Wind farms are a ‘complete scam’ – UK Environment Secretary

Green Energy?  Why is it that Greens don't believe in visual polution?

Green Energy? Why is it that Greens don’t believe in visual pollution?

Don’t expect to see the Green Taliban talking about their precious windmills like that, but in the UK Tory politicians have the courage to expose the fact the Green King is wearing no clothes:

Wind farms have been branded a ‘complete scam’ by Environment Secretary Owen Paterson, reigniting coalition battle over green power.

As the government unveiled new powers for local residents to block turbines blighting their villages, Mr Paterson condemned many planned schemes as ‘deeply unpopular’ and causing ‘huge unhappiness’ across the country.

The outspoken remarks from a senior Tory minister in charge of environmental policy risks a furious reaction from Liberal Democrats pushing for more renewable power projects.

The Conservatives have taken a tougher line on wind farms in recent months, and this week unveiled plans to give communities a powerful ‘veto’ over controversial new onshore developments.

Schemes will have to gain local residents’ consent before a planning application can even be made, effectively handing them the power to prevent turbines being erected.

Planning rules are also to be changed so that the drive for renewable energy can no longer be used as a reason for overriding environmental and other concerns.

The Greens would have nightmares at that.  Not being able to force people to do something?  Where could that possibly end?  Their whole policy platform is predicated on making people do things against their will by legal force.  For the greater good.  Their greater good, of course.

In an extraordinary intervention at the Royal Cornwall Show yesterday, the Tory Cabinet minister said: ‘Turbines are regarded as a complete scam, but as of today we have given power to local communities to decide.

‘The criteria is now that environment and landscape will have to be taken into consideration as well as the national energy requirement.’

 

 


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • blokeintakapuna

    Yep.. That’ll fuck em! Give them the RMA to work with.

  • Col

    They will again be running around as headless chooks

  • Andy

    Delingpole was on BBC radio with Owen Patterson recently

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100220836/what-really-happened-on-bbc-any-questions/

    Unfortunately, they were going to talk about the destruction of Wales by wind turbines, but got drowned out by eco-loons and yoghurt-knitters

    • rockape

      I Knew they killed birds, but whales! Surely not;-)

  • Pissedoffyouth

    What about the paste-makers under water? At least then you can’t see the ugly things

    • Kopua Cowboy

      Silly. Think of the eco damage the old Top Cat (Cook Strait ferry) was doing- we couldn’t POSSIBLY have underwater turbines

  • All_on_Red

    Research is starting to come out showing that the low noise frequency really does affect peoples health.

    “Environmental noise is emerging as one of the major public health concerns of the twenty-first century. [1] The drive to ‘renewable’, low-carbon energy sources, has resulted in Industrial Wind Turbines (IWTs) being sited closer to homes in traditionally quiet rural areas to reduce transmission losses and costs. Increasing numbers of complaints about sleep disturbance and adverse health effects have been documented”
    http://www.noiseandhealth.org/article.asp?issn=1463-1741;year=2012;volume=14;issue=60;spage=237;epage=243;aulast=Nissenbaum;type=3

  • baw

    I have no problem with wind farms. Building more is great.

    But the reality is this. To power Britain by renewable energy would require 50% of all of the UK being covered in wind farms. And to power a mortorway lane by biofuels would require a strip 6 km wide to grow crops to power all the cars on that lane.

    Then you have the reality that wind does not always blow when you want it. Solar is great but only works during the day.

    But if you want renewable energy then you have to think nuclear.

    • parorchestia

      I do have a problem with wind farms, particularly in a spectacularly beautiful country like NZ. They are visually extremely polluting, waving their giant arms in a monotonous motion every time the wind blows. They kill raptors. They leak calcium into acid-demanding native habitats thus killing native plants and encouraging adventive weeds (didn’t know that huh?). But they are extremely capital intensive, only a proportion work at any one time (75% to 90%), and they produce very, very expensive electricity. The low frequency noise they emit is also a major problem. And they have a very short working life.
      Other than that and the fact that they only produce when the wind is blowing, they are fine!
      You are right about nuclear – thorium reactors are my pick for NZ.

      • baw

        I understand a wind turbine in Ireland produces 100’000 in income a year. But I understand that the EU is basically forcing their construction. and they get good feed in tarriffs.

        As for Nuclear Energy while it is cheap to run the problem is that they are two big for us. They make too much energy and can not be easily dialed down during periods of low demand. Now if we had more people here that would be of little concern but not with our low numbers. Japan can overcome the bad brand image of Fukashima but as for NZ we trade on clean and green. So even if a plant in bluff blew up all of Nz would be perceived as radioactive.

        As our population grows we will have to face important decisions to get energy (we are currently at 70% or so renewable) and then mayby we will get sick of coal power.

        As for Thorium – It works – the yanks did build a plant, but until there is a commercial plant on the market this is just wishful thinking. Still maybe in 30 years things will change. I would like to see Thorium working though.

        I don’t hold up much hope for fusion power. Big way of wasting money on nothing. Thorium power has been proved to work. Fusion power has been proved to work – for a few seconds at massive expense.

        • parorchestia

          Thorium was the preferred option of the original development teams in the US because Thorium reactors don’t blow up and they can be scaled back, and Thorium is relatively abundant. But from the politicians viewpoint Thorium reactors had an impossible drawback – they don’t make fissible material for military weapons of mass destruction!
          The director of the R&D team was sacked after the plant was built because it did work as his team predicted. But most of the hard work has been done. You would have to blow the cobwebs off the old work! I think it would be quite a greattaskb if a consortium of nations got together to build a peaceful Thorium nuclear reactor. Then we could have one!
          There is little evidence that countries with reactors are regarded as being dirty. France, the UK, Canada……

          • baw

            For those who are woundering what we are talking about

            Until we have some working prototypes nothing will happen. We also have significant inertia because of the level of investment in nuclear power plants. As the industry is so saftey sensitive I dobut we will see one for the next ten plus years.

            I end with a quote from Admiral Rickoer (who did not like thorium power)

            An academic reactor or reactor plant almost always has the following basic characteristics: (1) It is simple. (2) It is small. (3) It is cheap. (4) It is light. (5) It can be built very quickly. (6) It is very flexible in purpose. (7) Very little development will be required. It will use off-the-shelf components. (8) The reactor is in the study phase. It is not being built now.

            On the other hand a practical reactor can be distinguished by the following characteristics: (1) It is being built now. (2) It is behind schedule. (3) It requires an immense amount of development on apparently trivial items. (4) It is very expensive. (5) It takes a long time to build because of its engineering development problems. (6) It is large. (7) It is heavy. (8) It is complicated.

22%