Food for Thought

I don't think wind turbines are the panacea that many people seem to think they are, but I don't totally agree with Robert either.

I actually think they are one of the more attractive architectural creations of recent times and often form a pleasing juxtaposition with the natural landscape.

And given that, unlike a powerstation, they are unlikley to leave much of an environmental footprint at the end of their lives, I don't think we are burdening future generations with something that need haunt them for ever.

Having said that, realistically, nuclear is probably going to be the mainstay of future power generation whether people like it or not.

But that doesn't mean we should abandon other alternative energy sources. Give wind a chance I say.

Hmmm...I wonder if Disgusted of East Sussex's 13th Century forbear thought the same about the first windmills. Now, in the C21st they are listed buildings and tourist attractions.

Keep tilting at them Robert!

It is very unlikely that wind turbines can contribute more than a small proportion of the country's need. Wind farms to generate the electricity of a large conventional generator take up too great an area and are significantly damaging to large and therefore rarer birds, like the Golden Eagle, and to many are a huge visual blot.

The economic case is far from clear because of the distortion by subsidy, though a few turbines can contribute to individual farmer's income.

Impossible to give a simple yes/no answer. Probably yeas for about 5% of need.

I find it somewhat ironic how the latest issue of Farmer's Weekly covers the Soil Association conference with its huge emphasis on fossil fuel depletion, followed by a "public court case" on whether Wind Turbines are good or bad.

You have to grasp the big picture here. In less than 20 years the availability of the non-renewables is likely to diminish, including nuclear fission. Bear in mind that the UK nuclear installed capacity of about 10GW only provides 7% of our total energy demand (20% of electricity), and the global supply of high grade Uranium ore has been below demand for a number of years; the spot price has quintupled over 5 years. Don't forget that fossil fuels are needed to mine and separate the Uranium from its ore. Nuclear is nothing like the panacea yous appear to believe it to be.

Comparing renewables against the non-renewables is simply not fair. Just burning non-renewable energy is wasting a precious resource, hence by definition they are far too cheap. We need to invest as much as we possibly can into the renewables, so we at least have something tomorrow. The alternative is to "burn everything" and be left with nothing. Fossil fuels being too cheap is a gross economic distortion.

The argument over "spinning reserve" usually implies we have to build additional fossil plant to complement wind machines. This is simply not the case; the existing generators already provide this many times over.

Don't be fooled into thinking that you can run the electricity grid on 100% nuclear, since they have to run flat out, and cannot cope with variation in demand. I don't expect their contribution to electricity to ever exceed 20% over the next 40 years.

Out of all of the renewables, wind is the most developed technology, and also has the highest energy payback (EROEI). It will need to be complemented by biomass, which only has a few GW of potential in the UK; we're not going to run the National Grid solely on wood.

Wave and tidal technology is still in the R&D phase so they cannot be rolled out, and they also have their detractors (e.g. surfers against the wavebob). Pretty much all hydro sites are already utilised.

So the era of 99.9999% availability of 50GW of electricity will soon be over. Other countries are waking up to the reality of energy descent; they are buying up the renewable energy stock. For instance, Vestas' order books are full for at least the next three years. We have to act fast to install as much renewable energy as we can in the UK, because we need to be as self-sufficient as possible. The more stalling we do, the sooner the National Grid will have to introduce rationing on a regular basis.

Check out the books "Energy Beyond Oil" and "The Party's Over".

Google "Olduvai Theory".

I beieve that wind power can provide an important contribution to our renewables target. They will not provide all our electricity in the future, but are another string in the bow to energy security.

Wind turbines are visible from my farm, but I do not consider them to be offensive. In fact, they sit better in the countryside than large pylons and phone/tv masts.

I have a planning application in to the council for the installation of 3 turbines on my farm and only received 4 objections! Hardly the huge public outcry that is being muted by the anti wind farm brigade!

The thing to remember about wind turbines is that they are not permanent and can easily be taken down in the future.

It is a great pity that all the input was from interested parties as opposed to some independent factual info
For Allison Hill to say that wind turbines run at 70 to 80% is factualy incorrect as they run at 30-35% on average
The subsidies for operators are so enormous that they will do almost anything in their greed to feather their nests
In Scotland large areas of countryside are being industrialised by groups of 50-150 turbines and because the enterprise is so profitable there is great urgency to get them erected before the subsidies are altered ,quite apart from the rental income that the land owner gets
Some Scottish politicians are concerned that there is almost no development going on in other areas such as hydro which is possibly 75% efficient but requires sustantial capital investment
we have many substantial rivers round the country are we not developing for energy production and in Scotland we are not short of rainfall !!

I'm ambivalent when it comes to wind turbines, though I do believe that if we must have them in the UK more should be sited off-shore, rather than on land.

