The turbines at Kessingland and Gisleham
Update: As ministers argue over wind farm policy, what do you think?
By MARTIN GEORGE
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
12:55 PM
Conservative and Liberal Democrat energy ministers today clashed in public over government policy on wind farms in the countryside.
Analysis: Turbine plans in Norfolk
The issue of wind turbines is a subject that has caused many a heated debate in Norfolk villages for several years.
You can pretty much guarantee that every time an application is submitted, it is followed by the setting up of san action group to fight the proposals.
Anti-turbine groups fear that giant masts in Norfolk and Waveney will blight the countryside and people’s homes, while those in the pro camp are keen to see the region do its bit to meet green energy targets.
This year alone there have been several high-profile cases.
In June a High Court judge gave new ammunition to onshore wind-farm objectors after rejecting plans for four 105-metre high turbines near Hemsby and Ormesby, near Great Yarmouth, after ruling that government renewable energy targets should not override local planning policies.
In her ruling against the appeal by developer SLP Energy, Mrs Justice Lang said a planning inspector had been entitled to her view that government energy targets were outweighed by the harm the scheme would cause to the character and appearance of the area.
Meanwhile, earlier this month a renewable energy firm’s hopes of building three giant wind turbines in south Norfolk were dashed when a planning inspector dismissed its appeal.
Oxfordshire-based TCI Renewables appealed against South Norfolk Council’s decision in 2010 to refuse planning permission for three 126m high turbines at Upper Vaunces Farm between Rushall, Dickleburgh, Pulham Market and Pulham St Mary.
But in a report issued by inspector Zoe Hill - following a lengthy inquiry - the proposals were refused on the grounds of impact on local residents and affect on the landscape and local listed buildings.
The applicants said the turbines would generate enough renewable energy to power about 3,500 homes.
And in August this year, councillors threw out a plan to build an 86.5m wind turbine on the edge of a north Norfolk village.
After a debate that lasted about 90 minutes, North Norfolk District Council’s (NNDC) development committee rejected the bid to build a single turbine on the edge of Bodham.
The Tory energy minister John Hayes condemned the “peppering” of wind farms across the countryside, insisting: “Enough is enough.”
He said the spread of turbines “seems extraordinary” and they should no longer be “imposed on communities”, and said new research on wind turbines would make a far wider assessment of their impact on the rural landscape and property prices.
However, his Lib Dem boss Energy Secretary Ed Davey this morning said government policy had not changed.
He said: “There are no targets – or caps – for individual renewable technologies such as onshore wind. Nor are there reviews being done of onshore wind on the basis of landscape or property values.
“What we’re currently consulting on are ways of making sure local communities feel the benefit of hosting wind farms, and whether our understanding of future costs is accurate.”
Mr Hayes’ comments came as music to the ears of campaigners in communities in Norfolk where wind farm plans have been defeated.
Jonathan Powell, chairman of the Creakes Action for Protecting the Environment which has campaigned against six turbines, supported any moves to take into account the impact of turbines on the countryside.
He said: “We are a nation of 60 million people jammed in a very small island where open spaces are rare and we need to guard them and we need to guard them jealously because most of our population is urban and for them an open space is not being used properly if nothing is being built on it. We need to keep these empty spaces.
“If you look at the amount of carbon saved when measured against the amount of carbon the nation produces, and if you look at the amount of electricity they produce, in both cases they are piddling in the wind.”
However, Geoff Hinchliffe, spokesman for the Campaign Against Nimbyism in Shipdham which has fought a decade-long battle with fellow villagers over plans for two 100m wind turbines, suspected Mr Hayes’ comments were more about politics than changing government policy.
He said: “I want to know what he is playing at because the head of that department is very much in support of them. I think it’s party politics again. I think it’s the Tories going against the coalition agreement and trying to get their own way again.”
He added that while there were places where wind turbines should not be built because of the impact on the countryside, he believed any government analysis would of the issue would be biased against wind farms, and Mr Hayes was “scare mongering”.
For more analysis and to find out what councils and environment campaigners in this region think of the plans see tomorrow’s paper.
Other News Articles
- Norfolk is... wonderful beaches which have a special place in our hearts
- Firefighters called to St Benedicts Street in Norwich
- Company’s first feature film gets premiere
- Hethersett Old Hall School celebrates 75th anniversary
- Council to draw up a Plan B in case Norfolk incinerator contract is axed
- Councillors to make decision on 900 new homes for Thorpe St Andrew
- A feline star is born after the purrfect cat takes her close-up
- Family’s tribute to Sprowston motorcyclist killed in A47 crash
- Community editors of the EDP describe what Norfolk is... to their area
- Plight of Beccles soldier raised in parliament
ADVERTISEMENT
49 comments
If you wait long enough, the eastern US coast experience and its consequences will be real in your back yard. It will take our entire effort and will to counteract the alternative. How does $50 billion sound as a tax levy? Nicholas Stern had this figured out several years ago. How much reality will it take to get your attention?
Report this comment
lecourt
Monday, November 5, 2012
Either that or take the nuclear option. There is no other answer. Nuclear power is plentiful, sustainable and clean. And Mother Earth will have a glow of pleasure when we humans have self-destructed. A few billion years later, there could be a new start. Rich folk, book your cryogenic space capsules now! So the same people that caused Armageddon can use their specialist skills in Greed to repeat that achievement. God willing.
Report this comment
Mad Brewer
Sunday, November 4, 2012
Build a wind farm in Stalham churchyard. It might stop that hooligan in the High Street defiling our environment with those black solar panels on his black roof. Clearly visible to local helicopter afficionados. The real solution, in the big picture, is to cull 90% of humanity, starting with very rich people, who cannot help but consume the most resources. It`s called greed.
Report this comment
Mad Brewer
Sunday, November 4, 2012
JB You are fortunate that your post is even being read, far less replied to. It is a rule here that anyone using the "Nimby" word is generally ignored.However, all rules have exceptions. You clearly haven't bothered to read the posts below yours and clearly don't understand the subject. So, before you criticise those who understand the subject you may well be advised to read the earlier posts at least. Mine, for example will explain the inefficiency of your " wind turbines, the bigger the better. " You may also, perhaps, understand that no matter how many of your huge ones we have there is zero output in zero wind.Perhaps looking at www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk may let you see the error of your ways, have a look at the wind output graph and then tell me what a great idea wind energy is. The ONLY reason for building a wind turbine is to genearate money, they have little or no capability to generate useable electricity
Report this comment
Windless
Saturday, November 3, 2012
We can't use fusion yet, and may never be able to, we'll see in time if the hadron collider sheds any 'light' on that, it may never crack fusion, we can't carry on burying our heads in the sand 'or depleted uranium' using nuclear or what it still is, steam power, we can't use tidal with the surface versions, daft idea, you'd never generate enough energy, underwater tidal turbines may be more effective, and in the meantime we must at least try wind turbines, the bigger the better. You doubters are like the people who doubted steam power for cars, that lead to something else, you have to start somewhere, and running a poll on a website full of nimbys doesn't give the true picture. Most people, the majority don't mind the idea, so they keep quiet, it would be better to put it out as a vote for all to make, all that vote are against, anyone who doesn't is either for them or isn't bothered, which would be the majority. Shame you can't see the damage our energy sources generate as you would soon prefer some giant wind turbines instead. It's amazing how selfish and short sighted so many humans are opposing green'er energy, when it is the same who would benefit, along with all the generations to come, you may think it's all about you, but all of us alive now really are in the scheme of things, insignificant, think bigger than your backyard nimbys, please.
Report this comment
Jason Bunn
Saturday, November 3, 2012
Wind farms are not energy efficient, if they were they wouldnt be so heavily subsidised by us through our electricity bills. They aea an economic disaster waiting to happen. They are destroying the tourist industry especially in scotland. Land owners are becoming increasingly richer form these subsidies whilst the rest of the rural population is having to live with them. There is now increasing evidence that they can cause wind turbine syndorm and effect peoples health. People in rural areas are having their democratic rights eroded by the flawed planning policy allowing them to be developed. If you want to reduce carbon emmissions then you have to look at all aspects of saving carbon. Peat bogs in Scotland are being built on which is a national disgrace,this is potentially one of the best natural resources in the world for absorbing carbon. Scotlands bogs need to be restored to return them to full effiiceincy. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to work out that by restoring the bogs would increase carbon absorption hugely. we could then sell carbon credits. But on no. lets build wind farms on them because as usual we have governments and politicains who cant see further than the nose in front of their faces.Building these turbines in such huge numbers when there is so much evidence that they are not doing what they claim to do is absoultely ridiculous. Incidently I am an environmental worker before any one says I dont care about the environment, I care very much thats why I have made this statement.
