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

[ohanotherone]

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.

If the OP really wants to get their knickers in a twist and worry about something useful - I suggest they google Peak Oil and then can muse to their heart's content about what that might mean for energy bills, and maybe, maybe they might even see that there could be an advantage to an energy source where the fuel is free and indigenous.

I notice despite their statement that their biggest concern is taxpayers money being wasted, when presented with the fact that subsidies to RE is a drop in the ocean compared to that being given to well established fossil and nuclear energy sources - they don't seem to have a come back. Nowind = nuclear stooges much?

Stranded the idea of mocking an ES for a project fills me with horror

I wrote a module fairly recently for a MSc course. Any use?

Yellowwellies You are clearly a very bright person who has a great deal of knowledge of this subject but I do object to your condescending tone and your references to anyone with a legitimate concern on this subject as tools and Nimbys. I and others seek more clarity on this subject and I find your arrogance insulting and not very helpful to progressing the debate. You write off all who question this technology as 'directly affected', uninformed idiots. I assure you this is not the case.
The public are understandably sceptical. There is no clear, consistent advice for us on renewables. Take a recent example. Many in our village have taken advantage of recent initiatives and installed multiple solar panels. It appears that these panels are now considered "a nightmare" to dispose of and therefore not very green. So why should anyone trust in wind? dilysprice you have a very "fluffy bunny" image of turbines . Each 100m turbine requires a foundation of about 17m diam requiring over 500cubic metres of concrete. They also require a control building with hardstanding, a monitoring mast, underground cabling, pylons and on site access roads wide enough for cranes. I'm not sure how progressed the business of recycling them is at the end of life is either. I know there are companies out there starting to do this but I don't think it is very advanced as yet.

Having said all that I do think that they are an essential part of our future energy mix but I do think the Govt (and yellowwellies) need to acknowledge that it is perfectly understandable for people who have chosen to live in the countryside to question whether the claims for windfarms aren't just a little overblown and to be absolutely certain that we (yes all of us) will benefit enormously from them before we simply swallow the spin and consent to the widespread carving up of our countryside and areas of AONB in order to line the pockets of landowners and foreign energy companies.

I have no vested interest. I live in a spot highly unlikely to have a wind turbine but I know people who do and I can tell you that the noise (astonishing) and strobing (maddening) from a 100m turbine just 600m from your 7m high cottage is something that just seems unfair. Hopefully new and more stringent guidelines will be more sensitive on issues such as siting though as things stand there are still no statutory distances in place.
Sorry for rant. I know there are people out there that will object to anything but for the Wind industry to fulfil its potential in this country it needs to acknowledge and address people's legitimate concerns.

Someone earlier was asking about how many turbines you would need to make the equivalent of a conventional power station.

A few ball-park numbers:

A typical turbine has a rating of 2MW. This is its output when operating optimally; most average only a fraction of this, let's be generous and say 50%. So one turbine might average 1 MW.

Tyical conventional power station range from around 200 MW to 2GW. To take a specific example, the Medway gas power station is 700 MW.

So to equal that you'd need 700 turbines. The diameter of the rotor is around 100m and the recommended specing between turbines is about 10 times this i.e. 1km. Go much closer than this and efficiency is reduced.

So to get a wind farm of similar output to the Medway power station you would need an area approaching 700 km squared. If its regualr square geometry around 650 km squared. This is about twice the combined area of the Inner London boroughs.

Of course this is very intermittent so you still need the conventional power station there as backup.

If I recall correctly, a turbine only produces power when the wind speed exceeds about 10 km/hr and the turbine has to be switched off for safety reasons above around 60 km/hr.

The unsubsidised cost of wind power is around twice (onshore) or three times (offshore) that of conventional power.

Now some will say, OK, but nonetheless we can still use the wind when it happens to be blowing, and when we are doing this we are not buring fossil fuels.

The problem here is that conventional power stations are not designed to be switched on and off, up and down, like a domestic gas oven. They are meant to have a constant(ish) output. Nuclear stations are especially problematic in this respect.