However, I'm amazed that our scientists seem unable to make more use of tidal power. After all thanks to the moon we surely have an almost guaranteed source of renewable energy?

How odd that anyone writing into a Farmer's blog about windfarms can write about the "distortion of the Subsidy"! Farming as we know it has been distorted for generations by real subsidy, without which it would stop. Wind Energy does not receive a Government nor EU subsidy, but dirty producers of energy have to buy certificates to demonstrate they are also buying green energy - the Rewnewable Obligation Certificate(ROC). Without the ROC it would not work as not many people or businesses - economically - would buy clean energy as it costs more to produce. Neither biodiesel nor biomas work without the RTOC or the ROC - to be a green generator, curently, costs more.

No one wants a nuclear power station up the road, and no one wants the nuclear waste, and is nuclear sustainable? The plutonium needed to fuel it is finite in supply and if the world went nuclear we would run out of plutonium quicker than oil. It is also mined in some politically unstable countries. Everyone wants wave power, or off shore wind but the technologies are not yet economically proven.

UK Wind is powerful and harnessing it is a temporary 25 year green fix - afterwards take the turbines away and you don't know where they have been. Do they benefit the farmer? No they benefit the landowner. Do they benefit the local community? Yes, with an annual community fund payments of say £25 - 30,000 for a medium sized site. If the hundreds of thousands of Pounds they generate in annual Business Rates, went to the local council and not into the central government pot (whihc is re-distributed on a per head basis so that town dwellers benefit most from the rural development), local communities would have a truly significant financial benefit.

I read about this in the magazine and went straight to the PC to get my view accross.I read about inefficiency of wind turbines but we must remember that they are new technology and if they are invested in now
then they will vastly improve over time.The noise pollution is greatly exagurated I live on a wind farm that has 11 turbines and I cant hear them at all once Im a hundred metres away and its not that loud from directly underneath one besides their built on farms not housing estates. As for the people complaining about the way they look ,firstly I like the way the look, secondly global warming will make the countryside look alot worse than a few wind turbines and thirdly thats hardly the most important thing combating climate change , giving farmers income etc are far more important than that ,farming is a buisiness remember and the question was whether wind turbines are good for farmers a wind turbines(or wind turbines) supplies farmers with extra income and generally farmers dont mind about noise pollution/the view and might be worried about global warming.

I read about this in the magazine and went straight to the PC to get my view accross.I read about inefficiency of wind turbines but we must remember that they are new technology and if they are invested in now
then they will vastly improve over time.The noise pollution is greatly exagurated I live on a wind farm that has 11 turbines and I cant hear them at all once Im a hundred metres away and its not that loud from directly underneath one besides their built on farms not housing estates. As for the people complaining about the way they look ,firstly I like the way the look, secondly global warming will make the countryside look alot worse than a few wind turbines and thirdly thats hardly the most important thing combating climate change , giving farmers income etc are far more important than that ,farming is a buisiness remember and the question was whether wind turbines are good for farmers a wind turbines(or wind turbines) supplies farmers with extra income and generally farmers dont mind about noise pollution/the view and might be worried about global warming.

Wind turbines are a blight on the landscape. They provide a small cash fillip to the farmer/landowner, but at what cost to the local community. And I mean cost. Think about the impact on tourism - all that influx of cash for bed and breakfast, small shops, cafes, restaurants, pubs etc. All squandered when one of our genuinely unique rural assets -the beautiful British countryside - is desecrated by these ugly, industrial misfits. Put them off-shore and let farmers reap the benefits of rural tourism instead - it'll be worth vastly more in the long-run.

We have all read the pros & cons re: Wind Turbines.They seem to be a knee jerk reaction & a "quick fix"& definitely of questionable efficiency/viability without huge subsidies.. A dutch company are trying to put a wind farm up in our part of rural Shropshire.It will wreck the landscape.BUT the whole issue is tearing our community apart& will only benefit 3 farmers(on whose land they would be on).The "comminity" benefits are tiny compared with the loss of this beautiful landscape forever + loss of property values/health etc.My husband has farmed all his life & finds himself at odds with his 3 neighbours .
We have held a postal poll in the area (634 houses& farms) & so far every single returned form has been against the wind farm.

I too was very concerned with the issues raise at this years annual Soil Association conference.

If farming doesn't wake up to the Peak Oil crisis, and adapt while it still can, then we are going to be left with allot of unproductive land when the pumps run dry.

Wind turbines are a part of what should be a move towards energy independence for farms.

Bandidoz's comments regarding rationing or 'outages' of the national grid, could well become an issue far sooner than you might think!

i do not agree with him he would rather kill our planet than save it just becouse of what they look like well that to me is just selfish!!!!!