Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To think that it's about time the government rethink the wind issue??????

232 replies

ohanotherone · 17/04/2012 09:50

I've spent some time investigating wind farms. I thought they were clean and green, sadly, I now realise they are not. It seems we are all being taken for a ride, a ride that will destroy our beautiful nations. The plans to cover Wales and Scotland with turbines are on a scale that many people do not comprehend. Am I being unreasonable to think that the government should objectively look at the facts and finally ditch wind power????

Here are some of the issues......looking at these factors broadens the debate from a "you are a Nimby" level, which is the level the last government wanted the debate to be as it was in their interests to do so.

1.Landscape and wildlife
2.Unreliable energy source requiring backup
3.No reduction in CO2
4.Additional grid infrastructure
5.Subsidies
6.Employment, business and property

  1. Landscape and wildlife
Windfarms reduce landscape value, kill birds and compromise wildlife habitats. They also compromise essential environmental services.

? It was established in the Public Inquiry into the Cumulative Effect of Windfarms in Powys in 2001 that windfarms always have a negative effect on the landscape; the question is whether the level of negative impact remains acceptable. The conclusions reached by the Planning Inspectorate indicated clearly that the cumulative impact of such proposals on the visual and recreational quality of the upland areas in Powys would be unacceptable; these conclusions were agreed in full by the National Assembly for Wales. The height of turbines has increased by over 40 metres since then, increasing the impact and area visually affected immeasurably.

? Installing a manmade structure out of proportion with its surroundings such as a large wind turbine affects individual perception and understanding of the view, natural and cultural landscape and distorts people&rquot;s engagement with what they see; the value of citizen&rquot;s engagement with their surroundings is acknowledged by government.

? "We need to help people appreciate the historic environment and 'read the landscape' - not just the obvious elements such as castles and chapels, but also the pattern of quarries, ancient trackways, field systems and cairns. The rewards are not simply personal satisfaction for individuals. The historic environment creates our 'sense of place' and therefore our sense of shared belonging and of roots. Nurturing a living sense of what it is to be a citizen of Wales is a key priority for the Assembly Government, and citizenship cannot be a theoretical concept. It is about emotional ties and imagined community, as much with previous generations as with ones to come." © Crown Copyright 2009. Heritage Minister's Ambition for the Welsh Historic Environment

? James Pearce-Higgins et. al. (Journal of Applied Ecology vol 46, Issue 6 pages 1139- 1357) have found that birds, including buzzards, golden plovers, curlews and red grouse, are abandoning countryside around upland windfarms. The study used upland areas because they have the strongest winds and so are preferred by wind-farm developers and are favoured, by some of Britain's most vulnerable bird species. They found evidence for localised reductions in bird breeding density; birds tended to stop nesting within half a mile of any turbine. Since the effect extends around each machine, up to three quarters of a square mile could be affected by one turbine. Results highlight significant avoidance of otherwise apparently suitable habitat close to turbines in at least seven of the 12 species studied. The impact is not huge now because there are still some areas without wind farms but the researchers warn that, with hundreds more planned, plus an increase in the size of turbines, the effect could become much worse.

? Where wind farms are proposed, their development should not contravene the protective measures that apply under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981; Schedule 1 Birds, Schedule 5 Animals and Schedule 8 Plants.

2.Unreliable energy source requiring backup
Electricity from windfarms is unreliable and cannot be stored. Wind is an intermittent and unpredictable energy source; it can provide neither the base-load nor the load-following power required by the Grid. It is beyond dispute that windfarms require at least 90% backup from reliable controllable energy sources.

? National Grid data shows that windfarms cannot be relied upon to provide us with energy when we most need it. The cold weather of December/January 2009/10 illustrated this problem. With high pressure and a lack of wind only 0.2%, of a possible 5% of the UK's energy was generated by wind turbines during this time of greatest need.

? Jeremy Nicholson, director of the Energy Intensive Users Group (EIUG), gave warning that this unreliability could turn into a crisis when the UK is reliant on 6,400 turbines for a quarter of UK electricity. He said the shortfall in power generated by wind during cold snaps seriously undermined the Government's pledge to build nine major new wind 'super farms' by 2020. "If we had this 30 gigawatts of wind power, it wouldn't have contributed anything of any significance this winter," he said. "The current cold snap is a warning that our power generation and gas supplies are under strain and it is getting worse."