One other major thing is the question of stability. The National Grid is not just some benign passive reservoir that we can tap into without consequence. The resources feeding into it have to be very carefully managed to cope with surges and peaks in demand. If this is not managed properly the system can be prone to runaway instabilities and crashes. The greater the input from a very bursty source such as wind the more of a problem this is. So when the wind is blowing hardest the turbines may have to be disconnected from the grid anyway to avoid such catastrophoc outcomes, as happened fairly recently during high winds on Scotland. The landowners then had to be reimbursed for the disconnections.

Now you can quibble and tweak these numbers to some extent and - yes - in time costs may go down (unless the Chinses get stroppy over selling us neodymium). But ultimately wind is no sort of solution on so many different levels.

This madness needs to be stopped.

This madness needs to be stopped.

So what do you suggest as a solution?

Mopswerver you're damn right I've been condescending on here - this is AIBU after all - it's been marvellous catharsis for all of the times I've been wishing I could facepalm when discussing these issues with objectors. The OP really seems to have been a shill do you not think for NOWind? They seem to have disappeared now they have failed to garner the support of Mumsnetters to their cause. Sorry but I am sick of older folks who are leaving a shit inheritance of a trashed planet standing in the way of possible solutions. Yes wind isn't a cure on it's own but it is a start.

somebloke123 your figures seem to be erroneously suggesting that conventional power stations operate at 100% efficiency? This is a truly marvellous achievement and I do think you ought to inform the Nobel Prize of this amazing feat as the designers of said plant will surely deserve the prize - sadly it's not just wind farms that are prone to operating inefficiencies. Typical thermal efficiency for electrical generators in the industry is around 33% for coal and oil-fired plants, and up to 50% for combined-cycle gas-fired plants. Apologies if this has rather made a mess of your figures. Here's the data reference: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil-fuel_power_station#cite_note-2

And some conventional plants are exactly designed to be switched off and on - google the term 'peaking plant' and 'spinning generation'. Yes nuclear is not suitable in this regard.

As for grid stability - we have needed a grid upgrade for over 20 years, our current infrastructure is really really vulnerable - I think upgrading the grid would be a much more worthwhile infrastructure project that HS2!

^This madness needs to be stopped.

So what do you suggest as a solution?^

Expansion of nuclear. In particular look at thorium reactors. Also expand UK R&D into nuclear.

In the meantime we should manage the decomissioning of older facilities to suit us, not just be rushed into it on the diktat of EU "green" directives.

Exploration of the possibilities of shale gas, which could be a massive boon, and economic boost for the north.

In the considerably longer term nuclear, fusion.

How do you propose expanding nuclear when they still have no way of dealing with the waste they already have?

YellowWellies

Please note that I used the term "ballpark" to get some handle on the scale of a windfarm which would be equivalent to a conventional power station. It was not meant to be a precise calculation.

Of course any power station that essentially converts heat to electricity can never do so with 100% efficiency. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tells us that. Your point about "thermal efficiency" is correct but not particularly relevant in this context. And there will be other inefficiences depending on the actual design. The point is that the output from conventional power stations is relatively constant, predictable and manageable.

And I know that some power stations are more able to have their output varied than others. But the recent Scottish experience indicates that heavy winds were a problem. The more we rely on wind power the greater this problem is going to be.

Presumably the demand peaks that always occur on the Grid are to some extent predictable e.g. with daily and weekly periodicities and seasonal variations, so the operators of the smaller and more flexible stations will still have some notice of when to crank up their output.

Wind is going to be much less predictable.

Basic physics tells us that the maximum power extractable from the wind is proportional not just to the wind speed but to the wind speed cubed. So if the wind speed drops by 50%, the maximum theoretical power will drop not to a half but to an eighth.

Often too the coldest weather conditions are accompanied by very little wind.

You make interesting points but detract from them somewhat by your sarcastic and and ad hominem tone.

Kladdkaka

Yes it's an issue to be addressed but progress is being made on this all the time, as also with the safety features of reactors. Maybe the ultimate solution would be to put them on the sea bed above subduction zones, Then they're out of action for a few million years.

Did you watch the film I linked earlier somebloke? It has loads of information on the nuclear waste issues. Bit scary mind. Might not want to watch it before bedtime.

AIBU to think this subject is about flatulence every time I see the thread title in "I'm on" and then remember it is about windmills?

