'Dumping ground' fears raised over moorland wind turbines plans

Bradford Telegraph and Argus: Protestor Anthea Orchard Protestor Anthea Orchard

Countryside campaigners have warned that vast swathes of tranquil landscapes could be blighted by a “hurricane of wind farms” as it emerged new plans have been put forward for more turbines in Bronte Country.

The Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) is calling on Ministers to protect areas such as the moorland in the Bradford district from the “industrialism of valued countryside” as a direct result of Government policies.

Shaun Spiers, CPRE chief executive, said: “The English countryside is one of this country’s great glories.

“We must find a way of reconciling climate change mitigation and landscape protection. Otherwise we will sacrifice the beauty and tranquillity of much-loved landscapes for at least a generation.”

Mr Spiers spoke out after it emerged that plans have been submitted to Bradford Council for two 100-foot high wind turbines on fields at Well Heads Farm, Thornton, by Wellahead Energy Ltd, which has its base at Well Heads Farm, ahead of a decision by Bradford Council to allow a 200-foot wind monitoring mast on Thornton Moor.

That approval could lead to developer Banks Renewables building four 330-foot turbines on the green belt – despite concerns from the Bronte Society that it could damage views across the “unique” south Pennine landscape, which inspired Emily Bronte’s classic Wuthering Heights novel.

John Denham, president of the West Yorkshire branch of the CPRE, said: “We are strongly opposed to the turbines in Bronte Country and were quite horrified when it was agreed that they could put up the test mast to check the wind speed.

“We are very concerned about anything man-made that dominates the landscape.”

Residents have also spoken of their fears that moors above Bradford could become a “dumping ground” for large-scale wind farms.

Rachael Whitehead, of Denholme Gate, is opposing proposals for the turbines on Thornton Moor and Well Heads.

Mrs Whitehead, 36, said: “I am very protective about the area that I live in and I am very concerned that the area is going to become a dumping ground for wind turbines.”

Thornton Moor Wind Farm Action Group (TMWAG), which is fighting plans for large-scale wind farms in the area, called for greater public consultation on the latest Well Heads Farm planning application before it goes in front of councillors.

Anthea Orchard, chairman of TMWAG, said: “My concern is that if it is allowed to increase from one turbine to three what is to say that more will not be built in the future.

“I think people have a right to know more about this.”

A Department of Energy and Climate Change spokesman said it was committed to onshore wind “as a cost-effective and valuable part of the UK’s diverse energy mix.

He said: “While we believe that the impact of development is manageable, we are clear that new wind farm developments must be appropriately-sited and sensitive to communities’ concerns.”

Comments (36)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

says...

says...

8:23am Mon 30 Apr 12

angry bradfordian says...

I find this story a bit misleading. The story makes it sound like the CPRE are specifically commenting on the Thornton schemes, whereas they have actually issued a report on the UK wind industry. I've just has a quick read on their website and it doesn't mention any local schemes and actually acknowledges the need for onshore wind power.
The reporting of this story seems far too one sided for such an important story.

No doubt I'm going to get accused of being an industry insider for these views!
I find this story a bit misleading. The story makes it sound like the CPRE are specifically commenting on the Thornton schemes, whereas they have actually issued a report on the UK wind industry. I've just has a quick read on their website and it doesn't mention any local schemes and actually acknowledges the need for onshore wind power. The reporting of this story seems far too one sided for such an important story. No doubt I'm going to get accused of being an industry insider for these views! angry bradfordian

8:34am Mon 30 Apr 12

webess says...

I find them quite attractive. Maybe there'd be less opposition if they were called windmills rather than wind turbines?
I find them quite attractive. Maybe there'd be less opposition if they were called windmills rather than wind turbines? webess

10:25am Mon 30 Apr 12

OopNorth says...

It is becoming blindingly obvious that wind energy is a disaster - it doesn't save CO2, it produces a fraction of the rated capacity, and none at all when the wind doesn't blow.

Let those who want wind energy buy only electricity generated that way.

Then let those of us who don't want it, buy our electricity from other, non wind-generated sources.

That would be fair, wouldn't it?!
It is becoming blindingly obvious that wind energy is a disaster - it doesn't save CO2, it produces a fraction of the rated capacity, and none at all when the wind doesn't blow. Let those who want wind energy buy only electricity generated that way. Then let those of us who don't want it, buy our electricity from other, non wind-generated sources. That would be fair, wouldn't it?! OopNorth

11:00am Mon 30 Apr 12

somewhereinbradford says...

http://www.planning4
bradford.com/online-
applications/applica
tionDetails.do?activ
eTab=summary&keyVal=
M2EOTCDHC1000
http://www.planning4 bradford.com/online- applications/applica tionDetails.do?activ eTab=summary&keyVal= M2EOTCDHC1000 somewhereinbradford

11:00am Mon 30 Apr 12

theazbo says...

Very simple answer put a nuclear power station there ! Would that make people happier ? I know what i would rather live near !
Very simple answer put a nuclear power station there ! Would that make people happier ? I know what i would rather live near ! theazbo

11:04am Mon 30 Apr 12

Albion. says...

OopNorth wrote:
It is becoming blindingly obvious that wind energy is a disaster - it doesn't save CO2, it produces a fraction of the rated capacity, and none at all when the wind doesn't blow.

Let those who want wind energy buy only electricity generated that way.

Then let those of us who don't want it, buy our electricity from other, non wind-generated sources.

That would be fair, wouldn't it?!
No it wouldn't! When these things are running they are producing electricity and Nuclear and Fossil fuelled power stations are needed less ans polluting less.
People pay electricity suppliers not those who produce it.
It seems to me to be somewhat ironic the the protester in the photograph is posing next to a man made wall and wooden fence which presumably required quarrying and the killing of trees and a man managed moor which presumably was at one time used for the shooting of man managed game.
[quote][p][bold]OopNorth[/bold] wrote: It is becoming blindingly obvious that wind energy is a disaster - it doesn't save CO2, it produces a fraction of the rated capacity, and none at all when the wind doesn't blow. Let those who want wind energy buy only electricity generated that way. Then let those of us who don't want it, buy our electricity from other, non wind-generated sources. That would be fair, wouldn't it?![/p][/quote]No it wouldn't! When these things are running they are producing electricity and Nuclear and Fossil fuelled power stations are needed less ans polluting less. People pay electricity suppliers not those who produce it. It seems to me to be somewhat ironic the the protester in the photograph is posing next to a man made wall and wooden fence which presumably required quarrying and the killing of trees and a man managed moor which presumably was at one time used for the shooting of man managed game. Albion.

