Pro wind farms. Let's be "for" something for a change!
Government seriously considering u-turn on wind; wind companies' investment on hold due to uncertainty; well-funded anti-campaigns. Is the viability of life on earth more important than a view?
Lynn - forgot to say, you don't get sarcasm too well do you? You didn't catch the little bit of irony in the statement "the lovely Donald Trump". Never mind..... Guess you would have objected then to Donald Trump's take over of the land etc up there in Scotland which clearly appalls you, you might even have been a NIMBY no less. I don't care what he is like, he sees sense on one of the western world's most unprogressive energy policies and has the money to do something about it - he is probably heavily backed by the oil/coal/nuclear industry though don't you think?
Boiled frogs come to mind !!!
Lynn - knew the mention of dear old Donald would really really rattle your cage.... and David,
like your idea of having a noble aim but not so keen on the way you plan to achieve it.
I need to get this right though - I try and put my opinion across (and incidentally I am not alone of course), do supply links etc, but I am a lunatic, NIMBY, selfish, idiot, a liar of the first degree, not of the right mind, idiot and plain old wrong etc etc. You lot on the other hand supply biased links all the time (always connected to the industry or the green movement of some description) but just shout anyone down who has a different opinion to yourselves.
I am right, Green (in every sense of the word) IS the new RED!!!! I just don't get it - here we are fighting a war in Afghanistan in the supposed name of democracy and it is blatantly dead in the water in this country.
And to think I used to be one of you before I saw the light/opened my eyes and looked at the big picture. I always had a non-believing, don't believe what they tell you kind of attitude and so I opted to see a bit beyond the end of my idealistic nose.
All I can say at this juncture - start buying up candles cos you is really really going to need 'em man!
Lynn Davies commented
Ah, Jessie - so when you stated so confidently that Australia had introduced mandatory 2km buffer zones around wind farms, you KNEW you were lying. I did wonder whether it was ignorance or dishonesty on your part (it's often very hard to tell with the maniacs of the anti-windfarm minority).
And yes, I say "maniacs" advisedly - because you said how lovely Donald Trump and his money was for opposing one of the most progressive energy policies in the western world. So I'm afraid to have to break this to you, Jessie, but you are insane. Your blinkered prejudice and willingness to believe and to repeat anything, no matter how ludicrous and contrary to the truth, has tipped you over the edge. You are, without doubt, a NIMBY. Why not look up the documentary "You've Been Trumped" (www.youvebeentrumped.com) and find out what that despicable Trump is really like.
Oh, and there you go again with your demented conspiracy theories ... The noise consultants I have spoken to are independent, you loony! But you only like the one who has no qualifications (I think you know the one I mean) but routinely opposes wind farms regardless. So, I discuss ETSU-R-97 with independent noise consultants while you won't hear from anybody but the one unqualified noise consultant who's against it. You're a moron, Jessie. A strident, obsessive, dangerous, delusional, paranoid idiot with a disgraceful lack of concern or consideration for the facts, for honesty, for your country or the planet. Now why don't you crawl back to the Mail on Sunday and leave us all alone.
Jessie, Whatever energy sources are used to produce electricity, the industry as a whole has to respond to surges in demand. The larger the system, the more easily these surges are predicted, hence the National Grid, and indeed our connection to the French system when necessary. In the case of wind power and other renewables, there will also be surges in supply, which will be pretty easy to predict and cater for, again, in a large system like the National Grid.
Now I can only repeat, nobody has said that wind power, or any renewable, is likely to be our sole provider of power for the forseeable future, and that is not the objective at the present time. With our present system of consumption, and our inability yet to store surplus supply efficiently, we do need other means of generation which we can bring in on demand. Renewables simply reduce our dependence on other, polluting systems, and could do so dramatically if the will is there. Surely that is a noble goal? Surely no right-minded person could argue with that?
In the longer term we need to curb our slavish demand for energy, and very possibly a mix of various renewables could meet a modified demand. Some of these renewables actually can be controlled, including geothermal by a simple and rapid process of changing the interface between heat source and generator. So it could become entirely feasible to dispense with other forms of power in time. But we need to do this quickly, and address the challenge NOW, in order to advance the technologies.
The figure of 150 million figures largely here. Firstly, we have consumed in the last 150 years much of the fossil fuel which took around 150 million years to lay down. Do the maths....we are consuming these resources one million times more quickly than they can be replaced. And so carbon dioxide is also being released into our environment one million times faster than it was captured. Again, no right minded person can argue with that.
