Wind Turbines up on the moor, a good or bad thing ?

Halfax Courier being surprising supportive

I will declare in intrest in on shore wind to start off… Its kept to wolf from the door for the past 10 years.

IMO, they're better than the pylons that scar the area!

Used to live in Cornholme where they are and i really like them, prefer them being there than a power station. There getting replaced by more effiecient as they've been there for 15years.

Living close to the proposed crook hill site I'm not opposed to the wind farm, my only concern is still the matter of construction and how they are going to get the towers up there.

The only way I can see is to 'improve' part of the pennine bridleway via higher calderbrook

These wind farms create good ridable access road which only make the moors more accessible to the general public, so why should anybody have a gripe about them? They built them up on Scout Moor and the antis' only trick was that it would destroy wildlife (what wildlife?) and any bird that can't avoid those props deserves to to die.

The ones going in at Reaps Moss will only be about 2 miles from me and probably visible from my backgarden. Can't say I've an issue to be honest. I can see the Scout Moor ones from my front garden (I will admit it was a bit of a shock the first time I saw them from the Rossendale side) but I've have got used to them now.

There was a bit of stink locally about them, the usual muppets who never actually go up there whinging about the fragile natural environemnt etc. This will be the fragile natural environment that for the last 200 years has been mined for coal, stone etc. and had numerous ponds and streams dug to power mills etc. These days the local scrotes use the hills for riding motorbikes and dumping their rubbish / stolen cars. A wind farm might actually clear the place up. I'd happily sign up for more if it means the two lines of pylons crossing our little valley were buried.

Sorry to disagree, but:

No major industry in Tod any more, so locals are increasingly relying on tourism to bring in much needed income. With three of the valley approaches to Tod sprouting windfarms, I can see many mountain bikers and walkers just passing on by.

You may think they are beautiful – fair enough, but many people, including me, don't. Yes, we live in a post industrial ever changing landscape, but rather bare moors with nature reclaiming her own than these ugly things.

Finally, I don't think that they make any positive contribution whatsoever – many of the 'facts' I read about output versus energy consumed in construction/maintenance appear contradictory, and I just don't believe that they are any kind of permanent solution to our energy crisis.

What they are is a highly visible method for the Government to show us how deeply they really, really care about climate change and our ever increasing consumption of energy. They could have made a far more positive contribution by banning flat screen TV's with their ridiculous power consumption, or indeed the sale of any new electrical devices that have a standby function.

Er Ok, agree to diagree then. Can't see many mountain bikers avoiding the riding around here because of the turbines, the pylons cris crossing the hills around here don't seem to put them off. I too would prefer bare moors but they need to go somewhere and rather here than the lakes.

I agree about the government not really doing anything serious about climate change and taking easy media friendly options to look like they are doing something but the windfarms do produce relatively carbon emission free electricity, not enough to power the UK admittedly but they do contribute. There is as much twaddle spouted by those that dislike the turbines as those hair shirt greeny weenies on the other side of the debate.

One thing to bear in mind though is that it's private companies not the government who are building the turbines. If they really didn't produce significantly more power than they took to build they really would be much of a commercial investment. As I said twaddle on both sides of the deabte.

Why should bikers pass the valley by? I'd imagine most come for the quality of the riding rather than than the views.

You don't see many people put off climbing Scafell because of the view from the summit.

Ok, must just be me then.

But given the choice of a two valleys, both with good riding, one containing four wind farms and the other none, I know which I'd go for.

Why should bikers pass the valley by? I'd imagine most come for the quality of the riding rather than than the views.

Well, If I'm off away for the weekend I like to go somewhere with both good riding and beautiful views.
It's the whole experience.
And I think wind farms look hideous, so that would obviously affect my choice.

As for Scafell (Pike), horrible view, isn't it?

Couple of wind farms would improve it no end, eh? 🙂

Rusty, do you use electricity?

(I assume you do, seeing as you're using a PC to post on a forum)

From this point on, you therefore have no argument…

Why?