11:57am Mon 30 Apr 12

webess says...

Albion. wrote:
OopNorth wrote:
It is becoming blindingly obvious that wind energy is a disaster - it doesn't save CO2, it produces a fraction of the rated capacity, and none at all when the wind doesn't blow.

Let those who want wind energy buy only electricity generated that way.

Then let those of us who don't want it, buy our electricity from other, non wind-generated sources.

That would be fair, wouldn't it?!
No it wouldn't! When these things are running they are producing electricity and Nuclear and Fossil fuelled power stations are needed less ans polluting less.
People pay electricity suppliers not those who produce it.
It seems to me to be somewhat ironic the the protester in the photograph is posing next to a man made wall and wooden fence which presumably required quarrying and the killing of trees and a man managed moor which presumably was at one time used for the shooting of man managed game.
Nearly right, except forest is the natural landscape up there. But the land's used for sheep grazing so hardly natural...
[quote][p][bold]Albion.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OopNorth[/bold] wrote: It is becoming blindingly obvious that wind energy is a disaster - it doesn't save CO2, it produces a fraction of the rated capacity, and none at all when the wind doesn't blow. Let those who want wind energy buy only electricity generated that way. Then let those of us who don't want it, buy our electricity from other, non wind-generated sources. That would be fair, wouldn't it?![/p][/quote]No it wouldn't! When these things are running they are producing electricity and Nuclear and Fossil fuelled power stations are needed less ans polluting less. People pay electricity suppliers not those who produce it. It seems to me to be somewhat ironic the the protester in the photograph is posing next to a man made wall and wooden fence which presumably required quarrying and the killing of trees and a man managed moor which presumably was at one time used for the shooting of man managed game.[/p][/quote]Nearly right, except forest is the natural landscape up there. But the land's used for sheep grazing so hardly natural... webess

12:05pm Mon 30 Apr 12

nohidingplace says...

It looks a bit featureless to me, a few turbines would add interest!
It looks a bit featureless to me, a few turbines would add interest! nohidingplace

12:09pm Mon 30 Apr 12

Albion. says...

webess wrote:
Albion. wrote:
OopNorth wrote:
It is becoming blindingly obvious that wind energy is a disaster - it doesn't save CO2, it produces a fraction of the rated capacity, and none at all when the wind doesn't blow.

Let those who want wind energy buy only electricity generated that way.

Then let those of us who don't want it, buy our electricity from other, non wind-generated sources.

That would be fair, wouldn't it?!
No it wouldn't! When these things are running they are producing electricity and Nuclear and Fossil fuelled power stations are needed less ans polluting less.
People pay electricity suppliers not those who produce it.
It seems to me to be somewhat ironic the the protester in the photograph is posing next to a man made wall and wooden fence which presumably required quarrying and the killing of trees and a man managed moor which presumably was at one time used for the shooting of man managed game.
Nearly right, except forest is the natural landscape up there. But the land's used for sheep grazing so hardly natural...
Yes but as I said, the moor was manufactured for a purpose.
[quote][p][bold]webess[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Albion.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OopNorth[/bold] wrote: It is becoming blindingly obvious that wind energy is a disaster - it doesn't save CO2, it produces a fraction of the rated capacity, and none at all when the wind doesn't blow. Let those who want wind energy buy only electricity generated that way. Then let those of us who don't want it, buy our electricity from other, non wind-generated sources. That would be fair, wouldn't it?![/p][/quote]No it wouldn't! When these things are running they are producing electricity and Nuclear and Fossil fuelled power stations are needed less ans polluting less. People pay electricity suppliers not those who produce it. It seems to me to be somewhat ironic the the protester in the photograph is posing next to a man made wall and wooden fence which presumably required quarrying and the killing of trees and a man managed moor which presumably was at one time used for the shooting of man managed game.[/p][/quote]Nearly right, except forest is the natural landscape up there. But the land's used for sheep grazing so hardly natural...[/p][/quote]Yes but as I said, the moor was manufactured for a purpose. Albion.

12:10pm Mon 30 Apr 12

OopNorth says...

Albion. wrote:
OopNorth wrote:
It is becoming blindingly obvious that wind energy is a disaster - it doesn't save CO2, it produces a fraction of the rated capacity, and none at all when the wind doesn't blow.

Let those who want wind energy buy only electricity generated that way.

Then let those of us who don't want it, buy our electricity from other, non wind-generated sources.

That would be fair, wouldn't it?!
No it wouldn't! When these things are running they are producing electricity and Nuclear and Fossil fuelled power stations are needed less ans polluting less.
People pay electricity suppliers not those who produce it.
It seems to me to be somewhat ironic the the protester in the photograph is posing next to a man made wall and wooden fence which presumably required quarrying and the killing of trees and a man managed moor which presumably was at one time used for the shooting of man managed game.
Albion, you need a fact check.

Nuclear plants provide the UK baseload electricity & without them the lights will go out. (Probably will 2015/6)

You cannot turn them on & off. Gas and coal generators have to be kept on spinning reserve, because when the wind dies, the Grid has to replace the power within seconds or substations will close down. (Visit any W African country and you will see the effect of this.)

Power stations kept spinning ready for when the wind fails is highly inefficient, produces more CO2 (just as your car does idling in city traffic), & creates bigger maintenance bills.

Windmills were abandoned by our ancestors because they don't produce power when you need it.
[quote][p][bold]Albion.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OopNorth[/bold] wrote: It is becoming blindingly obvious that wind energy is a disaster - it doesn't save CO2, it produces a fraction of the rated capacity, and none at all when the wind doesn't blow. Let those who want wind energy buy only electricity generated that way. Then let those of us who don't want it, buy our electricity from other, non wind-generated sources. That would be fair, wouldn't it?![/p][/quote]No it wouldn't! When these things are running they are producing electricity and Nuclear and Fossil fuelled power stations are needed less ans polluting less. People pay electricity suppliers not those who produce it. It seems to me to be somewhat ironic the the protester in the photograph is posing next to a man made wall and wooden fence which presumably required quarrying and the killing of trees and a man managed moor which presumably was at one time used for the shooting of man managed game.[/p][/quote]Albion, you need a fact check. Nuclear plants provide the UK baseload electricity & without them the lights will go out. (Probably will 2015/6) You cannot turn them on & off. Gas and coal generators have to be kept on spinning reserve, because when the wind dies, the Grid has to replace the power within seconds or substations will close down. (Visit any W African country and you will see the effect of this.) Power stations kept spinning ready for when the wind fails is highly inefficient, produces more CO2 (just as your car does idling in city traffic), & creates bigger maintenance bills. Windmills were abandoned by our ancestors because they don't produce power when you need it. OopNorth

12:38pm Mon 30 Apr 12

nohidingplace says...

