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?
Believe it or not Carl, money is not what is important to people who are fighting wind farms.
Once you start to realise how we are ALL being ripped off, then it is about fighting dishonestly,
greed, those who rob the poor to give to the rich, god knows what else ..... saving the environment, caring about the place we live in and much more.
"bribing" communities with promises of riches (or just giving them back what they have already paid in subsidies) is NOT what it is all about.
Giving a bit of money to a few here and there will not pay back the incredible waste of money to all of us that this scam is generating.
And when oh when are people going to realise we are STILL going to need those coal, gas and nuclear powered stations anyway? Having thousands of turbines will actually increase the need for these.
Wind doesn't have to play any part whatsover in reducing carbon emissions unless you want to pay even more money for your electricity and drive industry out of this country.
Carl Holmes commented
we need co operative wind energy schemes were the local community has 10 % of profits made and so has reason to allow
i actually like the look of wind turbines better than having to look at a smoke stack belching out crap
and wind is just one of our future energy needs
solar which the goverment is cutting subsies on but still subsidiesing fossil fuels so doesnt make sense
wave and tidal and waste to energy
most importantly we need to reduce demand through energy efficency and so on
Sorry Jonathan, this is yet again a simplistic view of Denmark and its wind energy.
I have heard that Denmark has stopped putting up onshore turbines because they are so unpopular. They have the most expensive electricity in Europe. Once again, everything is subsidised. They export a huge amount to neighbouring countries (something we cannot do), all at huge expense and it is doubtful whether their CO2 emissions have been cut.
This is an eyeopener - http://www.countryguardian.net/2008.%20Wind%20power%20in%20Denmark.%20%5BDecember%202008%20version%20plus%20%20Refs%5D%20%281%29.pdf
I know that countryguardian are anti-wind but the paper itself is fully referenced. Notice please
the huge loss of sea eagles due to offshore.
Jonathan Brown commented
It s not enough to say we are for Wind Turbines just on their own. People need to know HOW to benefit from having them on their doorstep - through mutuality. In Denmark, 23% of the energy supply comes from 3,000 wind turbines owned by appox 150,000 co-op members - its their BIG Society actually working! We should be promoting community ownership of 10% + of their output. The small market town of Neilston near Glasgow is set to get £4m out of its share/stake in the nearby wind farm. The issue is about the corporate sector calling the shoots in cahoots with government and rubbishing alternatives.
Ruth Jarman commented
Tony, it is GCSE level chemistry that burning C in the presence of O2 gives CO2. It is accepted science that the vibrational energy levels of CO2 are in the IR thus it is a global warming gas. All the major proper scientific organisations in the world state that anthropogenic climate change is real and needs urgent action. There is a lot of misinformation out there that is anti-science and dangerous. If you were on a bus and 1 or 2 people were convinced that it wasn't heading towards the cliff would you not take the brick off the accelerator?
Tony Butler commented
Peter, as you describe me as a 'nut' and rubbish anyone who disagrees with your view, do you know the meaning of the word 'debate'?
It means you offer some facts or proofs to reinforce your arguments, or to disprove the arguments of those opposing your view. To date you seem to do nothing except accuse everyone and anyone of being in cahoots with Big Oil.
So, let me ask you this simple question, because not being bright enough myself to qualify as a light-bulb, I prefer simplicity.
The whole point of green energy is to reduce harmful CO2 emissions. (I assume we can agree upon that?)
If that's the case, exactly what harm CO2 does and to what levels we should reduce CO2 too?
Tony Butler commented
At least you have the common sense not mention the actual CO2 fraud being perpetrated by the UN.
Fact: CO2 cannot cause global warming, except in the realms of science fiction, and UN financial fraud. (Carbon taxes are a wealth redistribution tax designed to benefit Africa, decided upon during its African Review) It was decided that the taxpayers of the West would never agree to a wealth redistribution tax, but a tax on carbon emissions if shown to be essential to save the planet , would be embraced. to Quote the UN's Premier think tank - Club of Rome:
<i>"The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself."
- Club of Rome, premier environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations
Undisputed scientific facts :32/33rds of CO2 emissions are caused by Nature.
