On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 18:07:16 +0100, David Hansen wrote
(in article ):
On Wed, 12 Jul 2006 13:46:18 +0100 someone who may be Andy Hall
wrote this:-
The pretence of the green lobby is that these things are nice and cuddly
and
don't have any impact.
That's an interesting distortion, but it doesn't progress the
discussion.
I don't think it's a distortion at all. That is exactly how the marketing
runs.....
You would probably class me as a member of the green lobby and I
have always said that large wind turbines are big and need to be
sited in the right place. I would be foolish to say anything else,
as people can always go and look at one. However, the studies show
that the majority of the public are happy about them.
This of course depends on the questions that are asked. If you were to ask
whether people mind about them when they have seen the present scaling levels
and there are a few on a distant hillside a long way from where they live, I
am sure that most people would have no objection. Reason? It doesn't affect
them directly and they are Not In My Back Yard.
Change the question and ask whether they mind when they are at the bottom of
the garden or in large numbers across a lot of open country and the reaction
will be very different.
They don't blend
in with the landscape or the environment and should be subject to the same
strict planning controls and public enquiries that any other major
industrial
development gets.
In what way do you claim that they are not subject to strict
planning controls and public enquiries?
Be careful not to distort in your answer. I already have some
examples in mind.
You're right. In theory they are. The important part is the execution of
the process and in that respect it's very lacking.
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.
Which organisation would this be?
Certainly the councils around here have control over planning, but
not energy policy.
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/busi...m?id=299402004
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com...m?id=643392004
We have promoters of these industrial wind sites using
coercion to bully said organisations into moving more quickly than is
proper.
If you want to see bullying I suggest you study Donald Trump's
proposed golf course in the Aberdeen area.
I don't hold Donald Trump in any higher esteem than Scottish Power.
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.
The numbers have already been given in this thread. Compared to the
number of existing pylons the numbers are negligible.
Generation at present is minuscule. What do you believe the number of
industrial windmills to be to generate the aspired to 20% of electricity or
the 50% that will be required? How many Supergrid pylons are there?
With the demise of the major textile, steel production and heavy
industries,
their paraphernalia was removed because chimneys and other vestiges were
deemed ugly.
Not usually. Indeed from near here I can see the preserved bings
from the shale oil industry. Very impressive they are too.
Clearly you find industrial paraphernalia a thing of beauty. I'm afraid I
don't....
Reasons why chimneys were removed are varied. Gas boilers don't need
big chimneys. It is often easier to knock one down and remove a
future maintenance problem. Removing the chimney provided space for
yet more flats. Some chimneys were preserved.
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.
I suspect that the children will still be very keen to look at them,
as they are now. If told I suspect they will also wonder about the
people who objected to wind farms, just as people now wonder about
the people who objected to hydro schemes.