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:
EasilyBored · 19/04/2012 10:50

I like wind farms, I think they're beautiful. There's something about them that really appeals to me visually, I think it's the blending of the ancient (the land) and the modern (the turbines).

No comment RE the effectiveness of them though, as I don't really know/understand that part. But I like the look of them.

YellowWellies · 19/04/2012 11:20

Exactly so when visual impact is cited by opponents as a negative impact - that is subjective and just their opinion - it isn't gospel - there are lots of people who do love the look of them.

Mopswerver · 19/04/2012 11:41

No I think you miss my point YellowWellies
People can accept something of minimal impact that will also save them some money. The point about these mega turbines is that they make a life changing impact on those "directly affected", a colossal impact on many more who live nearby and they don't see the connection to their own electricity. They are all after all privately owned, mostly by foreign companies who sell the elec to the grid.

I don't know about these co-operatives but I think the idea that people who object simply want a share of the cash is wrong. Not everyone is motivated by big bucks. I know many farmers who have been approached and turned down these offers (and to hard strapped farmers they are very tempting offers) out of concern for their community.

Micro generation is the way forward for wind IMO.

YellowWellies · 19/04/2012 11:54

But from a resource / carbon repayment perspective - microwind just doesn't stack up compared to big wind, in the same way that onshore wind just doesn't stack up to offshore (where there are 5 MW bad boys currently being tested).

I have lived within 1 km of turbines when I lived in mid Wales, they really didn't bother me - as the poster above (Easilybored) suggests not all view them negatively so to state they cause 'life changing impact' is a bit subjective and overarching. I don't dispute they can be for some people, but they are not for all. I know when you hate something it can be nigh on impossible to understand how others can love it (and vice versa!).

Do check out the info about cooperatives - here on the Scottish islands they are making some of the smaller islands (Sanday, Westray etc) viable, when for years they had been draining population - as now the islanders have an excellent source of income and can reinvest in their communities and for many, stay on the islands.

I'm not saying ALL who object are doing so simply because they want a share of the cash, but I do think for some there is the green eyed monster. We even had some sites were neighbouring landowners threatened to object unless one or more turbines were placed on their land so they could share in the income... there is a lot of skullduggery amongst the landed classes - probably more so I would suggest than a spirit of noblesse oblige to turn down these offers for the good of the community (which is probably a sad indictment of much about our modern world).

Abra1d · 19/04/2012 11:59

I agree with the OP. The people benefiting from wind farms are landowners. Not consumers. I strongly object to them and have no land on which to put a turbine so am not being jealous. I just hate them cluttering up the countryside.

They spoil views. They are bad for wildlife. Digging holes and filling them with tons of concrete cannot be good for the land.

We need nuclear power stations or clean coal stations. We still have coal supplies.

YellowWellies · 19/04/2012 12:01

How many tonnes of concrete do you imagine there are in nuclear power stations then? Or 'clean' coal? Hmm

Abra1d · 19/04/2012 12:04

Yes, but the nuclear power stations are not built on sites rich in wildlife and/or of agricultural value, as happens where I live. We have a windfarm on land that was formerly used to grow crops. How does that make sense when we need every inch of agricultural land to grow food?

And usually coal stations are not built on agricultural land,either. Some of those closed in the eighties could perhaps be upgraded for the purpose. There must be other brownfield sites as well.

Mopswerver · 19/04/2012 12:06

Their beauty or otherwise is not an issue for me. I am only concerned about their effectiveness, the noise and the strobing. I suppose what I am asking is are they worth it?

Easily bored loves them but many others don't. The reality is you don't get to choose. I wonder also whether you have seen one of the 100m ones up close? You may well change your opinion due to the factors listed above.

As with other proposed developments (High speed rail, motorways), no-one wants to be the one directly affected by them but they are approved based on their contribution to the common good and those affected compensated. This is not the case with these mega turbines. I don't think the case has been made that they are essential for the common good (that another technology could not provide) and as far as I am aware, there is no compensation awarded to those unlucky enough to live in their path. (correct me if I'm wrong).

