Wales in revolt over mammoth wind farm scheme

Wales in revolt over mammoth wind farm scheme

The Welsh Assembly's plans to install 800 giant wind turbines in mid-Wales make no economic sense, says Christopher Booker.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/...d_1901827c.jpg
Windfarms: expensive, ugly and useless

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Christopher Booker, Telegraph

On Tuesday the Welsh Assembly in Cardiff will see the biggest demonstration so far in Britain against the disaster now being set in train across the land by the Government's infatuation with wind power. Nowhere is this more obvious than in mid-Wales, where the Assembly wishes to see the hills covered with up to 800 giant wind turbines, up to 415ft high, visible over hundreds of square miles. Recently In Parliament, Glyn Davies, the Tory MP for Montgomeryshire, spoke about the anger this is arousing locally, recounting how one recent meeting called at short notice in Welshpool had drawn 2,000 people.

Mr Davies described how the problem is not only the turbines, but the need for two vast substations and 100 miles of steel pylons, up to 150ft high, to carry the electricity into Shropshire to connect with the National Grid. But although he may have spoken eloquently about the visual and social impact of this project, he failed to spell out its nonsensical economic implications. To build 800 two-megawatt turbines would cost at least £1.6 billion, plus, it is estimated, another £400 million for the pylons and sub-stations. With the output of Welsh turbines last year averaging less than 20 per cent of their capacity, thanks to the intermittency of the wind, the power produced by this £2 billion project will average out at little more than 300MW.

Yet contrast this with the 882MW produced by Centrica's new Langage gas-fired power station near Plymouth, costing just £400 million. This single plant, built for a fifth of the money, covering a few acres, will produce nearly three times as much electricity, without disfiguring one of the most beautiful landscapes in Britain. Those Welsh turbines, costing us all £120 million a year in subsidy, will produce power that could have been generated without subsidy at a 15th of the cost. How many of those Assembly members on Tuesday will manage to step outside the bubble of illusion surrounding wind power, to recognise just what insanity they are being made party to?

---

Now just run those figures through your head a minute and then think that despite the growing debt (and yes, the national debt of the United Kingdom is forecast by the government itself to continue to rise onwards to 2015 and that doesn't even include Brown's PFI schemes he left us with) this government continues with lunatic policies such as this which will lead to the lights going out. But you can't just blame them for their incompetence, it stems from EU energy targets which force this country to commit itself to ridiculous energy schemes which don't even work leaving aside whether you even agree with the AGW thesis anyway.

http://i.thisislondon.co.uk/i/pix/20...nd-415x275.jpg
Ed Miliband: change you can believe in?

So the question must be, what will Ed Miliband do? ah that's right, nothing - because as Climate Change minister not only did he do the exact same, he left us with a £18bn a year climate change bill that is still in place and which the Unconservative Party refuses to repeal because it too not only believes in this flat earth nonsense, but as a member of the EU we don't even have a choice anymore.

Thoughts?

Wow. That's a bit over the top tbh.

But if it's for the future, I suppose it'll be good. hopefully.

This reminds me of the nuclear argument. They may as well reinstate some nuclear power plants in areas around the country - it's relatively safe, you get a lot of power and power plants do not take up as much space as this large number of turbines. I'm not sure why they think wind power is a suitable, sustainable source of power, especially in the middle of a land mass. If they really wanted to have wind turbines, chuck them out to see so we do not need to see them AND the Welsh countryside can be left undisturbed. Wind power isn't advanced enough to be used en-mass like this, it's only use for the moment is for domesticated use at best.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GommeInc

Wind power isn't advanced enough to be used en-mass like this, it's only use for the moment is for domesticated use at best.

---

I somewhat agree with this. I feel a small turbine on your house with a couple of solar panels to help contribute to your electricity input is a brilliant idea, but I generally don't think throwing loads of them up in the countryside is having many benefits. While I do find them interesting (and I think it's merely a different TYPE of landscape as opposed to an "uglier" one...) the way forward in my opinion is nuclear.