Kladdkaka

No I hadn't but will try to when I can. I have actually just watched the first 5 mins (haven't time at the moment for the whole thing). From the spooky music and ghostly voices it obviously is trying to be scary but of course I'd have to watch the whole thing before judging it.

Try doing this job for so long and constantly hearing 'you're in the pay of the man' when oil, gas, coal and nukes don't even HAVE to HAVE EIAs done - let alone have the scary details published, and yes it really does turn you into a sarcastic person when discussing the issue in a casual context! You want to feel condescended try pitting your best PHD experts against an early retired google educated anti-wind warrior and I challenge you not to want to put your head through a window.

Seriously there are so many really scary issues in the world - climate change, Peak Oil, illegal wars, a demographic time bomb, our national debt, the collapse of our financial system and it always puzzles me why so many people go for the jugular of the wind industry when it is one of the most transparent industries out there. I just don't get it.

I do EIAs for all sorts of developments, not just wind so I am aware of the environmental risks associated with all sorts of features of modern life and it just amazes me that folk jump up and down about wind when they don't about say a new petrol station near them? (When if you read the environmental statement I guarantee the latter to be much scarier).

Equally I don't agree with wind farms in the wrong places (and by that I would mean too close to homes - for noise reasons, in the wrong angle to homes - shadow flicker, too far from a grid connection - not financially viable, in the migration routes of protected species - for obvious reasons, plonked atop a scheduled ancient monument etc etc) - but I don't agree that some of the minor impacts associated with wind = a no go for the industry.

It's all very well suggesting nuclear but are you going to be around at the end of the working lives of these new plants you're suggesting? The biggest reason I don't go hell for leather for nukes is that I don't actually have the confidence, thanks to peak oil, that we'll be in a society with enough energy / technology / money to afford to deal with the waste safely. It's all well and good to suggest these options if you know you won't be around when the thorny issue of dealing with waste arises - but me and my kids (touch wood) will still be alive.

Shale gas and shale oil don't make much sense from an EROEI perspective (energy return on energy invested) but I agree Thorium reactors definitely need much more investment and R&D, sadly, having worked with them I am pretty cynical about the nuclear industry.

Hmmm, I'm not (that) old or have anything to do with the No wind thing. I just thought I might air the alternative viewpoint to wind being "clean and green" and did a search and thought that summarised a few of the points.

yellowellies I never said I was a researcher either. Having been to a public consultation, the condecending attitude of people like you shines through. I'm glad you have had a chance to show your true thoughts. The dismissive attitude of people like you digusts me. We are talking about windfarms the size of greater London covering mid wales and the whole of Anglsey. People will have to live with the constant noise and flicker, have their businesses ruined because the research shows that people do not visit places with pylons, of which there will be miles and miles of pylons and Wales is pretty much a tourist destination. Scoff if you want, the tourists that visit wales tend to be probably less well off than the average mumsnetter, but they come to escape the industrialised Midlands. Many of us have watched as birds like the Osprey and Red Kite have returned to wales, only to see these now threatened.

My main reason for posting is that I work with some of the poorest, sickest people in this country, who need warmth, who struggle already to pay their bills, yet this madness of putting an inefficient power source (as better described by somebloke) means that the most vulnerable will pay more for this bizarre experiment through their electricity bills to some of the richest people in this country. These people needs 24 hour energy to stay alive. So I'm sorry I'm not more eloquent, people like you so are full of shit and so sure that you are right and everyone else is beneath you. I struggle to get funding for care for people because resources are so stretched yet are happy to spunk taxpayers money on a shambolic folly.

So what would your alternative energy source of choice be ohanotherone? In the light of peak oil? That will only make your vulnerable patients lives even harder as overseas suppliers of conventional fuels keep on raising their prices and the value of the pound keeps on falling? Are you against the much larger subsidies to the conventional energy industry? People do need 24 hour energy to stay alive, my wee niece was born 3 months prem' so I'm well aware of how amazing energy is and vital for medicine. Sadly we are moving to a period of energy scarcity so continuing with the status quo is not an option. Really do google peak oil - have a look at the Powerswitch forum. You might not like wind but compared to not having the energy we'd like, oil wars, ever rising imported commodity prices (gas, oil, coal), climate change and nuclear waste disposal - I do see it as the lesser of those evils. I can see why the government has removed large power stations from the EIA process - they would never get any built! I really do think the Tories have allowed the wind industry to be the sacrificial lamb to get all of the flack from protestors whilst the really nasty stuff is built in secret.

