welsh wind farm meets resistance

[invisibleplanet]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/renewable/Story/0,2763,1211314,00.html

The road signposted away from global warming and towards clean energy snakes 800ft from the Conway valley and narrows to a single track as it reaches Moel Maelogan on the edge of the Denbigh moors in north Wales. It is glorious, lonely sheep-farming countryside, full of dips and rises, with views over to the Snowdonia peaks and to the Irish sea. Last month the rain was driving almost horizontally into the faces of Geraint Davies and his neighbouring hillfarmer Robin Williams as they did the spring lambing.
These two young men, together with their business partner, Williams's brother Rheinalt, have divided the local community, split the broad British green movement and reaped indignation as well as respect. Davies and the Williams brothers own one of Britain's smallest windfarms. Their three slender white turbines tower 150ft above a derelict stone barn and can be seen from many of Snowdonia's peaks.

Few people objected when their cooperative sought permission to erect the machines four years ago. The community liked the idea of local families, with 13 dependent children between them, diversifying out of loss-making sheep rearing.

But now the three say they need to build 10 more turbines to stay viable, many former sympathisers are rattling sabres. The Snowdonia Society, the Council for the Protection of Rural Wales, the Conway valley civic society, North Wales tourism, the Ramblers, the National Trust, the local Labour MP and Welsh Assembly member have all objected to the proposed extension, along with up to 1,800 individuals. The council will decide on the application shortly.

Davies and Robin Williams dismiss their opponents as "mostly white settlers who have bought a view, or people who are just plain jealous". They will try to "hide" the new machines in a dip, and have reduced the number and offered to resite some. They have also invited locals to invest in the farm, suggesting an 8% return on capital. More than 500 are interested. "We've had offers of up to £30,000," says Davies. "Local ownership is why we did it in the first place. People recognised the benefit of it. We've all got to adapt.

"Our copper, our slate, our coal, our young people and our water have all gone over the border. Well, our wind won't."



read the full article to see who is opposing the wind farms in UK.

[Me?]

I dont know if they are damaging to the countryside, yes I can see how they will effect nature but in the long run what choice do we have but to start using renewables? I am not voting on this as I have always been for wind turbines and yes I can see the very negative side to using them as well and I do appreciate that they will be harmful to wildlife to a certain extent. I just dont see what other choice there is, we are gonna end up destroying nature more in the long run with global warming if we carry in the way we are.
IMO they should look more to putting them offshore, as this wont ruin the veiw so bad, will disturb less nature, create less noise and there is more wind offshore. Besides I would rather see a whole bunch of turbines than a powerstation any day.
As for the original question its 6 of one and half a dozen of the other really IMO.
It would be interesting to see the views of other people who have them around them, it mentions there are loads of them around Germany, what are your opinions on this if you live near them?

[aleks]

these fuckers are so ugly...they should hide them somewhere.


it´s all about nuclear power anyway...

[autorun]

i like them, of course they are not pretty but hey it's natural source of energy

[Lady E]

i think they are attractive

whats not to like?

they are just modern windmills and people cant get enough of the old fashioned type can they?

i always like to see a windfarm.

[emef]

i think the same, i cant understand what people think is so unattractive about them, and they sound great too when you`re up close to a bunch of them
i can see why old people think they ruin the look of the countryside but thats tuff really i think.
maybe more offshore ones would be good, the offshore windfarms look really futuristic

[animal night train]

I think they look pretty cool. Well techno.

[wheezer]

they are new and different -> unattractive.

[marcel]

its the not-in-my-garden-syndrome. 'i like em. but please not there i live.'

[jukka]

i think they are bad for birds in case of the sound they are making !

[invisibleplanet]

check this picture out:

http://www.studiovivid.com/index2.html

wait until it's loaded, and see how beautiful a windmill can be!

i'm all for it. the whole of britains energy supply could be met within 3 yrs if plans to install windfarms are realised by this Govt.

nuclear energy can and never will be safe source of power for the planet. i agree with using it to fuel interstellar travel, and powering off world installations, but not for our planet....i remember chernobyl, and we don't have enough liveable land thanks to the destruction that the war machine has wreaked upon everyday farming and society (thinks of the polluted basra region and the land-minded farmlands of afghanistan. i think these mines are laid with view to turfing the common man from the land, so that outsiders can buy up the land cheaply.

so....i am a full supporter of wind-power and renewable energy sources...hell! I'd settle for a methane combuster and some solar panels+batteries! I don't use THAT much electrickery :)

emma, did cristian ever consider getting a portable solar powered dj system for outdoor dj-ing?

[Mirsha]

Give it fifty years and I bet all these eye sores have turned into local beauty spots. Or free party spots, lets face it, no need to
hump a big genny about with your own free power source at hand.

It's just the same problem as always, old people set in their ways opressing anything new as it doesn't fit into their idea of the past and how thing should be done. I'd just tell the talentless fat fucks they can accept the windfarms or we have these plans for a nuclear reactor we plan on calling Chernobyl we'll put on their doorstep.

[Yer_Maw]

nucular power! i dont know why it gets such a bad rap? it gets lumped in with nucular weapons i think and people are so 'frightened' that they forget that it will produce electricity for near enough ever without any co2 being produced. humph!

[invisibleplanet]

when nuclear power goes wrong, it goes wrong for thousands of years...aeon after aeon of future life affected. when such a cataclysmic disaster is offset against what we actually gain, then it's not worth the cost. NOT EVER (In my opinion).

