In reply to Alasdair:
> (In reply to UKH News)
>
> I don't live in the area so don't know what information was sent out to the local population, but do the company's who propose to build these large installations offer the local community some form of compensation? Reduced electricity tariffs would seem the least they could do.
For "compensation" read BRIBES, and any other language. Why do you think calling this 'compensation' makes it ok for these company to use subsidy money to influence public opinion ?
The saddness is that the bribes are probably in area of about 0.5% of the subsidies that these moneygrabbers get. If the locals would onl;y demand a half decent BRIBE to sell their souls (and our landscape) it might put the developers off, but local communities are all too often, all too easily and cheaply bought off.
(The Nuclear problems in Japan will no doubt bring out those who don't understand the economics (or the technicalities) of this impractical industry crying out for even MORE Wind Farms.)
"Proposed Windfarm Benefits Unconvincing says REF"
http://www.ref.org.uk/press-releases
Today, (16.02.2011) Chris Huhne, Secretary of State for Energy will announce that REUK (the trade lobby for the UK wind industry) has agreed on a minimum standard protocol for wind farm community benefits of £1,000 per MW installed per year.
In response, the Renewable Energy Foundation (REF) drew attention to the fact that the “financial benefits” proposed reflect only around 0.5% of the total annual income of the average wind farm.