There's argument both ways, and depending on peoples own agenda, either can me made convincing.

One thing beyond dispute is that we can't keep burning fossil fuels to create energy.
There's argument both ways, and depending on peoples own agenda, either can me made convincing. One thing beyond dispute is that we can't keep burning fossil fuels to create energy. nohidingplace

12:39pm Mon 30 Apr 12

webess says...

What's that in background? A labour/respect council candidate with a missile launcher??
What's that in background? A labour/respect council candidate with a missile launcher?? webess

12:47pm Mon 30 Apr 12

Albion. says...

OopNorth wrote:
Albion. wrote:
OopNorth wrote:
It is becoming blindingly obvious that wind energy is a disaster - it doesn't save CO2, it produces a fraction of the rated capacity, and none at all when the wind doesn't blow.

Let those who want wind energy buy only electricity generated that way.

Then let those of us who don't want it, buy our electricity from other, non wind-generated sources.

That would be fair, wouldn't it?!
No it wouldn't! When these things are running they are producing electricity and Nuclear and Fossil fuelled power stations are needed less ans polluting less.
People pay electricity suppliers not those who produce it.
It seems to me to be somewhat ironic the the protester in the photograph is posing next to a man made wall and wooden fence which presumably required quarrying and the killing of trees and a man managed moor which presumably was at one time used for the shooting of man managed game.
Albion, you need a fact check.

Nuclear plants provide the UK baseload electricity & without them the lights will go out. (Probably will 2015/6)

You cannot turn them on & off. Gas and coal generators have to be kept on spinning reserve, because when the wind dies, the Grid has to replace the power within seconds or substations will close down. (Visit any W African country and you will see the effect of this.)

Power stations kept spinning ready for when the wind fails is highly inefficient, produces more CO2 (just as your car does idling in city traffic), & creates bigger maintenance bills.

Windmills were abandoned by our ancestors because they don't produce power when you need it.
I didn't say anything about turning them off, but some are near the end of their working life and there has been talk of building even more (not just replacements) anyway, a combination of wave and wind power CAN make a difference.
Ancient windmills were used for other purposes and were often replaced by water wheels (another natural resource).
The fact is that power stations burning fossil fuel are not going to last forever and even running efficiently are still polluters, as are petrol and diesel fuelled vehicles.
[quote][p][bold]OopNorth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Albion.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OopNorth[/bold] wrote: It is becoming blindingly obvious that wind energy is a disaster - it doesn't save CO2, it produces a fraction of the rated capacity, and none at all when the wind doesn't blow. Let those who want wind energy buy only electricity generated that way. Then let those of us who don't want it, buy our electricity from other, non wind-generated sources. That would be fair, wouldn't it?![/p][/quote]No it wouldn't! When these things are running they are producing electricity and Nuclear and Fossil fuelled power stations are needed less ans polluting less. People pay electricity suppliers not those who produce it. It seems to me to be somewhat ironic the the protester in the photograph is posing next to a man made wall and wooden fence which presumably required quarrying and the killing of trees and a man managed moor which presumably was at one time used for the shooting of man managed game.[/p][/quote]Albion, you need a fact check. Nuclear plants provide the UK baseload electricity & without them the lights will go out. (Probably will 2015/6) You cannot turn them on & off. Gas and coal generators have to be kept on spinning reserve, because when the wind dies, the Grid has to replace the power within seconds or substations will close down. (Visit any W African country and you will see the effect of this.) Power stations kept spinning ready for when the wind fails is highly inefficient, produces more CO2 (just as your car does idling in city traffic), & creates bigger maintenance bills. Windmills were abandoned by our ancestors because they don't produce power when you need it.[/p][/quote]I didn't say anything about turning them off, but some are near the end of their working life and there has been talk of building even more (not just replacements) anyway, a combination of wave and wind power CAN make a difference. Ancient windmills were used for other purposes and were often replaced by water wheels (another natural resource). The fact is that power stations burning fossil fuel are not going to last forever and even running efficiently are still polluters, as are petrol and diesel fuelled vehicles. Albion.

1:28pm Mon 30 Apr 12

basil fawlty says...

I cant see the justification for ruining our precious countryside based on some debatable marginal environmental benefits whilst China and India are spewing out millions of tons of greenhouse gases.
I cant see the justification for ruining our precious countryside based on some debatable marginal environmental benefits whilst China and India are spewing out millions of tons of greenhouse gases. basil fawlty

1:36pm Mon 30 Apr 12

nohidingplace says...

basil fawlty wrote:
I cant see the justification for ruining our precious countryside based on some debatable marginal environmental benefits whilst China and India are spewing out millions of tons of greenhouse gases.
That's a very lazy attitude!
[quote][p][bold]basil fawlty[/bold] wrote: I cant see the justification for ruining our precious countryside based on some debatable marginal environmental benefits whilst China and India are spewing out millions of tons of greenhouse gases.[/p][/quote]That's a very lazy attitude! nohidingplace

1:41pm Mon 30 Apr 12

Prisoner Cell Block A says...

OopNorth wrote:
Albion. wrote:
OopNorth wrote:
It is becoming blindingly obvious that wind energy is a disaster - it doesn't save CO2, it produces a fraction of the rated capacity, and none at all when the wind doesn't blow.

Let those who want wind energy buy only electricity generated that way.

Then let those of us who don't want it, buy our electricity from other, non wind-generated sources.

That would be fair, wouldn't it?!
No it wouldn't! When these things are running they are producing electricity and Nuclear and Fossil fuelled power stations are needed less ans polluting less.
People pay electricity suppliers not those who produce it.
It seems to me to be somewhat ironic the the protester in the photograph is posing next to a man made wall and wooden fence which presumably required quarrying and the killing of trees and a man managed moor which presumably was at one time used for the shooting of man managed game.
Albion, you need a fact check.

