Wind Farms v Nuclear
pingupete | 24.07.2004 01:48 | Ecology | Liverpool
We need real debate about this
Long standing environmentalist James Lovelock recently peformed an astonishing u-turn and started to back nuclear power as our best way of preventing global catastrophe due to ever increasing CO2 emissions.
We've now got the latest in what is a local whispering campaign against wind farms, with a shaky hashing together of potential problems that they may cause.
http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100regionalnews/tm_objectid=14452741%26method=full%26siteid=50061%26headline=rescue%2dteams%2dtest%2dwindfarm%2dsafety-name_page.html
In trying to address these problems, I'll try to address these "concerns" as follows:
- If there are serious problems with interference and a danger to shipping then it may mean we should only site wind farms on land (which is cheaper anyway)
- The RSPB are only alluding to "potential" problems. Nothing definite yet. I'm sure educated RSPB people know that climate change is a much bigger issue and that the habitats for these birds are under threat already
- People are complaining that it ruins their view. This is a typical case of "not in my back yard". This is why it is vital that we get some popular understanding on how we should go forward. Otherwise MPs like Ben Chapman will u-turn to support nuclear power simply to prevent "undesirable" wind farms in his constituency
In the short term, the push has to be toward energy efficiency, but we need to make it clear that there are only two realistic goals in the medium term, nuclear or wind, with the remaining capacity generated by gas (with a locally sourced coal back up in the event of some supply-side disaster).
Even with existing nuclear power stations, it will only take one Chernobyl type disaster (or terrorist attack) to render most of Britain uninhabitable. It has already produced over 5 MILLION TONNES of high, intermediate and low level radioactive waste stored in "temporary" facilities in Britain.
Wind energy is local, clean and without impact other than the points raised above. I know what I would prefer. In an ideal world, those objecting to the wind farms would be doing so with a low level radioactive waste store as the alternative, but people are being given false choices by the mainstream media.
Any views or additional info?
We've now got the latest in what is a local whispering campaign against wind farms, with a shaky hashing together of potential problems that they may cause.
http://icliverpool.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100regionalnews/tm_objectid=14452741%26method=full%26siteid=50061%26headline=rescue%2dteams%2dtest%2dwindfarm%2dsafety-name_page.html
In trying to address these problems, I'll try to address these "concerns" as follows:
- If there are serious problems with interference and a danger to shipping then it may mean we should only site wind farms on land (which is cheaper anyway)
- The RSPB are only alluding to "potential" problems. Nothing definite yet. I'm sure educated RSPB people know that climate change is a much bigger issue and that the habitats for these birds are under threat already
- People are complaining that it ruins their view. This is a typical case of "not in my back yard". This is why it is vital that we get some popular understanding on how we should go forward. Otherwise MPs like Ben Chapman will u-turn to support nuclear power simply to prevent "undesirable" wind farms in his constituency
In the short term, the push has to be toward energy efficiency, but we need to make it clear that there are only two realistic goals in the medium term, nuclear or wind, with the remaining capacity generated by gas (with a locally sourced coal back up in the event of some supply-side disaster).
Even with existing nuclear power stations, it will only take one Chernobyl type disaster (or terrorist attack) to render most of Britain uninhabitable. It has already produced over 5 MILLION TONNES of high, intermediate and low level radioactive waste stored in "temporary" facilities in Britain.
Wind energy is local, clean and without impact other than the points raised above. I know what I would prefer. In an ideal world, those objecting to the wind farms would be doing so with a low level radioactive waste store as the alternative, but people are being given false choices by the mainstream media.
Any views or additional info?
pingupete
Comments
Display the following 6 comments