? In Germany their 20,000MW of wind energy require 90% back-up from conventional sources; indeed Rupert Steele of Scottish Power/Iberdrola admitted on 22.4.09 that the 30GW of wind proposed for the UK would require 25GW of back up. What this means in practice is that as more wind farms come on line they require a greater proportion of back up by reliable generation; 90% according to EON Netz.

? E.ON said that it could take 50 gigawatts of renewable electricity generation to meet the EU target. But it would require approximately 90% of this amount as back up from coal and gas plants to ensure supply when intermittent renewable supplies were not available. This will require a significant increase in Britain's generating capacity, at considerable cost, simply to maintain the current level of secure supply, as evidenced by National Grid's own estimates, which show that by 2025 the Nation needs a 21% increase in generating capacity to meet a 2% increase in demand.

? The impact of ensuring reliable backup is:

  • Capital cost of building 90% more generation than we actually need in inefficient plant that will give lower return to investors as it will frequently be idling rather than producing energy for which they will be paid. UK government has already committed £10 billion to back-up generation in 2011.
  • Increased wear and tear on plant that has to be turned up and down with less than four hours notice. Higher costs of maintenance and reduced life of machinery.
  • Reluctance to build conventional power plants where the maintenance and reduced life are unknown costs.
  • Increased payments from National Grid to generators when they are required to go off-line, as their generation is not required. Wind is most expensive so National Grid uses all available wind as first option and compensate conventional generators when the wind is blowing. In Scotland (01.05.11) wind generation exceeded demand and National Grid paid wind farm companies £1.2 million to switch off the turbines. In 2012 National Grid paid windfarm companies £25 million to switch off line.
  1. No reduction in CO2
There is no evidence that increasing the number of windfarms is reducing national CO2 emissions in UK or any other country adopting wind energy.

? Recent work by Fred Udo is based on EIRGRID real time data on carbon emissions and wind energy production. His abstract states: "In the absence of hydro-energy the CO2 production of the conventional generation increases with wind energy penetration. The data shows that the reduction of CO2 emissions is at most a few % if gas fired generation is used for balancing a 30% share of wind energy."

? A carbon payback equation should be part of each Environmental Statement. The Scottish Government has made an algorithm to calculate this for peat land. (Ref: The Scottish Government Calculating carbon savings from wind farms on Scottish peat lands - A New Approach www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/06/25114657/9)

? A full carbon equation should count of the carbon cost of:

  • Building, transportation to site and construction
  • Grid connection
  • Running a turbine
  • Clean coal, gas, nuclear power stations running less efficiently, developing and maintaining the back up power stations
  • Upgrading highways
  • Peat displacement by an average of 300cu m concrete per turbine, as well as aggregate for turbine bases, crane pads, sub-stations and access roads.
  • Forestry clearance
  • The Capacity Credit, i.e. the percentage of wind generated energy that actually displaces conventionally generated energy. Bearing in mind that a percentage of this is nuclear and therefore would be carbon free anyway.

? There is no evidence that wind is an alternative to nuclear. As early as 1994 Welsh Affairs Select Committee, the British Wind Energy Association (now RenewablesUK) have admitted that the future is a mix of nuclear and renewables.

  1. Additional grid infrastructure
Additional grid connection is needed to meet the installed capacity of wind installation; increasing the number and size of transmission infrastructure and cost to the consumer; increasing impact on landscape value.
  1. Subsidies
No developer will build windfarms without subsidies. Electricity companies are compelled to buy this expensive electricity. Both are funded by an extra charge on every electricity bill. This is not a government subsidy, which would be open for scrutiny. We are now paying £1 billion a year.

? Electricity Companies are compelled to buy this expensive electricity using Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs), and put an extra charge on every one of your electricity bills. The cost of onshore wind to the consumer is some £200/MWhr taking into account the ROC subsidy, back up generation and additional transmission costs. This is over four times the cost of energy from conventional or nuclear sources. The cost of off-shore wind is even higher at over £250/MWhr (March 2011 Sir Donald Miller, former Chairman Scottish Power). For industry the cost is incrementally higher making electricity in the UK a very expensive and possibly unaffordable overhead. This may lead to relocation of industry abroad where energy costs are less.