Nuclear power won't run out. It takes minimal amounts of the Earth's natural resources and they are GENERALLY safe, especially in a state like the UK which doesn't have much threat of Earthquakes and the likes, as the Japanese found out a couple of months ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mathew

I somewhat agree with this. I feel a small turbine on your house with a couple of solar panels to help contribute to your electricity input is a brilliant idea, but I generally don't think throwing loads of them up in the countryside is having many benefits. While I do find them interesting (and I think it's merely a different TYPE of landscape as opposed to an "uglier" one...) the way forward in my opinion is nuclear.

Nuclear power won't run out. It takes minimal amounts of the Earth's natural resources and they are GENERALLY safe, especially in a state like the UK which doesn't have much threat of Earthquakes and the likes, as the Japanese found out a couple of months ago.

---

Indeed, I have a friend with a wind turbine and a few solar panels, they do a decent job but still rely on other forms of energy - they're only good for reducing cost, rather than taking over unfortunately :P

Interestingly, what happened in Japan wasn't as bad as it could of been. It was handled rather well considering the force of the earthquake. It should work quite well in the UK, provided we look after the stations and we do not make them typically British - break downs every 5 minutes or not working at all :P

Maybe i'm on my own on this, but i personally think that wind farms look nice. I constantly hear people complaining about the sight of them.

That said it does seem to be a silly time to be doing this. Especially when you look at the figures you've provided. I think more nuclear plants is probably a better idea for you. I was very annoyed when Ireland halted it's plans to go nuclear a few years ago. They stopped the plans due to a few hundred protesters that didn't even represent the views of the majority of the population.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eoin247

Maybe i'm on my own on this, but i personally think that wind farms look nice. I constantly hear people complaining about the sight of them.

---

Just out of curiousity then but why do you think they look nice?

I'm not really a fan of them. They're too big, too bulky and they seem to cost more in reparing them than they save in producing electricity. I'm also not really a believer in climate change but I do think in terms of oil running out that we should invest more in renewable energy resources so that we are prepared for the future. The only question is finding out which is more effective. Atm, all the evidence would point at nuclear (and possibly biofuel but I dont know too much about that)!

I don't actually mind them, I think they look ok, and when driving through the valleys they look kinda cool on the top of hilly mountains - but I can see how locals would find them annoying. They are meant to be very loud. I think the bad thing about this is the connectors to the national grid - they look very very ugly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mathew

Nuclear power won't run out. It takes minimal amounts of the Earth's natural resources and they are GENERALLY safe, especially in a state like the UK which doesn't have much threat of Earthquakes and the likes, as the Japanese found out a couple of months ago.

---

The UK is probably more at risk, there was one time where a fuel rod wouldn't go into a nuclear reactor properly so some idiot opened the door the to reactor and tried to ram it in with a piece of scaffolding.. which melted and fused to the uranium fuel rod and the reactor door couldn't be closed. Apart from that glaring failure of logic and other things, yes the UK is very nuclear safe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Inseriousity.

Just out of curiousity then but why do you think they look nice?

---

I guess like anything it's kinda hard to explain why. You might like the look of a painting, yet still be unable to say why you like it.

I suppose i like how they look sleek, modern and yet still manage to not really take away from the countryside. They fit in with the countryside well i think. They certainly look better than any power plant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eoin247

I guess like anything it's kinda hard to explain why. You might like the look of a painting, yet still be unable to say why you like it.

I suppose i like how they look sleek, modern and yet still manage to not really take away from the countryside. They fit in with the countryside well i think. They certainly look better than any power plant.