I'm very sorry you seem to feel you've been misquoted but actually the very first line of your post is "I've been doing some research". I'm sorry but I don't count copy and pasting someone elses' opinion verbatim as 'doing research'. If that is the level of quality you associate with 'research' I do find your quibbles with well written EIAs (not the dodgy one you read that rightly got rejected) as shall we say, not exactly coming from a position capable of discerning what is good or bad quality research. Research is not copy and pasting.

Sorry you've been investigating (a synonym of research) - my point still stands - our site investigations are not based on copying and pasting.

Again with the preconceptions YellowWellies. I am not that old either and also have young children to consider. Are you seriously suggesting that only people "who won't be around" support nuclear?

If every new home in this country was built to be carbon neutral, which is totally possible, and every home (unless listed) upgraded to be as energy efficient as possible then surely that would be a better way of meeting our energy needs than an expensive unreliable source. This would mean that people on low incomes keep more of their own money to spend on food rather than live in fuel poverty.

This is how turbines are constructed....www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~hills/cc/gallery/index.htm

I really hope that things progress with micro generation to make it as reliable and affordable as possible. If every household were able to generate some of its power needs it would make a huge difference. It also really gets people more aware of power usage.

Energy efficiency in homes is something I've been banging on about for years and there are steps afoot to improve access to efficiency on a domestic scale. I'm reserving judgement at the moment because I just don't know enough about the Green Deal yet.

There is no perfect solution

Carbon neutral housing yes yes yes yes am in total agreement. However it does add a fair whack to the build cost, and considering we already have a whole generation priced out of housing that could be a problem that needs considering. I really think we need to up the building regs for existing buildings (especially in the rented sector) too especially given that our building replacement rate is so slow and we will be living in old buildings for a long time too.

I was slightly tongue in cheek with the aged = pro nuclear comment Mopswerver but from an entirely non scientific process of attending 12 years of public exhibition there is a very high correlation betwixt retired engineer + pro nuclear so it was worth a shot.

Yes Jins I think making micro generation easier and more affordable would be great.

I think the great problem for the wind industry has been people's suspicion that the private companies and landowners are on a gravy train without there being much of a public case made to prove its worth. At the moment too there doesn't appear to be much in it for the average villager who faces the prospect of their area being ransacked. The equation appear to be heavily weighted in favour of everyone but them.

With micro generation the link is obvious. Minimal upheaval and you gain personally.

...and yes, you become more aware of your power usage. This has already been proven by the rolling out of the household electricity monitor thingies.

Exactly Mopswerver - there is no direct financial link between wind and the local villagers (unless there is a cooperative formed, and to be fair there are a damn sight more wind cooperatives than there are fossil fuel or nuclear cooperatives) and the suspicion of a gravy train does often contain an element of envy too. Microgeneration removes this element.

ohanotherone you come across SO much better when you are using your own words rather than cutting and pasting btw. And I find this at public exhibitions too - once you are talking with opponents about their real personal concerns rather than reading line by line a dodgy photocopy of someone elses anti-wind manifesto - it's much easier to have a conversation.

My biggest beef with your opening post is the varying quality of the references. Some of them look fine and I could easily find them in the public domain. Others... not so much and indeed pretty darn opaque as to what the documents / cases being referred to actually are. I now realise this isn't your fault as you didn't write the body of the text in the OP. I am always deeply suspicious of poor referencing. Why? Well you use references to back up your argument, so that readers can follow the links and see that yes indeed judges, experts, planning inspectors etc do indeed agree with your argument and here is the independent evidence.

Now the reason this piece is in places poorly referenced could be for one of two reasons, neither of which makes me very confident in its authors:

1. the author doesn't know how to reference, this makes me worry about the accuracy of the rest of the information they have included.

2. they have deliberately included obtuse referencing to make it look as though lots of eminent folks back their argument, but actually these sources don't concur and they don't want readers finding these texts and realising this. Or worse still some of these references are just plain made up.

I would expect an EIA (for any development not just wind) written with such poor referencing to get thrown out by the planning department.