? Subsidies for on-shore wind are higher in the UK than for virtually any other European country with a large wind investment. (EU Report into European Energy Market 2010).

? Even taking into account the minimal 10% reduction in subsidies currently being considered it is likely that by 2020 the cost of ROCs will be £15 billion ? 1% of GDP. The UK is already facing unprecedented levels of fuel poverty and, although not solely attributable to wind power generation, this will inexorably increase with subsidies, the cost of large infrastructure projects from remote locations, the cost of expensive 90% back-up; research and development of storage projects essential for use of wind power such as development of a smart grid.

  1. Employment, business and property
There is no evidence that windfarms bring significant local employment, but they can impact adversely on traditional industry and tourism and on property values, and thus the level of available investment in local businesses.

? Turbine manufacturers use their own trained staff for construction, off-site monitoring and maintenance. The majority of wind farm developers in Britain are non-UK so "for an average £50m wind farm, approximately £35m will go abroad. The employment they bring to a local community is limited. During construction there may be several jobs, but once completed a large wind farm can be run by two or three staff with technicians called in for maintenance, they are certainly not the answer to stimulating the jobs economy." (Mary Scanlon, Scottish Conservative MSP for the Highlands and Islands).

? Site preparation is specialist and few contractors have the equipment available e.g. Cefn Croes windfarm was said to use local labour; in fact Jones and Co, the contractors building roads and turbine bases were from Rhuthin, some two hours away.

? In the case of Fullabrook Down the developers, Devon Windpower, were bought out by the Electricity Supply Board, Ireland's largest utility company. During the construction process nearly all of the ground-works were carried out by an Irish labour force, but Vestas required its own trained Danish workers to erect and commission the turbines. In fact Vestas recently confirmed that they had not employed a single UK resident over the previous 24 months during the installation of their turbines throughout England, Scotland or Wales. They also confirmed that they did not foresee a change in their employment policy over the next three fiscal periods. Other manufacturers responded similarly and confirmed no local labour had been employed during the construction phase as all used their own certified engineers. (Written communication).

? A major renewables study commissioned by the European Commission (Employ- RES research project for European Commission DG Energy and Transport 2009) drew a number of interesting conclusions:

  • The renewables sector has the potential to create many jobs, predominantly in the solar, hydro and biofuels areas;
  • Wind energy is only an important contributor to the labour economy where the country manufactures the turbines;
  • The countries that could benefit the most from the growth of renewables are Eastern European (biomass production);
  • Some countries (UK and Spain are cited as examples) will experience a net loss of jobs.

There is evidence that wind power does not stimulate the economy across Europe:

? "Wind power costs Spain ?1.1 million per job in subsidy and setting minimum prices for renewably generated electricity far above market prices, wastes capital that could be allocated to other sectors. This has resulted in 2.2 jobs being destroyed for every 'green job' created." (Gabriel Calzada Álvarez, et al (2009) Study of the effects on employment of public aid to renewable energy sources. Universidad Rey Juan Carlos)

? Evidence gathered shows that local enterprises are often developed by releasing collateral in the family home by re-mortgaging. The reduction in value of homes where windfarms and associated infrastructure are proposed is impacting upon the money available to develop small local businesses.

? Tourism enterprises, especially but not exclusively where the individual caravans and chalets are owned, have suffered considerably when windfarms and associated infrastructure affect them. For example, there has been a 40% drop in lettings and a collapse in caravan sales at Nab's Wood site in North Yorkshire after construction of a wind turbine site in the vicinity two years ago.

? A survey carried out by the Welsh Tourist Board indicated that the commonest reasons for visiting the country were the scenery, wild landscapes and an unspoilt environment whilst for 71% of respondents the things which most spoilt landscape views were pylons, transmission lines or wind turbines. Remarkably similar results were found from research carried out for a Visit Scotland and here over a quarter of respondents said they would actively avoid areas with windfarms and a further 25% preferred areas without windfarms.

OP posts:
Whatmeworry · 17/04/2012 11:32

Its fairly well known that they are not economic today, and the grants and kickbacks for investors while there were none for manufacturers are a scandal, but HMG is trying to reduce our reliance on fossil fules (mainly owned by other faraway people such as Arabs and Russians).

So good intention, poor execution and (hopefully) declining costs as they get better.

