Heslerton Wold wind farm plan axed

Gazette & Herald: Wind turbines Wind turbines

PLANS for ten 126m high wind turbines on the Yorkshire Wolds between Malton and Scarborough will not go ahead after the Secretary of State overturned a planning inspector's decision.

Permission for the wind farm - which has been the subject of a four year long planning wrangle - on Heslerton Wold was quashed in a decision by the Secretary of State.

Communities Secretary Eric Pickles reviewed and then overturned a planning inspector's decision on RWE nPower's plans.

In a ruling issued on Wednesday, Eric Pickles said that even though the wind farm would boost the amount of renewable energy in Ryedale and help lower CO2 emissions, its impact on the cultural heritage and landscape of the area would be too much.

German based energy company RWE nPower was initially refused permission to build the 10 turbines, each 126 metres tall, high on agricultural land at Heslerton Wold when the case went to Ryedale District Council's planning committee.

It attracted heavy opposition for campaigners and local residents, including farmer Paul Stephens, who said:

"First and foremost, we didn't want an industrial operation - this wind farm - dominating our Yorkshire Wolds.

"We are farmers and have a duty as custodians of the land to look after it."

But the company then appealed refusal and the plans were approved by a planning inspector in February, before the Secretary of State announced he would review the decision because it was of such major significance to the area and, this week, overturned it.

Yesterday Mr Stephens welcomed the Secretary of State's decision to stand by local people and refuse the plans.

He said: "I am over the moon that it has come to this conclusion."

He and other campaigners had watched the Secretary of State's decisions on other wind farm cases and were hopeful the Heslerton case would also be turned down.

"The Secretary of State said six months ago that local people must have more say in their surroundings.

"Local people made their decision on this at the planning committee when it was refused, but when it went to appeal it became a dictatorship because one man - the planning inspector - can over rule local opinion."

Comments (20)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:04am Fri 30 May 14

Dan Atkinson says...

This is ridiculous. I can't believe that vanity - and this really is nothing but vanity - is getting in the way of progress, reducing power costs and lowering CO2 emissions. I for one think that wind farms are a wonderful sight.

It's either we use renewable technologies like these (or nuclear power) or we continue to use fossil fuels which have a *very* finite lifespan.

Once they're exhausted, we'll inevitably come back to the same place again, having to look at solutions such as this, except that next time, we won't have a choice unless these people want to watch Coronation Street.
This is ridiculous. I can't believe that vanity - and this really is nothing but vanity - is getting in the way of progress, reducing power costs and lowering CO2 emissions. I for one think that wind farms are a wonderful sight. It's either we use renewable technologies like these (or nuclear power) or we continue to use fossil fuels which have a *very* finite lifespan. Once they're exhausted, we'll inevitably come back to the same place again, having to look at solutions such as this, except that next time, we won't have a choice unless these people want to watch Coronation Street. Dan Atkinson
  • Score: 19

9:13am Fri 30 May 14

dctyke says...

So land owners are not going to get £20,000 + per year for each one out of taxpayers money, so sad. The area of land used would produce a fraction of that to the 'farmer'. It's all greed. If it was for the good of the nation why is land used for turbines not compulsory purchased for a fair price as they do when building roads and pylons.
So land owners are not going to get £20,000 + per year for each one out of taxpayers money, so sad. The area of land used would produce a fraction of that to the 'farmer'. It's all greed. If it was for the good of the nation why is land used for turbines not compulsory purchased for a fair price as they do when building roads and pylons. dctyke
  • Score: 12

9:52am Fri 30 May 14

Shouter says...

Hooray! Common sense has prevailed at last. Noisy horrible monstrosities. There are other renewable energy sources which are much more efficient and less damaging on the landscape.
Hooray! Common sense has prevailed at last. Noisy horrible monstrosities. There are other renewable energy sources which are much more efficient and less damaging on the landscape. Shouter
  • Score: -19

9:57am Fri 30 May 14

toweliechaos says...