Because I believe that wind farms are an inefficient propaganda tool used by the Government to convince a gullible public that everything is going to be OK without any major changes to their profligate and wasteful lifestyles?

They may be part of a solution when taken in the context of a major programme of renewable power sources, but that's just not going to happen.
They are a smokescreen, a green sticking plaster to make us all feel better whilst the Govt gets on with selling contracts for new nuclear power stations to it's business chums.

No one is saying they are THE solution. What we are saying is they are a step in the right direction and they WILL comntribute.. As for ugliness.. I'd go for the valley full of windfarms rather than the one without, all things being equal as I think they are amazing things. Riding underneath one as they are at full speed in a gale is breathtaking. Coalclough windfarm above Tod is a bit of an attraction. Local schools take kids there on trips.

More please.. even if only on aesthetic grounds. If they were merely as clean as coal fired stations I'd still prefer them.

Agreed, would you prefer some wind turbines or a nuclear power station? Wind turbines win every time on aesthetic grounds (alhtough the nuclear option would probably produce more power).

With three of the valley approaches to Tod sprouting windfarms, I can see many mountain bikers and walkers just passing on by.

The Manchester Uni club was riding out there yesterday and a few of the lads who certainly ain't dyed in the wool environmentalists were doing a running skit about how deafeningly noisy and monstrously ugly the turbines were, and that not only had their ride been ruined but it had brought down the resale value of their Konas…

Raised a wry smile.

No one is saying they are THE solution.

I know Mark, the OP just asked if people thought they were a good or bad thing. Just expressing my opinion. I have no idea what the solution is, as every one seems to bring more problems of it's own.

As for ugliness.. I'd go for the valley full of windfarms rather than the one without, all things being equal as I think they are amazing things.

Wow. Really?
Two identical valleys, say Swaledale for instance.
One covered in wind farms, one as it is now, and you'd go for the one covered in wind farms?
Do you genuinely think that the one covered in wind farms would be less ugly?

Yes. Yes I do. Genuinely.

'Man made' does not always equal 'ugly'.

The Golden Gate Bridge in SF for example. Take it away and you have a bog standard landscape. With the Bridge there it's one of the most amazing and famous views in the world.

I think windfarms are beautiful examples of human achievement and engineering. I'll ride the valley full of them and you ride the one without. No problem.

Hi johnfb.

I'm not a NIMBY (& I very much doubt that the construction of of the proposed wind farms in Calderdale would affect the value of my back to back terraced hovel 😀 )& would very much support the use of wind farms as part of a solution when taken in the context of a major programme of renewable power sources as stated above, but the govt are not going to do this. It takes too much effort and requires real long term investment and planning.

Wind farms are highly visible and push people toward the conclusion that 'Something is being done'. It is, and it's called nuclear power.
Which is a whole different argument, along with the long term energy needs of our planet.

However, the original question was about the proposed wind farms above Tod, which I still believe would be hideously ugly and bring very little (if any, taking whole of life energy costs into account)benefit to the country.

I completely agree on the contribution of windfarms in the environmental debate. They are pointless and make no difference (out of control fires in coal mines in China put more CO2 into the air each year than all the trucks in North America). Global warming is happening and there is nothing we can will do to stop it.

I like windfarms because they are a practical step towards energy self sufficiency. The next big round of wars are going to be over restricted energy distribution and come that time I'd rather not be relying on Russia for my energy.

As for their output being tiny, it was to start with but things move on, partly due to having these things in use, there is a market for them so development work is funded. The Scout Moor ones generate massively more energy per tower than the (soon to be replaced 15 year old) Coalclough ones.

As for aesthetics, well can't argue with your personal views there, they're as valid as my own but I do accept if we use wind technology they've got to go somewhere windy and that usually means hills. At the end of the day the do very little damage to their surroundings (a concrete plinth that will crumble in 100 years on it's own and some access tracks that'll fully grass over in 10 years) and they don't really interfere with the land use around them. Sheep still graze at Coalclough and I still ride there (and at Scout Moor) as do many others. I'd like to see the debate if coal fired power stations were being brought on line for the first time. We're going to dig a vast open pit to extract the coal, create massive spoil tips and build vast concrete buildings next to our rivers…….