LST · 17/04/2012 11:33

Hmm Wow you need to get out more..

Sorry but I quite like them

ohanotherone · 17/04/2012 11:34

I'm not here to educate anyone.

I just think that it's crazy to use taxpayers money to do something which doesn't produce what it is intended to do and when it does, it can't be stored so has to be switched off and then taxpayers have to pay to switch it off. In doing said thing, the environment and wildlife will be severely damaged at taxpayers expense. You can't put 8000 massive pads of concrete into the earth without destroying valuable peat bogs and therefore negating ANY carbon saved. The poorest people in this country will be paying money to the richest to do this thing. Who is really gaining from it???

OP posts:
ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 17/04/2012 11:34

Yes, wind farms are considered unsightly by some. Yes they require track building and concrete pads. Yes the wind doesn't blow all the time.

But we need renewables, they may not be perfect but the alternatives are worse.

Scotland btw has the potential to meet all of its leccy requirements via renewables. This is a v good thing.

Kladdkaka · 17/04/2012 11:34

Interesting about solar panels being toxic. Can you link to your hubby's research???

No I can't because it's not allowed for subscription journals.

There's nothing to stop you subscribing and searching the academic journals yourself though. Search for 'Investigation into the Extraction of Americium(III), Lanthanides and D‐Block Metals by 6,6′‐Bis‐(5,6‐dipentyl‐[1,2,4]triazin‐3‐yl)‐[2,2′]bipyridinyl (C 5 ‐BTBP)'. That should get you on the right path.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 17/04/2012 11:38

Linky here for those that like ploughing through long reports:

www.foe-scotland.org.uk/power-secured

It also adresses the myth that the variability in supply is an issue.

Kladdkaka · 17/04/2012 11:38

Kladakaka - are you one of these people the energy companies are paying to peddle myths so they can make profits????

I wish.

I just happen to like them. But then I live in a place where wind turbines are everywhere. So much so that you don't even see them anymore. Like dustbins.

redlac · 17/04/2012 11:39

I like windfarms - in fact my office window looks out to the one on the Doune hills and they look rather cool and add to something else along the landscape next to the Wallace Monument and Stirling Castle.

ohanotherone · 17/04/2012 12:23

Friend of the Earth have been the main advocates of wind farms but their environmental arguments are flawed.

Here's another viewpoint.....

www.epaw.org/

OP posts:
MrsMuddyPuddles · 17/04/2012 12:59

Further to the "you can't store wind power" thing, a village hall on one of the Scottish islands (not sure whether Orkney or Shetland based as I'm remembering this from a radio programme I heard a while back). is solely powered by wind. They use it to charge batteries for their generator.

Kladdkaka · 17/04/2012 13:08

If you really want nightmares about energy and environmental issues watch Into Eternity. Professor Kaka (who's had a tour of Onkalo) says it's accurate and pretty much sums up the issues. It'll totally mess with your head.

YellowWellies · 17/04/2012 13:28

Hahahahaha this wins crazy nutjob thread of the year for me. Ohanotherone you have made me laugh. Am loving the line that 'wind farms are meant to cut carbon but our emissions are rising'. Probably because we are driving and flying more? Or maybe just because we are consuming more energy? (looks at all of the feck off huge tvs folk are buying!)

The carbon intensity of grid electricity can be monitored daily here www.ecotricity.co.uk/our-green-energy/energy-independence/uk-grid-live and is recorded by government here:www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/statistics/publications/dukes/dukes.aspx Carbon intensity of the grid fluctuates constantly depending on which stations are online, the weather conditions and the price primary energy sources i.e. power station fuels (i.e. when gas is expensive as it is now, lots of stations burn coal instead which is cheaper but a lot more carbon intensive!) and lots of other factors - the carbon intensity has risen a lot recently due to shut downs at nuclear stations for maintenance for example.

OP you are a tool of the highest order and seem to be the sort of person that shouldn't be left alone with Mr Google. Let me guess, you are a middle aged NIMBY, there a planning application for a wind farm in your area and you are bricking it about house prices? Selfish, selfish, selfish.

As to who is gaining from it - our grandchildren by not having an entirely fecked planet and the rest of us by gaining energy independence from Russia and the middle East. Who gives a shit if the operating efficiency is low (btw older coal power stations only operate at 30% efficiency) THE FUEL IS FREE!!!!!