Nuclear plants provide the UK baseload electricity & without them the lights will go out. (Probably will 2015/6)

You cannot turn them on & off. Gas and coal generators have to be kept on spinning reserve, because when the wind dies, the Grid has to replace the power within seconds or substations will close down. (Visit any W African country and you will see the effect of this.)

Power stations kept spinning ready for when the wind fails is highly inefficient, produces more CO2 (just as your car does idling in city traffic), & creates bigger maintenance bills.

Windmills were abandoned by our ancestors because they don't produce power when you need it.
Windmills weren't abandoned because they didn't produce on demand, they were made obsolete by technology. Now technology is destroying the planet in it's need for earth resources other means have to be found and harnessed. Wind and water being two natural elements to exploit.

Technology needs to make the leaps to harness the generated wind power and store it more efficiently. Build more turbines in prepartion for this and ask the people from Thornton to use their other head and look away from the offending articles.
[quote][p][bold]OopNorth[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Albion.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]OopNorth[/bold] wrote: It is becoming blindingly obvious that wind energy is a disaster - it doesn't save CO2, it produces a fraction of the rated capacity, and none at all when the wind doesn't blow. Let those who want wind energy buy only electricity generated that way. Then let those of us who don't want it, buy our electricity from other, non wind-generated sources. That would be fair, wouldn't it?![/p][/quote]No it wouldn't! When these things are running they are producing electricity and Nuclear and Fossil fuelled power stations are needed less ans polluting less. People pay electricity suppliers not those who produce it. It seems to me to be somewhat ironic the the protester in the photograph is posing next to a man made wall and wooden fence which presumably required quarrying and the killing of trees and a man managed moor which presumably was at one time used for the shooting of man managed game.[/p][/quote]Albion, you need a fact check. Nuclear plants provide the UK baseload electricity & without them the lights will go out. (Probably will 2015/6) You cannot turn them on & off. Gas and coal generators have to be kept on spinning reserve, because when the wind dies, the Grid has to replace the power within seconds or substations will close down. (Visit any W African country and you will see the effect of this.) Power stations kept spinning ready for when the wind fails is highly inefficient, produces more CO2 (just as your car does idling in city traffic), & creates bigger maintenance bills. Windmills were abandoned by our ancestors because they don't produce power when you need it.[/p][/quote]Windmills weren't abandoned because they didn't produce on demand, they were made obsolete by technology. Now technology is destroying the planet in it's need for earth resources other means have to be found and harnessed. Wind and water being two natural elements to exploit. Technology needs to make the leaps to harness the generated wind power and store it more efficiently. Build more turbines in prepartion for this and ask the people from Thornton to use their other head and look away from the offending articles. Prisoner Cell Block A

1:41pm Mon 30 Apr 12

Mystertoo says...

It seems to me that this area is being inundated with these things at the moment. In addition to what is already there, the Ovenden wind farm is set to receive replacement turbines 2.5 times the size of the existing, the 4 on Thornton Moor, 2 in neighbouring Calderdale, 2 more at Well Heads and now one at Keelham Farm shop the same size at those currently on Ovenden Moor. Regardless of any views on their effectiveness or otherwise, it does seem to be an excessive concentration of development in an area that is meant to be 'green belt'.

I am sure if a nuclear power station was planned here, the entirety of Bradford would be united against it, so it seems with wind turbines, as long as it is in someone else's back yard, and it does not affect me, then I don't care!!
It seems to me that this area is being inundated with these things at the moment. In addition to what is already there, the Ovenden wind farm is set to receive replacement turbines 2.5 times the size of the existing, the 4 on Thornton Moor, 2 in neighbouring Calderdale, 2 more at Well Heads and now one at Keelham Farm shop the same size at those currently on Ovenden Moor. Regardless of any views on their effectiveness or otherwise, it does seem to be an excessive concentration of development in an area that is meant to be 'green belt'. I am sure if a nuclear power station was planned here, the entirety of Bradford would be united against it, so it seems with wind turbines, as long as it is in someone else's back yard, and it does not affect me, then I don't care!! Mystertoo

2:24pm Mon 30 Apr 12

Nlys says...

Sadly, we still see comments here which reveal a total ignorance of how electricity is generated.

For info: wind cannot be compared to nuclear and will not substitute for it. The most ridiculously pro-wind report yet written in the UK states: “It would be unrealistic to assume that wind energy would displace any nuclear capacity,” (‘Wind Power in the UK’, Sustainable Development Commission. 2005. p35).

National Grid, who run the distribution and grid balancing system tell us that even if ALL the offshore and onshore wind capacity currently planned was built we would still need a huge NEW gas and nuclear build: c. 30.5GW of nuclear and c. 36GW of gas-fuelled capacity.

Otherwise the lights will go out, as is in danger of happening in Germany with the closure of 8 nuclear power stations.

Don't believe me - read National Grid's 'Seven Year Statements', especially that for 2011: www.nationalgrid.com
/uk/Electricity/SYS/
Sadly, we still see comments here which reveal a total ignorance of how electricity is generated. For info: wind cannot be compared to nuclear and will not substitute for it. The most ridiculously pro-wind report yet written in the UK states: “It would be unrealistic to assume that wind energy would displace any nuclear capacity,” (‘Wind Power in the UK’, Sustainable Development Commission. 2005. p35). National Grid, who run the distribution and grid balancing system tell us that even if ALL the offshore and onshore wind capacity currently planned was built we would still need a huge NEW gas and nuclear build: c. 30.5GW of nuclear and c. 36GW of gas-fuelled capacity. Otherwise the lights will go out, as is in danger of happening in Germany with the closure of 8 nuclear power stations. Don't believe me - read National Grid's 'Seven Year Statements', especially that for 2011: www.nationalgrid.com /uk/Electricity/SYS/ Nlys

2:35pm Mon 30 Apr 12

Prisoner Cell Block A says...

Mystertoo wrote:
It seems to me that this area is being inundated with these things at the moment. In addition to what is already there, the Ovenden wind farm is set to receive replacement turbines 2.5 times the size of the existing, the 4 on Thornton Moor, 2 in neighbouring Calderdale, 2 more at Well Heads and now one at Keelham Farm shop the same size at those currently on Ovenden Moor. Regardless of any views on their effectiveness or otherwise, it does seem to be an excessive concentration of development in an area that is meant to be 'green belt'.