Can I ask you YellowWellies whether the average domestic turbine produces enough elec for the average home? I don't have the information on them though I expect is is readily accessible.

StrandedBear · 19/04/2012 12:10

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Mopswerver · 19/04/2012 14:33

Same reason as everyone else I expect Smile

YellowWellies · 19/04/2012 16:07

I've actually climbed up one of the huge ones - a very very trippy experience I can tell you! So yes I have seen them up close - again, and I realise this is an entirely personal opinion, I found it very beautiful. What do you mean by strobing? Is that shadow flicker?

Mopswerver it depends on what sort of domestic turbine you mean and where you live. On the whole I would say those wee roof mounted jobbies are 'eco-bling' that would meet very little of your household needs (unless you live somewhere very windy, and / or are very frugal with your leccy). The slightly larger domestic turbines (the ones that stand alone on the ground, rather than the roof, and look like mini-turbines), provided you are not living in a very dense urban area (which disrupts wind flow) are more likely to do the job. The roof mounted turbines also do a cracking job of transferring vibration down through the structure of your house Confused

Abra1d I think you need to chat to an ecologist - although it sounds counter-intuitive brown field sites are usually much, much higher in ecological value than are monoculture agricultural fields (assuming the farm isn't organic) - you find far greater a number and diversity of species on brownfield sites than on farmland thanks to the wonders of modern agriculture (pesticides, herbicides, industrial harvesting etc). As for wind displacing agriculture - I've never known a windfarm site where farming had to cease during operation (they might lose some croppable area where the turbine bases / tracks are) - on sites I've worked on stock are back on site within days of construction finishing? What was grown on the site? Could you let me know the site name as I'd be really curious to find out why farming has ceased post construction - it really is very odd.

My biggest issues with siting new nuclear and coal plant is that they are usually sited near the coast (or major water courses) for ready access to cooling water. Now given the long lifespans of both plant types, and particularly the very long decommissioning timescales associated with a nuclear fleet - exactly which coastlines should we build them on? Our present one, or the coastline of the future (including the impact of sea level rise and increased frequency and severity of storm surges)? Given that our modelling of sea level rise contains a HUGE amount of uncertainty - who's guess should we stick with for siting? I mean Fukoshima has shown us that sea water and nuclear power stations are not a good mix. And that plant had a gurt big wall built around it so lets not kid ourselves that we can just build a wall to keep the sea out....

Abra1d · 19/04/2012 16:24

I am not going to give you the name, no, as it will expose my location and possibly even who I am. Sorry: that isn't meant to sound rude as you are obviously entirely bona fide and sincere.

And yes losing croppable area owing to turbine base/tracks leading to the site, etc, was what I meant. I don't think I mentioned ecologists, did I? My issue was lack of space for growing food.

Abra1d · 19/04/2012 16:26

Oh I see where you're coming from re. ecologists, sorry. I meant 1. Our local windfarm is on formerly arable land. 2. Other sites I have seen along the M6 for instance, appear to be on grazing land or on moorland.

Mopswerver · 19/04/2012 16:32

YW you say that you lived within 1km of a wind turbine? How far "within"?

Not so far from here is a current application for a 45m turbine which has one house 295m away, another 350m away and another 460m away. Would you be OK with that?. If you honestly wouldn't object then I would say that you are in a very small minority but since you appear to be a turbine-o-phile, lets replace that turbine with a 55m conventional electricity pylon? You'd be OK with that too right? 295m from your home?

I think you are being a touch disingenuous here. Surely you must acknowledge that the SPGs need fine tuning to prevent these sorts off applications even getting through screening?

ohanotherone · 19/04/2012 16:55

Yellowellies:- Whereabouts did you live in mid wales? If you know mid wales, how do you feel about mega turbines covering pretty much all of mid wales and turning mid wales into one big power station with miles and miles of connecting pylons. Do you think that is right? Especially when the case for the common good just doesn't stack up. All of this destruction will only provide a tenth of the energy provided by just one gas power station.

