Yes to proposed Wind Farm near Newton Aycliffe
Between 25 and 45 Wind Turbines proposed by E.ON at the Isles site near Newton Aycliffe and A1 road. Cara Ponton, from E.ON, said the turbines would generate enough power for about 53,000 homes.
This project should go ahead for too long we have been using fossil fuels for electricity production and we need more renewable sources. This will reduce our reliance on fossil and nuclear fuel.
Started 93 weeks 4 days ago
PhilWilsonMP - Date posted: 10 Aug 2011 14:40the arguement on fossil fuels is so out of date only 19% efficiency by wind turbines in Co.
Millions of concrete including piling needed for this unstable land thousands of vehicular move,ments over 3 years of construction all habitat wiped out to reach one set of 3/4 proposed turbines 2 miles of concrete road needed Crazy the most subsidies form of energy because government has this stupid obsession to reach EU targets when nuclear of gas fired turbines will do the job without destroying the environment
PhilWilsonMP - Date posted: 10 Aug 2011 14:30
those most affected will see a 30% immediate reduction in the value of their properties for which no compensation will be forthcoming The community payment or bribe should only be available to those effected not other cashing in on their misfortune
PhilWilsonMP - Date posted: 10 Aug 2011 13:18Wake up, smell the coffee. Eon are ripping off customers and the government by increasing our bills and taking massive subsidies.
Contributers may be interested in reading this article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/8713128/The-aristocrats-cashing-in-on-Britains-wind-farm-subsidies.html
The reason Large Landowners are approached is because its practically the only place you can site a farm without having to go through the NIMBY consultation that is only employed when siting windfarms.
The article says very litle else of relevance on this topic.
So apparently the use of renewable energy and the fact of climate change seems to be of little importance now to people. Lets just keep burning coal till there's none left.
All these arguments do is push the wind farms to be off-shore and therefore 3 times more expensive and more problematic due to salty sea water.
If people don't like the look of turbines do they like the look of Gas and Coal powered stations or how about a nuclear reactor instead?
Well after a considerable Gap can we take it that Mr Wilson MP, having forwarded his own vitriolic viewpoint, is not going to be defending his statements or backing up his figures?
Is this because he cannot?
Enquiring minds would like to know.....
At least he had the courage to present his viewpoint on a public forum. I think that is to be applauded. Most MPs wouldn't dream of opening their views to voters scrutiny and we certainly need to ensure that this experience doesn't put off the few that have made this step.
I would agree partially. The problem appears to be that this MP has not responded to scrutiny.
I do not think it is appropriate that this forum be used by politicians yet another soapbox to stand on where they can comment without having to justify or back up their views or engage in the debate.
He may yet respond.
I have Wind Farms on hills around me. Trees and peat bogs were cleared to make room for their concrete foundations along with the concrete tracks from one turbine to another. When it rains the water runs straight off the concrete surfaces. Areas which in the past absorbed the rain. No wonder the river floods more now. For several days especially when its very cold the turbines dont turn and when the wind is too great they are stopped for safety. A 14 tonne blade came off a turbine near Glasgow this March but it was "OK because no one died". Sunny days in particular make the blades flicker as the shadow passes over the main shaft. Its a bit like the nuisance of a dripping tap.
These turbines were due for removal in a few years (great) but the company has already started replacing them with even bigger (up to 600 foot) turbines on even bigger new foundations. The old foundations cant be removed or reused so 1 foot of soil is put over them. What happened to the promise that the turbines would go after 20 years. Promise kept but they forgot to tell us about replacements. I cant be a NIMBY but I wish there had been more of them when the turbines first came and now I support the protests. Wind farms dont work and they still need other power stations to support them!
I go out of my way (and expense) to buy peat-free compost each spring, because I think I am doing "my bit" to save the environment. The amount of peat destroyed by the construction of wind farms dwarves any contribution I can make - so why should I bother? Let the planet be ruined to fill the pockets of a few industrialists (and their cohort politicians). They will still die the same way as the rest of us.
We live on an Island with regular predictable tides. We have fast flowing rivers and massive reservoirs - use water to turn the turbines.
I am sick to death at looking at the hill-sides all around, to see windmills, its starting to look a bloody mess,for what is very little power generation its gona take thousands of these things to make a small difference in carbon saving ,its also pushing up the price of electricity way beyond what we can afford,
Yes, well done Mr Wilson for stating your position.
Interesting usage of the English language or is this an attempt to engage 'the young' by devolving into incompprehensible text-speak.
What exactly does 'millions of concrete....' mean?
As to wind farms. Have people forgotten why renewable energy is needed? Or the benifits of low-tech, low maintainance, practically pollution-free generation of energy?
Or is it just a case of 'the TV told me they are bad' or 'not in my back yard.'
One wind turbine looks better than one gas powered plant, of that there is no disagreement. But you need many hundreds of turbines to do the work of one gas plant. Many hundreds of turbines will cover an entire countryside and spoil more natural areas than the Gas-plant ever would. Even when the turbines could be removed would they? or would the company that owns them just leave them there because it's still making money?
Mr Wilson MP is right to point out that only sites in the South should be considered until they provide at least the same land commitment as the North has by percentage of landmass, not "There's three in the north, so we'll make three in the south.
We need "(?) percent of the land in the North is given to wind farms, so we'll use the same percentage of the land in the South for them."
It's all well and good for people to want turbines, but they never want them near their own countryside.
Post your message