Impact on Landscape or UK
If the Turbines were going to make a reasonable contribution to our power problems or even to our CO2 generation difficulties one might be tempted to grin and bear it, but that is not the case.
If wind energy really is the energy of the future, as the developers claim, it must prove itself in the market without government subsidies. This has not yet happened anywhere; the projections are all based on artificial models with hidden costs -- costs for you and me, the taxpayers and consumers.
How can the Government be so blind to the economic facts of wind energy?
Does he really think tourists will come to Cumbria to look at “A Host of Golden Wind Turbines"?
And we would still need the same amount of generating power from other plants (which would be run less efficiently, i.e., with more emissions) to keep the system running when the wind isn't perfect. With this pathetic outlook, and considering as well the fact that electricity is only a fraction of our energy use, wind looks about as far from a "serious" solution to global warming or decommissioning nuclear plants as one could get.
Figures from Ofgem for Cefn Croes, from March to September 2005, say the 39 wind turbines gave an overall output of 14 megawatts. The grounds given for planning approval said output would be bigger than 50 megawatts.
Tony Blair, before Christmas 2005, admitted that wind power was not effective in the fight against global warming. Think on it.
Politicians are instinctively uncomfortable with the long view. They tend to think in much shorter spans that coincide with the spaces between elections. So, meeting the demand in many energy company boardrooms for greater strategic clarity is not going to be easy.
But the variable and unpredictable power rate of the wind disqualifies it for either system load following or the continuous full load operation required to contribute to the national base load.
SO 52% of the people in the BBC survey preferred renewables to other sources of energy. This is not much of a surprise if renewables were offered on an "either-or" basis.
This landscape is very precious. However, the News & Star supported windfarms, saying Whinash was in the wrong place – so where is the right place?
None of the renewables is anywhere close to being a potential alternative and it has been admitted by Scottish Renewables that "wind power will not form the base load for electricity". Many people, including BBC interviewers and researchers, have been misled by the false claims of wind power companies.
Depending upon how many of these towers are erected, this could look like an appendix scar on the side of the mountain.
It is true that alternative energy sources such as wind power have a limited role to play in meeting Britain’s energy needs. But they will only ever have a small role, and if the cost is scarring the increasingly threatened landscape, they should be rejected and other green and more efficient forms, including nuclear power, should prevail.
By excluding from council business any councillor who can be considered to have a "prejudicial interest", the code is now being widely used to silence councillors who wish to speak on behalf of the communities they represent.
We are constantly hearing news which further illustrates what a scam wind turbine industry is.
While these claims provide amusement for most of us, the worry is that those in power tend to be the only ones who believe them.
Why Illuzzi thinks that wind energy will "avoid cutting wide swaths through our...countryside..." is beyond me.
The footprint for wind is huge.
Equally undemocratic is the revolution in local government brought about by the rules from Mr Prescott which allow "monitoring officers" to exclude any councillor from debates in which they are deemed to have a "prejudicial interest". This includes any councillor who has previously expressed any view on the issue, or even who can be shown to have discussed it with members of the public before it comes up for debate.