If you know mid wales you will know that the farmers aren't landed gentry or the ruling classes, in the main they are very small family farms will pretty low incomes. The farmers of mid wales are being offered £6000 as compensation for the pylons that will go over them. A new 400KV National Grid line of 26 miles will be need to be created. Destroying the beautiful land is one aspect but these pylons will require a sixteenth of an acre which needs to be fenced off and tractors will not be allowed under them. This land is worth about £7000 per acre so ultimately the farmers will have land removed for very little compensation. It's good crop growing land. The National Grid man I spoke to about this thought the magnitude of the plans for mid wales were appalling but they have a legal obligation to connect these farms to the National Grid if the plans go ahead.

OP posts:
ohanotherone · 19/04/2012 17:03

To put it into perspective....

One thousand square miles of mid wales will be covered with turbines the size of the London Eye!

OP posts:
ragged · 19/04/2012 17:29

I'm worried about terrorists crashing aeroplanes into nuclear reactors. I cannot see how we can defend against that.
And pollution burdens being handed to my GGGGGgrandchildren from conventional nuclear reactor waste.
This explains some of the considerable tech difficulties with thorium reactors. They seem to rely on some dangerous radioactive materials after all.

Micro generation isn't great, hard to make enough energy in an urban environment, anyway. Heat saving, where you have small local energy plants & the waste heat is piped thru the town is a stroke of genius, if the Swedes can do it so should we.

Mopswerver · 19/04/2012 17:42

I went to Sweden in the '80's and they were heating entire towns from waste industrial Hot water. They really had it sussed a long time ago.

ohanotherone · 19/04/2012 17:50

Wind turbines affect radar. Putting windfarms over most of Wales would only add to that risk. You have to have Nuclear anyway as wind is unreliable and needs backup from conventional power stations. My sister is involved in this issue. She thinks the MOD haven't really begun to understand the extent of the planned wind farm coverage with very large turbines.

OP posts:
YellowWellies · 19/04/2012 19:36

Woah Mopswerver I would be very surprised if those separation distances from properties got through planning! Although a 45m turbine is not so noisy as the larger ones, in my mind that is too close, and if it were my client I would be advising them that this is not likely to get through planning. Unless there is a very clear topographical barrier in between the turbine and the properties? Or perhaps the turbine selected is very quiet (some of the new gear-boxless models might be super quiet at this scale). The rules are also different if these properties are going to financially benefit from the turbine (it's considered that if you're getting paid for the turbine you'll put up with some background noise but that other folk should not hear a noise louder than the sound of rural background nighttime noise levels).

It would depend on the noise modelling which the EIA team and the Council's environmental health will both assess, but yes without a lot of background noise in the area / some form of topographical barrier / the other caveats I've mentioned above - I'd be surprised if this passed.

I lived about 550m from a turbine (that was the closest) and at present I have a wee telegraph pole / pylon just on our land next to the house, but given that it is our connection to the grid - I would rather have it than not!

As for radar, well, your sister would know better than me as I'm not a radar expert but I do believe our tactical response radar is due an upgrade, and in many areas is already being upgraded and the new systems have no problem with filtering out turbines and turbine flicker / false shadows. The MOD and CAA take a very very cautious approach to any turbine application and their first instinct is to object and demand very expensive modelling - which given that they are protecting life and limb is entirely understandable. Turbine applications anywhere near the take off and landing cones of airports and close to major air traffic corridors are always a big no no. There is no sense in making air traffic controllers jobs more difficult. Turbines near rainfall and other met' radar are less problematic as there are filters and other technofixes which can be added (at the expense of the turbine developer of course) to the met' radar to ensure it continues to function.

I honestly don't think conventional nuclear is going to be the best base load for the future, it's just not 'turn-off and onable', I am very worried about future sea level rise and the nuclear legacy (ie as I mentioned before where will be safe to build it?), and given that a lot of the planet is dashing for new nuclear fleets - (we've got 60 years worth at current consumption rates, but less than 30 years if all of the new nuclear plant on the drawing board at the moment gets built) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium#Uranium_supply Can you imagine how much the price would rise if there is a global bun fight for the last remaining yellow cake?