Wind farms are, regardless of location, awful to look at and frankly utterly useless. Wind energy is bunk.

If only we had more interventions like this to prevent corrupt* inspectors ensuring projects get the go-ahead.

*allegedly
Wind farms are, regardless of location, awful to look at and frankly utterly useless. Wind energy is bunk. If only we had more interventions like this to prevent corrupt* inspectors ensuring projects get the go-ahead. *allegedly toweliechaos
  • Score: -21

10:23am Fri 30 May 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

Shouter wrote:
Hooray! Common sense has prevailed at last. Noisy horrible monstrosities. There are other renewable energy sources which are much more efficient and less damaging on the landscape.
oh here we go again the buzzing sound from over 800m away... Dont work in high wind but then say they are too loud when wind is high... The only argument that you come up with are b@llocks.. Monstrosities... hope they plonk a nuclear plant next to your house... then do a comparison...
[quote][p][bold]Shouter[/bold] wrote: Hooray! Common sense has prevailed at last. Noisy horrible monstrosities. There are other renewable energy sources which are much more efficient and less damaging on the landscape.[/p][/quote]oh here we go again the buzzing sound from over 800m away... Dont work in high wind but then say they are too loud when wind is high... The only argument that you come up with are b@llocks.. Monstrosities... hope they plonk a nuclear plant next to your house... then do a comparison... Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: 10

11:01am Fri 30 May 14

Brighouse Lad says...

Archiebold the 1st wrote:
Shouter wrote:
Hooray! Common sense has prevailed at last. Noisy horrible monstrosities. There are other renewable energy sources which are much more efficient and less damaging on the landscape.
oh here we go again the buzzing sound from over 800m away... Dont work in high wind but then say they are too loud when wind is high... The only argument that you come up with are b@llocks.. Monstrosities... hope they plonk a nuclear plant next to your house... then do a comparison...
At least with a nuclear power station it works 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Wind turbines need to be out at sea, not on land.

Plus lets not forget the pollution that is caused by mining for rare earth metals for the generators. It seems to be forgotten about as it happens in another country!
[quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shouter[/bold] wrote: Hooray! Common sense has prevailed at last. Noisy horrible monstrosities. There are other renewable energy sources which are much more efficient and less damaging on the landscape.[/p][/quote]oh here we go again the buzzing sound from over 800m away... Dont work in high wind but then say they are too loud when wind is high... The only argument that you come up with are b@llocks.. Monstrosities... hope they plonk a nuclear plant next to your house... then do a comparison...[/p][/quote]At least with a nuclear power station it works 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Wind turbines need to be out at sea, not on land. Plus lets not forget the pollution that is caused by mining for rare earth metals for the generators. It seems to be forgotten about as it happens in another country! Brighouse Lad
  • Score: 0

11:21am Fri 30 May 14

Dan Atkinson says...

Brighouse Lad wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote:
Shouter wrote:
Hooray! Common sense has prevailed at last. Noisy horrible monstrosities. There are other renewable energy sources which are much more efficient and less damaging on the landscape.
oh here we go again the buzzing sound from over 800m away... Dont work in high wind but then say they are too loud when wind is high... The only argument that you come up with are b@llocks.. Monstrosities... hope they plonk a nuclear plant next to your house... then do a comparison...
At least with a nuclear power station it works 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Wind turbines need to be out at sea, not on land.

Plus lets not forget the pollution that is caused by mining for rare earth metals for the generators. It seems to be forgotten about as it happens in another country!
Why does a wind turbine *need* to be out at sea? There's plenty of wind ashore and especially in hilly areas where channeled air currents are conducive to wind power.
[quote][p][bold]Brighouse Lad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shouter[/bold] wrote: Hooray! Common sense has prevailed at last. Noisy horrible monstrosities. There are other renewable energy sources which are much more efficient and less damaging on the landscape.[/p][/quote]oh here we go again the buzzing sound from over 800m away... Dont work in high wind but then say they are too loud when wind is high... The only argument that you come up with are b@llocks.. Monstrosities... hope they plonk a nuclear plant next to your house... then do a comparison...[/p][/quote]At least with a nuclear power station it works 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Wind turbines need to be out at sea, not on land. Plus lets not forget the pollution that is caused by mining for rare earth metals for the generators. It seems to be forgotten about as it happens in another country![/p][/quote]Why does a wind turbine *need* to be out at sea? There's plenty of wind ashore and especially in hilly areas where channeled air currents are conducive to wind power. Dan Atkinson
  • Score: 7