And secondly, dinosaurs reigned for around 150 million years, whilst our species has only been around for around 200,000 years. We will almost certainly become an extinct species before we have reached 250,000 years if we continue on our present course. Which means that the thick old dinosaur outlived us by 600 times longer than we are likely to survive. This would be tragic, but far more so as we will be taking many other species with us. And I don't think that any right-minded person can argue with that.
As to nuclear, we've seen what that has done. And make no mistake, it will happen again. No right-minded person wants that!
Don't know if you know - Australia is a big country with different states, maybe you should check out NSW. English NIMBYS do in fact know that about Scotland - Scotland recommends a 2km setback but this is flauhted by wind farm developers and backed by the wonderful Alex Salmond who is hell bent on turning Scotland into a renewable energy theme park. Thankfully we have the lovely Donald Trump coming along in on the team to help the thousands of protesters, sorry, NIMBYS there, including the veritable John Muir Trust.
The government presently listens to noise consultants hired by the wind industry. This must be who you listen to too. More independent noise consultants, I can assuure you, know that ETSU-R-97 is inadequate and outdated. (god, even some local councils admit that one!)
Wende, thanks for the lesson about sea eagles. Well, the point much earlier when you weren't around was the RSPB are in favour of wind farms and object only when birds are threatened internationally (all the other poor sods can fend for themselves). The link I gave ages ago proved this as they did object in that instance but it did no good. It was also to prove that sea eagles ARE being killed. The RSPB, as said before and as you know, are backed by the wind industry therefore CANNOT be unbiased in their judgement. They, like you, are happy to employ the "end justifies the means" theory. Personally, I don't - I just don't understand I am sorry why we have to destroy what we are pertaining to protect in name of a controversial "theory" - ie manmade climate change. Even you have to admit this is being increasingly challenged.
Perhaps you would be interested in the opposite side to the RSPB but then you will just say they are biased too http://savetheeaglesinternational.org/?page_id=864
It is interesting at least to read their open letter to the RSPB. There is concern worldwide about bird deaths. But of course you lot will think the end justifies the means or two wrongs do make a right - power stations etc, road accidents, etc kill birds, so, so can we.
Regarding accidents around wind farms - http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/page4.htm
David - Lynn says I don't understand basic physics but perhaps you could explain to me exactly how the energy gap is going to be filled when the wind does not blow and we don't have enough for our needs/greed from other renewable sources?
Lynn Davies commented
Jessie - as usual, your "information" is wildly inaccurate. Australia has NOT implemented a mandatory 2km exclusion zone around turbines. The state of Victoria looked into it and decided that there was absolutely no need for such a buffer zone (http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201103/16/winds_of_change_assessment_of_planning_permits_for_victorian_wind_farms_goes_local.page)
No - I'm afraid you're repeating NIMBY myths again - like the English NIMBY myth that Scotland has a 2km exclusion zone (Scottish NIMBYs, meanwhile, like to pretend that England has one). That's what comes of living in your NIMBY echo-chamber and never, ever investigating the facts.
You and your like do not ask sensible questions until supporters of green energy like me go off-the-rails. You just screech a load of nonsense, constantly shifting your ground, skittering from one foolish bit of misinformation to another, without ever taking the trouble to listen to those who know. Constantly repeating lies does not a civilised argument make.
ETSU-R-97 is described by most of the professional noise consultants I've spoken to as "holding up robustly". Again, you cite yet another NIMBY myth - that the modern, larger wind turbines are noisier than the older generation models. That, I'm afraid, is just stupid, like your claim to base your arguments on the laws of physics, which it seems you don't really understand at all.
Wendé Anne Maunder commented
Hello again Jessie. I’m not quite sure what your comment “Scaremongering again?!” means. But hey!
About the RSPB, I am a member and well aware of their connection and commitment to green energy. They are quite open about it and the fact that for every member who converts to a green energy company, that company will donate £14 to the RSPB. I have no problem about that whatsoever.
I probably know more about sea eagles than you do and I am delighted that these stupendous raptors have been reintroduced to Scotland and they deserve every bit of protection they receive. They certainly do lift my spirits.
The last known sea eagle in the UK lived in Shetland. She was an albino (all white) and the locals had protected her for over 30 years. Eventually she was shot in 1918 and the sea eagle became extinct in Britain. They had been wiped out because of persecution by farmers and gamekeepers. Although white-tailed or sea eagles were extinct in Britain, they continued to breed successfully in Norway and efforts to reintroduce the birds to Scotland started in 1968. Young birds were transported to the West of Scotland from nests in Norway. The success of this strategy is evident and the current population in Scotland is thought to be around 48 pairs but they are still very rare. In recent years a pair of sea eagles was reintroduced to the East of Scotland and has successfully raised young. Some birds from the west coast have made their way east - attracted by the new colony on the other side of the country.