Mark, if that's your honest opinion, then fair enough we'll agree to differ.

Personally, I prefer my landscapes like I prefer my w I like the natural look, each to their own eh? 🙂

Wow thats a debate and a half. I am intrested as I am likely to get involved after the common land hearing after xmas on both sites which have been consented.

I work in the onshore wind industry as I worked for 6 years at Sellafield in Cumbria and after seeing the shocking legacy of nuclear waste I found another avenue to channel my engineering knowledge. I do believe that it is part of the fix for our energy future, others would include some loft insulation and no standby button on the TV….

It takes 2 days to put up and 2 days to take down a wind turbine, some of the waste at Sellafield is on a care and maintenance programme for 1000 years…..

View of Sellafield from Scafell.

Rusty Spanner – Member

Why?

Because I guess you therefore need your electrons generated somehow. Given the current technologies available, you can flood your precious valley and have hydro, or perhaps have some modern post-industrial industry, and a whopping great coal-fired beast in the middle of it, or perhaps after all that a few windmills aren't so bad after all…

I've no problem with the looks of wind farms, but I do think they're a waste of time.

Apparently they'll provide enough power for 22,500 homes. Considering how long it takes to get through all the planning constraints and actually build the things, and the fact that 154,000 homes are built each year, it doesn't take a genius to see that these aren't the answer.

If we weren't so afraid of nuclear power, we'd be pumping the money into that and finding a way of dealing with the waste.

Personally, I prefer my landscapes like I prefer my w I like the natural look, each to their own eh?

The thing is though, very little about the British countryside is 'natural' anyway.

Personally i think they look quite majestic.

Are these things really built /run purely on a commercial basis…I assumed it was the modern day equivalent of planting pine trees and that the EU must be paying a healthy 'subsidy' for these.

I'm going to have to pay more attention but the Scout Moor ones don't actually appear to be turning that often when I look despite plenty of wind ?

Not a fan..one or two farms yes that was interesting…but we are being surrounded with them around here…one larger farm / blemish on the landscape would be preferable.

I love the look of wind turbines. Even if I didn't I would appreciate that SOMETHING has to replace burning bits of dug up/pumped up jurassic era.

I've made this suggestion before and accept it's a bit contraversial but there's a lot of evidence to suggest that we (Britain), as a country could be *virtually* self-sufficient for non-petroleum energy usage, if we just turned the **** lights off. [1]

[1] Granted, a fairly glib statement but if we all actually made a concious effort to use less electricity rather than looking for more ways to generate the stuff, the problem would stop being one. The problem is, certainly with us is that it's still cheap enough for us to just carry on burning it away like no tomorrow.

The problem is, certainly with us is that it's still cheap enough for us to just carry on burning it away like no tomorrow.

+1

my mrs came home the other day to tell me that her work mates said they put the heating on to dry clothes, and open the windows also because it gets too hot. go figure!

my twopenneth
I dont have as big a problem with the looks of them as i do with the pointlessness of them – the amount of power they produce isn't worth a carrot in the grand scheme of things, the ones on scout moor dont even turn half of the time. the fact, imo, is that the only real solution to our ever increasing power needs is nuclear (people really need to get their heads round this) so why not put the money thats being wasted creating pointless monuments to futility towards getting safe clean nuclear systems that will provide power for the future instead of conning the public into thinking they are actually doing something when in fact they are (as usual) just wasting public money (and no dought lining their own pockets at the same time) g

the only real solution to our ever increasing power needs is nuclear

Why are out power needs every increasing? Because we are all massively wasteful. We make more effort than most in this house but I bet there is still a lot of waste.

so why not put the money thats being wasted creating pointless monuments to futility towards getting safe clean nuclear systems

How do you get a safe, clean nuclear system exactly? Nuclear has been around for, what, 40-50 years now, and their best idea for dealing with high level waste is to dump it in a pit for a few thousand years and hope it doesn't contaminate the water table.