11:22am Fri 30 May 14

YorkPatrol says...

Shouter wrote:
Hooray! Common sense has prevailed at last. Noisy horrible monstrosities. There are other renewable energy sources which are much more efficient and less damaging on the landscape.
"There are other renewable energy sources which are much more efficient and less damaging on the landscape"

Oh, please do share with us
[quote][p][bold]Shouter[/bold] wrote: Hooray! Common sense has prevailed at last. Noisy horrible monstrosities. There are other renewable energy sources which are much more efficient and less damaging on the landscape.[/p][/quote]"There are other renewable energy sources which are much more efficient and less damaging on the landscape" Oh, please do share with us YorkPatrol
  • Score: 8

11:26am Fri 30 May 14

Rankled says...

Hooray for common sense. Wind turbines really are a blight on the landscape.
Hooray for common sense. Wind turbines really are a blight on the landscape. Rankled
  • Score: -10

11:56am Fri 30 May 14

oldgoat says...

Brighouse Lad wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote:
Shouter wrote:
Hooray! Common sense has prevailed at last. Noisy horrible monstrosities. There are other renewable energy sources which are much more efficient and less damaging on the landscape.
oh here we go again the buzzing sound from over 800m away... Dont work in high wind but then say they are too loud when wind is high... The only argument that you come up with are b@llocks.. Monstrosities... hope they plonk a nuclear plant next to your house... then do a comparison...
At least with a nuclear power station it works 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Wind turbines need to be out at sea, not on land.

Plus lets not forget the pollution that is caused by mining for rare earth metals for the generators. It seems to be forgotten about as it happens in another country!
Problem with nuclear power is the waste. It stays radioactive for tens of thousands of years, requires a lot of processing, and managing in long term storage.
That's a massive price to pay for its use, by any standards.
[quote][p][bold]Brighouse Lad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shouter[/bold] wrote: Hooray! Common sense has prevailed at last. Noisy horrible monstrosities. There are other renewable energy sources which are much more efficient and less damaging on the landscape.[/p][/quote]oh here we go again the buzzing sound from over 800m away... Dont work in high wind but then say they are too loud when wind is high... The only argument that you come up with are b@llocks.. Monstrosities... hope they plonk a nuclear plant next to your house... then do a comparison...[/p][/quote]At least with a nuclear power station it works 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Wind turbines need to be out at sea, not on land. Plus lets not forget the pollution that is caused by mining for rare earth metals for the generators. It seems to be forgotten about as it happens in another country![/p][/quote]Problem with nuclear power is the waste. It stays radioactive for tens of thousands of years, requires a lot of processing, and managing in long term storage. That's a massive price to pay for its use, by any standards. oldgoat
  • Score: 9

11:58am Fri 30 May 14

BL2 says...

I'm not sure whether they are suitable in the area as I don't know it personally, but there needs to be more allowance and acceptance of wind power. Obviously it should not be allowed everywhere, but there are far to many objections been accepted where the application is in a reasonable area.
I'm not sure whether they are suitable in the area as I don't know it personally, but there needs to be more allowance and acceptance of wind power. Obviously it should not be allowed everywhere, but there are far to many objections been accepted where the application is in a reasonable area. BL2
  • Score: 1

12:11pm Fri 30 May 14

Dan Atkinson says...

oldgoat wrote:
Brighouse Lad wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote:
Shouter wrote:
Hooray! Common sense has prevailed at last. Noisy horrible monstrosities. There are other renewable energy sources which are much more efficient and less damaging on the landscape.
oh here we go again the buzzing sound from over 800m away... Dont work in high wind but then say they are too loud when wind is high... The only argument that you come up with are b@llocks.. Monstrosities... hope they plonk a nuclear plant next to your house... then do a comparison...
At least with a nuclear power station it works 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Wind turbines need to be out at sea, not on land.