The CO2 levels of today, are the product of the Global temperatures that prevailed 800 -2,000 years earlier: 12 AD - 1212 AD,. (As shown by the 600,000 year ice-cores and accepted as a scientific fact in the British High Court, by the Government's scientists and the makers of Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth.) "Mr Gore appears to have inadvertently reversed the science," the Judge said.
Thank you Herbert. Even though I like the idea of a super grid sharing energy I could still never stand to see the whole of the UK covered in wind farms. Nowhere to get away from the demands of our greedy civilisation. I simply can't get this calculation out of my head by a wind farm developer no less -
about 21 mins in. The statistics are staggering and shows the futility of all this - just what we would have to do to produce energy for everyone worldwide by 2035.
Jessie, thanks for your further reply. This is a very interesting discussion, and it would be nice to continue along those lines, but I'm going to take a break for a day or two due to other commitments. I'm not sure about the best way to pick up the thread then – I don't find this kind of commenting format, where it can be difficult to see who's replying to what exactly, particularly convenient. As for your pie in the sky comment, did you have a look at the description of the European supergrid book, which my team translated from German? Here is the link again: http://www.theiet.org/resources/books/renewable/scenarios.cfm I can assure you this isn't pie in the sky, but based on years of solid academic research. My web address is shown at the bottom of that link. You are welcome to contact me privately to discuss this further or, if I don't hear from you, I'll post some further comments here in due course.
Herbert - even if it is all possible (which I doubt) how on earth are we going to fund it?
This country is practically bankrupt - Spain who have tried ARE bankrupt. Germany who are trying are having massive problems with their grid.
I'm sorry the WWF though I am sure they do some very good work are essentially biased.
As for the Alternative Technology Centre (visited there in the 80s)- well i'ts all pie in the sky stuff. As said previously, renewable energy has a place at a local, small level (especially off grid) but to produce the amount of electricity from renewables the world now demands simply isn't possible. But thank you for being civil, I really appreciate that.
I guess, as said before, it is pointless trying to convince each other of the other's opinion. We can just produce evidence from other sources to suit each argument. What is clear though is the level of hatred about wind farms and those who oppose them that now abounds. it is quite astonishing. If they really were fantastic, didn't affect the environment, were cost-effective, actually did what they are supposed to do and reduced carbon emissions, most people would put up with them but they simply don't. At the moment, you don't see that many of them but if DECC have their way then the whole of the UK will be covered in wind farms.
As for offshore - apparently this makes nuclear look cheap! And marine engineers are saying that keeping wind turbines upright in the gravel, tides and storms of the North Sea for 25 years is a near hopeless quest, so the repair bill is going to be unsustainable and the output disappointing. Already the grouting in the foundations of hundreds of turbines off Kent, Denmark and the Dogger Bank has failed, necessitating costly repairs.
Personally, I find it very sad that all this money is being wasted at a time when we could put it into so much better use including energy saving and hundreds of small local projects. Unfortunately there isn't enough profit in that.
The REF have some very good data whatever you may think of them.
Once again, I appreciate you trying to persuade me rather than bully me!
Sarah Clarke commented
Wind Farms will be on par economically with gas and coal by 2016
Dear Jessie, I'm well aware of the so-called Renewable Energy Foundation, which is basically an (only thinly disguised) anti-wind campaign. As for your other comments, perhaps you should have a closer/proper look at the reading material I provided.
Herbert - but WWF are unbiased - receiving donations from the Wind Industry!
They just get emotional - using pics of polar bears to convince us that climate change is
man made and is going to destroy the world without actually having a realistic debate on
how we are going to produce sufficient electricity from renewables. No one actually comes up with the facts to convince realistic people about this one because the facts say otherwise.
Perhaps you would like to check out the renewables data at www.ref.org.uk
We set up a Wind Farm Support Group when a company wanted to set up a wind farm in this area. Community support was behind it but it was rejected by local council and the nimbys were very vocal. It lost on appeal - we spent £40 on a banner, the nimbys £40,000 on their own barrister at the Appeal!
