Hey Webmasters! New Photo Album Service Launched - Check it out!
|
|
|
True. Nobody disputes that renewable energy is a good thing. It's not a question of whether or not wind farms should be built; it's a question of whether the benefits of locating this sort of wind farm specifically at Bleak House are sufficient to overrule some very real negative impacts.
In reality, on-shore wind power is not going to solve the climate change problem. It is a relatively inefficient means of generating electricity - turbines only operate when the wind is between around 10 and 56 mph. Total electricity produced is only about 25-27% of their potential.
We vigorously oppose WIND FARM APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY HARWORTH POWER LTD Planning Application No. CH/08/0001
Wind farms are a health hazard to people living near them because of the low- frequency noise that they emit, according to new medical studies. Turbines can cause headaches and depression among residents living up to a mile away.
There are potential problems due to sunlight flickering on the rotating blades. Professor Arnold Wilkins, who believes the link has been overlooked, is calling on engineers to consider the risk when building farms. Epileptics are in danger of a seizure if light flickers are at three or more times a second. Info from Daily Mail, 30 April, 2008
In Denmark, where wind turbines were introduced as long as 30 years ago, the government has responded to public demand and stopped erecting onshore turbines because of the noise hazard.
Dr Amanda Harry, GP who did the research, said:"People demonstrated a range of symptoms from headaches, migraines, nausea, dizziness, palpitations and tinnitus to sleep disturbance, stress, anxiety and depression. These symptoms had a knock-on effect in their daily lives, causing poor concentration, irritability and an inability to cope."
Dr Harry said that low-frequency noise - which was used as an instrument of torture by the Germans during the Second World War because it induced headaches and anxiety attacks - could disturb rest and sleep at even very low levels.
WIND FARMS: BLOWING MONEY ON A FANTASY (Daily Mail, February 2008)
Wind Farms: Ministers should cut off the funding tap, and use the money to help reduce our obscenely high electricity bills
My electricity company has just sent me a hand wringing letter, explaining why, despite its best efforts to keep costs down, my bill is set to soar again this year. The reason - apart from the usual rapacious profits enjoyed by our power suppliers - is a hidden subsidy paid towards the development of wind farms. In the last financial year, electricity consumers were forced to pay a total of £600million in subsidy to the owners of wind turbines. This figure is due to rise to £3billion a year by 2020 as vast areas of the most beautiful parts of the country will be pockmarked with 500fthigh windmills.
The sudden growth in this area of energy supply is because the green lobby has convinced many that this renewable power source is the answer to our looming energy crisis. But the truth is that not only do renewables provide a mere 1.3 per cent of the country's energy needs but also that this money is being wasted. The subsidy system works on the principle of encouraging the development of new wind farms by forcing traditional energy companies to pay producers of renewable energy. The firms then recoup the money by charging consumers higher bills
After an initial surge in the number of new wind farms, few are currently being built. The most obvious sites, far from human habitation, have already been filled and energy firms are now facing delays in obtaining planning permission to build in more environmentally sensitive locations. As a result, the huge subsidy is concentrated in a small number of hands. There is a rising amount of money for renewable energy and if less is produced each turbine gets more of the pot.
John Constable, director of policy at the Renewable Energy Foundation, says that the system "has encouraged underperforming onshore wind turbines in low wind areas. Though of little engineering value, such plants attract speculators because they require little capital investment".
As a result, consumers will soon be paying billions in unnecessary subsidy to a bunch of sharp-suited businessmen who have spotted an opportunity for easy money. But the wind farm disaster story does not, by any means, end here.
Even in the unlikely event that ministers managed to get the subsidy system right, there would still remain fundamental problems with wind power. First, the fact that the turbines stand idle when the wind doesn't blow. This leaves gas or coal power stations to be switched on and off at a moment's notice to fill the gap - something that is very environmentally inefficient. Second, even if you accept that it's worth desecrating some of the most beautiful parts of Britain in pursuit of a renewable energy policy, you then must transport the energy to a population centre. That means building an expensive infrastructure of new power lines. The third problem is the potential threat wildlife (including rare birds colliding with the blades) and the damage to quality of life of those people who live near the wind farms.
The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors estimates that the price of house located close to a new turbine falls by 20 per cent, if the owners are able to sell it at all.
Of course, none of this much matters while the turbines are out of sight, but that could be about to change. Although Britain currently has nearly 2,000 onshore turbines; ministers have signed up to European targets on renewables that will mean 7,000 more. The Government claims that most of these will be built offshore, but that's not true because the costs of building in deep water are still too high. Finally, there is the revelation that wind farms stop the Ministry of Defence's radar working, so we can forget about early warning of an airborne attack.
Behind all this is one certainty: Britain is facing a looming energy crisis. Our ageing nuclear power plants, which currently provide 20 per cent of our energy, are nearing the end of their useful life.
The Government, having dithered for years, wants to build new ones but says that, unlike renewables, there will be no subsidies or price guarantees for the nuclear industry. If they really mean this, then the energy companies won't build any reactors, because the commercial risks will be too great. That will mean Britain becomes even more dependent on gas power stations, at a time when our supplies of North Sea gas are running out. Meanwhile we waste time fiddling with wind power. The solution in the medium term is a proper commitment to nuclear energy which, like wind power, doesn't generate greenhouse gases. Also, we should be funding for research into wave and tidal power - surely the long-term answer for an island nation like Britain.
The turbines would be enormous, completely out of scale with anything else in the landscape. They would be visible up to 30km away. To appreciate how tall 102m is, note that Lichfield Cathedral is only 79m (260 ft).
Please CLICK HERE to see a map of the location of the proposed turbines.
bravenet.com