[Hagbard]

Originally posted by invisibleplanet
when nuclear power goes wrong, it goes wrong for thousands of years...aeon after aeon of future life affected. when such a cataclysmic disaster is offset against what we actually gain, then it's not worth the cost. NOT EVER (In my opinion).


quite... and I don't think this was posted that long ago..

Chernobyl
http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/kiddofspeed/

i think wind farms are fucking brilliant, my late grandad used to mend windmills, so i would say that i suppose. Having windmill construction dna in my mindstate.

[penciLneck]

they look lush, saw some travelling east on the coast road towards malaga airport. Awesome!

[Yer_Maw]

Originally posted by invisibleplanet
when nuclear power goes wrong, it goes wrong for thousands of years...aeon after aeon of future life affected. when such a cataclysmic disaster is offset against what we actually gain, then it's not worth the cost. NOT EVER (In my opinion).


the disaster at chernoble was i think caused because the guy in control had been awake for so long he entered "do the wrong thing, but extremely well mode" and caused the error which resulted in disaster.

If there were immensley tight controls and these things were run properly i dont see what the disaster is? The only disaster we can be certain of is the increased temparature of the planet. Youre gonna have to face facts ip, its people with opinions like yourself that contributing to global warming by failing to embrace technology this is available, cheap and would solve the problem. This is not a perfect world, your never going to force many countries to build large expensive wind farms or wave power. The anti nucular mob have an unjustified fear of anything 'nucular' thats stopping a viable energy source from being used. And their inability to comprimise is just leading to more greenhouse gasses being released.

Im sorry, but im willing to risk it to solve global warming NOW. because it is the biggest problem we will ever have to face, which only makes it harder for selfish humans to do something about it cos we will never see the benifits.

[penciLneck]

youre dead right, politicians have the same short term perspective problems.

[emef]

Originally posted by jukka
i think they are bad for birds in case of the sound they are making !

i might be wrong but i think pollution is a little more harmful

[invisibleplanet]

the greenhouse gases are not caused by the green lobby's inability to compromise, they are caused by the destruction of the lungs of the planet, the rainforest, and the increase in use of carbon-based fuel.

the thing about nuclear power, is that it isn't being used only for power...if it were so, all the reactors would be like swedens....with very little 'waste' to dispose of.

if it were so 'safe' why does the US sell nuclear power technology to countries, and then ban them from using it? they're obviously selling the technology which leaves the waste which is then processed to create nuclear weapons.

and so someone like me, who doesn't even own a car & uses a bike or public transport, can never be held to be directly responsible for the increase in greenhouse gases. that responsibility lies firmly with the govts. of the world, and not I.

[Yer_Maw]

Originally posted by invisibleplanet
the greenhouse gases are not caused by the green lobby's inability to compromise, they are caused by the destruction of the lungs of the planet, the rainforest, and the increase in use of carbon-based fuel.

the thing about nuclear power, is that it isn't being used only for power...if it were so, all the reactors would be like swedens....with very little 'waste' to dispose of.

if it were so 'safe' why does the US sell nuclear power technology to countries, and then ban them from using it? they're obviously selling the technology which leaves the waste which is then processed to create nuclear weapons.

and so someone like me, who doesn't even own a car & uses a bike or public transport, can never be held to be directly responsible for the increase in greenhouse gases. that responsibility lies firmly with the govts. of the world, and not I.

ok but what im saying is that the increase in the use of carbon based fuel is a result of the green lobbys inability to comprimise. if there wasnt such fear and outrage at nucular power, there would be more nucular power stations and less fossil fuel stations?

Again youve say that that nucular power = nucular weapons. so should we ban fertiliser, which helps feed the world cos it can be used for bombs? i just think it is immensely damaging framing both under the same banner because it leads to irrational thoughts and discussion of nucular power. Which, dont kid yourself on, does not produce greenhouse gasses, and is that not what we want? apparently not according to the green lobby, and that is where i link it with you,(in a merely freindly discussion way though!) because policy is affected by unrealistic activism, not getting us anywhere, and just another example of societys fear of science. The green lobby have to think in real terms, and think about what they really want more. Making a point, or solving the problem.

[FiST]

aaaaaaaaaaaarrrggggghhhh!!

this thread is like me being at work while at work.

[Yer_Maw]

Originally posted by FiST
aaaaaaaaaaaarrrggggghhhh!!

this thread is like me being at work while at work.

haw, take a chill pill.

[Virus]

furthermore, it looks like we are stuck with nuclear power for quite a bit anyway like it or not, if the new european constitution goes through as is, all countries which have signed will have committed to using nuclear power to produce 30% of the expanded EU's energy. This commitment was written into the old constitution, stemming from some 1950's agreement and is basically the only bit of the old agreement directly transferred to the new. The former soviet countries are under immense pressure to shut down there old soviet design reactors and replace them with new ones.

[hippy]

@ Yer_Maw - sorry if i've missed something, but when did the problem of radioactive waste and where to 'store it' get solved?

[alex cortex]

more nuclear powerplants - more risk of failure



check the chart at the bottom of the article (http://www.rebelion.org/ecologia/040426chernobil.htm)

worldwide 441 plants in use, 32 in construction, 101 shut down


frightening numbers, regarding the devastation just one molten core caused.

i´m totally against it, as against the ongoing investment in the exploitation of natural gas and crude oil.