[ Home ] [ Bush talks sense on environment ] [ Campaigns ] [ Commentary ] [ Doomsday predictions ] [ Earthquake News ] [ Electromagnetic radiation ] [ Environmental news ] [ GM stuff ] [ Fishing ] [ Forests ] [ Global warming ] [ Green watch ] [ Hunting stuff ] [ Lomborg ] [ Mining Industry news ] [ Miscellaneous ] [ Mountains ] [ Planning ] [ I remember it well ] [ Nuclear power ] [ Oil ] [ People who should know better ] [ precautionary principle ] [ Privatisation ] [ Railways ] [ Roads ] [ "Things are getting better" stuff ] [ Tourism ] [ Water ] [ Wind power ]

You have reached iGreens.org.uk.  In December 2006 we moved to iGreens.org with faster servers and discussion boards.  Click here to follow us.  

Jim
Wind farms are becoming economic because of development and standardisation in design. Not all proposed in unspoiled sites around the world, are uneconomic.  For example note the opportunity to re-use offshore installations where there is no problem with being overlooked by the neighbours, the capital and maintenance costs are no longer prohibitive and operating costs are minimal.   Wind farms do provide power on windy winter days when it is needed.  We will still need some other power stations but then we have always needed a balanced energy policy - no one form of 'alternative' energy can produce sufficient power on its own to meet more than a minute fraction of reasonable demand. Offshore wind works well sitting right on top of industry (may even help to sustain oil production?) and the power cables originally laid in to supply power to the installation work just as well in the opposite direction supplying power to onshore population centres.  When all these benefits are included such a project becomes independently viable.  

Not everything with a government subsidy is wrong - occasionally some seed-corn is required to establish new technology.  Still waiting for the railways to become self-supporting - but don't get me started on transport... There is also a benefit to government in demonstrating the new technology which they would not or could not do by themselves and which ultimately can benefit us all. Is it not the job of government to take the long-view on such issues?

Then there is the climate change levy from which wind power is exempt (as not known to produce any climate change as far as I'm aware...?), despite the fossil fuels burnt in its construction and maintenance (what would you suggest hardwoods?).  It is also being subsidised by grants and cheap loans to Amec Border Wind (plus their own capital staked under conditions of uncertainty to assist the government in demonstrating the technology), and a range of grants to the crofters and local council (no change there then).  Many of these latter will be disguised as grants for other things, education, road upgrades, etc to make it difficult for people like iGreens to calculate the true subsidy (that's civil servants for you!?).  Many will be channelled via the European Union (just another pocket from which to produce the same tax-euro - I submit - still no change - Again don't get me started on EU economic policy).  Look out for industry relocation grants to set up on Skye, presented as programmes to reduce local unemployment or some such boondoggle.  Then we will see the real environmental damage of the wind farms - How can you possibly blame wind farms for this - if not wind-power what form of energy would you prefer - or is this the council of return to the Dark ages??? Just need to select a clean industry to be powered by clean technology - may help avoid some of the piffle and greenwash that is bandied around.
Sorry - Couldn't resist
Cheers
Jerry Lane

iGreen reply

You make some excellent points.   Wind power is becoming cheaper, it may be very convenient to site some on disused oil rigs, and they may not all need new power lines.   I agree, wind does provide power on windy days and it is reasonable to have some diversity in energy supply.     

However, people setting up wind farms already know all these things.  If they made the farms economic they would not need subsidy.  You seem to justify inefficient government subsidy on the grounds that politicians have always been like that.  Should we not demand better ones?   

You miss the point about the environmental damage from setting up heavy industry in unspoilt rural areas, in the hope of providing jobs for a few crofters and votes for a highland MP.  Industry must indeed go somewhere, but it's much less environmentally damaging if it goes in an established "brown field" industrial site near to other factories rather than the mountains of Skye.  

Jim Thornton

1 Feb 2004

[ Home ] [ Up ]

You have reached iGreens.org.uk.  In December 2006 we moved to iGreens.org with faster servers and discussion boards.  Click here to follow us.  

Send mail to enquiries@igreens.org.uk  with questions or comments about this web site.
Last modified: February 11, 2006