---

yeah i dont think they look too bad at all.

i think people underestimate the cost of nuclear's long term costs... sure the fuel isn't too expensive, its pretty low-carbon but construction costs, decommissioning costs and waste management costs are huge. There's no 'easy answer' to the energy problem that we will no doubt experience in a decade or two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alexxxxx

yeah i dont think they look too bad at all.

i think people underestimate the cost of nuclear's long term costs... sure the fuel isn't too expensive, its pretty low-carbon but construction costs, decommissioning costs and waste management costs are huge. There's no 'easy answer' to the energy problem that we will no doubt experience in a decade or two.

---

There is no energy problem, well there will be thanks to the EU and our political class who are obsessed with the notion of global warming climate change which, even it I did believe it to be real - the most sensible thing would be to build coastal defences and so on.

Apparently Poland is working on shale gas and there's breakthroughs in methane energy, all fantastic news concerning energy not to mention that we still have vast gas and oil deposits that remain not only untapped but unexplored, coupled with years worth of coal supplies left (I believe Britain has something like 350 years worth of coal left) and then there's nuclear which as you state is a whole other issue. The idea that we are going to run out of fuel sources though is nothing but scaremongering, something governments are very good at.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...gy-revolution/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James Delingpole, Telegraph

Here’s some good news for the Poles, who have massive shale gas deposits which they’re dying to exploit (not least so that they no longer need be exposed to economic blackmail from Russia) but which the EU is doing its damnedest to prevent because of its ideologically-driven campaign to impose “renewables” at all costs on its various vassal states.

---

When the lights go out, we can thank the EU and our spineless politicians for taking any notice of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

There is no energy problem, well there will be thanks to the EU and our political class who are obsessed with the notion of global warming climate change which, even it I did believe it to be real - the most sensible thing would be to build coastal defences and so on.

---

Even if we didn't consider global warming, we have an energy crisis - there is simply not enough power output to meet demand. It has nothing to do with global warming or GHG emissions.

Quote:

---

Apparently Poland is working on shale gas and there's breakthroughs in methane energy, all fantastic news concerning energy not to mention that we still have vast gas and oil deposits that remain not only untapped but unexplored, coupled with years worth of coal supplies left (I believe Britain has something like 350 years worth of coal left) and then there's nuclear which as you state is a whole other issue. The idea that we are going to run out of fuel sources though is nothing but scaremongering, something governments are very good at.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...gy-revolution/

---

It's true to say there's enough gas and coal in there, but obviously as you'd know, economically it's not viable to exploit it (or the coal mines wouldn't have closed in the 80s!). The real issue is the willingness to exploit the reserves and the ability to combust the reserves. Power stations don't crop up overnight.. Especially nuclear. There will be an energy crisis due to insufficient capacity. Also you have the problem of increasing prices in fossil fuels. There will be a time where renewable energy is the same price as fossil fuel generated power. The big power companies are not in any hurry to exploit more as prices rise and rise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alexxxxx

Even if we didn't consider global warming, we have an energy crisis - there is simply not enough power output to meet demand. It has nothing to do with global warming or GHG emissions.

---

Do we? oil remains cheap still as does gas, sure its risky with political titans such as Russia hence why we should be making ourselves more self-sufficent as opposed to relying on both Russia and the EU to make our energy policy for us. If you replace coal and gas stations with useless and costly wind and biofuels then yes, we will have an energy crisis.

If you look at a graph of oil prices over the decades taking into account currency devaluation, oil remains very cheap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alexxxxx

It's true to say there's enough gas and coal in there, but obviously as you'd know, economically it's not viable to exploit it (or the coal mines wouldn't have closed in the 80s!). The real issue is the willingness to exploit the reserves and the ability to combust the reserves. Power stations don't crop up overnight.. Especially nuclear. There will be an energy crisis due to insufficient capacity. Also you have the problem of increasing prices in fossil fuels. There will be a time where renewable energy is the same price as fossil fuel generated power. The big power companies are not in any hurry to exploit more as prices rise and rise.

---

It is not economical as of yet no, but it may soon be as technology improves as seen with deep sea drilling which is improving. Now if you want to solve the problems of extracting gas and oil (if we leave new upcoming shale gas and so forth out of the picture) then you simply work on the technical problems and overcome them.. as opposed to following ridiculous orders from Brussels which say that 20% of our energy must come from renewables which will mean the lights will go out. The problem with coal, oil and gas now is that they are becoming more expensive and monopolised by oil companies who are also on the green bandwagon with government because of government and EU hurdles put infront of opening new power stations.

Renewable energy whatever price it is in its current form does not work, its just a fact. So there's not even a debate to be had over renewables as of yet because the technology does not exist and looks unlikely to come into fruitation anytime soon. As he states this short clip, if there's no wind in February at peak demand - then a wind turbine simply will not turn. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RI7MRgcyEtU

I agree it is about OTT, however we need to find alternative ways of getting our power, plus its VERY clean and renewable. But i think theyre being a bit to ambitious at this point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StefanWolves

I agree it is about OTT, however we need to find alternative ways of getting our power, plus its VERY clean and renewable. But i think theyre being a bit to ambitious at this point.

---

Damn expensive to set up, and the damn things need so much maintenance that it slowly becomes economically pointless to have them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

There is no energy problem, well there will be thanks to the EU and our political class who are obsessed with the notion of global warming climate change which, even it I did believe it to be real - the most sensible thing would be to build coastal defences and so on.

---

Climate change adaptation is far more costly than mitigation, nationally and internationally. Sea walls for example can cost up to £10,000 a metre, don't even offer a complete solution to rising sea levels and are arguably a bigger eye sore than wind farms not to mention the ecological and hydrological effects they can have.

Are the Welsh still stuck in the stone age? Honestly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adamwingie

Are the Welsh still stuck in the stone age? Honestly.

---

LOL - It is not huge amount of people who are actually against this. It has been blown out of all proportion. They are NYMBYs. I love wind farms myself and are much better than open cast coal mines.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JackBuddy

Climate change adaptation is far more costly than mitigation, nationally and internationally. Sea walls for example can cost up to £10,000 a metre, don't even offer a complete solution to rising sea levels and are arguably a bigger eye sore than wind farms not to mention the ecological and hydrological effects they can have.

---

None of that is happening though i'm afraid so we can all stop worrying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catz

LOL - It is not huge amount of people who are actually against this. It has been blown out of all proportion. They are NYMBYs. I love wind farms myself and are much better than open cast coal mines.

---

You enjoy fuel prices going up to subsidise these things? you may enjoy it, because I doubt you pay the bill - the poorest don't and isn't that supposed to be the group of people you pretend to care most about? or do vanity projects come before them? These things are nothing but economic suicide, do not work and the business is very shady with the government forcing energy companies (and thus the taxpayer) to pick up the bill for these things.

..as for the suggestion that these things look pretty and don't ruin the countryside, I look forward to some being placed very close to yourself or Mr Miliband, Clegg and Cameron and we'll then see whether prospective house buyers think the view has been enchanced or totally ruined by these windmills. Somehow, I don't think its just NIMBYs who aren't keen on these - nobody would choose to live next to them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

None of that is happening though i'm afraid so we can all stop worrying.

---

That's a completely different argument.

Just out of interest, if you did think that anthropogenic factors were affecting the earth's climate, what would your opinion be then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JackBuddy

That's a completely different argument.

Just out of interest, if you did think that anthropogenic factors were affecting the earth's climate, what would your opinion be then?

---

If so then adaptation would be the best method to use and if so, retreat from certain areas which could not be saved. The idea that you can stop AGW with windmills and carbon trading is ridiculous. The carbon output of the west will continue to rise no matter what we do (unless we were to seriously dent our standard of living) and if we were to make any serious headway; it would mean stopping all growth in the East and condemning them to continued poverty as opposed to development.

