NationStates Jolt Archive

http://se-alliance.org.uk/index.htm

hello, i did leave this forum a few weeks ago, but now ive come back to enlist the help of all the people who realise what a threat climate change is to the world. this windfarm is key to the further development/exploitation of the vast opportunity that is offshore wind energy in the UK. if this gets the go ahead, it will be a green light for many many more. unfortunately a load of NIMBYs are blocking the proposal, saying it will ruin tourism in the local towns.

please sign the petition.

thankyou in advance,

me

In general, online petitions are totally ignored by those in power.

In general, online petitions are totally ignored by those in power.

thanks for your confidence.

this is not a national government issue, the final decision comes down to the welsh national assembly.

Always worth pitching in a vote, even if it is ignored. Not sure how something 15km away can damage local tourism. Stood on the beech you won't be able to see halfway* to the windfarm, let alone over it.

*Doesn't take in to account the height of the windfarm itself.

Always worth pitching in a vote, even if it is ignored. Not sure how something 15km away can damage local tourism. Stood on the beech you won't be able to see halfway* to the windfarm, let alone over it.

*Doesn't take in to account the height of the windfarm itself.

thankyou very much.

somewhere there is a panoramic monatage made by the company (npower renewables or somesuch, i forget) which shows the actual view, and the windfarm (because of its size) is visible, but only as a blurry haze on the horizon. i, and the vast majority of tourists, think this adds to the interest of the area, not detract from it.

Windfarms and other forms of alternative energy are more important now than ever before. We've all seen the increase in natural disasters and more should definitely be done. I'm all for this windfarm, I'm sure it will have no effect on tourism because it's not even on land, I think the turbines make a lovely addition to any landscape anyhow.

Wind is a complete waste of time and money. If you want a serious solution to energy generation problems in the UK then you need to support a French-style comprehensive network of nuclear powerplants that can actually provide large amounts of energy to the country whilst taking up small amounts of space, as opposed to wind which is more expensive, provides less enermy and wastes massive amounts of space.

Wind is a complete waste of time and money. If you want a serious solution to energy generation problems in the UK then you need to support a French-style comprehensive network of nuclear powerplants that can actually provide large amounts of energy to the country whilst taking up small amounts of space, as opposed to wind which is more expensive, provides less enermy and wastes massive amounts of space.
Until we find a way to put huge solar panels in orbit, we're going to be relying more and more on nuclear power. Wind projects like this just put off the inevitable outcome of a new generation of nuke plants being green-lighted to replace all the old ones being decommissioned at the moment. They won't build themselves over night you know.

We already know how to put solar panels into orbit, the problem is getting the energy back down, and the fact that solar panels are hideously inefficient and dont last very long. And it will take far longer to build enough wind turbines to replace a single nuclear plant than it will to build a whole network of nuclear plants.

i, and the vast majority of tourists, think this adds to the interest of the area, not detract from it.

True. I think it could be used as a tourist/interest hook. And besides, isn't it about time we started moving more towards windfarms in this country (by that i mean the UK). Also, what happened to the idea from a few years back of 'wave powered' energy? (no.. i'm not making that bit up :) )

BTW, what's a NIMBY ?

And isn't it strange that a trad' windmill in a rural town is seen as a bonus by most... I guess it's down to people like the tourist board to change the initial perception that these new windfarms are viewed in. (as well as schools, newspapers etc .)

firstly, thanks to everyone whos replied positively.

praetonia, the uk has enough wind power potential to supply its needs three times over. wind power is completely green. wind farms look far nicer than a large nuclear power station, and are far safer.


Also, what happened to the idea from a few years back of 'wave powered' energy? (no.. i'm not making that bit up :) )

BTW, what's a NIMBY ?

And isn't it strange that a trad' windmill in a rural town is seen as a bonus by most... I guess it's down to people like the tourist board to change the initial perception that these new windfarms are viewed in. (as well as schools, newspapers etc .)

wave power is still being pushed for and developed, and in fact a company in anglesea have invented a kind of chain, which floats on the surface, and absorbs the wave movement through hydralic rams. we could have thousands of these chains snaking across the sea.

NIMBY stands for Not In My Back Yard- basically old fogeys.

my home county of norfolk has loads of traditional windmills, but the NIMBYs constantly protest against any new windmills (although we usually win, hence the scroby sands offshore farm and ecotech windmills), saying they are ugly. personally i think they are graceful, and are symbols of a new way forward for humanity.

praetonia, the uk has enough wind power potential to supply its needs three times over.
Yes, if every square inch of the UK was covered in them. Clearly we dont want that. In order to replace a single coal plant we would need 40,000 wind turbines which could cover 20,000 acres of land (nice, happy, green countryside, I might add).

wind power is completely green.
As is nuclear...

wind farms look far nicer than a large nuclear power station,
Not true. Wind farms take up massive amounts of rural land, whereas nuclear plants are large and compact, and easy to hide. Wind turbines also create a loud droning noise which makes it impossible to really stay near them for very long.

and are far safer.
Total Britons killed by British nuclear powerplants: 0.
Number of people killed by their own trousers each year: 3
Number of people killed by heart attacks each year: 600,000+

Nuclear power is completely safe, and the majority of people who say otherwise do so because they dont understand how nuclear power works.

