56534 01428 and nearby villages
include Casterton, Barbon, Middleton, and Mansergh.

o Recommendations – Given most other evaluation criteria are equal, the

recommended location is Site A, as the square meter area of affected
settlements is much smaller.

Introduction:

The immediate pressures of global climate change are demanding more

countries around the world invest heavily in renewable forms of energy. The
development of wind energy, both on and offshore, is an important tool in the collective
pursuit towards carbon neutrality (Virtanen et al., 2022). The UK government has set
ambitious goals to position the country as a global leader in renewable energy
development, aiming for net zero emissions by 2050 (GOV.uk, 2022). Included in these
goals are many opportunities for job creation. It is projected that by 2030, 2,000 jobs in
construction and 60,000 jobs related to the new infrastructure developments would be
created in ports, factories, and supply chains (GOV.uk, 2022).

However, there are several factors to consider when creating plans for future
wind farm sites, due to the variety of interest groups, location, and construction

1
requirements. The outcome of this report is to clearly describe the methods by which
this analysis was conducted and to give recommendations based upon it for what area
in Cumbria would be best suited for the construction of the five-turbine wind farm.

Analytical Methods:

Spatial data was collected and processed in ArcGIS for all necessary fields of
analysis and included predetermined exclusion criteria (National Parks, SSSI’s, County
Parks, etc.), calculations to account for safety concerns, acknowledgement of future
maintenance requirements, as well as proximity to human settlements and the existing
electricity grid.

This was done first by collecting data on all exclusion criteria and compiling it for
ease of later interpretation and analysis. Some location data was readily available on
predetermined exclusion areas, and others had to be calculated. An example of data
requiring calculation were the safety concerns for ice throw. A buffer area was created
on all roads, using the equation: 1.5*(hub height + rotor diameter) and given the
dimensions of the wind turbines (70 meters in height, 20 in rotor radius) it was
calculated that 135 meters was necessary (General Electric Company, 2006). The other
data requiring calculation such as ensuring the wind farm was on a west facing slope
not greater than 10° was determined using ArcGIS tools given existing wind speed and
elevation data. For reference, see the “Slope” and “Aspect” maps in Figure 1, below.
The data was then processed using Multi-Criteria Evaluation (MCE), a technique
enabling analysis of many variables at once and the ability to assign weights to the
individual criteria based on importance. In the first MCE (on the left in Fig. 1) wind
speed was given the highest weight (multiplied by 3) and desirable distance from
existing roads was also weighted (multiplied by 2). This specific weighting system was
chosen because the elevation and wind speed data follow similar enough patterns that
only one was required, therefore wind speed was prioritized. Also weighted was road
access, as it is important for initial turbine construction as well as future maintenance.

2
Figure 1: Analytical Method Flowchart in ArcGIS

The second MCE, seen on the lower right in Fig. 1, compiled the results of the first
MCE, the slope data, and the exclusion area. Therefore, MCE2 returned an output
combining nearly all evaluation criteria except aspect, which was then overlaid to
visually determine suitability of potential wind farm locations.

Once points were plotted for each site, the last element of analysis was
determining the viewshed for both locations. These tests are for the purposes of
calculating where the wind turbines are visible, and ultimately which settlements sat
within those boundaries, having their landscapes affected. For these calculations certain
inputs were required including height of the turbines (70 meters) as well as average
height of a person (1.5 meters) and an evaluation radius (5 kilometers).

3
Results:
Site A:
The grid reference is SD 64057 83919.
Villages within view of Site A include
Patton Bridge, Grayrigg, Watchgate,
Garnett Bridge, and Selside. As can be
seen above in Figure 2, the total area of
the settlements included in the viewshed
is approximately 478003 m2. Site A is
located on a west facing slope, near the
A683, and at the most ideal MCE2
score.
Figure 2: Viewshed Results for Sites A and B
Site B:
The grid reference is NY 56534 01428.
Villages within view of Site B include,
Casterton, Barbon, Middleton, and
Mansergh. In Fig. 2, it is clear the total
area of the settlements included in the
viewshed is approximately 980731 m2.
Site B is close to the existing electricity
grid as well as the A6 and located on a
west facing slope at the most ideal
MCE2 score.
4
Figure 3: Site A Map

