On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 16:50:48 +0100, wrote
(in article . com):

Andy Hall wrote:
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 01:06:02 +0100, wrote
(in article . com):
Andy Hall wrote:

That just shows an ugly industrial windmill in front of a field being
ploughed and a landscape with low rolling hills.
Subtract the industrial windmill and it would look great

These sort of appearance objections are like little children saying
they dont want to go to school cos its cold outside. While I can
sympathise ya still got to get real.

I don't think it's an issue of reality and sympathy at all.

The pretence of the green lobby is that these things are nice and cuddly and
don't have any impact.

what someone says a lobbyist says is of no relevance to deciding how we
should generate electricity in future.


The reality is that they do and are industrial in nature.

yes, as are the pylons, power lines, telegraph poles, telcomms cabinets
and assorted other bits of industry we live with day in day out.

Exactly, so no need to make it any worse than it already is.



They don't blend
in with the landscape or the environment

they blend in no more or less than pylons. Compared to the real issues
this is trivia.

I think that this is a real issue.




and should be subject to the same
strict planning controls and public enquiries that any other major
industrial
development gets.

Instead of this, we have planning authorities acting as judge and jury in
their own cause because the same organisation has jurisdiction over planning
and energy policy. We have promoters of these industrial wind sites using
coercion to bully said organisations into moving more quickly than is
proper.

none of this has anything really to do with the question.

It has a great deal of relevance to the notion that this stuff is all cuddly,
benign and nice as the promoters would have one believe.

It's a commercial and political agenda exactly the same as any other energy
related topic.





In order to produce worthwhile amounts of electricity, there would need to
be
massive deployments of these industrial sites to the point that one would
not
be able to travel any significant distance before seeing them.

like pylons.

Exactly, so again, no need to add to it.



With the demise of the major textile, steel production and heavy industries,
their paraphernalia was removed because chimneys and other vestiges were
deemed ugly.

we're rather wealthier today, and have the funds to make things that
dont look so butt ugly, and the political will to ensure it.

If that were true, nobody would be proposing building industrial windmills in
some of the best natural environment in the country.




I am sure that by 2030, we will have TV programs with a latter-day Fred
Dibnah blowing up these windmills to entertain the kiddies. I shall be
pleased to help him place the charges.

Have fun. It would be more useful to discuss the real issues though, ie
deaths, disease, environment survival, and cost.


The answer to that one is quite simple and is covered by nuclear generation.