Report this comment
Susan Rutherford
Saturday, November 3, 2012
whilst our earth has a moon there will be tides! These are not fickle like the wind. Tidal power is the answer.Damming The Wash or the Severn estuary ,for example,would cause an outcry but creation of upscaled modern versions of tidal 'mills' ,eg Woodbridge, would be acceptable.
Report this comment
David Sayer
Saturday, November 3, 2012
whilst our earth has a moon there will be tides! These are not fickle like the wind. Tidal power is the answer.Damming The Wash or the Severn estuary ,for example,would cause an outcry but creation of upscaled modern versions of tidal 'mills' ,eg Woodbridge, would be acceptable.
Report this comment
David Sayer
Saturday, November 3, 2012
How easily some of the electorate is brainwashed into thinking wind turbines are green and produce copious amounts of electricity. Really study the facts on pollution in this country and abroad and you will find tturbines are CO2 producers. The electricity produced is miniscule and the subsidies are totally unsustainable. Scotland will be bankrupt Turbine Alex gets his way, England and Wales will follow and with landowners raking in so much cash they won't want to be bothered getting into their tractors to farm the land for food.
Report this comment
Freezin
Friday, November 2, 2012
Mr Hinchliffe, that rarest of creatures anywhere near Shipdham, who actually wants the 2 planned (again, and again)for there, must be somewhat upset by the ratio of this poll. Much to my surprise it almost exactly reflects the ratio of those against at Bodham and is near enough to those who passed objections to the planners for the doomed N Walsham application. Perhaps the message is finally getting through!
Report this comment
Windless
Friday, November 2, 2012
Interesting discussion on 'Material World' (BBC R4) just now about the storage of energy from variable and intermittent sources - the main concern, apparently, is what to do with the excess energy produced by these sources (Professor John Loughhead FREng FCGI OBE, Executive Director UKERC), not how to cope when they are not producing - i.e. Windless when it's windless. Available to listen or download from BBC R4 site.
Report this comment
Thoreauwasright
Thursday, November 1, 2012
if you are looking for a clue as to why the Tories have done a U-turn on energy policy - away from renewables - here it is: "Lord Howell is the father of George Osborne's wife, Frances. Lord Howell is a foreign office minister with responsibility for international energy issues in the Lords, but it is his role as president of the British Institute of Energy Economics that is exercising Greenpeace. The Institute has Shell, BP and BG Group as corporate members, while the Energy Department is one of its eight sponsors." Scurrilous sedition from the Usual Suspects (Grauniad, Indy)?. No. The Torygraph A matter of public record
Report this comment
martin wallis
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Watch this space :)
Report this comment
Thoreauwasright
Thursday, November 1, 2012
The windmills (or water pumps as they didn't actually do any milling) were used to lift water from low lying areas of land into cuts and rivers at higher levels which would drain into the sea. They were very good at their job and because of the use of dykes and banks the drained areas did not become flooded when the wind stopped. In fact I'm amazed to discover that the Brograve mill at Waxham was built in 1771 and continued working until 1930. Your argument simply doesn't hold water and, despite all your 'cut and paste' repetition of figures you still fail to grasp the concept of a renewable energy mix.
Report this comment
Thoreauwasright
Thursday, November 1, 2012
I think YOU may find windmills were abandoned for exactly the same reasons that they are unacceptable now. Water pumping was important to reduce the water table, in a period of low or no wind the water level would cause flooding of low lying land. In a period of low or no wind, electricity windmills also have no output in exactly the same impractical way as their predecessors. In neither case can we wait for the wind if we want the energy. The whole of the Fens is now pumped electrically, it's a good job we don't have to rely on wind power for that job, just as our predecessors couldn't! And, BTW, it still isn't windy enough...........onshore.
Report this comment
Windless
Thursday, November 1, 2012
I think you may find that the windmills were abandoned or converted because fossil fuels became cheap, transportable and therefore readily available and nobody was aware or concerned about the long term environmental damage caused by their use. Thankfully some of us have seen the light!
Report this comment
Thoreauwasright
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Chas, Brian. The DECC (Gov't Dep't) windflow for this area at an altitude of 45m above ground level is circa 6.3 metres per second. From the Enercon E82 2000Kw wind turbine data sheet, at 6metres per second it puts out a whole 321Kw!! 16% of its rated power. This explains why 1 It should be offshore, at 12metres per second it puts out 4 times that. 2 Why all the thousands of windmills built for mostly water pumping were abandoned as soon as a practical alternative was invented. In a nutshell, it simply isn't windy enough onshore!!