A thorium fleet sounds more viable long term from reading around the topic as you avoid the uranium scarcity issue. Sadly, without tax payer subsidy (of orders of magnitude that wind generators can only dream of) no private company will touch building new nuclear with a barge pole. And 'clean' coal is something else that I reckon should play a role - at least we have some coal (!) but again there are massive subsidies needed as this technology is not market ready yet by any means.

I see wind as being a great stop gap elasto-plast technology - it's much much much more reversible than any other alternative, can be decommissioned in days rather than decades, has a carbon payback of months not decades, encourages us to move away from international fuels and resource wars, allows farming to go on simultaneously (in most cases) and well if there is a 'great white hope' new energy revolution technology - none of them are good to go at present. We need to take on a wartime mentality - energy is going to be the issue of this century and at present my view, to steal the words of another is 'lend us your hills' www.wind-works.org/articles/PeterHarperResponsetoRobCollister.html

ohanotherone · 19/04/2012 20:12

You "lived" near a wind turbine, past tense, any reason for that Yellowellies???

www.aweo.org/problemwithwind.html

OP posts:
YellowWellies · 19/04/2012 20:21

Aye my husband got a job in Orkney and we weren't allowed to take the turbine with us when we moved Grin.

I lived near Machynlleth btw in answer to your earlier question.

ohanotherone · 19/04/2012 20:28

Or for a shorter version since you know I don't like to be verbose [:-)]

www.aweo.org/windgrid.html

Wind is only being proposed as an option because fat cats can buy and sell ROC's on the money markets.

Yellowellies - You seem quite passionate, and certainly have some spiel, perhaps you are too young and naive to see through what is pretty apparent to any one who has been forced to look at this issue. This is why you get annoyed with retired engineers, they seem old and fixed in their ideas but you should think hard, they understand the science and maths and realise that massive industrial wind farms aren't a solution, not even an elastoplast one, the only reason it is even considered an option is because somebody, somewhere is making ALOT of cash at taxpayers expense and not their own expense. You need to see that, they are wise people.

OP posts:
YellowWellies · 19/04/2012 20:50

Nope ohanotherone like myself, I can see you're a concise, shy and dispassionate type too Wink. I've read all of that AWEO stuff before, it is brought to public exhibitions again and again. Some of the findings are well referenced (I looked at the full linky not the summary) but so many of the references are very old and refer to sites and technologies no longer in use. It would be like comparing Chernobyl's design to that of a modern reactor. Two different beasts.

I am actually touched that after a four year degree, a Masters degree and 12 years in the industry you think I might be young. That's made my evening - genuinely Grin. Apologies though but I was born cynical and anyone who knew me would soil themselves if the label of naive was applied to me - cheeky sods Grin.... Having achieved a double first from Oxford, I would like to stress that I too am capable of understanding the science and maths - honestly they don't just let you into this job with a week's work experience. We do have to be able to understand maths and science too - those aren't skills uniquely awarded to retired engineers.

Lots of industries, indeed all industries in our capitalist society are only enacted upon by private actors because they make money. I think that ROCs are a great way to get new technologies up and market ready (am thinking of the double and triple ROCs awarded to offshore technologies), I think however that onshore wind no longer needs to receive the level of subsidy Labour granted it as the technology is now up and market ready. We need some form of reward and stimulus to stop the bad boys like E.ON from just burning coal though and taking short termist decisions about our future energy policy but what this should be - I'm not sure, perhaps half ROCs? I would rather rant and scream about PFI hospitals (now they are a waste of taxpayers money and a huge bung in the pockets of private companies) than about wind power if we're onto unworthwhile uses for our taxes? There are indeed legion. Again detractors of wind seem to be particularly angry at this waste - I'm guessing because they genuinely just don't like the technology and apply higher standards / more criticism to it than to other aspects of their life because they don't like it. Something we're all capable of and do...

Mopswerver · 19/04/2012 21:46

No the people in the houses mentioned are not involved... and very worried. Hopefully you will be right.

Swipe left for the next trending thread