In the case with India and China, the faster they develop (the more coal they burn) the better the outcome as with development comes a slowdown in population growth meaning the end result would mean less fuel being burnt than would have done had those populations continued to grow. The video below uses the sums explaining why we cannot avert AGW (even if it were real) using the sums of the UN itself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjYsI7tX2E4

But as I said before, AGW is twaddle and we have nothing to worry about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

If so then adaptation would be the best method to use and if so, retreat from certain areas which could not be saved. The idea that you can stop AGW with windmills and carbon trading is ridiculous. The carbon output of the west will continue to rise no matter what we do (unless we were to seriously dent our standard of living) and if we were to make any serious headway; it would mean stopping all growth in the East and condemning them to continued poverty as opposed to development.

In the case with India and China, the faster they develop (the more coal they burn) the better the outcome as with development comes a slowdown in population growth meaning the end result would mean less fuel being burnt than would have done had those populations continued to grow. The video below uses the sums explaining why we cannot avert AGW (even if it were real) using the sums of the UN itself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjYsI7tX2E4

But as I said before, AGW is twaddle and we have nothing to worry about.

---

Renewable energy would slow the effect down at least. I'm studying environmental protection & management at University and went there with an open mind with regards to climate change. I'm not saying that what I've been taught is gospel but both sides of the argument are presented and it's difficult not to believe that humans are impacting the earth's climate. I'd much rather believe information presented by well respected scientists than a Fox News piece. The effects of sea level rise are already being seen in places like Bangladesh and Tuvalu (which is already being evacuated) but there's also the effects of drought and the millions of refugees that will be forced elsewhere etc. If you believe that people should retreat, how would you feel about the millions of people that would be flocking to Europe and the UK?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JackBuddy

Renewable energy would slow the effect down at least. I'm studying environmental protection & management at University and went there with an open mind with regards to climate change. I'm not saying that what I've been taught is gospel but both sides of the argument are presented and it's difficult not to believe that humans are impacting the earth's climate. I'd much rather believe information presented by well respected scientists than a Fox News piece.

---

A small sample of respectable sceptical sources are provided here; http://www.godfreybloommep.co.uk/climate-change.htm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JackBuddy

The effects of sea level rise are already being seen in places like Bangladesh and Tuvalu (which is already being evacuated) but there's also the effects of drought and the millions of refugees that will be forced elsewhere etc. If you believe that people should retreat, how would you feel about the millions of people that would be flocking to Europe and the UK?

---

Forgive me for being rather brash, but you should have taken geography also which you'd then know that Bangladesh is located on below sea level plains and is essentially a large delta which has flooded since time began. The only reason the effects seem to be worse (including on the British Isles) is because the population has grown enormously and has led to areas which never used to be inhabited, being built upon for human habitation thus giving the illusion that the weather and climate are spinning out of control.

Again, the video uses the UNs own figures, its nothing more than wishful thinking (even if you believe it).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

None of that is happening though i'm afraid so we can all stop worrying.



You enjoy fuel prices going up to subsidise these things? you may enjoy it, because I doubt you pay the bill - the poorest don't and isn't that supposed to be the group of people you pretend to care most about? or do vanity projects come before them? These things are nothing but economic suicide, do not work and the business is very shady with the government forcing energy companies (and thus the taxpayer) to pick up the bill for these things.

..as for the suggestion that these things look pretty and don't ruin the countryside, I look forward to some being placed very close to yourself or Mr Miliband, Clegg and Cameron and we'll then see whether prospective house buyers think the view has been enchanced or totally ruined by these windmills. Somehow, I don't think its just NIMBYs who aren't keen on these - nobody would choose to live next to them.

---

Fuel prices? The present utility companies are holding the country at ransom now with their never ending huge increases for normal fuels. I wouldn't mind having a wind farm near me at all and amazingly not everyone thinks like you. Why bring politics into it all the time this is my own opinion that many of our british citizens agree with. Perhaps you should have an open cast coal mine open up near you. As I live in Wales I do know that it is the NIMBYS who are against it - there is no huge opposition to it.