A Mighty Wind

Nimbys can't be allowed to put a block on wind farms

Oh, really?

"Currently there is no turbine on my house roof. I got all excited by a B&Q ad that told me I could go green without going into the red, and with the initial endorsement of Newsnight's Ethical Man and one D. Cameron (though I believe both have now either decided against or been turned down), I charged ahead. And then stopped. The numbers didn't seem to add up. Not just the financial, but even the environmental ones. It's one thing to pay a bit more to save the planet, but quite another to pay a bit more to hasten its demise. I'm still checking, but when ROIs (on any measure) don't add up you have to question the value. I'm also assessing 'green' electricity. But now tempered by some legitimate questions.

A long time ago, I was granted a Civ. Eng degree, if only on the strict proviso I didn't try and build anything. So I ended up in advertising and, now, by way of karmic correction for the consequences of that career move, the cause of making the planet a better place for my ancestors. What this gives me is a fair grasp of science, with a slight sense of how the public respond to information, be it purveyed by government, experts, NGOs, the media, etc.

And to repeat the clichés trotted out before and here, what is amazing is the amount of hot air and/or wind being generated to so little effect. Almost without exception, we have 'them vs. us’ lines being drawn, just as they are with other enviro-issues, such as 4x4s.

The article author bears some responsibility. I rather view 'Nimbys' as a pejorative right away, closely followed by '...can't be allowed...' as presumptuous. The political leanings of councils is noted, but in a democracy they can be seen to reflect the wishes of those who voted for them.

"Every year, wind energy gets closer to profitability" is interesting. While profitability is one thing, what about enviro-ROI? Charge what you like to make it make money, but the eco-cost stays the same, especially if no one can afford to use its 'product' and stays away. It becomes a white elephant.

Labour should not feel smug if the things don't work on the bases they are supposed to do. It merely means they have gone for an easy option for short-term political gain.

And so I turn to the responses for enlightenment. Few moved my knowledge ahead.

"hoodlight - So close to a fact, but no more use than Ms. T's. I would love to see it attributed.

Rumplestiltskin - No answer to the question there then. As noted.

Swoosh - No facts there, either.

NickRouse - some good 'pro' stuff there, ta. I shall enjoy checking this out (sadly, I have found even facts to be subject to rather huge levels of interpretation/substantiation) and cross fingers.

addicksboy - Valid pros and cons, ta.

NevNumbat - I was aware of these, though they may be addressed, at least as e-ROI by the claims made in support of the cost of build and maintenance over lifespan vs. benefits of generation. I'd have to question the 'waste' argument, sorry.

tomper - A stat often ignored. And with finite earth upon which to stand, where does an ever-increasing population suggest as an end point?

redsquare - Another near fact. Any attribution to test reliability and assess capacity/capability.

MalachiConstant - If you would care to get in touch via http://www.junkk.com, I would value your contribution and substantiation behind such claims for an attempt I am making to at least state the pros and the cons to help people decide, free of political, commercial or sociological bias.

snoepje - A very good point. But that simple?

shlick - An equally good point, and in part may be tied to the one before. Ignoring enviro and £-ROI's, can a windmill run our economy and expanding population?

ColvilleAndersen - I just ask, because I don't know (in the process of finding out), but what is the population of Denmark, and what is the ratio of wind available to power the demands of their economy?

Bonzaboy - The information exchanged here is certainly making a difference to me, and I intend it to make one to others. As to leaving it to the pols... yes, do all you suggest. As well.

contractor000 - The same offer applies to you as to your learned colleague. While citing qualifications helps validate opinions, I would hope that we can still allow those with training in assessing facts to stray into other areas. Otherwise we end up with a MoMo (Monckton/Monbiot) spat about who is more qualified to speak on a subject and/or for us mere mortals.

xhenry - Covered, but well worth repeating.

Personally, I think they can be structures of rare beauty, when placed with care. And if they provide 'free' power after payback that’s even better.

But for anything to be so pushed down our throats by the 'green is good no matter what, and anyone who disagrees is a Nazi' brigade, they also need to be proven as delivering environmentally. Which I do not see from this article, and still have several reasons to doubt.

Just the facts, Ma'am. Just the facts."