Unfortunately the eagles are not safe yet, as many of the nests (also called eyries) need to be constantly monitored to prevent thieves from taking their eggs. They are also sometimes found poisoned or shot. Organisations such as Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) and the RSPB as well as many individuals and local groups are working to protect these amazing creatures.
Perhaps you would furnish me with statistics about the number of people who would welcome a nuclear power station in their backyards. But you are a little reticent about providing evidence to support your statements while you illogically insist that I should ‘check out the stats’ of ` the ‘little accidents’ pertaining to wind turbines myself. From what I already know, the relatively few deaths and injuries attributable to wind energy are caused in accidents during transportation to and construction of turbines on the chosen sites. Of course there are unsupported claims made by people who are opposed to wind farms.
Well Jessie, no doubt you've seen the BBC 6pm news today, and learned that the Fukushima disaster will cost £133 billion (so far), with communities over 25 miles away rendered totally uninhabitable for many generations. The nuclear lobby conveniently ignores such figures in its costings, but it is dishonest to dismiss them or to pretend that such disasters will not happen in the future, and no-one yet can accurately estimate the long-term costs of safely disposing of the spent fuel rods, or the decommissioning of the plants which, unlike wind farms, DO have a limited life. Hinckley Point is less than 30 miles from my home, and whilst I am not at all happy about that, I do hope for more wind generators in my area, and indeed closer to my home.
I do not think that anybody would suggest siting power plants of any type within an unacceptable distance of residential areas, but this, evidently, is the crux of the matter - not the question of the viability of wind power, but its location. And the problem is that this simple fact so polarises opinions, that opponents use illogical and dishonest arguments to support their case. I really suspect that the 'noise' issue has been raised because people object to the visible impact of any building in their locality and realise that under planning law no one is entitled to an uninterrupted view. This may be unfortunate, but the alternative implication would be that people have control over land which they do not own, which would of course be absurd. So objectors search for alternative arguments, and in doing so make frankly ridiculous claims. I don't intend to enter this area again, but I will make one last point.
I am absolutely dedicated to wildlife in general, to birds in particular, and especially to raptors. But again in terms of wind farms this is a siting issue. I hope that there will be a huge increase in the number of wind generators, but that they will be sensibly placed, avoiding AONBs, SSSIs, National Parks, known bird migratory routes, and any other areas where there is a serious threat to wildlife. And as a qualified MMO, I assure you that far more cetaceans are killed in the search for fossil fuels than sea eagles are killed by wind farms. Are the implications not obvious?
Calvin Malham commented
I've just be made aware that one of the leading lights (or spouter of bullsh*t,) of the climate change deniers/anti wind power is the uber-looney, 'messianic' David Icke. Classic. Speaks volumes! I thought he had ascended to a higher plane years ago. This- http://www.davidicke.com/headlines/61287-the-global-warming-hoax-is-now-killing-people pile of hogwash shows how he confuses extreme weather with climate change. The antis really must wheel him out a bit more, and watch the crowds flock to him. "At the heart of his theories lies the idea that the world is becoming a global fascist state, that a secret group of reptilian humanoids called the Babylonian Brotherhood controls humanity, and that many prominent figures are reptilian, including George W. Bush, Queen Elizabeth II, Kris Kristofferson, and Boxcar Willie." Thanks Wikipedia. Seriously, what's he got against poor Boxcar Willie?
Sorry David - I just noticed how far your turbines are going to be away from you - 4 miles!!!!
Try 500metres and see if you welcome those ones!!!!
Sorry you thnk I am spiteful in my approach. Did you read any of the posts to me?! That's
spiteful! Glad you are happy with your turbines and hope it works out for you.
Scaremongering again?! You haven't been reading all the other comments made about the RSPB then? ie their connection to RSPB energy and the fact that they cannot be unbiased about wind farms? What a shame you show your lack of knowledge about sea eagles. Just because you haven't seen them in England or Wales, then they don't deserve our protection?
Oh well the end justifies the means... as long as we save the world then it doesn't matter what we destroy in the process. Actually you can see sea eagles in Scotland - go there now and see these magnificant creatures before all the off shore wind farms are installed. This is what lifts my spirits, not some useless white windstick in the middle of the ocean. Everyone to their own though.....