Plus lets not forget the pollution that is caused by mining for rare earth metals for the generators. It seems to be forgotten about as it happens in another country!
Problem with nuclear power is the waste. It stays radioactive for tens of thousands of years, requires a lot of processing, and managing in long term storage.
That's a massive price to pay for its use, by any standards.
The nuclear waste issue is solvable by using a fast-breeder reactor such as PRISM or a 4th generation reactors under development like ASTRID. Both are being examined by the UK and France as possible alternatives to the current generation of (admittedly) highly wasteful nuclear power stations.

Unfortunately, nuclear power stations take a LONG time to construct, and on top of that, the construction and dismantling of the plants don't help the environment, but this won't matter too much to climate change pessimists. :-)

As an aside, I would recommend that anyone with a Netflix subscription watches Pandora's Promise.
[quote][p][bold]oldgoat[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighouse Lad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shouter[/bold] wrote: Hooray! Common sense has prevailed at last. Noisy horrible monstrosities. There are other renewable energy sources which are much more efficient and less damaging on the landscape.[/p][/quote]oh here we go again the buzzing sound from over 800m away... Dont work in high wind but then say they are too loud when wind is high... The only argument that you come up with are b@llocks.. Monstrosities... hope they plonk a nuclear plant next to your house... then do a comparison...[/p][/quote]At least with a nuclear power station it works 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Wind turbines need to be out at sea, not on land. Plus lets not forget the pollution that is caused by mining for rare earth metals for the generators. It seems to be forgotten about as it happens in another country![/p][/quote]Problem with nuclear power is the waste. It stays radioactive for tens of thousands of years, requires a lot of processing, and managing in long term storage. That's a massive price to pay for its use, by any standards.[/p][/quote]The nuclear waste issue is solvable by using a fast-breeder reactor such as PRISM or a 4th generation reactors under development like ASTRID. Both are being examined by the UK and France as possible alternatives to the current generation of (admittedly) highly wasteful nuclear power stations. Unfortunately, nuclear power stations take a LONG time to construct, and on top of that, the construction and dismantling of the plants don't help the environment, but this won't matter too much to climate change pessimists. :-) As an aside, I would recommend that anyone with a Netflix subscription watches Pandora's Promise. Dan Atkinson
  • Score: 10

12:11pm Fri 30 May 14

oldgoat says...

Regrettable decision. Wind farms harvest free energy, and are graceful to look at. Of course they don't work 24/7, but they are only part of the solution to having a renewable energy source.
Regrettable decision. Wind farms harvest free energy, and are graceful to look at. Of course they don't work 24/7, but they are only part of the solution to having a renewable energy source. oldgoat
  • Score: 3

1:03pm Fri 30 May 14

twotonethomas says...

So the professional planning officers at RDC recommended this for approval on planning grounds.

A bunch of amateur NIMBYS on the planning committee turned them down.

A professional planning appeal inspector overturned that refusal on planning grounds.

Then Eric (we must have prayers at council) Pickles overruled the expert because he doesn't like windfarms.

No wonder this country is in the state it's in.
So the professional planning officers at RDC recommended this for approval on planning grounds. A bunch of amateur NIMBYS on the planning committee turned them down. A professional planning appeal inspector overturned that refusal on planning grounds. Then Eric (we must have prayers at council) Pickles overruled the expert because he doesn't like windfarms. No wonder this country is in the state it's in. twotonethomas
  • Score: 12

1:40pm Fri 30 May 14

again says...