As for taxpayers money subsidising renewables, are you aware of the SEVEN different subsidies the nuclear industry receives from government?www.guardian.co.uk/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2012/mar/07/nuclear-power-cost-fukushima

I'm sorry but I would much rather subsidise the development of onshore and offshore wind and the wave and tidal industry so that our kids can live in a world where oil politics don't dominate our foreign affairs and kill our young in illegal wars. I would be enlightened to hear of your alternatives. If it involves the line 'we're only 20 years away from nuclear fusion being commercially viable' I will piss myself.

I can see two wind farms from my home and I think they are lovely. I'm not particularly a fan of pylons but as someone who is aware of modern physics - I do realise that I need them to get my electricity, so you might not like them - get over it. YABVVVVVVU

porcamiseria · 17/04/2012 13:34

you need to be a bit more concise and snappy OP

ragged · 17/04/2012 13:37

I knew someone (physics proff Lancaster Uni) who ran his farm house year round on wind power, they finally decided to get on mains for Dec-Jan dip, after about 10 years, that was their concession to middle-age. He was using old submarine batteries.

...manmade structure out of proportion with its surroundings...windfarms always have a negative effect on the landscape
Ditto the traditional pylons that march across most of rural Britain. Name me power generator type that doesn't have the ability to look ugly. Nuclear? We have a 12ha solar-panel covered site near us, I'd rather look at barley or sheep, tbh.

4. Additional grid infrastructure
True for any new source.

5. Subsidies
name a UK-based energy source that doesn't rely on subsidies or tax breaks to get developed.

2.Unreliable energy source requiring backup
All the currently viable renewable energy sources are intermittant (have off-periods), except ground-source heating which has its own separate problems & drawbacks.

wind energy require 90% back-up from conventional sources
Yes, we'll need a mosaic of sources ready to come online when needed. An advantage of renewables is to cut the dependency on (mostly imported) fossil-fuels & radioactive materials.

A carbon payback equation should be part of each Environmental Statement. The Scottish Government has made an algorithm to calculate this for peat

Points listed here & in source report are not reasons to not build the turbines, they are part of strict accounting. This happens to be an area of my expertise (CO2 flux on peat & forestry, etc.) and it's very very complicated to calculate. Plus, once the turbines are established there's a lot of reason to expect the land to revert to net CO2 absorption unless trees are re-established (which seems unlikely under turbines). Otherwise if trees are currently on the site, then the CO2 releases from the soil are already happening at high rate; removing trees to build turbines can lead to return to net CO2 absorption into soils. See flux work by those folk at CEH, Milne, Hargreaves et al. Leaving aside other GHG flux on peat, which is full of surprises.

I don't care enough to fully scrutinise all of OP. I am also concerned about turbine effects on wildlife. otoh, if the mention of the Scottish peat study is typical of OP's "research-based" argument, then I'm not impressed.

PinguFanatic · 17/04/2012 13:42

Solar panels are rubbish, ask any electronic engineer. The amount of power you get back compared with the materials used to create them and the lifetime of the panels means that they really aren't that green at all.

I don't know much about wind, but in general we need to think of power on a world wide scale, rather than an individual country scale. There are really sunny places, really windy places in the world where these sources of energy do make sense and they can provide a decent return on the investment, i.e. the desert rather than sticking a solar panel on a house in lincolnshire.

Personally, looks wise, I quite like wind farms. However I understand they have a negative impact on the wildlife in the area. Sticking them in the sea seems the best idea.

YellowWellies · 17/04/2012 13:44

OP given your deep love and care of wildlife - I'm assuming you don't drive, have glass in your windows at home or own a cat? These are all the biggest causes of bird strike / mortality in the UK.

You are Donald Trump and I claim my five pounds... if you are objecting to a local wind farm application, please, please make sure that you word your objection exactly as you have started this thread. It'll give the planners and planning consultants a real giggle.

somebloke123 · 17/04/2012 13:48

The dash to plaster as much as possible of our most beautiful landscape with these useless monstrositiesis nothing short of criminal insanity.

Without rehashing too much the arguments already made, the power is intermittent so is totally unsuited to providing "baseline" power in an advanced industrial society, unless there are backup systems in place. So emissions of CO2 are not much different to what they would be without turbines. So not much comfort there for the supporters of the theory of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.