Actually, you would be surprised how many people would welcome a nuclear power station in their backyards. These bring real jobs to real people. And of course wind turbines are not without their little accidents here and there are they? Check out the stats to that one. It is only a matter of time before a member of the public gets killed by a blade flying off etc. Workmen at sites already have been killed. But of course you will think I am scaremongering.
Wendé Anne Maunder commented
@Herbert: Some people are not worth the space or the time. Now I see we have developers deliberately going out of their way to kill sea eagles! Where in the whole of England and Wales does anyone see a sea eagle?
If Jessie is going to post a link in support of her ignorant opinions she ought to read its content first and she will find that the RSPB is actually in favour of Wind Farms as long as they are not sited in areas which are inhabited by rare birds. In fact, the RSPB states that it believes "CLIMATE CHANGE POSES THE GREATEST LONG-TERM THREAT TO WILDLIFE AND STRONGLY SUPPORTS THE DEVELOPMENT OF RENEWABLE ENERGY INCLUDING WIND FARMS." As Jessie obviously didn't read the whole of the link she posted I have copied the last two paragraphs here:
"The RSPB believes climate change poses the greatest long-term threat to wildlife and strongly supports the development of renewable energy including wind farms, so long as they are well sited. The Norwegian government ignored warnings of the consequences for wildlife of the Smøla wind farm proposal before it was built. Dr Mark Avery, Conservation Director at the RSPB said, ‘The eagles’ deaths confirm the fears we expressed at that time and show how devastating a poorly sited wind farm can be.’
‘Wind farms can and should be helping us tackle climate change and can do so without affecting important wildlife sites. It is vital now that environmental impact assessments take full account of conservationists’ advice and that those assessments help form the backbone of future decisions on wind farm applications.’
Courtesy of the RSPB
As for everything else she has written, I can only assume that she would be very happy to see a nuclear power station built near where she lives, And if it becomes damaged, she will smile sweetly and say: "Oh, well, accidents do happen."
Herbert Eppel commented
Jessie, following our exchanges a few days ago I was hoping we could return to some of the issues we discussed and explore them further in a polite, calm and considered manner, but, having now read some of your recent comments, this seems unlikely, unfortunately.
PS also noticed you took great care not to mention we NIMBYS as the Industry has been warned against this.
But now we are nonsensical whingers I see. Everyone to their own I guess......
As for denying bird deaths from birdchoppers - the things you counter with are/were accidents.
Wind farm developers knowingly put these things up which makes it inexcusable. And sea eagles don't get killed by road accidents.
Sorry Jessie, you obviously jump to unjustified conclusions. I certainly do not work in the industry. I am aware of a Dr David Maunder who does, but he is not a known relation of mine, and I have never had any contact with him, either directly or indirectly. I am a retired English teacher, with several post graduate environmental qualifications, but I have also worked in the planning world for some time.
I live some ten miles from the firing ranges on Salisbury Plain, and would gladly replace the sound of the guns, which frequently rattle both windows and furniture in my home, with some nice peaceful wind generators. In fact, we are to have three sited about four miles from my home, and I welcome them.
Having read through your comments with increasing distaste, is it really necessary to be so spiteful in your approach?
Ah yes David, I guess you wouldn't have a bad word to say about any renewable energy as you work in the industry itself.
All negative aspects, dismissed!!!!
"virtually no loss of land" - mmm I lke that one particularly.
Are RES still denying everything to do with AM by the way?
I am appalled by the unending stream of disinformation disseminated by the anti wind power lobby. Of course there are parts of our beautiful countryside where it would be inappropriate to site wind generators, but in general it lifts my heart to see these aesthetically pleasing structures quietly working away on our behalf to bring us clean renewable energy. Yes, 'quietly', because I have visited several wind farms, (Delabole, in Cornwall, and several in Wales), and stood beneath them. Newer and larger generators can at times produce low-frequency sound which can travel further, but this is insignificant compared with most industrial and traffic noise. The simple answer is to trial new style generators in remote areas, inviting people concerned at plans for them to be sited in their areas to visit the trial sites, ignoring their objections if they fail to do so. I live in a small, attractive Wiltshire village, and would be very happy indeed to have a wind farm nearby. There can be no better use for the redundant military bases in this area, and I would gladly see Salisbury Plain reclaimed from the military, and put to this peaceful and productive use. It would certainly be quieter!
Individual generators occupy very little space, and there is virtually no loss of land, as around and beneath them can be farmed. Off shore wind farms should become no fishing areas. In New Zealand, when such zones were originally proposed, although there was initial opposition from fishermen, they very soon reversed their opposition when they found that these protected nursery zones quickly replenished depleting fish stocks. A win-win situation all round.