Another development I know of is going ahead. The Landowner did a deal with the developer whereby he not only received rent for use of his land but also insisted that the energy company provided the community with their electricity at a much reduced rate for the life of the wind farm.

If the wind turbines are not good electricity producers how could the community receive cheaper electricity?
Another development I know of is going ahead. The Landowner did a deal with the developer whereby he not only received rent for use of his land but also insisted that the energy company provided the community with their electricity at a much reduced rate for the life of the wind farm. If the wind turbines are not good electricity producers how could the community receive cheaper electricity? again
  • Score: 0

3:07pm Fri 30 May 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

Brighouse Lad wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote:
Shouter wrote: Hooray! Common sense has prevailed at last. Noisy horrible monstrosities. There are other renewable energy sources which are much more efficient and less damaging on the landscape.
oh here we go again the buzzing sound from over 800m away... Dont work in high wind but then say they are too loud when wind is high... The only argument that you come up with are b@llocks.. Monstrosities... hope they plonk a nuclear plant next to your house... then do a comparison...
At least with a nuclear power station it works 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Wind turbines need to be out at sea, not on land. Plus lets not forget the pollution that is caused by mining for rare earth metals for the generators. It seems to be forgotten about as it happens in another country!
What just like electric cars?? Yes nuclear is more productive you are correct... so tell you want scatter the countryside with them?? Or is that overkill? Wind farms are better on the eye then nuclear plants... and is the most fitting construction to the country side.. I really don’t mind the look of them... People say eye sore i say go to ferrybridge and then appreciate them a tad more...The fact is that in the sticks there can provide villages with at least a top up saving on a lot of other infrastructure required... And yes sea is more windy.... but its hardly still on the moors now is it??
[quote][p][bold]Brighouse Lad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shouter[/bold] wrote: Hooray! Common sense has prevailed at last. Noisy horrible monstrosities. There are other renewable energy sources which are much more efficient and less damaging on the landscape.[/p][/quote]oh here we go again the buzzing sound from over 800m away... Dont work in high wind but then say they are too loud when wind is high... The only argument that you come up with are b@llocks.. Monstrosities... hope they plonk a nuclear plant next to your house... then do a comparison...[/p][/quote]At least with a nuclear power station it works 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Wind turbines need to be out at sea, not on land. Plus lets not forget the pollution that is caused by mining for rare earth metals for the generators. It seems to be forgotten about as it happens in another country![/p][/quote]What just like electric cars?? Yes nuclear is more productive you are correct... so tell you want scatter the countryside with them?? Or is that overkill? Wind farms are better on the eye then nuclear plants... and is the most fitting construction to the country side.. I really don’t mind the look of them... People say eye sore i say go to ferrybridge and then appreciate them a tad more...The fact is that in the sticks there can provide villages with at least a top up saving on a lot of other infrastructure required... And yes sea is more windy.... but its hardly still on the moors now is it?? Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: -1

3:18pm Fri 30 May 14

Brighouse Lad says...