I am sure if a nuclear power station was planned here, the entirety of Bradford would be united against it, so it seems with wind turbines, as long as it is in someone else's back yard, and it does not affect me, then I don't care!!
I think the whole of Bradford would rightly be up in arms if a nuclear plant were to be planned for these areas, one bomb or accident and the city would likely go up with it. One bomb or accident on one on of these towers would see a mangled mess of metal, which judging by the speed our 'collectors' remove metal wouldn't be an eyesore or pile of metal for long. Not a good idea to liken the tow for means of arguing this point I'm afraid.
[quote][p][bold]Mystertoo[/bold] wrote: It seems to me that this area is being inundated with these things at the moment. In addition to what is already there, the Ovenden wind farm is set to receive replacement turbines 2.5 times the size of the existing, the 4 on Thornton Moor, 2 in neighbouring Calderdale, 2 more at Well Heads and now one at Keelham Farm shop the same size at those currently on Ovenden Moor. Regardless of any views on their effectiveness or otherwise, it does seem to be an excessive concentration of development in an area that is meant to be 'green belt'. I am sure if a nuclear power station was planned here, the entirety of Bradford would be united against it, so it seems with wind turbines, as long as it is in someone else's back yard, and it does not affect me, then I don't care!![/p][/quote]I think the whole of Bradford would rightly be up in arms if a nuclear plant were to be planned for these areas, one bomb or accident and the city would likely go up with it. One bomb or accident on one on of these towers would see a mangled mess of metal, which judging by the speed our 'collectors' remove metal wouldn't be an eyesore or pile of metal for long. Not a good idea to liken the tow for means of arguing this point I'm afraid. Prisoner Cell Block A

2:40pm Mon 30 Apr 12

Albion. says...

Nlys wrote:
Sadly, we still see comments here which reveal a total ignorance of how electricity is generated.

For info: wind cannot be compared to nuclear and will not substitute for it. The most ridiculously pro-wind report yet written in the UK states: “It would be unrealistic to assume that wind energy would displace any nuclear capacity,” (‘Wind Power in the UK’, Sustainable Development Commission. 2005. p35).

National Grid, who run the distribution and grid balancing system tell us that even if ALL the offshore and onshore wind capacity currently planned was built we would still need a huge NEW gas and nuclear build: c. 30.5GW of nuclear and c. 36GW of gas-fuelled capacity.

Otherwise the lights will go out, as is in danger of happening in Germany with the closure of 8 nuclear power stations.

Don't believe me - read National Grid's 'Seven Year Statements', especially that for 2011: www.nationalgrid.com

/uk/Electricity/SYS/
Or then again :- National Grid's 'Seven Year Statements', especially that for 2011: www.nationalgrid.com
/uk/Electricity/SYS/
[quote][p][bold]Nlys[/bold] wrote: Sadly, we still see comments here which reveal a total ignorance of how electricity is generated. For info: wind cannot be compared to nuclear and will not substitute for it. The most ridiculously pro-wind report yet written in the UK states: “It would be unrealistic to assume that wind energy would displace any nuclear capacity,” (‘Wind Power in the UK’, Sustainable Development Commission. 2005. p35). National Grid, who run the distribution and grid balancing system tell us that even if ALL the offshore and onshore wind capacity currently planned was built we would still need a huge NEW gas and nuclear build: c. 30.5GW of nuclear and c. 36GW of gas-fuelled capacity. Otherwise the lights will go out, as is in danger of happening in Germany with the closure of 8 nuclear power stations. Don't believe me - read National Grid's 'Seven Year Statements', especially that for 2011: www.nationalgrid.com /uk/Electricity/SYS/[/p][/quote]Or then again :- National Grid's 'Seven Year Statements', especially that for 2011: www.nationalgrid.com /uk/Electricity/SYS/ Albion.

3:00pm Mon 30 Apr 12

Albion. says...

Albion. wrote:
Nlys wrote:
Sadly, we still see comments here which reveal a total ignorance of how electricity is generated.

For info: wind cannot be compared to nuclear and will not substitute for it. The most ridiculously pro-wind report yet written in the UK states: “It would be unrealistic to assume that wind energy would displace any nuclear capacity,” (‘Wind Power in the UK’, Sustainable Development Commission. 2005. p35).

National Grid, who run the distribution and grid balancing system tell us that even if ALL the offshore and onshore wind capacity currently planned was built we would still need a huge NEW gas and nuclear build: c. 30.5GW of nuclear and c. 36GW of gas-fuelled capacity.

Otherwise the lights will go out, as is in danger of happening in Germany with the closure of 8 nuclear power stations.

Don't believe me - read National Grid's 'Seven Year Statements', especially that for 2011: www.nationalgrid.com


/uk/Electricity/SYS/
Or then again :- National Grid's 'Seven Year Statements', especially that for 2011: www.nationalgrid.com

/uk/Electricity/SYS/
Or rather :-http://www.guardia
n.co.uk/environment/
blog/2012/mar/16/nuc
lear-power-fail-geor
ge-monbiot
[quote][p][bold]Albion.[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Nlys[/bold] wrote: Sadly, we still see comments here which reveal a total ignorance of how electricity is generated. For info: wind cannot be compared to nuclear and will not substitute for it. The most ridiculously pro-wind report yet written in the UK states: “It would be unrealistic to assume that wind energy would displace any nuclear capacity,” (‘Wind Power in the UK’, Sustainable Development Commission. 2005. p35). National Grid, who run the distribution and grid balancing system tell us that even if ALL the offshore and onshore wind capacity currently planned was built we would still need a huge NEW gas and nuclear build: c. 30.5GW of nuclear and c. 36GW of gas-fuelled capacity. Otherwise the lights will go out, as is in danger of happening in Germany with the closure of 8 nuclear power stations. Don't believe me - read National Grid's 'Seven Year Statements', especially that for 2011: www.nationalgrid.com /uk/Electricity/SYS/[/p][/quote]Or then again :- National Grid's 'Seven Year Statements', especially that for 2011: www.nationalgrid.com /uk/Electricity/SYS/[/p][/quote]Or rather :-http://www.guardia n.co.uk/environment/ blog/2012/mar/16/nuc lear-power-fail-geor ge-monbiot Albion.

5:46pm Mon 30 Apr 12

Nlys says...

Albion.

Do you honestly think that FoE, who are rabidy antinuclear whatever the evidence, are better informed than DECC; National Grid; Ofgem (the industry regulator); the Institution of Mechanical Engineers; Professor Sir David King (Government Chief Scientific Advisor, 2002-2007); Professor Dieter Helm; Prof Martin Rees, FRS, President of the Royal Society); Professor David MacKay, Chief Scientific Adviser to DECC and respected author of 'Sustainable energy - without the hot air'?

