Opponents of wind farms are ill informed

Wind Farm

Wind Farm

5
Have your say

I write in response to the article on page seven of the Colne Times about wind turbine proposals.

First, “blots on the landscape”. Before we can make such a claim we must consider what makes a “blot” in the first place. A blot on the landscape could be a thatched roof, big black box shaped buildings, the new Medical Centre, pylons, cooling towers, factory chimneys, street lights, transmission poles, telegraph poles and even roads.

All those I have mentioned are permanent. A wind turbine is for 25 years as per the lease and HAVE to be removed as per the terms of the lease. So a wind turbine might be considered a blot by some people, but in any event it is only a temporary structure as a lease determines its lifetime.

Wind turbines are not “alien”, they have been around for a very long time. They are not “detrimental”, quite a ridiculous word to use. When a structure contributes to local energy security, jobs, goods, supply of services, habitat management plans and more then such a claim is immature and ill informed. As for “grave”, the only grave aspect are the alternatives to wind which I will discuss later.

In response to the size of the turbines and the comparisons made. If a turbine isn’t tall enough to have clear, uninterrupted wind then turbulence can pose a serious risk. This childish comparison is mere scare-mongering.

I invite Coun. Cooney to demonstrate or show these “far better options” right now! I invited Coun. Cooney and all the other councillors to an open day to view a small scale 50kw wind turbine that stands 34m to the blade tip. NOT ONE bothered to respond to my invitation, so bothered are they about wind energy, NONE of them came to see the turbine and what’s involved. Therefore, they are ill informed, ignorant of the facts and unwilling to learn enough to form an opinion and as such their bias against is unfair and undemocratic in my opinion at a planning application.

The alternatives are:

Nuclear Energy: Yes, it provides vast amounts of energy at huge costs to the taxpayer, for example £67 billion, and counting for decommissioning of Sellafield PLUS the risk of catastrophe!

Hydro: Hugely expensive to build, huge carbon footprint due to a vast amount of concrete, destroys landscapes, homes and culture because the valleys get flooded. Perhaps Coun. Cooney would approve flooding Wycoller for a hydro dam?

Solar PV: Great if you live where the sun shines for 18 hours plus per day, if we all have them, if we all live in South facing homes and the clouds only come along at night to rain on us.

Fossil Fuels: Let’s put a gun at our heads then because most of it is foreign sourced and they call the prices and can turn the tap off! Brilliant idea, Britain held to ransom!

Fracking: Talk about “detrimental”, shattering the foundations of the very landscape your trying to protect, poisoning the water and you need a four acre site to give the rig a home. Not to mention the 4000 or so rigs required in Lancashire alone. A turbine can sit on seven sqms.

Biomass: Great, burn all the trees we grow. Hang on, we don’t have enough so buy in fuel from those foreign sources again!

Turbines are getting bigger because councils continue to throw out applications and make life difficult for the industry. The costs are rising for us and so will the towers, bigger turbines now make more sense than small ones!

Jon Roche

Ripam Agri Ltd