I'm in the pro-windfarm lobby. I used to work in Nuclear and wouldn't want my energy needs of today being my grandchildrens problem in the future. We're still cleaning nuclear sites from the 50's and 60's.

I'd prefer to see local Combined Heat and Power plants – excess heat is reused for heating homes and businesses and less transmission losses (i hope).

I don't think the Scout Moor ones are a very good example of how often they turn. I believe there have been some fairly serious gearbox and other mechanical issues with them (and they took a long time to commission) which is why they don't appear to working that often. The ones at Coalclough hardly ever stop, infact it's odd to see them stopped.

Personally I'm not particularly anti-nuclear either, I think we will have to invest more in that direction too. Yes there are waste and safety issues but think about the amount of waste, pollution, destruction and death associated with mining / coal fired power stations.

Relative to the energy required to make them, wind turbines are useful and worthwhile. Discussions about their operational "efficiency" are pointless, as their fuel source has no environmental impact and doesn't cost anything.

They're never going to contribute more than about 20% of our national requirements, so they're not a silver bullet. But then, I don't think anyone's claiming that they are.

I think they look quite majestic in small numbers. In huge numbers they look an unsightly mess. But I'm torn seeing as I dont like to discourage renewables, providing they are financially and ecologically close to sound. Soem just look alike a scar thought…

ransos – the building of wind farms is so environmentally damaging that they will never recover there carbon footprint to start with there is hundreds of tons of concrete (one of the worst things about enviromentally) in the base allown (spellings crap today)also if noone claims they are ever going to produce more than 20% of our power req why not spend the money on something that is?
jon – granted the ones at coalclough rarely stop but their that old i doubt they produce much leccy either
grumm – really agree that the best approach is to reduce power use not to simply produce more but do you really believe there is any chance of that happening? also if i new how to produce safe clean nuclear i would be a very wealthy man but i firmly believe that the money would be better spent working on this.
the idea of renueables(sp) is great and it works in countries like norway that is almost totally hydro (so i was told in norway) but they have a large country with a small population whereas we have the opposite we simply cannot meet our requirements by renuables and i think we can all agree that fossil fuels are a finite resorse so in a real world we are left with nuclear or another sourse yet to be invented g

Amazing how many people are pro-nuclear nowadays.

Always because it's the only realistic answer for our energy 'needs'. 'Needs' that haven't even been around for 100 years.

I find some wind farms blend in to a landscape really well, others do look like industrialized moors. But they are always powerful symbols of how much energy we use and take for granted. Coal & Nuclear look smaller & better because they are highly concentrated forms of energy. But they won't be helping anyone in 200 years from now. They'll have run out.

justme – thats a very simplified view of the real situation.

Reduction in use and waste is really the only way, there is virtually no way we can continue to grow and use as we do unless someone fires up fusion power properly in the very near future. We throw away 30% of our cars fuel to heat the air around us. We lose 30% of our electrical power in transmission losses. We leave fields of PCs on overnight in offices, we have streets full of street lighting which, for the most part, is just throwing away power due to the inability to store it and is causing light polution with no real benefit. I hate to reel it out again, but more people should see this (all the way through):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY

You only have to install a power meter with a readout in people houses to see most people vastly reduce their wastage when they can actually SEE the waste – people dont WANT to cause a problem, but they dont appreciate their own waste levels.

Good point coffeeking. Designers have been hiding a lot of this away for years – just think about all the white goods you have that sit there chugging away, wasting power discretely.
You can understand why people have no comprehension of it.

It's worse than 30% for cars too

So around 15% of the energy is left to move you and the car. Assume that your car weighs 10x your own mass……means that under 2% of the fuel goes towards moving the driver.
**** crazy

"ransos – the building of wind farms is so environmentally damaging that they will never recover there carbon footprint to start with"

Got any evidence for that? As far as I know, your statement is completely untrue. And even if it was – compare them with the alternatives.