2
Figure 4: Site B Map

3
Recommendations:

Given that most other variables (slope, aspect, MCE score, proximity to roads)
are of comparable result between Sites A and B, what must determine the
recommendation is the viewshed results. Lacking comprehensive population data for all
affected settlements, the land area has been taken as the nearest proxy in order to
reflect population. In reviewing Fig. 2, it is clear Site A has more individual settlements
included in its viewshed, but also occupies much less land area. The difference
between the settlements is about 502710 m2, which is more than the entire land area of
the settlements in the Site A Viewshed. Using land area as a substitute for population,
however, relies on the assumption that greater area corresponds to greater population,
which might not always be the case. One positive for Site B, and a drawback for site A
is the proximity to the existing electrical grid. Site B is closer which would be more cost-
effective during construction. However, given the body of evidence on how important
community support is to the success of wind farm projects in the UK, it seems more
likely to achieve success if installation of the wind farm is made to affect as little of the
population as possible (Jones 2010, Wilson 2016). Therefore, Site A receives the
recommendation with acknowledgment that mitigation for its distance from the existing
electrical grid would have to be conducted.

Limitations:

It is worth noting that more comprehensive analysis should be conducted to

factor in the potential disruptions that a small wind farm might cause to local ecology,
particularly given the high volume of National Parks and protected areas in Cumbria. It
is also worth mentioning that it would be a huge oversight in failing to engage members
of affected settlements on project planning once the areas are known. The incorporation
of positive engagement and dissemination of quality information about the wind farm in
the pre and post application stages gives community members more of a chance to take
ownership of the new plans and can assist in identifying constraints early on (Cumbria
County Council, 2006).

4
References:

Cumbria County Council, Allerdale Borough Council, Carlisle City Council, Copeland
Borough Council, Eden District Council, Lake District National Park Authority, South
Lakeland District Council, 2006. Cumbria Wind Energy Supplementary Planning
Document. Cumbria County Council, p.x-6.

General Electric Company, 2006. Ice Shedding and Ice Throw – Risk and Mitigation.
[online] Greenville: GE Energy, p.1. Available at:
<https://www.ge.com/content/dam/gepower-new/global/en_US/downloads/gas-new-
site/resources/reference/ger-4262-ice-shedding-ice-throw-risk-mitigation.pdf>
[Accessed 5 February 2022].

Jones, C. and Richard Eiser, J., 2010. Understanding ‘local’ opposition to wind
development in the UK: How big is a backyard?. Energy Policy, [online] 38(6), pp.3106-
3117. Available at:
<https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421510000790?casa_token=El
_qM4BqwBsAAAAA:NaAW6I7ClmcKJrnWyzahuLAW2qnhaASAoXLESUj8IB0qP96dvb
C5u6yXjwDCZMwgwNElVTWbpw> [Accessed 8 February 2022].

GOV.uk, 2022. New plans to make UK world leader in green energy. [online] GOV.UK.
Available at: <https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-plans-to-make-uk-world-
leader-in-green-energy> [Accessed 15 February 2022].

Virtanen, E., Lappalainen, J., Nurmi, M., Viitasalo, M., Tikanmäki, M., Heinonen, J.,
Atlaskin, E., Kallasvuo, M., Tikkanen, H. and Moilanen, A., 2022. Balancing profitability
of energy production, societal impacts and biodiversity in offshore wind farm design.
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, [online] 158, p.112087. Available at:
<https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S136403212200017X?via%3Dihub>
[Accessed 7 February 2022].

Wilson, G. and Dyke, S., 2016. Pre- and post-installation community perceptions of
wind farm projects: the case of Roskrow Barton (Cornwall, UK). Land Use Policy,
[online] 52, pp.287-296. Available at:
<https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837715004056?casa_token=fe
r5jzxdPisAAAAA:IvdTmhkk7yTx0HtKny_nuJ9U9yzGmEJbkgGPwkQidMs2nu6HY5VZov
KR_UDi2_lwZpdNoDrCOQ> [Accessed 15 February 2022].