UKH

A Scottish conservation charity has backed calls for an Independent Energy Commission and a wild land designation, and is claiming that the 'scramble for wind farms' is doing great damage.

Read more at http://www.ukhillwalking.com/news/item.php?id=68134

This anti-wind stuff is getting ridiculous. I agree that wild land should be kept wild, I'm not suggesting that we should put turbines up and down the Highlands. However, suggesting that it causes damage economically and isn't viable as an energy production means just demeans the whole piece.

Suggesting that the paltry subsidies given by the government in any way compare to the same benefits extended to the Nuclear and Gas energy production sectors is laughable. The Energy from Waste rush at the moment also takes massive amounts of public money and funnels it into private hands in tax havens, just like EDF are doing in the Nuclear sector and the various companies involved in Hydraulic Fracturing are doing in Gas. Vastly more damaging are these than the pittance made from Wind for the private sector at the moment.

Given a fair crack of the whip that could change of course, but not while the absolutely valid causes of conservationists are tainted by the NIMBY pseudo-science cr*p peddled in the article.

The article is absolutely right that we need to address consumption, but the technology and opportunity both exist to make wind power a large component of that solution.

The trouble is people don't want THEIR view from the window spoiled, or THEIR tv turned off.

In reply to Latecomer: OK, Let's turn this around and dismantle this stupid, hypocritical NIMBY labelling once and for all - I'm going to build a nuclear power station in your back yard. And the huge subsidies I get means that I'll comprehensively frack your garden too. Who's a NIMBY now then?

Pseudoscience? Real science? If you pay a career rent-a-scientist enough money, he/she will say anything you want, or interpret independent research papers to suit a particular agenda or a pseudo-green belief.

The fact is, the embodied carbon in these vast windfarms on peat substrates vastly exceeds the carbon that they could possibly save within their 25 year lifespan. That's real science - the sort of science that has no insidious political or economic agenda.

In reply to AllanMac: So we're saying that fracking and nuclear power plants are preferable, both ecologically and visibly to wind farms? Most of which are far from massive by the way.

Yes, you can pay for a scientific opinion, fast-food and tobacco firms have been doing it for decades, but are you really suggesting that the companies out there selling turbines are the ones doing it? I think it's rather more Halliburton's style than Vestas' but you get me proof otherwise and I'll concede the point.

Your last point may well be valid for a very specific geographic condition, which is FAR from commonplace, which is why they are protected no? I refer to my first statement, I am NOT in favour of damaging fragile eco-systems, whether it's with a wind turbine or a strip mine. I don't think anyone is (other than big oil and gas obviously). As for your claim of real science, there is no more validity to your claim than mine, i.e. your just a person with a keyboard and google, just like me.

It boils down to a couple of points I think; Do you believe there is a problem that needs to be solved in the energy production capability we have as a society? If so, how to best solve that issue?

I think, for what it's worth, that reduction in consumption and investment in renewables such as wind and tidal offer the best and most sustainable solution for the future. I'm not an engineer though, so I am willing to be proven wrong if there is the data out there to do it. The trouble I have is that the majority of arguments against wind farms comes from people scared of property devaluation, Noel Edmonds or the Daily Express (all of whom are contemptible wretches) and tends to be based on what even my unschooled mind can see is bollocks.

In reply to Latecomer: If you bothered to read the magazine before venturing an opinion, that might be helpful. Have you had a wander round a "far from massive" windfarm yet? Ever wondered how much CO2 gets produced between the moment the first bit of metal ore gets dug up to be made into a turbine, and the moment that turbine produces its first spurt of "clean, green" electricity? The beneficiaries are very shy about that, but with cheerleaders like you, they can sleep safely in their mansions, paid for by everyone else.
The SWLG are not harping on about the view, and none of the Steering Team are NIMBYs...read the magazine and you will learn that. I can see one of the largest windfarms from my window, and it's amazing how often the blades don't turn. You'd be astounded by the vast sums the windfarmers (such a deceptively cuddly phrase for such rapacious bandits) extract from the public, especially when they get paid for NOT supplying electricity to the Grid. Fancy that. It has nothing to do with saving the planet, they are just a bunch of chancers who are taking maximum advantage of our vague desire to do something to mitigate our accelerating exploitation of planetary resources (just so long as we don't actually have to do anything
or change our ways). They are very much a continuation of the problem, and if you can find anything factually incorrect in the magazine, write to us and we will publish your correction, if you can verify it. NOTE that we are ALL volunteers, our contributors are UNPAID, and we are doing it because we believe it to be right. The "opposition" have almost unlimited funds and a large number of PAID propagandists to advance their cause and neutralise dissent. Your logic may determine that that makes them unbiased, but, again, show us your working and declare any interests. Happy reading!

In reply to Beanntair: okay, placing my pom-poms on the floor for a moment, the comments you give above can just as viably be levelled at the pro wind energy not-for profits and community organisations that say exactly the opposite. Back to the point though, if wind energy is not part of your solution, what is? you recognise the need for social change in your comment above but also note how unpopular it is, how is that (far more key issue) to be addressed?

If wind energy is so damaging why are communities across the country (and world) investing their hard earned in local projects?

Rather than continuing the tit for 'my idea's better than your idea' tat, how about a discussion that might actually help the situation, rather than entrench battle lines?

For the record, here is my opinion;

Wind energy, when deployed sensitively and where appropriate, has the potential to produce enough electricity (when combined with that produced by other sources) to sustain a level of consumption below that currently used. The key factor is balancing the power production with the demand and reducing said demand to sustainable levels. I have put my money where my mouth is, I don't own a television, I don't own a tumble drier or a dishwasher, I don't use as much as I possibly can so that at least I can say I'm not part of the problem. I can't afford a windmill, I can't afford a house or land to put it on for that matter, but if I could you can bet I'd be trying to put one up.

So, I re-iterate, if wind is not part of the solution, what is?

In reply to Latecomer: The problem is more to do with power consumption. The UK housing stock is woefully energy inefficient and many people still buy power-hungry appliances and leave them permanently on standby.

If this problem was addressed, there would be no need to cover wild land with industrialised structures like huge wind factories, which operate intermittently and need to be permanently backed up by conventional power stations.

If wind power was to be locally sited, supplying local demand (therefore fewer pylons and infrastructure), there would be less opposition from people like me who regard wild land as absolutely sacrosanct.

I am as green as anybody regarding solutions to the impending power crisis, but large-scale onshore wind factories are clearly adding to that problem - they are certainly NOT part of an integrated solution, for the reasons already given.

I find it annoying that the green movement persists in using the tired old image of massed turbines as a symbol of 'greenness', when actually the opposite is true.