A recent recent study by the Royal Academy of Engineering concluded that land-based wind power is twice as expensive as coal, gas and nuclear. Offshore wind is three times as expensive.

www.raeng.org.uk/news/publications/list/reports/Cost_Generation_Commentary.pdf

This means that wind power must be heavily subsidised, with cost being borne by consumers, including the poorest e.g. elderly people trying to ward off hypothermia.

However rich landowners who site these things on their land get paid handsomely.

One of the essential materials needed to make the large permanent magnets in a turbine is the rare earth element neodymium. Currently the only source of this is Mongolia i.e we are dependent on the Chinese selling it to us. The extraction of neodymium is a highly unpleasant process involving dissolving deposits in concentrated acid, with one of the byproducts being radioactive thorium.

These toxic and radioactive waste products have leached into the water supply used by the people who live in the mining area.

When windfarms reach the end of their "useful" life they tend to just get abandoned, leaving an unsightly blot of the lanscape. (Google "Wind Farm Graveyards" for examples.)

Example quote:

In the American Thinker newspaper, journalist Andrew Walden wrote that "Thousands of abandoned wind turbines littered the landscape of wind energy's California 'big three' locations which include Altamont Pass, Tehachapin and San Gorgonio, considered among the world's best wind sites," adding that "In the best wind spots on earth, over 14,000 turbines were simply abandoned. Spinning, post-industrial junk which generates nothing but bird kills."

We should put and end to this madness right now, and repudiate any EU and other rulings about "renewables" as necessary.

ginnybag · 17/04/2012 13:49

Kladkakka - I've seen that film - freaked me out to hell and back. Is that really the best we can do?

Of course, what was more worrying, was the number of countries who aren't looking at something like Onkalo, and with that level of seriousness.

EdlessAllenPoe · 17/04/2012 13:54

i would love it if the put a wind farm on the hill behind my house. they are beautiful, and i really love watching them swirling round.

from the 'killing birds' hysteria one would expect to find a pile of dead parrots underneath each turbine, however i have seen Buzzards right next to the things... not sure about your info as it doesn't ring true to experience.

the total absence of vegetation on the newly-plowed 200-acre field is why nothing would nest there anyway...

as far as i am aware - the main probs are -

interference with terrestrial signal - ours is crap anyway, so most round here have cable or satellite

costly to set up - this is something that can change as the technology develops.

however the current project adopted by the council is to put the wind farm 8 miles offshore - more costly but possibly will generate more power.

Kladdkaka · 17/04/2012 13:57

Me too. I couldn't sleep after watching it.

Wasn't that the problem at Fukashima? Not the actual power plant itself but the disruption to the stored nuclear waste. Didn't the pools runs dry or something. Shock

ohanotherone · 17/04/2012 14:09

Windfarms kill birds...so laugh away as our most protected species die out!

OP posts:
entropygirl · 17/04/2012 14:29

wind turbines are a menace....especially when a turn in the road puts one suddenly and unexpectedly in your face.

The energy balance arguments for different types of generation are too complicated for armchair enthusiasts. I know a guy how got into this professionally and produced the definitive numbers the government uses and without access to his book a will not put forward an opinion. The government are using it though so hopefully they at least know what the situation is even if they choose to ignore the advice.

Whatmeworry · 17/04/2012 14:33

You have to look at this as part of a bigger picture, ie UK energy dependence on Russia and Arab states, which is a Bad Thing. The British isles float on coal, but that is a Bad Thing. Nuclear power is a Bad thing.

But most of all not being able to have electricity is a Bad Thing.

So, you are left with trying to develop a hodgepodge of other new/expensive techniques before North Seas gas finally runs out.

Could they do it better - hell yes - the garnys and subsidioes are ascandal. Should they not do it - hell no - all new technologies are expensive and unreliable to start with.

Whatmeworry · 17/04/2012 14:34

"grants and subsidies are a scandal"

Jins · 17/04/2012 14:34

Nuclear power did a pretty good job of killing things as well

They've only just lifted controls on the movement of sheep after Chernobyl.

Whilst I hate the thought of any wildlife being harmed by anything at all I do think that the risks to wildlife are far greater with fossil fuel and nuclear generation. Risks to the receiving environment with wind energy are very localised

Swipe left for the next trending thread