The claim that wind generators have a limited life span of about 25 years is also deliberately misleading. Yes, some moving components wear out, as with all electrical generators, but these components represent a tiny fraction of the overall cost. The main expense is the infrastructure, which, once in place, requires minimal maintenance. And the energy source, unlike fossil or nuclear fuels, is virtually inexhaustible, and of course, transports itself to the site!
Fossil fuels have caused many fatalities and massive pollution over the years. If nuclear energy has so far caused fewer fatalities, it has certainly created horrific pollution, with both Chernobyl and Fukushima rendering huge land areas unusable for generations to come, and forcing the evacuation of thousands of people from their homes and communities. And the main reason we focussed on Uranium rather than Thorium as a fuel source is because it provides weapons grade material with which to kill millions. If we build in the fatalities at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nuclear actually has a very high fatality rate. And our continued reliance on diminishing resources is already causing 'international tensions,' (a euphemism for war, and the deaths of many people), which will inevitably escalate very soon.
Bird kill may be an issue with wind farms, although I am not convinced of this, and motor vehicles account for many thousands of times any bird fatalities which wind farms may cause. And the quantity of wildlife and abandoned farm animals and pets around Chernobyl and Fukushima massively outweighs wind farm bird kill, with huge numbers of creatures suffering horrific and lingering deaths in these deserted areas.
There is also a ludicrous claim that renewable energy sources cannot totally replace other forms of power generation. I use the word ludicrous, because nobody has ever claimed that it can. But it can certainly reduce our dependence on other sources, very significantly if the will is there, and the anti lobby stops its nonsensical whinging.
So please can we have a little common sense and honesty in this debate. In fact, can we end the debate as soon as possible, and get on with the business of extending our renewable energy sources whilst we still have time. (If indeed there is still time).
Oh dear oh dear Lynn, how funny because we play a game too with you lot. We just continue to ask sensible questions and you continue to be unable to answer them. We just wait til your cage is really rattled and you get totally verbally abusive, accusing us more and more of being a NIMBY. Funny that too, just a few posts back you were bemoaning the terrible battle you had with your particular NIMBYS who apparently bullied you to death and here you are trying to do exactly the same to us. Clearly, you gave them some run for their money!
We are not trying to shout anyone down, merely put over a different opinion from you and clearly we are privvy to a different set of facts too. It is now you who are trying to shout us down and this is something I continually notice with the so-called greens. You are stupid, ignorant or whatever if you do not agree with your ideas. And why would we admit to being wrong? Our ideas/facts are based on basic physics. You want Britain to make some progress apparently - our view is that you are trying to take us back to some airy fairy pre-industrial times when wind was ditched for more reliable energy sources and you want to do this at a time when the population is growing and we are becoming steadily more demanding in our use of energy. Crazy to many, sorry!
As for Jane and Julian Davis - you have effectively declared them liars and insane, as no sane person would put themselves through what they did. As said previously, the noise from industrial wind turbines does not affect everyone, how do you know for example that their in-laws were not affected so severely or could simply not afford to move out? We do know that their child was affected severely. And, as said before, they did not object to the wind farm, mistakeningly believing it to be "green". We would be very very interested to know where you got that information about them from since as the case reached the High Court, everything should have been confidential. So, after trashing their lives, personalities and integrity you still have not explained why Australia has imposed a setback distance and taken seriously complaints from residents, sorry NIMBYS? Also, did you know that the Danes are compensated for living near a wind farm so at least they can afford to move out and sell their homes to wind farm lovers like you.
We are really impressed though - you say "In terms of acoustics, wind turbines are relatively simple. At 300 metres, they are no louder than a domestic fridge" We know people who have studied ETSU-R-97, the government's noise recommendations which maybe even you can admit are seriously out of date for today's sized turbines, for years + noise from turbines and you have summed it all up in one sentence, well done!Just wonder why all those people/NIMBYS on the internet keep moaning on and on about adverse health effects then when clearly, from your extensive research, based on one sentence, there really is no problem. Wonder why the government even bothers to have any regulations at all?
Our conclusion is that you "greens" actually care little about your environment as even you could not say that industrial wind turbines cause no harm. The end continually justifies the means it would seem. Instead you live in fear of being caught in a flood or whatever is the latest theory of what will happen with impending climate change. You are all very worried about yourselves, certainly not worried about those poor old sea eagles are we? Sorry Lynn, your cage got rattled quite soon but better luck next time.