Is it only NIMBY TORIES who object to wind turbines ?

Question

The latest claim is that having built 3,450 turbines "enough is enough". But let's look closely at that figure.

Britain is 244,00 sq km, in area. Divide that figure by our 3450 turbines and you get 70.72.
Which means that on average one will meet a wind turbine every 70 kilometres.

So the country is hardly "peppered with turbines" as they claim.

I suppose those people are happier with the news that the Japanese company Hitachi is buying up three redundant nuclear power stations in the UK, with a view to reconstruction.

Japan is hardly a country to entrust with nuclear design, is it, after the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear power station. disaster, is it ?

Wake up, nimbies. Wind turbines are just about safest way possible to develope electricity.

Answer 1

According to government figures there are 3,350 onshore turbines constructed, another 2,682 approved, another 3,063 in the planning system and who knows how many more in development. Using your figures that's one every 25 square km, i.e. 1 every 5km x 5km square, or 1 every 3 miles.



Given that most of the new turbines are large (125m+) and visible for 20 miles, isn't that enough?



Objectors are asking for research into whether mixing eratic wind energy into the national electricity grid actually saves any CO2. What's wrong with that since you're so keen on figures?



There's no point having a safe generation method, if it doesn't generate much electricity, and can't be relied on to generate ANY electricity when required.



I don't know much about the Hitachi's nuclear expertise - but I presume they will build a state of the art power stations on the existing sites, not build a 50 year old plant on a earthquake fault line.

Answer 2

No, it isn't only NIMBY Tories that object to wind turbines. People who are good at maths object to wind turbines because they are a stupid expensive way to generate low levels of erratic electricity that we still need regular power plants to backup when the wind isn't blowing. People who like to operate large manufacturing facilities that require rock solid power supplies of 10 to 100 megawatts 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year with not a second of interruption also object to wind turbines because the electricity produced by the turbines is making their electric bill double or triple and the electricity provided is too unreliable to run the plant. Why anybody would build a power source that only produces 15 to 20 percent of its rated power over the course of a year is a mystery to me when you can build a nuclear power station that generates 1000 megawatts of electricity so reliably, it takes up less than a square mile, it employs several hundred people with good salaries, it only needs fuel once every year or two and its waste is entirely contained in a canister that fits on the back of a good sized truck.



As far as safety, wind turbines are much more hazardous than nuclear power plants. Do some research on the number of people that have died because they fell off the turbine during construction or maintenance. What about the number of turbines that have caught fire? or lost a blade? The only nuclear accident that killed people was Chernobyl (40 to 50) and wind power (world wide) has killed about three times as many people who were killed during that disaster.

Answer 3

The average wind turbine creates about 4.7 million kwh of electric a year. A nuclear plant produces about 12 BILLION kwh per year.



At that rate it takes more than 3,000 turbines to produce the power of a single nuclear station. That is of course assuming that the conditions are right for the turbines to function (they get switched off if its too windy/not windy enough).



Turbines are incredibly inefficient. Just the cost of producing and installing thousands of these huge machines makes then not worth it. The low power output of wind power means that currently the UK government actually has to subsidise usage.



There is nothing wrong with Japanese nuclear engineering. Fukushima was hit bit a massive earthquake, followed by a devastating tsunami (and still didn't reach critical melt down).

Answer 4

Being a NIMBY can be a grumpy habit. There are wind turbines in Liverpool Bay. The only other thing to see is the horizon on a clear day and clouds on a dull day. The wind turbines are white in colour and so hardly visible. No harm done here. But ... ... they still complain.



Alternative energy is becoming quite exciting. My favourite, to completely replace domestic gas heating, is the heat pump. I hope that batteries will be made to enable storage of electricity for use during power cuts or for loading during off peak times. First of all we should all use less energy.



Increasing demand for gas helps to make the price for everyone ever higher. Reducing the demand by using alternatives, helps to reduce the rate of ever rising energy prices while helping to increase our energy security. Bring on the smart grid.



We have to look at it in a future context to see how it will all work.

Answer 5

That depends on the design. A poorly-designed wind turbine (propellor-type) can kill birds. The numbers can be devastating during migration if a wind farm is in the way. Still, if you consider all costs and benefits, wind turbines are very useful, in the right places.

Answer 6

There are many alternatives to wind energy. Personally I'd like to see more Waste to Energy development was we all dump tonnes of high energy value waste out the door every year and send it to landfill.



1 Windmill for every 25km2 is a little scary. Even more so when they tend to be situated on our most scenic places.



The sad reality is that, situated in geologically stable areas, Nuclear is a very clean option. The onlly threat is that of mad people!!