Pascal Chenier, since when, how and why was “Protège ton pays” created?
Since October 2020, the publicity of actions and the information disseminated against the “Rives de Saône” wind farm project has raised awareness of the risk of wind power in the region. Very quickly we were contacted by people, ordinary citizens or elected officials, concerned about also being impacted by other projects. We came to the conclusion that all the neighboring municipalities of Val de Saône and the Jura Plain were approached by a swarm of developers from different companies with a desire for opacity in the approach. Individual action not being considered, it was therefore necessary to form an association in order to have a legal status to be able to interfere in projects, defend our rights and force us to consider the populations concerned, not only those of the municipalities of the establishment but also those of the surrounding municipalities which will not fail to be impacted by the excessiveness of the projects which are announced in the region.
On February 27, 2021, we formed the association “Protège ton pays” declared in the Prefecture of the Côte D'Or and registered in the Official Journal of the Republic at the beginning of March. It is an association for the defense of the environment and heritage, we aim to act over a large perimeter of the headquarters located in Franxault. Initially formed with around thirty members, PTP today brings together around 250 members and an association of around 70 members which is attached.
Furthermore, we are members of the FED (1700 associations) and the CRECEP which are wrestling federations at the National and Regional level. Clearly, our vocation consists of voluntarily informing populations of the realities of wind power but also of climate and energy issues and the urgency that results from them. We are now able to participate in exhibitions and/or debates using educational support that we have developed. We want to broaden our communication by working as much as possible with municipalities and EPCIs. If the need arises, PTP also allows itself the opportunity to take legal action.
Currently, what local projects are of concern to you? How do they seem harmful to you?
Feeding populations, preserving water resources, biodiversity, maintaining an environmental and heritage balance which are the assets of our Country, that is the role of rurality. It must be clear, a project is officially listed from the moment it is presented for Prefectural authorization, which neutralizes any legal action upstream. Once submitted, it is studied by the services of the Prefecture concerned. Then a very short public inquiry is launched which leaves just one month to react, obtain the studies carried out over several years, examine them, etc. Suffice to say that the task is made almost impossible within the allotted time. Please note that promoters almost systematically attack prefectural refusal decisions in court.
As soon as a municipality allows a measuring mat to be installed, presented as being a “pre-feasibility” phase, the process is launched and only the refusal of the Prefect can stop the project, whatever the position of the municipality. On the other hand, the regulations in force will remind the municipality of its obligations at the time of dismantling. On this subject, the insufficiency of the provision is not denied. To our request to integrate the real cost of dismantling into its initial financing plan, the developer of the Des Rives de Saône Project will respond: “speak to your MPs, they are the ones who make the laws”. (A guarantee which amounts to €50,000 to €80,000 depending on the type of machine for an actual cost estimated at more than €500,000 per machine).
We are therefore talking about a project in the making but very real and everyone worries us. If only one takes shape it will ultimately be a complete destruction of our regions. We currently identify nearly 30 municipalities concerned between the community of municipalities “des Rives de Saône” former cantons of Saint-Jean-de-Losne, and Seurre, that of Auxonne and Jura Nord, and the entire “finage plain “. What is common to all is that implementation plans circulate well before the populations are informed. Without our interventions these would be faced with a fait accompli!
Concretely what would this look like on the ground?
This is a massive deployment of machines which will reach between 220m and 240m at the end of the blades which will drastically change, not to say demolish, our regions by brutally transforming them into an immense industrial zone visible for kilometers. The entire economic and social fabric will be impacted. Who would want to come and live, live, stay, relax in the middle of such an environment? The disproportion of these projects will impact all municipalities. What is the point of visiting the bell tower of the Collegiate Church of Dole to come face to face with wind turbines? Let's not be complacent, the municipality that accepts wind power agrees to harm its neighbor.
Besides, why such machines? Our region is scientifically quantified as having low winds. The measurement of the mast installed in Grosbois les Tichey (21), has never reached an average annual force of 5m/s since 2018 (4.8m/s). It is geographically unlikely that the wind will be more favorable elsewhere in the area concerned. According to data released by France Energie Eolienne, energy profitability is obtained from an average force of 12.5m/s. It is therefore not energy interest that is sought.
As a palliative, we are offered machines that will peak at 240m above the blade. Apart from designing a machine that makes wind, this is incomprehensible logic. On the other hand, the negative impacts, now recognized (wind turbine syndrome, noise, degrading visual appearance, real estate value, etc.), will be multiplied all the more as the municipal fabric with its very tight network does not allow sufficient distance in a remarkably flat region. . The announced exposure of populations is unprecedented and frightening.
Are precautions not obligatory in these areas?
No geological study is obligatory before obtaining environmental authorization. Our region is based on a complex aquifer system with several water tables, the first of which can be tapped at a depth of approximately 4 meters. To anchor a single machine it will probably be necessary to dig between 5 and 7 meters deep over 500 m2 to pour a base of almost 2000 t of concrete reinforced with 80 t of scrap metal, stabilized by three concrete piles of 1 meter in diameter on 10 to 30 m deep. In other words, an irreversible destruction of the subsoil accompanied by sterilization on the surface. Add to this the destruction of natural habitats of biodiversity and the mortality of avifauna systematically generated by the presence of these machines and it then becomes very questionable to associate this concept with an ecological approach in the noble sense of the term.
And even if wind power had a real use, the location choices are incomprehensible. When it comes to industrial activities, this damage is inevitable. A footprint of 5000 M2 per wind turbine in rural areas is required. On the government portal which deals with the artificialization of land, 150,000 hectares of industrial wasteland are listed, i.e. a capacity to accommodate 300,000 wind turbines. These are then suitable areas which benefit from the existence of access roads and distribution networks on already artificialized land, therefore with almost non-existent impact on biodiversity, as close as possible to needs (there is no need to recall that it becomes night in the countryside when the city shines continuously). Cities have a layered urban plan which would undoubtedly facilitate acceptance, in any case that is what the surveys say which indicate that wind power is rejected in rural areas while it is accepted in urban areas. These choices exist in certain European countries.
Does wind power really have “no positive effect on global warming”?
Global warming caused by human activity is a reality. The policy maintained for several years is to reduce our GHG greenhouse gas emissions by 5% per year until 2050 in the hope of limiting warming to 2°C by 2100. (We only succeeded in doing so 'in 2020 due to the pandemic). We also talk about carbon neutrality, which consists of not emitting more CO2 than our environment is able to capture.
To try to achieve these objectives, we are transferring uses based on fossil sources in favor of electrified uses whose production must be decarbonized. In this context, we must therefore rely on a mode of production that is not only carbon-free, but also massive, pilotable and controllable in order to ensure supply when needed while respecting the environment which constitutes our CO2 capture potential. .
If 26% of global GHG emissions are due to 70% carbon-based electricity production, French electricity production is 92% carbon-free, including 70% nuclear, 12% hydroelectricity which is controllable, constant and controllable production and 10 % for wind and solar power, which are intermittent productions subject to random natural factors such as wind and sun. France is therefore the first country in the world to massively produce carbon-free electricity.
Do you have a final message to pass on to our readers?
It is always painful to see how ideology linked to disinformation can take us down the wrong paths. Locally, whatever the functions held, even if it is understandable to want to change local finances, let's ask ourselves the right questions. By accepting the development of wind power in my region, am I doing better or worse socially, energetically and climatically? These same questions must be asked for each individual who is considering renting their land. To do so is to make your neighbor more insecure. Our association makes itself available to communities that wish to obtain information and inform their constituents.
Contact mail : [email protected]