Dear Jessie and all, I have some recommended reading for you:
further to previous -
To the nearest whole number, the percentage of the world’s energy that comes from wind turbines today is: zero. Despite the subsidy (pushing pensioners into fuel poverty while making landowners even richer) despite tearing rural communities apart (not that you care), killing jobs (by sending industry overseas to find a cheaper more reliable source of power), despoiling views, erecting pylons, felling forests, killing bats and eagles, causing industrial accidents, clogging motorways, polluting lakes in Inner Mongolia with the toxic and radioactive tailings from refining neodymium, a ton of which is in the average turbine — despite all this, the total energy generated each day by wind has yet to reach half a per cent worldwide.
In Britain the percentage of total energy that comes from wind is only 0.6 per cent. According to the Renewable Energy Foundation, ‘policies intended to meet the EU Renewables Directive in 2020 will impose extra consumer costs of approximately £15 billion per annum’ or £670 per household. It is difficult to see what value will be got for this money. The total carbon emissions saved by the great wind rush is probably below 1 per cent, because of the need to keep fossil fuels burning as back-up when the wind does not blow. It may even be a negative number.
It is clear that you would like to keep your son in a job and, to be fair, same local wind projects
(not the community-based (bribed) ones you go on about) may have some value though still heavily subsidised. But keeping him in a job isn't going to save the world, even if you cover the whole world (and I mean every spare inch of land) with turbines.
The fact that you don't understand the relevance of how many turbines are required to achieve these unobtainable targets in order to cut carbon emissions (all 2% of them in the UK) and the fact that you don't realise that wind energy can NEVER replace conventiional power stations shows your unbelievable lack of knowledge on this whole subject. You are just afloat in telly tubby land where lovely wind turbines will provide all our energy and everything will be just fine. The fact that you don't even realise that Chris Huhne was actually on your side of the argument shows you haven't a clue what is going on in the big world. I suggest you go play with your little models of wind turbines and dream about how you are saving the planet.
Earlier on you were banging on about foxhunting and berating landowners but you don't mind they are earning vast amounts of money at your expense for a useless technology which won't solve our electricity problems or energy problems.
Well I wish you well in your quest to cover THE WHOLE OF THE WORLD with wind turbines! What a joke.
jessie wilkinsonjessie - you are an obsessive. WTF does it matter how many? We just need as many as possible to avert catastrophe. Yet you keep banging on about a failed politician as if he's relevent. How old are you, fourteen?
Go and tidy your room.
jazzy - nothing is apparent, and you are wrong on everything, so why not on that also. I have never given obscene amounts of money to anyone, never having that much, nor do I support it. Your point about the rich is not, however, an argument against wind power. And if the little communities who are being walked all over apparently were to organiuse and get their act together, get the financing together and make an application for communitiy project, there would not only be a more equitable share of the bounty from wind, but there would be less whining from the likes of you.
The rich will always try to increase theur wealth, it's in the nature of the disease they all suffer from. But if a landowner puts wind turbines on his or her land, I don't really see what your problem is. Should they not be allowed to do anything on their land? Are you just opposed to them or is there a point? It doesn't surprise me in the least that Cameron has ruch inlaws, he is after all a privileged by birth millionaire, ex-Eton, and thinks he has a divine right to rule. It's the fault of those who elected him who obviously fell for it, or perhaps it was because Labour got so corrupt, arrogant and devious under the Liar Blair that enough people though 'we have to get rid of them and teach them a lesson', and isn't that why there's a coalition because people couldn't decide which bunch of crooks to choose?
Don't blame me though, I didn't vote, nor would I for the shower of incompetents, idiots and thieves who present themselves for election. The system is corrupt. But that's nothing to do with wind either.
We are faced with giant foreign utilities companies and rich politicians carving up a growing industry which we have to have. Our home grown wind industry is tiny compared to Germany or Denmark, and they are now geared up for tasking our wind over too, something greens have been warnbing for decades would happen unless renewables got taken seriously and invested in as they were in Europe. We were right, again, and now you see the result of our inaction as a country. And you think that also is the fault of the greens??? Logical you ain't.
For anyone who thinks big, filthy oil isn't financing the anti case.
I've also investigated this Spanish trio's 'resport' as have many others. It's been rubbished since it came out, it is yet another attempts to create doubt and division. It might eveb have been funded by the billionaires in the above article, maybe soemone should investigate the bank accounts of the Spanish 'researchers'.