Yes, if every square inch of the UK was covered in them. Clearly we dont want that. In order to replace a single coal plant we would need 40,000 wind turbines which could cover 20,000 acres of land (nice, happy, green countryside, I might add).


As is nuclear...


Not true. Wind farms take up massive amounts of rural land, whereas nuclear plants are large and compact, and easy to hide. Wind turbines also create a loud droning noise which makes it impossible to really stay near them for very long.


Total Britons killed by British nuclear powerplants: 0.
Number of people killed by their own trousers each year: 3
Number of people killed by heart attacks each year: 600,000+

Nuclear power is completely safe, and the majority of people who say otherwise do so because they dont understand how nuclear power works.

forgive me, i was refering to offshore windfarms.


npower renewables’ proposed Gwynt y Môr Offshore Wind Farm would be 13—15 kilometres off the coast of North Wales, stretching from Prestatyn in the east to Penrhyn Bay in the west. The project, situated further offshore than North Hoyle — our existing, operational offshore wind farm — could comprise around 200 wind turbines, and would have a total generating capacity of up to 750 megawatts (MW).

quite different to your 40000 figure, eh? i also have to say that the windmills in norfolk certainly make for an interesting feature on the otherwise monotonous landscape.

nuclear power is not green. yes, it is better than fossil fuel power stations, but it is not renewable, and it produces nuclear waste. your statement that windmills make a loud droning noise is negated by the farms being out at sea.
also, you know what i meant about nuclear being less safe.

As soon as you get it built, there will be nature lovers along to sue you to shut it down, because wind farms kill migrating birds.

Bet there are plenty of migrating birds that pass through there.

Maybe you should build a wave farm - http://www.oceanpd.com/

As soon as you get it built, there will be nature lovers along to sue you to shut it down, because wind farms kill migrating birds.

Bet there are plenty of migrating birds that pass through there.

Maybe you should build a wave farm - http://www.oceanpd.com/
Yeah, and if you do the math, 200 of those would produce double the energy that 200 wind turbines would.

EDIT: nope, wait, I was thinking the wind turbines would produce 75, not 750. My bad :)

'Ruin Tourism?" If I was in North Wales I'd go to see them. Those things are
cool looking.

<snip>
Wind is much more expensive than nuclear even accounting for nuclear waste disposal, and that's land based ones. Sea based wind turbines will be even more expensive to build, more energy will be lost en route to the grid, the wiring will be much more expensive, almost impossible to repair and the turbines themselves will be damaged by constant exposure to salt water causing them to require replacing every few years.

Nuclear power is completely green and although it is not "renewable" there is enough cheap high grade nuclear fuel for Pressurised Water Reactors (PWRs) for another 50 years (more in more expensive to process seams) and an estimated 5 billion (!!!) years worth of lower grade fuel for Fast Breeder Reactors (FBRs) worth of power, which will last longer than the earth will exist, and far longer than there will be steel for building wind turbines (which, I might add, they require lots of, and the production of which pollutes).

As for waste storage - current methods can store nuclear waste for thousands of years. In thousands of years, methods will be found to store it for longer, at which point we can dig it up again and rebury it. In fact, were it not for environmentalists stalling research, we may have such things now - http://www.etsu.edu/writing/3120f99/zctb3/nuclear2.htm

Wind turbines = expensive energy which requires large amounts of pollution to be created to make the turbines.

Nuclear power = cheap, clean energy (no, I really dont know what you meant by nuclear energy being dangerous).

So it's nuclear power for me, at least until (well if, really) we get fussion at some point in the next 50 years.

Wind is much more expensive than nuclear even accounting for nuclear waste disposal, and that's land based ones. Sea based wind turbines will be even more expensive to build, more energy will be lost en route to the grid, the wiring will be much more expensive, almost impossible to repair and the turbines themselves will be damaged by constant exposure to salt water causing them to require replacing every few years.

Nuclear power is completely green and although it is not "renewable" there is enough cheap high grade nuclear fuel for Pressurised Water Reactors (PWRs) for another 50 years (more in more expensive to process seams) and an estimated 5 billion (!!!) years worth of lower grade fuel for Fast Breeder Reactors (FBRs) worth of power, which will last longer than the earth will exist, and far longer than there will be steel for building wind turbines (which, I might add, they require lots of, and the production of which pollutes).

As for waste storage - current methods can store nuclear waste for thousands of years. In thousands of years, methods will be found to store it for longer, at which point we can dig it up again and rebury it. In fact, were it not for environmentalists stalling research, we may have such things now - http://www.etsu.edu/writing/3120f99/zctb3/nuclear2.htm

Wind turbines = expensive energy which requires large amounts of pollution to be created to make the turbines.

Nuclear power = cheap, clean energy (no, I really dont know what you meant by nuclear energy being dangerous).

So it's nuclear power for me, at least until (well if, really) we get fussion at some point in the next 50 years.

did you see how much it will cost to decomission our current nuclear power stations? wasnt it something in the region of 5 billion pounds? (thats off the top of my head) also you calling windfarms expensive is laughable. its *free*! after construction, its 95% profit! nuclear power is not as green as windfarms. and it is more expensive.