Wind turbine plans prompt policy rethink in Forest of Dean

“North Glos EPC - people were happy to have factories and other industrial structures close by in the past - has Britain grown a distataste for all things industrial given the relatively comfortable life they have enjoyed in post-industrial britain.

Regrettably the dream has to end. Wind Turbine despite their limitations are the best commercially proven alternative electricity generator subject to choice of site for wind potential, non-interference with aviation, etc.

Regards visual impacts, Germany has over 18,000MW of these all over the country, one gets used to these same as motorways, power pylons, and the like. Off shore wind turbines are "X or more to construct and maintain in the marine environment, also need tor new transmission network - all have their place depending upon wind potential and costs - people better get used to the idea - although they will not replace fossil and nuclear fuelled power stations, and in the long run the future is dark, every little counts for the time being.”

“I don't mind them, we've got our energy from wind and water in the past why can't we do it again. Seems a bit selfish for people to say they just don't like them even though they cut emissions, create jobs and decentralise power generation. The NIMBYs will grasp anything to no matter how outlandish as long as it supports their cause. Its just such a shame that these people do so much fear spreading in the local community that people feel that they don't want them. They are never going to provide base load but they will cut emissions and as far as I know no one is going out of their way to do that in their lifestyles, might as well do it with power generation.”

“@IsitJimKerr

'They take fifteen years to pay back the energy they cost in production, at maximum power, and brilliant in that fifteen years is also the life-span.
So during the planning, building and running of these useless pieces of junk, the local people, who are making nothing out of the venture, except the extra £1500 pa in subsidies we are all paying, are having their life-styles turned on their heads.'

Wrong.

http://tinyurl.com/9wesxqu

'A review published in the journal Renewable Energy in 2010 , which included data from 119 turbines across 50 sites going back 30 years, concluded that the average onshore wind farm produces 20-25 times more energy during its operational life than was used to construct and install its turbines. It found that the average "energy payback" of a turbine was 3-6 months.'

You've overstated the Energy Payback Time by between 30 to 60 times. Are you an 'anti-wind' protestor clutching at straws, btw?...

Personally, I'd be more than happy to see some more built on Severnside. It's about time we contributed to generating the electricity that we all use.”

“The truth about onshore wind turbines - unreliable, (and under failure, dangerous), expensive, environmentally destructive devices, (both in their manufacture and to anywhere onshore that they are installed), that do not make any meaningful contribution to the country's power demands and ruin the lives of ordinary people living nearby them; while enriching - (entirely through European subsidies) investors.

FYI - in case you are still buying into the scam that turbines are somehow "green" and beneficial in the same way as Hydro-Electric or Solar renewable energy generation. Please look into this yourself if you remain unconvinced.

There are two scenarios where they CAN have a use - 1. for pumping water back uphill to a reservoir for a hydro-electric power station, and 2. in huge concentrations in offshore wind farms.

http://tinyurl.com/ade2g3h”

“Director Andrew Clarke said: "I hope they are sensible and pragmatic about it.....' the clue being 'pragmatic'.
As it means practical rather than ideal, that really sums up the whole concept of on-shore wind power.
They take fifteen years to pay back the energy they cost in production, at maximum power, and brilliant in that fifteen years is also the life-span.
So during the planning, building and running of these useless pieces of junk, the local people, who are making nothing out of the venture, except the extra £1500 pa in subsidies we are all paying, are having their life-styles turned on their heads.”

“TimMessanger,
Are you referring to my comment or something in the article?
If the former, no I'm not an estate agent, and I don't quite see how you might think that anyway, unless you seem to have some tenuous idea that my comment suggests I might have a vested interest in house values, saleability, or whatever which I most certainly don't.
Care to explain?

I just put forward an honest opinion, comment on that by all means, or better still offer up a constructive opinion on the subject of your own, but please don't suggest a vested interest where none exists. I'm sure you must be better than that.”

“Are you an estate agent? Enough said!”

“Generally I think renewable energy is a good thing. It will reduce our dependence on imported fossil fuel. However I think building large scale onshore wind turbines is not really the best approach. They are far less effective than offshore where wind is far more consistent, they upset lots of people for limited gain, and those who want to build them have more of an eye on Government subsidy money than in contributing to national energy self sufficiency. If wind power is viable put the things offshore where there is plenty of room, higher efficiency and far less controversy.”