Wind Farms

[poliphilo]

Well, that's the end of wind farms, I suppose.

David Cameron has said he'll get rid of them if he returns to power. And I imagine the other party leaders will shortly have the same idea (and claim they had it first). It's a cheap policy and there are votes in it.

I have mixed feelings. On the one hand I think wind turbines are beautiful. On the other you can have too much of a good thing.

But I predict that eventually- once most of them have been swept away- there'll be a change of heart and people will start talking about how much they add to the landscape and campaigns will spring up to " save our turbines" and the few survivors will be lovingly restored and emoted over as symbols of millennial Britain.

Comments

[veronica-milvus.livejournal.com]

We are thinking seriously about energy security in our new place - perhaps a set of free-standing solar panels - we probably wouldn't get permission to put them on the roof - and/or a ground source heating system. But the big government projects really ought to focus on tidal power - safe, cheap, silent, reliable, readily available and in nobody's way.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Quite a lot of houses round here have solar panels
on their roofs. I don't think they're unattractive.

Tidal power- yes!

[cmcmck.livejournal.com]

Solar and tidal are the way to go (or perhaps vertical turbines) but sadly, the 'traditional' windmill turbine was taken far more seriously than it maybe should have been, which lays us open to the ongoing Tory love affair with nuclear.

Sigh :o(

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

We'll get there in the end (I like to think.)

[raakone.livejournal.com]

They could come up with a new design with a "cage" around it, or some other devices, to keep away birds, that's the main concern most of the time. Or is it a case of NIMBYism? Are wind turbines the new wooden escalators? (villified and demonized beyond what they did)

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

They're new therefore they're ugly- that's how the thinking goes.

[raakone.livejournal.com]

So it's pretty much NIMBYism, pure and simple?

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Yes it is.

[heleninwales.livejournal.com]

Even the RSPB say they don't harm birds. It's not at if the blades go around very fast, after all.

Interestingly, by coincidence, I was getting my students (17-18 year olds) to discuss windfarms today. There was almost unanimous support for them, as long as there were in a sensible place.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

I've never been convinced by the argument about birds. Those blades don't turn so very fast- and besides birds are used to getting out of the way of things.

[heleninwales.livejournal.com]

Exactly! Birds have evolved to dodge hawks, not to mention tree branches swaying in the wind. A lazily turning blade on a wind-turbine isn't going to cause them much trouble.

[basefinder.livejournal.com]

On this side of the pond, wind turbines have really caught on. The only complaints we hear are when they interfere with the view from a rich person's home.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

You have more land than us. Here they interfere with the view from a lot of rich people's homes.

[basefinder.livejournal.com]

So true. We have vast expanses of land where rich people don't care to be.

Lucky for me, I enjoy vast expanses of land *and* wind turbines!