We have plenty of real world evidence from Denmark, Spain, Germany and the US regarding very large wind capacities. They do not substitute for base load power.

If you don't like nuclear then we have to build an equivalent capacity of other reliable baseload generators - fuelled by gas or coal.

Germany has 27,000MW of wind capacity (we have 6,600MW). The Greens back in the 1980s assured the German public that a large wind build would allow them to shut down nuclear, it didn't.

They have now shut 8 nuclear power stations (a political decision, not supported by grd operators or power engineers) and are on a knife-edge, only keeping the lights on by importing large amounts of French nuclear and Austrian hydro.

During the very cold period in early February, a blackout was just escaped. Only one power plant outage would have disrupted the power supply in large parts of the country.

The Germans are now building large numbers of gas- and coal/lignite-fuelled power stations. Lignite is the dirtiest fuel known, next to oil.

Please get real.
Albion. Do you honestly think that FoE, who are rabidy antinuclear whatever the evidence, are better informed than DECC; National Grid; Ofgem (the industry regulator); the Institution of Mechanical Engineers; Professor Sir David King (Government Chief Scientific Advisor, 2002-2007); Professor Dieter Helm; Prof Martin Rees, FRS, President of the Royal Society); Professor David MacKay, Chief Scientific Adviser to DECC and respected author of 'Sustainable energy - without the hot air'? We have plenty of real world evidence from Denmark, Spain, Germany and the US regarding very large wind capacities. They do not substitute for base load power. If you don't like nuclear then we have to build an equivalent capacity of other reliable baseload generators - fuelled by gas or coal. Germany has 27,000MW of wind capacity (we have 6,600MW). The Greens back in the 1980s assured the German public that a large wind build would allow them to shut down nuclear, it didn't. They have now shut 8 nuclear power stations (a political decision, not supported by grd operators or power engineers) and are on a knife-edge, only keeping the lights on by importing large amounts of French nuclear and Austrian hydro. During the very cold period in early February, a blackout was just escaped. Only one power plant outage would have disrupted the power supply in large parts of the country. The Germans are now building large numbers of gas- and coal/lignite-fuelled power stations. Lignite is the dirtiest fuel known, next to oil. Please get real. Nlys

6:00pm Mon 30 Apr 12

Albion. says...

Nlys wrote:
Albion.

Do you honestly think that FoE, who are rabidy antinuclear whatever the evidence, are better informed than DECC; National Grid; Ofgem (the industry regulator); the Institution of Mechanical Engineers; Professor Sir David King (Government Chief Scientific Advisor, 2002-2007); Professor Dieter Helm; Prof Martin Rees, FRS, President of the Royal Society); Professor David MacKay, Chief Scientific Adviser to DECC and respected author of 'Sustainable energy - without the hot air'?

We have plenty of real world evidence from Denmark, Spain, Germany and the US regarding very large wind capacities. They do not substitute for base load power.

If you don't like nuclear then we have to build an equivalent capacity of other reliable baseload generators - fuelled by gas or coal.

Germany has 27,000MW of wind capacity (we have 6,600MW). The Greens back in the 1980s assured the German public that a large wind build would allow them to shut down nuclear, it didn't.

They have now shut 8 nuclear power stations (a political decision, not supported by grd operators or power engineers) and are on a knife-edge, only keeping the lights on by importing large amounts of French nuclear and Austrian hydro.

During the very cold period in early February, a blackout was just escaped. Only one power plant outage would have disrupted the power supply in large parts of the country.

The Germans are now building large numbers of gas- and coal/lignite-fuelled power stations. Lignite is the dirtiest fuel known, next to oil.

Please get real.
There are plenty of reports from reputable sources (who don't all have a vested interest) to support my points, no where have I said that power stations will be replaced by wind power, but as I say, "they can make a difference".
We are never going to agree about this, but basically all I am saying is these things can be of use.
[quote][p][bold]Nlys[/bold] wrote: Albion. Do you honestly think that FoE, who are rabidy antinuclear whatever the evidence, are better informed than DECC; National Grid; Ofgem (the industry regulator); the Institution of Mechanical Engineers; Professor Sir David King (Government Chief Scientific Advisor, 2002-2007); Professor Dieter Helm; Prof Martin Rees, FRS, President of the Royal Society); Professor David MacKay, Chief Scientific Adviser to DECC and respected author of 'Sustainable energy - without the hot air'? We have plenty of real world evidence from Denmark, Spain, Germany and the US regarding very large wind capacities. They do not substitute for base load power. If you don't like nuclear then we have to build an equivalent capacity of other reliable baseload generators - fuelled by gas or coal. Germany has 27,000MW of wind capacity (we have 6,600MW). The Greens back in the 1980s assured the German public that a large wind build would allow them to shut down nuclear, it didn't. They have now shut 8 nuclear power stations (a political decision, not supported by grd operators or power engineers) and are on a knife-edge, only keeping the lights on by importing large amounts of French nuclear and Austrian hydro. During the very cold period in early February, a blackout was just escaped. Only one power plant outage would have disrupted the power supply in large parts of the country. The Germans are now building large numbers of gas- and coal/lignite-fuelled power stations. Lignite is the dirtiest fuel known, next to oil. Please get real.[/p][/quote]There are plenty of reports from reputable sources (who don't all have a vested interest) to support my points, no where have I said that power stations will be replaced by wind power, but as I say, "they can make a difference". We are never going to agree about this, but basically all I am saying is these things can be of use. Albion.

6:19pm Mon 30 Apr 12

Nlys says...

Albion.

Do please share these reputable sources with us (WWF/Greenpeace/FoE and similar anti-nuclear hysterics do not count).

While you are at it, please quote examples of countries with very large installed wind capacity where they have significantly reduced CO2 emissions as a result of the wind build.
Albion. Do please share these reputable sources with us (WWF/Greenpeace/FoE and similar anti-nuclear hysterics do not count). While you are at it, please quote examples of countries with very large installed wind capacity where they have significantly reduced CO2 emissions as a result of the wind build. Nlys

6:53pm Mon 30 Apr 12

Albion. says...

It's not up to you to decide what counts or what doesn't, if all houses and public buildings had solar power and wind and wave and other hydro power were well utilised it would make a huge difference, I have never said that it would eliminate power stations, projects such as this are steps in the right direction and I am not interested in what goes on in other countries, someone earlier said I should visit West Africa to see the pollution caused by idling power stations, I could have replied with "why don't you visit places where nuclear power plant accidents have caused all sorts of disasters" but I didn't.
As far as I am concerned this project is part of the drive towards utilising the natural elements to provide clean power and the sooner we are fully utilising all available natural sources the better.
I have not suggested that at this time it would be anything other than a partnership with the various other means of generating power.
That is my position and that is what I'm sticking with and what seems to get up your nose is that is what is going to happen!
Do have a good evening :-)
It's not up to you to decide what counts or what doesn't, if all houses and public buildings had solar power and wind and wave and other hydro power were well utilised it would make a huge difference, I have never said that it would eliminate power stations, projects such as this are steps in the right direction and I am not interested in what goes on in other countries, someone earlier said I should visit West Africa to see the pollution caused by idling power stations, I could have replied with "why don't you visit places where nuclear power plant accidents have caused all sorts of disasters" but I didn't. As far as I am concerned this project is part of the drive towards utilising the natural elements to provide clean power and the sooner we are fully utilising all available natural sources the better. I have not suggested that at this time it would be anything other than a partnership with the various other means of generating power. That is my position and that is what I'm sticking with and what seems to get up your nose is that is what is going to happen! Do have a good evening :-) Albion.

8:13pm Mon 30 Apr 12

Mystertoo says...

What has happened in other countries is relevant. What makes anyone think it will be different here?

The feeding frenzy regarding wind power at the moment is fuelled by excessive subsidies that will surely come to an end soon as it will become unaffordable.

The Institute of Civil Engineers has been warning successive governments about a looming energy crisis for decades, but successive incumbents have ignored our energy security.

If anyone thinks throwing up these propellers is going to resolve the issue they are deluded, it is just government shying away from making big but unpopular decisions. The inevitability is that the future will be nuclear.
What has happened in other countries is relevant. What makes anyone think it will be different here? The feeding frenzy regarding wind power at the moment is fuelled by excessive subsidies that will surely come to an end soon as it will become unaffordable. The Institute of Civil Engineers has been warning successive governments about a looming energy crisis for decades, but successive incumbents have ignored our energy security. If anyone thinks throwing up these propellers is going to resolve the issue they are deluded, it is just government shying away from making big but unpopular decisions. The inevitability is that the future will be nuclear. Mystertoo

8:56pm Mon 30 Apr 12

Nlys says...

Albion.

So, we seem to have established that you are incapable of supporting your argument.

If you are not interested in what has happened in other countries that have had experience of very large wind capacities then you are just as foolish as the politicians who are repeating the mistakes of others, at huge expense to us all.
Albion. So, we seem to have established that you are incapable of supporting your argument. If you are not interested in what has happened in other countries that have had experience of very large wind capacities then you are just as foolish as the politicians who are repeating the mistakes of others, at huge expense to us all. Nlys

9:05pm Mon 30 Apr 12

Albion. says...

And you are just sore because you won't get your own way.
And you are just sore because you won't get your own way. Albion.

10:52pm Mon 30 Apr 12

Simon_H says...

Albion, if you can't support your argument with anything better than "Magical Thinking" then you should retract. If you wish to assert that your opinion is based on your own personal belief system then that's fine - but do us the courtesy of not trying to impose your religious views on the rest of us. In our society, that behaviour is unacceptable.

The experience of other countries regarding wind turbines is highly relevant. No country has had a good experience with wind. The claimed potential for the wind farm at Thornton Moor is to supply 440,000 homes. We know from both our own experience and experiences abroad that the reality will be less than 10% of that and less even than that during extremely warm and extremely cold times, because of the very nature of those meteorological events - the wind simply does not blow when it is needed, and we have no means of storing the energy when it does.

Wind turbine placement at Thornton Moor marks a return to the "policies of envy" we saw in Yorkshire in decades past, when vindictive councillors "uglified" beautiful Yorkshire valleys with insanely inappropriate high rise properties.
Albion, if you can't support your argument with anything better than "Magical Thinking" then you should retract. If you wish to assert that your opinion is based on your own personal belief system then that's fine - but do us the courtesy of not trying to impose your religious views on the rest of us. In our society, that behaviour is unacceptable. The experience of other countries regarding wind turbines is highly relevant. No country has had a good experience with wind. The claimed potential for the wind farm at Thornton Moor is to supply 440,000 homes. We know from both our own experience and experiences abroad that the reality will be less than 10% of that and less even than that during extremely warm and extremely cold times, because of the very nature of those meteorological events - the wind simply does not blow when it is needed, and we have no means of storing the energy when it does. Wind turbine placement at Thornton Moor marks a return to the "policies of envy" we saw in Yorkshire in decades past, when vindictive councillors "uglified" beautiful Yorkshire valleys with insanely inappropriate high rise properties. Simon_H

6:40am Tue 1 May 12

Albion. says...

Simon_H wrote:
Albion, if you can't support your argument with anything better than "Magical Thinking" then you should retract. If you wish to assert that your opinion is based on your own personal belief system then that's fine - but do us the courtesy of not trying to impose your religious views on the rest of us. In our society, that behaviour is unacceptable.

The experience of other countries regarding wind turbines is highly relevant. No country has had a good experience with wind. The claimed potential for the wind farm at Thornton Moor is to supply 440,000 homes. We know from both our own experience and experiences abroad that the reality will be less than 10% of that and less even than that during extremely warm and extremely cold times, because of the very nature of those meteorological events - the wind simply does not blow when it is needed, and we have no means of storing the energy when it does.

