Report debate on the Reichswald wind farm

On October 20, we organized a debate in the Droomvilla Lux in Nijmegen about the plan to build 12 windmills in the Reichswald. The location of the 200-metre-high turbines is close to our route in a large area of forest. Below is a report. 

Introduction: “your own pigs don’t stink”

Martijn Messing (Energy Transition Netherlands) opened the evening in the Nijmegen Droomvilla Lux with a compilation from the film HOME about the necessity of the transition to clean energy. According to him, we are morally obliged to make this transition to future generations. He went on to argue that this transition must come from the bottom up, supported by the citizens. With regard to wind turbines, he stated that the classic NIMBY response – not in my backyard – often changes in practice to a YIMBY – yes in my backyard – when citizens share in the proceeds of the wind turbines and are actively involved in the planning. “Own pigs” don’t stink, he said. (Link to presentation). 

Before: it is low-grade forest, felling is compensated, plan is still being tested

Andreas Mayer, councillor of the Gruenen in Kranenburg, then explained the plan for the 12 turbines in the Reichswald. Mayer said he used to be a cracker and against nuclear power and is now committed to the transition to clean energy. According to him, this is desperately needed in view of the imminent rise in temperature: 1.4 to 5.8% in this century (greenhouse effect). Wind turbines in rural areas play an important role in curbing this increase.

He emphasized that the plans are still planned and are still being reviewed on the basis of clear legal conditions. Some of these conditions are that the environmental damage must not be too great. According to him, the piece of forest that would be cut down is ‘low-value’ pine forest that has not been designated as a protected nature reserve. The felled piece of forest would also be compensated and possibly fewer turbines would be installed to limit the damage. (Link to presentation, certain photos may have rights).

Against: important corridor of nature reserves destroyed, unacceptable risks of fire and drinking water

Jeroen Boot of Tegenwind gave a presentation and especially pointed out the importance of this part of Reichswald. According to him, the turbines are planned in an area that is an extremely vulnerable link between various nature reserves in the region. The ‘wall’ of 200-metre-high turbines would seriously damage and fragment that connection, disrupting the habitat of many hundreds of birds and other wildlife.

Boot pointed out that the area has an important drinking water function for lower-lying arable and nature areas in the area. The risk of contamination during construction or due to oil leaking from the turbines is present and you should not take that risk with drinking water. There is also a chance that the 200-metre-high windmills will catch fire, which would be a disaster for the entire forest as a result of flying flying burning debris. Furthermore, Boot stated that the target for clean wind energy in the region is already being achieved with 2 or 3 turbines. So there is no need to build 12 of them. (Link to presentation)

Debate after the break: the Wijsmakerij and the ‘disputatio’

After the break, Toine Janssen of the Wijsmakerij led a debate according to the Disputatio method, supported by Ben Dankbaar, chairman of the Nijmegen Betuwe wind farm. People from both sides are invited to make each other’s arguments stronger. The debate got off to a good start, but there was not enough time to do justice to the Disputatio. That is why reactions were sent afterwards by various parties, which are summarised below. 

Each time an argument against is mentioned, followed by the reaction. 

1. Good neighbourliness or not?

An important argument against the plan is that the planning is evidence of poor neighbourliness. Kranenburg is said to have hardly consulted with the Netherlands, despite major concerns from the neighbors. It is only recently that consultations have been initiated, enforced by the Euregion.  

It is added that all legal procedures have been followed and are being followed. The planning process is still at the beginning. For example, the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is still to come. 

According to Tegenwind, the EIA is uncertain.

2. Has the citizen of Kranenburg been heard?

An important counter-argument is that the citizens of Kranenburg are poorly and one-sidedly informed and that meetings and objection procedures fall during holiday periods when many citizens are not there. It was only through the action group Tegenwind that residents became aware of the plans. 

According to the proponents of the Wind Farm, all newspapers knew about the meetings, including the Wind Farm . the free weekly newspapers that arrive in the letterbox. The council of Kranenburg has discussed the plans extensively, it is the democratic representation of the citizens of Kranenburg.

3.Will  the nature corridor be lost?

One of the most important counter-arguments is that a vulnerable nature corridor between different nature reserves is being lost (Jansberg/Koningsvennen). These are also areas in which various countries and the EU have invested taxpayers’ money for many years. The corridor is supposed to speed up the migration and expansion of flora and fauna, but this corridor is currently being disrupted by the fragmentation and construction of the turbines.

The argument put forward is that nature is resilient and that the corridor can recover through smart interventions. The plans also include 20 hectares of new forest to compensate for the loss of forest.

The counter-argument is that many red deer and valuable birds such as hawks have already disappeared by then. The turbines would also cause a massacre of storks, cranes and bats. 

According to the proponents, this is investigated in the EIA, that slaughter is not a fact. Compensatory measures shall also be taken if necessary. Hunting would also be a greater disturber of the animals. 

4. Can the felling of this area be compensated?

According to a counter-argument, this part of the Reichswald cannot be compensated because of its decisive function within the whole of surrounding – and often adjacent – (protected) nature reserves. It would be better to immediately build the park in a different location, which would save felling, impoverishment and fragmentation of existing forest and years of waiting for new ones. Moreover, the landscape is permanently damaged by the 200-metre-high turbines , and the natural proportions are thrown off balance.

In response, it is suggested that the effects are still being investigated. If the loss of nature cannot be compensated, the plans will not go ahead or with fewer windmills. It is true that the loss of landscape cannot be compensated, but this is the price of the Energiewende. Better windmills than nuclear power or coal. It is also argued that taste is debatable: in the 18/19th century, landscape painters often omitted windmills from their paintings, while today we often find those windmills beautiful. 

5. Are there better alternatives in terms of technology and location?

As a counter-argument, it is put forward that electricity from wind cannot be stored and is therefore not a good alternative. It is also not logical to build a wind farm for the use of 80,000 people in an area with 10,000 inhabitants. The residents don’t earn anything from it, all the profit goes to the builders and landowners. Only 2 or 3 wind turbines are needed and they can be built in locations that are acceptable to everyone. The plans are also at the expense of the region’s tourist potential, an almost untouched historical cultural landscape. Finally, it is unacceptable that good nature is being destroyed. You are not going to destroy nature with the aim of protecting it.  

The proponents admit that there will be nuisance. Alternatives to offshore wind energy or solar power from the desert have too high a price tag due to expensive transport costs and these alternatives are also unstable. Other technological alternatives are not yet exploitable and we cannot wait 20 or 30 years for them. Other locations in the region are not suitable due to high urbanity, so rural areas must provide the power for the urban ones. An opportunity for the deflating countryside to earn some money. The potentially harmful effects on tourism have not been proven. On the contrary, as a compensatory measure, investments could be made in the potential for tourism. 

6. The risks for fire and drinking water, among other things 

Counter-arguments for the wind farm are also the risks to people and the environment. For example, there is a risk of contamination of drinking water due to oil leaking from the turbines. The polluted water then ends up in lower-lying nature and agricultural areas in the Niers and eventually the Meuse. The turbines can also catch fire, causing an uncontrollable forest fire due to flying burning parts that end up in the forest further away. The NRW fire brigade therefore strongly advises against wind turbines in the forest. Furthermore, the vibrations during the installation of the foundation can cause instability of the moraine. 

The argument put forward is that biodegradable oil can be used that does not dissolve well in the groundwater.  Each turbine also has a closed container for the oil in case of emergencies. The possible consequences for drinking water and the moraine are still being investigated and no meaningful statement can be made about this. The risk of fire is very small and is monitored; even in the summer there is sometimes a fire in the Reichswald during drought and that fire has always been controllable until now.

7. The plans are already set, consultation is pointless

A counter-argument that comes up a lot is that consultation no longer seems to make sense: the plans are already set. The time between plan and implementation is short and the objections are not really listened to. There is even a chance that there will be no EIA investigation.

This argument is disputed: information meetings have been held in Kranenburg (several) and Gennep and there is still only a planning phase. This phase follows a logical, legally established pattern. The time for investigation and objection is now. 

Personal note

Against! was my personal reaction when I heard about the plans. As Walk of Wisdom , however, we are neutral and I thought it was appropriate for a contemplative route to explore both sides of the perspective. That’s why I took the initiative for this evening in the Droomvilla. Am I still against it afterwards?

I did not find all the counter-arguments equally convincing and sometimes very distrustful. It seems right to me that the wind farm is still in the planning phase and I see no reason to doubt the integrity of an EIA study or consultation of neighbouring municipalities and provinces. The decisive factor for me, however, is that it does not make sense to cut down existing forest and compensate for it elsewhere with new forest. I didn’t hear a good argument for not building the windmills on the compensation site right away. The location of some of the planned turbines is indeed strategically located between different nature reserves and in my opinion deserves respect and caution. 

I am therefore hopeful that the plans for 12 turbines will eventually be reduced to, say, two, or that all 12 will be built elsewhere. This, I stress, is my personal opinion. As a pioneer of the walk of wisdom, I only hope that the debate has provided hikers and pilgrims with enough material to form their own opinions. 

Learn more

Tegen: Facebook page Tegenwind Reichswald or the website of Tegenwind

For: Gruenen Kranenburg,Position  statement mayor Steins Kranenburg,arguments  builder BWE

Furthermore: Website wind farm Nijmegen Betuwe along the A15, website de Wijsmakerij Toine Janssen,  Network Energy Transition Netherlands Martijn Messing

Photos debate by Iris Roselie

Thanks

Thanks to Droomvilla Lux for making a room available free of charge.

Thanks to participants Martijn Messing (Energy Transition Netherlands), Andreas Mayer (Gruenen Kranenburg), Jeroen Boot (Tegenwind Reichswald), Toine Janssen (de Wijsmakerij) and Ben Dankbaar (Wind Farm Nijmegen Betuwe)

.