Archiebold the 1st wrote:
Brighouse Lad wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote:
Shouter wrote: Hooray! Common sense has prevailed at last. Noisy horrible monstrosities. There are other renewable energy sources which are much more efficient and less damaging on the landscape.
oh here we go again the buzzing sound from over 800m away... Dont work in high wind but then say they are too loud when wind is high... The only argument that you come up with are b@llocks.. Monstrosities... hope they plonk a nuclear plant next to your house... then do a comparison...
At least with a nuclear power station it works 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Wind turbines need to be out at sea, not on land. Plus lets not forget the pollution that is caused by mining for rare earth metals for the generators. It seems to be forgotten about as it happens in another country!
What just like electric cars?? Yes nuclear is more productive you are correct... so tell you want scatter the countryside with them?? Or is that overkill? Wind farms are better on the eye then nuclear plants... and is the most fitting construction to the country side.. I really don’t mind the look of them... People say eye sore i say go to ferrybridge and then appreciate them a tad more...The fact is that in the sticks there can provide villages with at least a top up saving on a lot of other infrastructure required... And yes sea is more windy.... but its hardly still on the moors now is it??
People are forgetting how many turbines are required to replace a power station. Its around 10000 turbines for an average coal/nuclear plant. 10000 turbines would be far more un-slightly than a nuclear power plant especially if all the turbines are grouped together!
[quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighouse Lad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shouter[/bold] wrote: Hooray! Common sense has prevailed at last. Noisy horrible monstrosities. There are other renewable energy sources which are much more efficient and less damaging on the landscape.[/p][/quote]oh here we go again the buzzing sound from over 800m away... Dont work in high wind but then say they are too loud when wind is high... The only argument that you come up with are b@llocks.. Monstrosities... hope they plonk a nuclear plant next to your house... then do a comparison...[/p][/quote]At least with a nuclear power station it works 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Wind turbines need to be out at sea, not on land. Plus lets not forget the pollution that is caused by mining for rare earth metals for the generators. It seems to be forgotten about as it happens in another country![/p][/quote]What just like electric cars?? Yes nuclear is more productive you are correct... so tell you want scatter the countryside with them?? Or is that overkill? Wind farms are better on the eye then nuclear plants... and is the most fitting construction to the country side.. I really don’t mind the look of them... People say eye sore i say go to ferrybridge and then appreciate them a tad more...The fact is that in the sticks there can provide villages with at least a top up saving on a lot of other infrastructure required... And yes sea is more windy.... but its hardly still on the moors now is it??[/p][/quote]People are forgetting how many turbines are required to replace a power station. Its around 10000 turbines for an average coal/nuclear plant. 10000 turbines would be far more un-slightly than a nuclear power plant especially if all the turbines are grouped together! Brighouse Lad
  • Score: 2

3:50pm Fri 30 May 14

Archiebold the 1st says...

Brighouse Lad wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote:
Brighouse Lad wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote:
Shouter wrote: Hooray! Common sense has prevailed at last. Noisy horrible monstrosities. There are other renewable energy sources which are much more efficient and less damaging on the landscape.
oh here we go again the buzzing sound from over 800m away... Dont work in high wind but then say they are too loud when wind is high... The only argument that you come up with are b@llocks.. Monstrosities... hope they plonk a nuclear plant next to your house... then do a comparison...
At least with a nuclear power station it works 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Wind turbines need to be out at sea, not on land. Plus lets not forget the pollution that is caused by mining for rare earth metals for the generators. It seems to be forgotten about as it happens in another country!
What just like electric cars?? Yes nuclear is more productive you are correct... so tell you want scatter the countryside with them?? Or is that overkill? Wind farms are better on the eye then nuclear plants... and is the most fitting construction to the country side.. I really don’t mind the look of them... People say eye sore i say go to ferrybridge and then appreciate them a tad more...The fact is that in the sticks there can provide villages with at least a top up saving on a lot of other infrastructure required... And yes sea is more windy.... but its hardly still on the moors now is it??
People are forgetting how many turbines are required to replace a power station. Its around 10000 turbines for an average coal/nuclear plant. 10000 turbines would be far more un-slightly than a nuclear power plant especially if all the turbines are grouped together!
The idea is not to replace them though. The idea is to power smaller areas with them using the coal as back up. We as a country can not just use one source of power.... It has to be a combination of "greener" and cheaper power to eventually filter out the coal plants.

For Yorkshire though i'd like to see more farms in the right locations... Anything to get the monopoly off our countries greedy suppliers..... And to be fair i'd rather see 1m of these then drax/ferrybridge etc..... It automatically makes a place look like a dump... Also are they reliable? i.e look at recent land slips causing a mass shortage of power.. Wouldn’t it be good to have a back up generator as it where?

Even the teletubbies where that forward thinking as to use these....
[quote][p][bold]Brighouse Lad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighouse Lad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shouter[/bold] wrote: Hooray! Common sense has prevailed at last. Noisy horrible monstrosities. There are other renewable energy sources which are much more efficient and less damaging on the landscape.[/p][/quote]oh here we go again the buzzing sound from over 800m away... Dont work in high wind but then say they are too loud when wind is high... The only argument that you come up with are b@llocks.. Monstrosities... hope they plonk a nuclear plant next to your house... then do a comparison...[/p][/quote]At least with a nuclear power station it works 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Wind turbines need to be out at sea, not on land. Plus lets not forget the pollution that is caused by mining for rare earth metals for the generators. It seems to be forgotten about as it happens in another country![/p][/quote]What just like electric cars?? Yes nuclear is more productive you are correct... so tell you want scatter the countryside with them?? Or is that overkill? Wind farms are better on the eye then nuclear plants... and is the most fitting construction to the country side.. I really don’t mind the look of them... People say eye sore i say go to ferrybridge and then appreciate them a tad more...The fact is that in the sticks there can provide villages with at least a top up saving on a lot of other infrastructure required... And yes sea is more windy.... but its hardly still on the moors now is it??[/p][/quote]People are forgetting how many turbines are required to replace a power station. Its around 10000 turbines for an average coal/nuclear plant. 10000 turbines would be far more un-slightly than a nuclear power plant especially if all the turbines are grouped together![/p][/quote]The idea is not to replace them though. The idea is to power smaller areas with them using the coal as back up. We as a country can not just use one source of power.... It has to be a combination of "greener" and cheaper power to eventually filter out the coal plants. For Yorkshire though i'd like to see more farms in the right locations... Anything to get the monopoly off our countries greedy suppliers..... And to be fair i'd rather see 1m of these then drax/ferrybridge etc..... It automatically makes a place look like a dump... Also are they reliable? i.e look at recent land slips causing a mass shortage of power.. Wouldn’t it be good to have a back up generator as it where? Even the teletubbies where that forward thinking as to use these.... Archiebold the 1st
  • Score: -2

5:41pm Fri 30 May 14

Brighouse Lad says...

Archiebold the 1st wrote:
Brighouse Lad wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote:
Brighouse Lad wrote:
Archiebold the 1st wrote:
Shouter wrote: Hooray! Common sense has prevailed at last. Noisy horrible monstrosities. There are other renewable energy sources which are much more efficient and less damaging on the landscape.
oh here we go again the buzzing sound from over 800m away... Dont work in high wind but then say they are too loud when wind is high... The only argument that you come up with are b@llocks.. Monstrosities... hope they plonk a nuclear plant next to your house... then do a comparison...
At least with a nuclear power station it works 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Wind turbines need to be out at sea, not on land. Plus lets not forget the pollution that is caused by mining for rare earth metals for the generators. It seems to be forgotten about as it happens in another country!
What just like electric cars?? Yes nuclear is more productive you are correct... so tell you want scatter the countryside with them?? Or is that overkill? Wind farms are better on the eye then nuclear plants... and is the most fitting construction to the country side.. I really don’t mind the look of them... People say eye sore i say go to ferrybridge and then appreciate them a tad more...The fact is that in the sticks there can provide villages with at least a top up saving on a lot of other infrastructure required... And yes sea is more windy.... but its hardly still on the moors now is it??
People are forgetting how many turbines are required to replace a power station. Its around 10000 turbines for an average coal/nuclear plant. 10000 turbines would be far more un-slightly than a nuclear power plant especially if all the turbines are grouped together!
The idea is not to replace them though. The idea is to power smaller areas with them using the coal as back up. We as a country can not just use one source of power.... It has to be a combination of "greener" and cheaper power to eventually filter out the coal plants.

For Yorkshire though i'd like to see more farms in the right locations... Anything to get the monopoly off our countries greedy suppliers..... And to be fair i'd rather see 1m of these then drax/ferrybridge etc..... It automatically makes a place look like a dump... Also are they reliable? i.e look at recent land slips causing a mass shortage of power.. Wouldn’t it be good to have a back up generator as it where?

Even the teletubbies where that forward thinking as to use these....
I agree that we need an energy mix. I grew up near to Drax power station, I wouldn't call it a dump, lots of nice open country side for miles around and an power station. The place certainly didn't look untidy.

Is wind/renewables reliable? Germany recently generated 70% of their power from renewables but for a week in February wind accounted for 0%. That's one of the reasons the Germans are constructing 10 coal power stations. Wind isn't reliable enough to have as a back up generator as you cant control the wind.

As for recent land slips where were those?? Who's power went out??
[quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighouse Lad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Brighouse Lad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Archiebold the 1st[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Shouter[/bold] wrote: Hooray! Common sense has prevailed at last. Noisy horrible monstrosities. There are other renewable energy sources which are much more efficient and less damaging on the landscape.[/p][/quote]oh here we go again the buzzing sound from over 800m away... Dont work in high wind but then say they are too loud when wind is high... The only argument that you come up with are b@llocks.. Monstrosities... hope they plonk a nuclear plant next to your house... then do a comparison...[/p][/quote]At least with a nuclear power station it works 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Wind turbines need to be out at sea, not on land. Plus lets not forget the pollution that is caused by mining for rare earth metals for the generators. It seems to be forgotten about as it happens in another country![/p][/quote]What just like electric cars?? Yes nuclear is more productive you are correct... so tell you want scatter the countryside with them?? Or is that overkill? Wind farms are better on the eye then nuclear plants... and is the most fitting construction to the country side.. I really don’t mind the look of them... People say eye sore i say go to ferrybridge and then appreciate them a tad more...The fact is that in the sticks there can provide villages with at least a top up saving on a lot of other infrastructure required... And yes sea is more windy.... but its hardly still on the moors now is it??[/p][/quote]People are forgetting how many turbines are required to replace a power station. Its around 10000 turbines for an average coal/nuclear plant. 10000 turbines would be far more un-slightly than a nuclear power plant especially if all the turbines are grouped together![/p][/quote]The idea is not to replace them though. The idea is to power smaller areas with them using the coal as back up. We as a country can not just use one source of power.... It has to be a combination of "greener" and cheaper power to eventually filter out the coal plants. For Yorkshire though i'd like to see more farms in the right locations... Anything to get the monopoly off our countries greedy suppliers..... And to be fair i'd rather see 1m of these then drax/ferrybridge etc..... It automatically makes a place look like a dump... Also are they reliable? i.e look at recent land slips causing a mass shortage of power.. Wouldn’t it be good to have a back up generator as it where? Even the teletubbies where that forward thinking as to use these....[/p][/quote]I agree that we need an energy mix. I grew up near to Drax power station, I wouldn't call it a dump, lots of nice open country side for miles around and an power station. The place certainly didn't look untidy. Is wind/renewables reliable? Germany recently generated 70% of their power from renewables but for a week in February wind accounted for 0%. That's one of the reasons the Germans are constructing 10 coal power stations. Wind isn't reliable enough to have as a back up generator as you cant control the wind. As for recent land slips where were those?? Who's power went out?? Brighouse Lad
  • Score: 2

9:29am Tue 3 Jun 14

i-know says...

again wrote:
Another development I know of is going ahead. The Landowner did a deal with the developer whereby he not only received rent for use of his land but also insisted that the energy company provided the community with their electricity at a much reduced rate for the life of the wind farm.

If the wind turbines are not good electricity producers how could the community receive cheaper electricity?
The electricity produced in this and most instances wouldn't go specifically to local houses - it is plugged into the National Grid.
[quote][p][bold]again[/bold] wrote: Another development I know of is going ahead. The Landowner did a deal with the developer whereby he not only received rent for use of his land but also insisted that the energy company provided the community with their electricity at a much reduced rate for the life of the wind farm. If the wind turbines are not good electricity producers how could the community receive cheaper electricity?[/p][/quote]The electricity produced in this and most instances wouldn't go specifically to local houses - it is plugged into the National Grid. i-know
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree