The River Kent flows through the heart of the town of Kendal and has the highest level of protection afforded to a river in Britain, being both a Site of Special Scientific Interest and a Special Area of Conservation. It is also just outside of the Lake District National Park, and is often billed as the “Gateway to the Southern Lakes”. A number of features that the river Kent has been designated for are likely to be impacted by Kendal Flood Risk Management Scheme.
14th April 2021 — Comments are off for this post.
Kendal Flood Risk Management Scheme – Overview
5th May 2015 — Comments are off for this post.
Individual Planning Objections
Now is the time to get your planning objection in.
The planning authority dealing with the hydro scheme is the Snowdonia National Park . Speaking to the planning officer Mr Richard Thomas he suggested the most effective form of objection would come from individual planning objections from all those concerned via either letter, fax or email.
Please include your name and address.
Perhaps if you are a member of a fishing club, canoe club, walking club , photography society or other group you could send one objection which all members could sign and add their signatures to.
A template letter head including the address and planning ref and description is provided.
What to include:
Have a look at the planning application and the Environmental Impact Assessment EIA. They can be found here:
Remember the EIA is not an independent document. It is written to justify the scheme by a company who may bid to be main contractor.
Think about what is important to you, the community, the environment and the national park. Some topics you might want to cover
The National Park is the wrong place for a scheme of this size:
The Snowdonia National Park set out criteria for new developments in their development plan
See http://www.eryri-npa.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/184684/ELDP-Final-6.1.12.pdf
The section on energy states
3.19 Whilst large-scale energy power generation projects are incompatible with National Park status an assessment of renewable energy in Snowdonia considered that scope might exist to contribute to reduce demand for electricity derived from fossil fuels through efficiency savings and through small-scale renewable energy developments to meet domestic or community needs. These included small-scale hydro, domestic wind turbines, photovoltaics, biomass and landfill gas.
Although the power produced by the scheme is low, set at 5MW to avoid immediate dismissal by the national park and to allow it to take advantage of very generous FIT payments meant for households and farms. The damage and infrastructure is the same as that for a much bigger scheme. A £13 million pound project by a foreign owned power giant is not a “small-scale renewable energy developments to meet domestic or community needs”. Snowdonia’s power needs are already met by the existing 82MW of installed hydro making Snowdonia a net exporter of renewable power. For the same document:
The 20 or so hydro power stations which are located in, or use water from, Snowdonia have a combined total installed capacity of some 82 Megawatts (MW). This is far in excess of local demand and results in the area being a net exporter of electricity.
All power produced is therefore to full fill needs outside of the park, not for “domestic or community needs”.
-Damage to the environment:
This will occur both during operation and construction.
See this link for a description of the special nature of the area to be affected, it includes a SSSI and ancient woodland, it sits within a National Park and an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
-Loss of recreation:
Details regarding the damage to kayaking can be seen here
http://savetheconwy.com/2013/12/07/how-will-the-scheme-affect-kayaking/
The river is one of the major Salmon spawning rivers in Wales / the UK to risk damage to such an environment through reduced reach and the insertion of manmade barriers is absurd. Fishing is a major recreational pass time and creator of income for the local area , rivers on which it depends either directly or indirectly need protection.
-Damage caused to local communities during construction:
This will be the one of the largest private construction projects ever to have been built within the National Park.The scale of disturbance and damage to local communities during the construction period will be immense. Construction is proposed to last 18 to 24 months but looking at RWEs record on the Dolgarrog refurbishment it is certain to be longer. Our Planning Engineer estimates that digging the tunnel section alone will require the removal of over 6300 m3 of rock, equivalent to 1400 18 wheeler lorry journeys on one of the narrowest sections of the A5. This section of the A5 is used by visitors from England to visit Snowdonia and the upper works will occur at the access junction to the community of Penmachno. With large depot areas at the top and the bottom of the Fairy Glen the area will become a construction site. How many local businesses reliant on tourism can survive 2 years of disruption?
-Limited Benefit:
There are few perceived upsides to this scheme. The level of power produced is small and variable. Using RWEs own figures the peak production of 5MW is equivalent to less than 2 modern large wind turbines and the scheme will only produce this for a maximum of 54 days a year. Due to the schemes reliance of river levels for an estimated 128 days it will produce nothing at all. It is difficult to justify the environmental cost of this scheme even in relation to fossil fuel power stations. See http://savetheconwy.com/2015/03/28/better-than-a-power-station/
After the construction is finished (around 2 years) no employment is likely to be created by the scheme for the rest of its existence (the RWE scheme in Dolgarrog has run for around 90 years) and it will be run remotely from an existing RWE control center.
RWE plan around 100m of new path to enhance the area and a short section of existing path will upgraded to provide disabled access. However an existing footpath will be used as a construction road during the building of the scheme and the area around the construction site will be closed to walkers during the construction period.
Finally get something sent, by the beginning of next week if possible, it doesn't matter how long or how short. I was told by the planning officer that if no one objects they think no one in concerned. Let them know your views
2nd May 2015 — Comments are off for this post.
Feedback from Canoe Wales
Save the Conwy has had some feed back from Canoe Wales. They have set up a dedicated email account for your responses : [email protected] . Don't worry if you have sent to the old address they will continue to get forwarded.
RWE assert that the preservation of the Fairy Glen is only of interest to a handful of "expert kayakers" . So tell Canoe Wales a bit about yourself. Are you an expert or just a normal guy/girl searching for a bit of adventure. Are you local or does the Conwy provide a draw for you to travel to North Wales. Do you paddle on the Conwy regularly , occasionally , or never but still believe this classic is worthy of protection.
Remember time is ticking, the window for object is short , please try to get your emails of by the beginning of next week.
29th April 2015 — Comments are off for this post.
Respond to Canoe Wales
RWE have finally submitted planning to the National Park for the Conwy hydro scheme. Canoe Wales are planning their response and want to hear from as many kayakers as possible to include their views. Please email [email protected] and mark the subject Hydro response. Here is Save the Conwys :
Dear Nigel
Thanks for asking for responses from kayakers to better inform your judgment on the proposed hydro scheme on the river Conwy. Save the Conwy have many concerns regarding the scheme but for the purpose of this email I will stick to those regarding Kayaking.
Two sections of river will be effected the Middle Conwy from Rhydlanfair bridge to Penmachno bridge and the Fairy Glen from below Conwy Falls to Beaver Pool.
Effects on the Middle Conwy
This section of river is generally grade 3/4 with 2 harder 4/5 rapids. It flows through stunning woodland parts of which are protected as a SSSI and parts classed as ancient woodland. It was rated 4 stars in the original guidebook and is one of classics of Snowdonia’s whitewater.
The effect on this section would be limited to a section near the egress. Here a 1m high weir will be built across the width of the river along with an access track for construction and maintenance vehicles.
The concerns regarding this are twofold
- The safety context of building a new weir on a river so widely used, especially by kayakers who are often improvers and still developing their skills. Weirs are renowned as one of the most dangerous river features and are responsible for a number of fatalities each year.
- The ruining of the tranquil , natural view at this point with kayakers and canoeists last memory of this stretch of river being that of a built environment. RWE are obviously aware of this , from the planning document:
6.4.73
Canoeists: There will be significant visual effects on canoeists where they exit the River at the new intake site during construction when access will also be limited. In the longer term, the new wire and its associated structures will introduce a new large manmade feature into the river valley with the potential to significantly affect visual amenity. However due to the limited number of people who will be affected by the change, and that some improvements are expected in the recreational pursuit due to the new access arrangements, the effect on visual amenity is not considered to be significant.
We personally do not feel that because the number of people accessing a site is limited that beauty is diminished or of less significance. The improvements suggested in the recreational activity are both limited and false as shall be discussed later.
Effects on the Fairy Glen
This section of river is generally considered grade 4/5 at the levels which will be affected by the scheme. This river is considered the classic test piece section of whitewater not only in Snowdonia but across the whole of the UK. Due to the large catchment it flows more often than any other river of this grade in Wales and is a leading draw for kayakers travelling to the area. This section was rated 5 stars in the original guidebook not just for the quality of the whitewater but for the stunning unspoilt gorge through which it flows.
The main concern for this section of river is a reduction in days the river is runnable due to the planned abstraction. RWE’s original plan was to remove up to 5.8 m3s-1 from this stretch this would reduce the number of days the river could be run from an average of 121 (33% of the time ) to 69 days (19% of the time) a reduction in 51 days or 42%. It is important to note that these lost days are at the lower rates of flow when there are often no other rivers of a similar grade available. Please see the calculations for these figures here.
https://savetheconwy.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/final-appendix_a_impact_of_afon_conwy_on_kayaking.pdf
Please note that the just released planning document quotes a figure 6.2 m3s-1 which will have a greater effect.
RWE attempt to justify this by claiming the river is paddled by a handful of expert kayakers only.
13.5.10
For those kayakers using the stretch of river below the Conwy Falls and along the Fairy Glen (approximately 1.5kms), the proposed Development has the potential to impact upon the recreational activities of such users through a reduction in water flows along the depleted reach of the river. This user group is very small comparable to the wider canoeing/kayaking community using the Afon Conwy, primarily due to the treacherous nature of accessing this stretch of the river and the very challenging nature of kayaking the gorge. It is understood from consultations that few users at periods of high flows have the capability to kayak this stretch of the river. Whilst limited to a handful of individuals, this stretch does provide some the most challenging conditions for kayaking in the UK, and is of appeal to both national and international specialists of such high grade white water conditions. Such a user group, although very small, would be highly sensitive to potential changes in water levels on the Afon Conwy as a result of operation of the Conwy Falls hydro-electric scheme.
This is no longer the case; improvements in technique and equipment have brought to the Fairy Glen a new generation of improving kayakers eager to hone their skills. This section of river is seeing more descents by a greater variety of paddlers than ever before. For those kayakers not yet able to paddle this grade of whitewater the Fairy Glen is seen as an aspirational run steeped in kayaking history and often the focus of ones goals.
Save the Conwy asked paddlers to log their descents using the Paddlebubble website. In 2014 January and February alone showed a recorded 409 descents and the total number would probably be higher.
Mitigation offered by RWE
The planning document offers mitigation to the adverse effects on kayaking the scheme will have. These are both redundant and unsatisfactory.
Reduced 13.6.6
Generation Days: the Applicant would support the agreement of reduced generation days for water abstraction for the periods 8 hours per day at weekends June to October in order to allow kayakers the opportunity to use the Afon Conwy below the Conwy Falls at high flows. In addition an egress point would be facilitated at the intake point to allow kayakers to exit the river. The Applicant will also make available on-line the river level data for the scheme that will help inform local kayakers.
-The reduced generation days are only planned for 8 hrs on a Saturday and Sunday during the Summer months. The main season for kayaking on the Conwy is through the winter. Contary to RWE’s statement below during the summer this section of river has it’s lowest amenity value. The number of summer weekend days in which there is sufficient water to run the Fairy Glen is negligible. The flow rate suggested for this reduced generation period also seems insufficient being propose at 6.5 m3s-1
5.5.45
This is based on a hands-off flow of between Q95 or 0.46m3/s during low sensitivity 5.5.45times and 6.5m3/s or Q28 when the river has greatest amenity value, based on kayaking during most daylight hours in summer weekends.
This requires the flow from the Machno being 4.78 m3s-1 to meet the 11.28 m3s-1 required for an enjoyable paddle on the Fairy Glen
(see https://savetheconwy.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/final-appendix_a_impact_of_afon_conwy_on_kayaking.pdf for calculation of required level.)
No flow data is available for the Machno from NRW and RWE provide none of their own. Local knowledge clearly shows the Machno does not reach these flow rates during the medium/low flows affected by the abstraction. RWE have been made aware of our doubts regarding their assumed flows of the Machno on several occasions.
-RWE also offer to provide an on-line gauge for river flows in the Fairy Glen to assist kayakers. An on-line gauge is already available at the Conwy Falls fish pass so this offer is completely redundant.
http://www.gaugemap.co.uk/#!Map/Summary/7932/3265
-The offer of an egress point for the Middle Conwy is deemed unnecessary by Save the Conwy and the despoiling of the natural surroundings at the egress and the danger of an introduced weir far out-weigh any advantage offered.
Save the Conwy hopes that Canoe Wales will send a strong objection to the Snowdonia National Park Authority, as can be seen the scheme will cause a massive loss to kayaking in Wales and offer no tangible benefit. The power produced by the scheme is very low and variable compared with other renewable schemes (such as the off shore wind arrays on the North Coast) and Snowdonia is already a net power exported thanks to its’ already extensive power production.
Many thanks
Save the Conwy.
28th March 2015 — Comments are off for this post.
Better than a power station ?
When raising concerns about the proposed hydro scheme SavetheConwy often hears the comment “well it’s better than a coal fired power station”. RWE made a claim at the recent talk about hydropower in Snowdonia that schemes like this would prevent “catastrophic climate change”. SavetheConwy is no fan of coal fired power stations and is fully aware of the problem of man-made climate change. However reduction in carbon emissions must be balanced with damage to local habitats. A coal fired power station would obviously be far more damaging locally and through carbon emissions than the Conwy Falls hydro scheme, but it would also produce far more power. But how much more?
Let us start by making some assumptions:
From the RWE website
http://www.rwe.com/web/cms/en/2256320/rwe-innogy/sites/hydroelectric-power-station/united-kingdom/sites-in-development/conwy-falls/
“We anticipate the £12m scheme could have a capacity of up to 5 megawatts (MW), and be capable of generating up to 13,000 megawatt hours (MWh) of electricity each year - enough to supply the average annual domestic requirements of over 2,700 households”
Now let’s assume that this power is produced evenly throughout the year when required, not just when it’s lashing with rain on autumn nights. Let us also assume that RWE’s sums are correct for its’ yearly production and won’t be affected by a dry summer or frozen winter.
Now let’s take a coal fired station. The largest in the UK (also with the most accessible published figures is Drax in Yorkshire.
Drax has an installed capacity of 3960 MW but not all this capacity is used full time. In 2013 Drax sold 26.2 TWh to the grid http://www.drax.com/media/32643/fyr-results-2013-final-.pdf
So Drax produced in 2013 26,200,000 MWh
26,200,000/ 13,000 = 2015.4
Therefore Drax produced over 2000 time more power than the Conwy scheme and not just when it rains.
So yes a hydro scheme is far better than a coal fired power station, but is it 2000 times better?
It is difficult to know how many sections of river there are like the Fairy Glen on the Conwy with the gradient and flow suitable for diverting through a pipe to produce power. You could take this list of rivers http://rainchasers.com/river-levels
These are all the river sections in the UK thought to have sufficient flow and gradient to be of interest to whitewater kayakers for which the Environment Agency collects flow data. The Conwy Falls or Fairy Glen section of the Conwy is listed amongst them. Some are larger but most are smaller but let us assume the Fairy Glen is an average. There are 173 sections of river on that list.
So if we dammed every section of river in the UK of suitable length and gradient, put the water in a pipe to produce electricity and if the rain fell conveniently and evenly throughout the year. It would still produce less than a 10th of one coal fired power station.
When making judgment on the Conwy hydro scheme we cannot say “but it’s better than a coal fired power station” it is an unfair comparison.
The question should be “is building a hydro scheme on every suitable section of river in Wales, England and Scotland, all 173 of them, 10 times better than one coal fired power station?”
This article is not advocating coal as a suitable fuel for electricity production but simply trying to put the small amount of power that a run of river hydro scheme produces into context. Run of river hydro schemes that lack a large impoundment (reservoir) having no real place in the production of electricity for the grid in the UK. Our rivers are too small with too low and irregular flows to make any real contribution, but mostly the few wild stretches of river that remain untouched are too precious a resource to be squandered in this way.
27th March 2015 — Comments are off for this post.
Alert the local MP to your concerns.
Election time is approaching and leaflets from prospective MPs are dropping through doors. Do you live in Aberconwy or visit and spend money in the local economy. Write to the local MP Guto Bebb with your concerns. His Twitter feeds shows him firmly behind the scheme but perhaps because he hasn't heard the concerns of local residents and tourists.
Constituency Office
The Office of Guto Bebb MP
1 Ashdown House
Riverside Business Park
Conwy, LL32 8UB
[email protected]
A local resident of Dolwyddelan sent us a copy of his letter. This letter has been anonymised but don't forget to include your name and address if you live in the constituency.
FAO: Mr Guto Bebb MP, apropos Conwy Falls hydro scheme
Dear Mr.Bebb,
As a resident of Dolwyddelan I have been growing increasingly concerned about the hydro power project that is being proposed for Conwy Falls. I have seen that to some extent you have supported and passed comments in favour of the scheme, with this in mind I was hoping that you might be able to address some of my concerns.
My umbrella concern is that this is an experimental scheme on a migratory Salmon river in the heart of the National park, treading on a SSSI. RWE's attempt to compare the Dolgarrog hydro scheme ' the Conwy is therefore well proven and reliable for hydro electric power' is misleading and insulting; one is hanging valley with a controllable head of water, the other a primary migratory salmon river; yes they may be nearby, but they may as well be on different planets in terms of their properties.
The benefits or energy production estimates also appear to be over stated; as the scheme is unable to control when the energy is produced, high water after rain, at midnight on the Conwy will produce power; however, with no means of storage that does not translate into use-able energy. Good for the numbers, useless in terms of real energy to the grid.
This is an invasive and potentially damaging scheme that appears to be supported by misinformation, low carbon does not necessarily mean environmentally friendly. I worry that the Parks, RWE and NRW are using this scheme to bolster their green credentials without truly understanding or acknowledging the repercussions.
My above concerns are fairly broad and do not begin to touch on the ever growing list of concerns: disruption to the A5, large scale development in the National Park, disruption and reduced access to one of Britain's finest sections of whitewater for canoeing and kayaking, disruption of Otter and fish habitat, the list goes on...
My main questions to you: Who benefits from the scheme? What are the benefits to the local community? What do we stand to lose by allowing this to happen in the National park?
I hope that I may have encouraged you to look a little deeper into this and that you are not merely seeking to bolster your own Green credentials. Schemes similar to this have been in place in North America for some time and they are only now starting to realise the damage that they have caused.
Regards
4th March 2015 — Comments are off for this post.
The Snowdonia Society talk at Conwy Falls Cafe
The Snowdonia Society are holding an event concerned with Hydro Power in Snowdonia. There will be a talk by Bill Langley (the lead from RWE on the proposed River Conwy scheme) and David Thorpe (from Natural Resources Wales). A great opportunity to have your concerns heard and questions answered.
Please see further details here.
22nd June 2014 — Comments are off for this post.
Time to get involved!
As part of the environmental impact assessment carried out for their planning application RWE have to gather opinions from the public. To do this they provided a feedback form at the open day on Wednesday 18th of June. Hopefully you have had chance to read through both the RWE document and Save the Conwy's response on this site and form your own view on the proposed scheme.
Download this feedback form fill it in and email or post it to the contact details on the second page.
Remember these responses with effect the environmental impact assessment and therefore the success of any planning application. All responses must reach RWE by 2nd of July to be included.
21st June 2014 — Comments are off for this post.
RWE Public Consultation
On Wednesday 18th June members of Save the Conwy visited the RWE open day held as part of their public consultation held prior to planning application. There were display boards outlining the project along with members of Dulas and RWE available to answer questions. The majority of the details available from RWE can be seen in this document:
http://www.snowdonia-society.org.uk/uploads/docs/Conwy_falls_hydro_FACTSHEET_%20Q22014.pdf
Below is an appraisal of the RWE document using answers we received to questions asked on the open day, our own research and the opinions of our Hydrologist and Ecologist:
“The £12million development would potentially have an installed capacity of up to 4.5 megawatts (MW), and could be capable of generating up to 13,000 megawatt hours (MWh) of electricity each year - enough to supply the average annual domestic requirements of around 2,700 households”
It is important to note that these figures are averaged over the year, for 35% of the year the scheme will produce nothing. It is impossible for conventional power stations to respond and power down for the relatively small and infrequent amounts of power produced during periods of heavy rain. It is therefore unlikely any less fossil fuel will be burned as a result of the scheme.
“We propose a modest-sized run-of-river scheme (no dam would be required),”
A 1.5 m high weir will be built creating a 70m long impoundment of water. This is a dam. Weirs built for this purpose are referred to as “low head dams” in many countries.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/dam
“The abstraction regime is being designed to protect the inherent and sensitive environmental characteristics of the Afon Conwy, whilst providing sufficient water for an effective hydro-electric scheme, balanced with existing recreational interests on the river.”
The abstraction regime has not been finalised yet, what is certain is that flow rates will be reduced from the levels the current ecology of the gorge has evolved around and that recreational users have come to enjoy. You can see the effects on kayaking based a 5.8 CMS abrstraction detailed on this sight. When questioned RWE stated they didn’t know the full environmental effect of the scheme but this would be monitored over the first 3 yrs. Below are some comments from our Ecologist on the effect of the abstraction on the gorge:
The fairy Glen SSSI is such a unique and fragile environment in would be a shame to use it as a test ground to what will happen to the protected flora and fauna. Practically little is known about the requirements for the ferns and bryophytes that make the SSSI so special. There are perhaps only one or two tiny areas of land in North Wales with similar conditions including Coed Feli Rheid. What would happen if the scheme does show damage? Would water abstraction cease wasting the entire investment or would the damage be allowed to carry on?
“At the Conwy Falls and Fairy Glen the flows would be reduced by no more than about 35% during daylight hours, and water levels at Conwy Falls and Fairy Glen are predicted to be reduced by no more than around 10 % to 15%.”
RWE are conflicting flow rates with water levels here, this is particularly misleading especially as the location of the water level quoted is not given. RWE are also assuming on an average of around 2 CMS to be added by the Machno river after the abstraction point, however there is no available flow data for the Machno and as it rises and falls much quicker than the Conwy this will have a widely variable effect (notably less during low flow states when the percentage of flow abstracted from the Conwy is at its greatest).
“Conwy Falls could offer substantial opportunities to benefit the local area, economy and supply chain.”
The scheme is unlikely to create new employment following construction. Most schemes of this size are run remotely from central offices. By contrast outdoor activity tourism supports 8,243 jobs in Wales.
“In addition, we propose to make available £5000 per MW available every year throughout our 30 year lease period to fund local initiatives,”
Save the Conwy was told by on local resident that this smelt like a bribe. If it is a bribe it is a poor one. The scheme will use the FITs system of payments (as it is conveniently just below the 5MW maximum). Latest FIT payments are 3.32 pence per KWh production and 4.77 pence per KWh export.
https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/ofgem-publications/87074/rpiadjustedtariffsnon-pvapril2014.pdf
If RWE make their 13,000 MWh estimate this works out at £1,051,700 a year. A £22,500 community fund (£5000 x 4.5MW) is therefore around 2% of revenue. The community fund is also only proposed for the 30yrs that RWE hold the lease following that the Foelas Estate may not feel so generous.
“• Creating a new access to the Conwy Falls area, connected to the existing footpath through the site, avoiding the need to walk on the A5”
This constitutes around 100m of new path. Save the Conwy has heard this has previously been considered by the NPA and would probably happen anyway.
“• Assist with the management of the Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) to remove invasive species
• Regeneration / planting of native trees adjacent to the existing woodland”
Some comments from our Ecologist on this one:
Surrounding ancient woodlands where reported to have invasive species. To maintain the SSSI in favourable condition NWR should be working with and providing guidance and funding already to the land owner to remove such species as rhododendron ponticum. This is all not mitigation for the potential environmental damage for the scheme. While we would support the planting or natural regeneration of new woodland it is no substitute for loss of ancient woodland, this is irreplaceable habitat as is the gorge environment. We would also support more public access but it would be hoped the National Trust has policies for woodland creation and public access on its land already?
“• Facilitate safe exit from the river above the Conwy Falls for canoeists.”
This is not something that has been requested by local kayakers or Canoe Wales. The thought that a weir could be a safety feature is frankly bizarre. Weirs are considered one of the most dangerous river features.
www.swiftwaterrescue.at/content/info/tip-weir.html
One of Save the Conwy’s main concerns is the effect on the local community during the construction phase including disruption to traffic. RWE said that the tunnel section (which will require the removal of around 7000 cubic metres of rock by lorry) will be accessed from the A470 near the Fairy Glen Hotel with excavated materials being transported south along the A470 to Blaenau Festiniog. This will predominately affect the community at Dolwyddelan and tourists traveling to Betws y Coed from South Wales. The access to the intake will be opposite the Conwy Falls Café affecting the community of Penmachno and tourists travelling to Betws y Coed from England along the A5. This disruption will last between 18 months and 2years.
17th June 2014 — Comments are off for this post.
Npower (RWE) named Britain’s worst energy company by Which?
Great to see such a highly thought of power company is responsible for a destructive scheme of such limited benefit. Npower (part of RWE) rated the worst UK energy company two years in a row.
Best and worst energy companies revealed - January - 2014 - Which? News.
17th June 2014 — Comments are off for this post.
RWE open day tomorrow 2-7pm Conwy Falls Café
Don't forget the RWE open day at Conwy Falls Café tomorrow (Wed 18th June) 14:00 till 19:00. If you can get there even for ten minutes please do. Ask them how huge civil engineering projects in the heart of a national park are supposed to improve the environment.
Invite to the RWE open day over on the Snowdonia Society's site