MoneySaving Poll: Are wind farms an aye-aye or an eyesore?

ChemicalJasper

kwjibo wrote: »

Most people seem to be in favour so you can guarentee C A MORON will be against them

He's not against turbines, hes against the subsidies and making psudo-green investors, multimillionaires on the backs of people in fuel poverty.

Thats got to be a GOOD thing!

Im sure if you understood the issue, you would see that see, rather than just calling people morons!!!

Valor

I like the look of them but I'm mostly concerned that the crazy system of subsidies is used to prop up an industry using technology that isn't supported by the evidence.

I'm only partially educated on this subject but my main concerns are:
> Environmental impact of the construction, especially the enormous concrete slabs used.
> Return on investment (without subsidies) - which is part of the costs of the power generated to the consumer.
> The fit of the profile of the power generated to when we want to use it. (without massive energy storage systems).

As I understand it Off-Shore makes some sense (especially for the last concern) and On-Shore just doesn't.

If Cameron's concerns are with the subsidies and On-Shore, then I think I agree with him on this.

cepheus

ChemicalJasper wrote: »

Its not free, its very expensive and your paying for it NOW, even if your not using it!

Actually it's the offshore ones which are pumping up the price. The governments refusal to build the cheaper land based ones and more of the offshore ones instead will make it even more expensive. All locations aren't equal.

Wind farms in the most cost effective locations such as the really windy areas such as the Highlands and Islands of Scotland would probably be able to compete with gas without any subsidy. However, there we have the NIMBY syndrome and a lack of will to share the profits with the locals. Why should people accept any installation without some benefit from the business who is pocketing a profit?

cepheus

ChemicalJasper wrote: »

That is because most people live in cities and have no idea and no intrest in what that actual issues are and have no idea and no interest in just how much money is being wasted on making multi millionares of the psudo-green investors - do some googling Dale Vince of ecotricity (and I not talking about his 'self promotional, material, I talking about his spending tens of thousands of tax payers money to develop his supercar when he is already a multimillionare on subsidies!).

I agree, we should install wind turbines, but they SHOULD NOT make people millionaires at the expense of poor old grannies in fuel poverty.

Wind turbines should be funded to be run at cost, with a reasonable profit margin and should only be allowed where they will generate electricity.

Many of the turbine arrays are bing installed in areas where they generate less than 16% electricity, just because there are no objections, but they still effectively pump cash into the pockets of the owners - THAT is the iissue, and if people understood that, perhaps they wouold have different views.

You make some valid points, however the biggest subsidies go to the rooftop solar panel enthusiasts. It's one of the least cost effective methods of all, in the UK. It became highly fashionable and profitable to the middle upper classes due to generous feed in tariffs and libertarian ideology of generating your own electricity. Once again the poor were subsidising the rich.

TanyaG

I agree with cfw1994....it depends...

P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm; } How many times have you seen wind turbines not moving? There is often insufficient wind at peak demand times. Evidence suggests that large-scale wind production is a very expensive way to get reductions in emissions.
One of the main issues with large wind farms is that they are sited in some of the last remaining areas of wild land in Scotland. They are helping to erode the last areas of wild land in the UK. Scottish Natural Heritage report that the extent of Scotland unaffected visually by any form of built development declined from 41% in 2002 to 28% by the end of 2009, and the most significant contributor to this decline is the development of wind farms.
There is evidence that building wind farms on upland peatland (which is where most windfarms are built in Scotland) results in more carbon being released than is saved. Peatlands lock in carbon. However the build process for windfarms results in more carbon being released than is saved by the windfarm's 25 year lifespan. And what happens when a windfarm comes to the end of it's life? Scotland's wild land littered with derelict wind farms? Or more disturbance of the peatland to upgrade or remove the wind farm?
And we can't say that energy production is more important than pretty landscapes. Wild land is important and shouldn't be squandered for short-term profit and little gain. We need clean water, air, plants, peat land and wildlife as much as we need energy.
Wind turbines have their place. Small, carefully sited turbines next to settlements allow local communities to benefit from renewable energy without impacting on wild land. However large-scale wind farms should be placed offshore or on brownfield sites near the main population centres which will be using the energy produced.
The best use of public subsidy to drive down greenhouse gas emissions is for energy conservation measures, including better insulation of houses. We also need to develop a mix of technologies capable of providing a safe, secure and reliable energy system in the future.

ifan.goch

OnceTwiceThreeLotsOfSB wrote: »

I don't live near any (as far as I'm aware) but I'd happily do so. I really think the alleged ugliness of wind turbines is overstated, presumably from the same NIMBY's that claim to love their community yet want no new homes (and thus new community members) built near them.

I do agree with another poster's comment that tidal power should be looked into further.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and one person's beautiful is another person's ugliness. I hate what they are doing to the landscape.

I love my community and I welcome new development when it has a proven benefit. I live in the country and work is starting next month immediately across the road from me on an inland surf centre. This will bring jobs and prosperity to the inhabitants and businesses of my village. I have made no objection to this development, in fact I welcome it. We have also had new housing developments in the village, again something that I have welcomed as it has meant that we have retained shops, schools and other amenities in our village.

However wind farms are of absolutely no benefit to the local communities that they are blighting. Furthermore they are not particularly efficient at generating enough electricity to make a difference to the national grid as what they are supplying is erratic and unreliable. As I said in my previous post, there are far more efficient ways of generating renewable energy.

Just because someone objects to a proposal does not mean that they are a NIMBY and have given no thought to their objections. We do not all believe in development at all costs and hang the consequences.

belle_de_jour

Tiglath wrote: »

I think they're rather graceful and elegant, unlike pylons which gave me nightmares as a kid.

How do you suppose the power generated by windfarms reaches the grid?

I live in mid-Wales where there are currently proposals for five windfarms, a "hub" into which they will all connect and a pylon line from the hub to a connection point with the existing grid in Shropshire. There is currently a public inquiry into whether or not planning consent should be given to this project and if they do, you can bet your life further applications will follow.

This will have a devastating effect on the mid-Wales landscape and on the two principle forms of business in the area, farming and tourism.

ifan.goch

belle_de_jour wrote: »

How do you suppose the power generated by windfarms reaches the grid?

I live in mid-Wales where there are currently proposals for five windfarms, a "hub" into which they will all connect and a pylon line from the hub to a connection point with the existing grid in Shropshire. There is currently a public inquiry into whether or not planning consent should be given to this project and if they do, you can bet your life further applications will follow.

This will have a devastating effect on the mid-Wales landscape and on the two principle forms of business in the area, farming and tourism.

I totally sympathize with you.

In my village we have a hydro electric power station fed by large black pipes from reservoirs at the top of the mountain. When the turbines start up my whole house vibrates as the power station is just yards away. Then there are the lines of pylons marching away over the mountains taking the electricity to the grid. Not to mention the windfarm on the hill on the other side of the valley. And other posters have the nerve to call us NIMBYs if we object. Enough is enough I say.

It would appear that most of the posters who are not against windfarms do not actually live anywhere near them, so are able to reap the (doubtful) benefits without any of the disadvantages.:(

Shagg

'Interesting' how the "they are ugly" vote has gone up from 14% to 27% of a much larger number. Word about this poll must have got out to the oil companies.

stevemcol

belle_de_jour wrote: »

How do you suppose the power generated by windfarms reaches the grid?

I live in mid-Wales where there are currently proposals for five windfarms, a "hub" into which they will all connect and a pylon line from the hub to a connection point with the existing grid in Shropshire. There is currently a public inquiry into whether or not planning consent should be given to this project and if they do, you can bet your life further applications will follow.

This will have a devastating effect on the mid-Wales landscape and on the two principle forms of business in the area, farming and tourism.

Do you use electricity? Are you happy to pay a significant premium to have the EHV cables buried?