Report this comment
Windless
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Chas, I would suggest psychological rather than physiological and please would you provide a reliable source for the information you suggest I look up. People do not have to leave or fight to remain sane – this is symptomatic of a society in which people feel they have to be victims. Wind power is meant to be a clean part of an energy mix, not energy security (as has been stated many times in these columns). In terms of the ratio of power input to power output would you please explain how you arrive at the figure of 20%. Where is it stated that £100 on everyone’s bills is directly and solely caused by the erection and commissioning of wind turbines? The noise nuisance is a myth – if you can spare the time visit the wind turbine at Swaffham where you can stand directly beneath it (no charge) and there is more noise from traffic 500m away and how on earth do they cause loss of recreation?
Report this comment
Thoreauwasright
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Regarding the points you made, [1] Most of the ‘health problems’ are subjective. that's physiology for you - it is subjective. payouts, people leaving homes, council tax going down - look it up. [2] This is the real reason for the Nimbys’ red faces – money! ? money. move into your home and then have to leave or fight to remain sane? that one is below the belt when it's the wind companies making all the money for free. 3] All energy transducers are inefficient not as low as 20%, and not dependent on the weather! no energy security from wind. [4] They are not the cause of escalating electricity prices. only about £100 on everyone's bills. 5] They are normally on private land and far safer than most of our everyday activities - so? they still cause noise nuisance, loss of recreation and don't work very well. apart from that all is fine.
Report this comment
chas edgington
Thursday, November 1, 2012
In answer to your comment Brian, anyone can do selective research in order to support their view. Regarding the points you made, [1] Most of the ‘health problems’ are subjective. What evidence do you have to support the claim that they are not? [2] This is the real reason for the Nimbys’ red faces – money! [3] All energy transducers are inefficient [4] They are not the cause of escalating electricity prices. [5] They are normally on private land and far safer than most of our everyday activities – almost anything is potentially a danger to the public – imagine an aircraft falling on someone’s head – or ice falling off the wings!
Report this comment
Thoreauwasright
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Clive, as stated earlier, the landscape of Norfolk is mainly man made, in large part by agriculture and arboriculture (with a bit of peat digging in the middle). Norfolk is a relatively flat county and is therefore ideally suited to onshore wind power (as it was once 'peppered' with windmills) which is a lot cheaper than offshore wind power which is, by the way, marring a natural seascape.
Report this comment
Thoreauwasright
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Have any of the people who have left comments supporting windmills done any research on the internet? There is enough evidence to make us all aware that windmills [1] cause health problems to people who live near them [2] have an impact on property prices [3] are inefficient [4] are the cause of escalating electricity prices [5] are potentially a danger to the public and the environment [blades falling off, ice cast of blades, turbines going on fire and setting off fires at ground level]. For those of you who support windfarms please make this known to your local authority so you can have the pleasure of having them near you. Are there any windmills in sight of Westminster, Buck Palace, Windsor Great Park? If not, why not?
Report this comment
Brian Bell
Thursday, November 1, 2012
It seems pretty daft to be claiming to save the environment when using the means of wind turbines to destroy its natural beauty at the same time. What matters is not the party to whom Mr. Hayes belongs, but whether he is right in making his comments yesterday. In my analysis, he is absolutely spot-on.
Report this comment
clive chafer
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Is this a political coincidence? A smokescreen to deter the focus away from the new nuclear investments??
Report this comment
Dave01
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
It is obvious that those people who are so opposed to wind power do not and cannot provide any realistic alternatives other than to quote the all too familiar arguments about wind power needing huge subsidies and back up from conventional power stations when the wind doesn't blow. However, have they neglect to tell you about the huge subsidies that nuclear power has and will require and the horrendous costs of decommissioning nuclear power stations both now and in the future. As for coal and gas both fuels are dependant on the benevolence and political stability of foreign governments. Should world events change the cost of our energy could and undoubtedly would rapidly increase. The arguments about requiring conventional power generation for periods of either excessive or little wind are at the present time quite correct. However, British scientists are already proving that compressed air can form the basis of providing a reservoir of energy equating to approximately 60% of the energy produced. If this can be adapted for large scale use then wind power and other forms of green energy will undoubtedly be far more economically attractive than either gas or coal. Unfortunately, at the present time the country is either sleepwalking into a blind over reliance on other countries remaining benevolent towards us with their supplies of coal and gas or placing the country in the hands of foreign companies producing hugely expensive nuclear energy. In the circumstances is wind power anymore of a risk or expense than the alternatives?
Report this comment
Douglas McCoy
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
The comment, and the argument, is not about renewable energy. It is a planning issue, pure and simple. Providing energy has been sold off from government control into private hands, so it is none of their business. Protecting the rights of people who have chosen their homes, and paid for them, is the government's role and they are failing. The last war was not fought over the availability and price of sprouts. It was fought because this is our country and it was supposedly worth giving lives to protect.
Report this comment
Anthony Gower
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
If people want turbines which are less intrusive and more efficient they should do an internet search for "Warwick University Wind Turbine" which I have just done. I learnt about these a while ago - they are better than the conventional type and could be hidden in the landscape more easily.
Report this comment
Lynda Edwards
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Stop them and watch your energy bills fall.Nuclear as the French is the ony way
Report this comment
Albert Cooper
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
A couple of years ago I was sitting the Farmers Arms Bar in Ulverston and sitting next to the bar were 5 Japanese men and some men came in from the hotel next door and the only place they could sit was next to the Japanese men after about 10 minutes they started talking to the Japanese men and asked them what they do they were scientists foem Japan and the men that sat next to them work on the offshore wind farm. The convesation got going and the Japanese men explained to the boys from the offshore wind farm telling them they had done their studies on offshore wind farms and said they are a waste of money and they gave their reasons whne they finished the men from the offshore wind farm said we did not know all that at least we have a job that is when the Japenese men said at what cost wind does not blow or blows too much you are not providing power and to start them up again costs a lot more money so you will only produse approx less than 1% of power with 25 windmills.
Report this comment
Dave
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Windless, I have just read that Camerons daddy or pater receives 350,000 pounds per year for having these abominations on his grand estate. And is going to allow more and an increase in payment. I am sure that Cameron takes a fair unbiased of these matters. As he continues to steal from the poor to give to the rich. Perhaps Eton has a different version of Robin Hood.
Report this comment
norman hall
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
NH.. The subsidy for both on and offshore wind this year will top £1Billion for the first time. Wonder who actually pays for it? I know; the problem is that the vast majority (who BTW actually pay it) don't, they just see ever increasing utility bills, and wonder why? This has to be the scam of a generation and the sooner the whole thing is binned the better. I can think of many infinitely better uses for £1 Billion for UK.
Report this comment
Windless
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
The blight of wind turbines continues. There is a hardly a beautiful land or sea scape in this country that is not spoiled by these ugly monsters. And despite billions of taxpayers money being handed out in the way of subsidies, the bills are still rocketing. The only people benefiting from this very costly , inefficient machines which have made next to no impact, are those receiving the massive handouts.
Report this comment
norman hall
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
IW wrong again! This wasn't AN Energy Minister but THE Energy Minister. It wasn't just "a tabloid" but also the Daily Telegraph, hardly a tabloid. Your eternal plan for community involvement in this ridiculous way to try and generate electricity, relies entirely on the very subsidies none of us want to pay. If you want community turbines powering the community and not subsidised then fine. As this would be financial suicide most will disagree. The only way these things work ( if that is the correct word) is by being subsidised by every utility bill payer in the UK. Unity Wind wanted a Community Project, the Community (North Walsham) didn't. "The Community Project the Community didn't want"!!! 87% against in the planning application.
Report this comment
Windless
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
It is not the Governments decision, but that of an energy minister interpreted by a tabloid. There will be future land based turbines. If I had my way, there should be a stipulation to all wind power developments, i.e. that projects benefiting from taxpayers subsidies, should be required to let the local public to have a stake, from the start of the project.
Report this comment
ingo wagenknecht
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
The typo was almost forgivable but I'm glad the revised headline reflects the actual situation more accurately - more haste, less speed! Kenneth, you'd have to hunt to find any 'natural landscape' in Norfolk, the vast majority being man made.
Report this comment
Thoreauwasright
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
I think turbines look great & would rather have millions of them rather than a single nuclear station. Nothing threatens the population or landscape like nuclear.
Report this comment
Frank
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
In general people prefer energy sources which are clean,cheap and safe.Onshore and offshore wind are both part of the solution,new nuclear power too is part.There is a great deal of concern regarding gas fracking causing earthquakes and do we really want to rely on Putin for our oil
Report this comment
Peter Watson
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
I hate wind farms ruining the landscape. There has to be a better way of producing electricity without spoiling the natural beauty of our countryside and seascapes.
Report this comment
kenneth jessett
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
There are two arguments going on here. The political decision to allow foreign interests to profit from our wind resources is one. The other revolves around 'real costs' of wind power. On the first point it is clearly ridiculous that we should have allowed Norway's Statoil into such a big profit making venture at the cost of UK energy users. We already had the technology and skills needed in this very area and yet the political decisions were not made locally. On the other point, there have been endless studies on the efficiency of wind power. it is well understood and all over the world wind generation has become common. In fact one of the biggest produces of wind energy is the USA a company that is not famed for its 'green' credentials. Wind power is here to stay, it has many disadvantages but also a few major advantages. Japan is now considering coming away from Nuclear power after the accident at Fukuhima. The Tidal surge on the east coast of the states this week also saw 2 nuclear incidents. Something to think about when we have Sizwell just down the road.
Report this comment
Nick
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Daisy, The North tolerated pits because that was where the coal was.
Report this comment
Andy T
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Government just announced this isn't policy and that they're sticking to their existing plans. They really know how to tease some EDP readers!
Report this comment
omnishambles
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
You really are beginning to sound like a cracked record andy :)
Report this comment
Thoreauwasright
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Let us all hope that this really is an end to the erection of ever more wind turbines that are proven to be an expensive and unreliable source of electricity. The government has already stated that this form of power will increase the cost to the consumer by 30%. Further it relies on 100% back up by gas powered generators which because their power output needs to be continually varied to cope with the vagaries of wind power makes them more expensive to run too. Let those who want them pay the true cost of the electricity generated by wind so the rest of us don't have to subsidise them!
Report this comment
andy
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
God forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing. After inviting the vested interests of Norway and that of the Royal Estate to feed on our tax subsidies, some jumped up second rate stooge is allowed to peck away at land based wind power generators and EU law, which determines that all energies generated from alternative sources, has to be bought by the electricity operators, for a determined price. Emotive tabloid words used to fly a kite and amplified here, pathetic
Report this comment
ingo wagenknecht
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
if you are looking for an explanation for the Tories abrupt about-turn on energy policy - away from renewables - you need look no further than this: "Lord Howell is the father of George Osborne's wife, Frances. Lord Howell is a foreign office minister with responsibility for international energy issues in the Lords, but it is his role as president of the British Institute of Energy Economics that is exercising Greenpeace. The Institute has Shell, BP and BG Group as corporate members, while the Energy Department is one of its eight sponsors. " Another scurrilous piece of sedition from the Grauniad or the Indy? No. The Torygraph. http:www.telegraph.co.ukfinancenewsbysectorenergy9436967Is-George-Osbornes-energy-stance-influenced-by-Lord-Howell-Greenpeace-asks.html
Report this comment
martin wallis
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
If they really are an effective contribution to energy solutions then we must tolerate them, just as the north had to tolerate pits. But if there is a better way, questioning if the farming has been more of subsidies than wind and wondering if communities have been beaten with the stick of energy needs and if energy consumers are lining the pockets of foreign companies when the farms should have been in state ownership-then that way has to be found. I have never seen the logic of the energy consumed erecting and maintaining offshore wind farms and would rather see them onshore in coastal locations. But only if they really do make a positive contribution. I would favour more direct use turbines-on industrial estates for instance. One of the big questions is why we are neglecting our coal resources in the general scheme of energy security for the next hundred years. Using coal while we work on more efficient renewable energy technology could give us the break we need.
Report this comment
Daisy Roots
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Archant publications hit another all time low! Going on to the matter of wind turbines, Micro generation using sustainable systems is how we will all need to go. This area is both suitable and also has the connections within the construction of such equipment. Wind turbines do need to be correctly placed but far preferable and cheaper to be paying for your power by such sources than other generation technology. The political arguments against have little to do with local people and much more to do about central government. I am disappointed that Brandon should make political use of local opposition to wind turbines when there are far more pressing local issues.
Report this comment
Nick
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
The headline sums it up. The 'givernment' has not said anything of the sort, this was a headline grabbing view given to the Mail and the Telegraph (for obvious reasons) by a junior minister and is not 'givernment' policy, nor, if the 'givernment' has any intelligence, will be.
Report this comment
Thoreauwasright
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Poll: As givernment says ‘enough is enough’ on wind farms what do you think? Nice headline fail.
Report this comment
Rob_H
Wednesday, October 31, 2012