Wind turbine placement at Thornton Moor marks a return to the "policies of envy" we saw in Yorkshire in decades past, when vindictive councillors "uglified" beautiful Yorkshire valleys with insanely inappropriate high rise properties.
What a rude and insulting post! typical of those here which show no regard for the safety of the population, in fact, so typical that I suggest that three of the posters here are actually the same person (probably keeps re-registering so as to vote in the survey).
It doesn't matter what you say (or I for that matter) as more of these projects will go ahead, even if this one doesn't.
As for telling me that I should retract? what the hell do you think this is? We aren't attending a Westminster enquiry! And it's well known on here that my stance is firmly against ANY religion.
[quote][p][bold]Simon_H[/bold] wrote: Albion, if you can't support your argument with anything better than "Magical Thinking" then you should retract. If you wish to assert that your opinion is based on your own personal belief system then that's fine - but do us the courtesy of not trying to impose your religious views on the rest of us. In our society, that behaviour is unacceptable. The experience of other countries regarding wind turbines is highly relevant. No country has had a good experience with wind. The claimed potential for the wind farm at Thornton Moor is to supply 440,000 homes. We know from both our own experience and experiences abroad that the reality will be less than 10% of that and less even than that during extremely warm and extremely cold times, because of the very nature of those meteorological events - the wind simply does not blow when it is needed, and we have no means of storing the energy when it does. Wind turbine placement at Thornton Moor marks a return to the "policies of envy" we saw in Yorkshire in decades past, when vindictive councillors "uglified" beautiful Yorkshire valleys with insanely inappropriate high rise properties.[/p][/quote]What a rude and insulting post! typical of those here which show no regard for the safety of the population, in fact, so typical that I suggest that three of the posters here are actually the same person (probably keeps re-registering so as to vote in the survey). It doesn't matter what you say (or I for that matter) as more of these projects will go ahead, even if this one doesn't. As for telling me that I should retract? what the hell do you think this is? We aren't attending a Westminster enquiry! And it's well known on here that my stance is firmly against ANY religion. Albion.

10:08am Tue 1 May 12

somewhereinbradford says...

Albion, you cannot sit back unless you get the last word can you. What a sad existence. The post you refer to wasn't insulting, just another opinion, which is what you profess we are all allowed on this website, so stop embarrasing yourself. No-one takes your comments seriously anyway, perhaps because you make so many of them, and then you loose your temper lol.
Albion, you cannot sit back unless you get the last word can you. What a sad existence. The post you refer to wasn't insulting, just another opinion, which is what you profess we are all allowed on this website, so stop embarrasing yourself. No-one takes your comments seriously anyway, perhaps because you make so many of them, and then you loose your temper lol. somewhereinbradford

11:15am Tue 1 May 12

Albion. says...

somewhereinbradford wrote:
Albion, you cannot sit back unless you get the last word can you. What a sad existence. The post you refer to wasn't insulting, just another opinion, which is what you profess we are all allowed on this website, so stop embarrasing yourself. No-one takes your comments seriously anyway, perhaps because you make so many of them, and then you loose your temper lol.
I'll be the judge of what it was! It was after all addressed to me!
[quote][p][bold]somewhereinbradford[/bold] wrote: Albion, you cannot sit back unless you get the last word can you. What a sad existence. The post you refer to wasn't insulting, just another opinion, which is what you profess we are all allowed on this website, so stop embarrasing yourself. No-one takes your comments seriously anyway, perhaps because you make so many of them, and then you loose your temper lol.[/p][/quote]I'll be the judge of what it was! It was after all addressed to me! Albion.

4:15pm Tue 1 May 12

a reasonable sort of chap says...

Mystertoo wrote:
What has happened in other countries is relevant. What makes anyone think it will be different here?

The feeding frenzy regarding wind power at the moment is fuelled by excessive subsidies that will surely come to an end soon as it will become unaffordable.

The Institute of Civil Engineers has been warning successive governments about a looming energy crisis for decades, but successive incumbents have ignored our energy security.

If anyone thinks throwing up these propellers is going to resolve the issue they are deluded, it is just government shying away from making big but unpopular decisions. The inevitability is that the future will be nuclear.
But it doesn't have to be nuclear. There is another form of energy that is clean and free, but is currently being kept secret as if (or when) revealed it will change the geo-political structure, and the powerful elite do not want that. This is the main reason for the cover-up of the UFO phenomena, as if they revealed the truth about that they would also have to reveal the truth about free energy.

Watch:

http://youtu.be/phjB
TcuRzBc


See also:

http://www.disclosur
eproject.org/
[quote][p][bold]Mystertoo[/bold] wrote: What has happened in other countries is relevant. What makes anyone think it will be different here? The feeding frenzy regarding wind power at the moment is fuelled by excessive subsidies that will surely come to an end soon as it will become unaffordable. The Institute of Civil Engineers has been warning successive governments about a looming energy crisis for decades, but successive incumbents have ignored our energy security. If anyone thinks throwing up these propellers is going to resolve the issue they are deluded, it is just government shying away from making big but unpopular decisions. The inevitability is that the future will be nuclear.[/p][/quote]But it doesn't have to be nuclear. There is another form of energy that is clean and free, but is currently being kept secret as if (or when) revealed it will change the geo-political structure, and the powerful elite do not want that. This is the main reason for the cover-up of the UFO phenomena, as if they revealed the truth about that they would also have to reveal the truth about free energy. Watch: http://youtu.be/phjB TcuRzBc See also: http://www.disclosur eproject.org/ a reasonable sort of chap

1:25am Wed 2 May 12

seeWemm says...

How many of the 9 out of 10 people who want more green power know that in March 2011, a report was issued about the actual delivery of electricity from wind farms to the National Grid over a 2 years and 2 months period. On average, every 6 days, for a period of 5 hours, the electricity delivered was less than 1¼ % of the maximum amount of electricity the wind farms were capable of delivering. See: http://lftrsuk.blogs
pot.co.uk/2012/04/wi
nd-energy-wanna-be-l
ievers-whats.html

A simple question to the DECC spokesperson - At the point in time, when you announce to the world that the UK has reached the absolute maximum number of wind turbines you believe it can support, on every 6th days, for 5 hours, what does it cost to get the other 98¾ % of that energy, which is essential to keep the country functioning?

Is this cost truly added to the price of electricity from renewables that you present to your electorate?
How many of the 9 out of 10 people who want more green power know that in March 2011, a report was issued about the actual delivery of electricity from wind farms to the National Grid over a 2 years and 2 months period. On average, every 6 days, for a period of 5 hours, the electricity delivered was less than 1¼ % of the maximum amount of electricity the wind farms were capable of delivering. See: http://lftrsuk.blogs pot.co.uk/2012/04/wi nd-energy-wanna-be-l ievers-whats.html A simple question to the DECC spokesperson - At the point in time, when you announce to the world that the UK has reached the absolute maximum number of wind turbines you believe it can support, on every 6th days, for 5 hours, what does it cost to get the other 98¾ % of that energy, which is essential to keep the country functioning? Is this cost truly added to the price of electricity from renewables that you present to your electorate? seeWemm

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree