‘Tis an ill wind?

No matter where I wander in recent times I seem to be coming across what can only be called a blight on the landscape. Now.. anybody that knows me will be aware that I like my technology. I like it new, I like it up-to-date and I’m a real fan of the cutting edge. If it’s modern, new, cool… then I have to say I’m a sucker for instant purchase. I am…. a modern technology ad man’s dream!

But, and it’s a big but, I’m becoming really quite worried about one piece of modern technology that is beginning to blight the landscape. I’m getting pretty concerned by the massive growth in wind farms. Yes…. I’m told they are better than oil fired power stations, cleaner than the coal fired varieties and safer than the nuclear option but …boy oh boy are they UGLY! A true blight on the landscape.

Every journey through the Sperrins or anywhere on the coast of Donegal, where the magnificence  of the scenery used to lift the heart, now has the potential to make me wince. Everywhere I look the white stalks of the ugly whirling dervishes pierce the flesh of the mountains. Our fabulous forests now compete for space with these gigantuan man-made monstrosities.

A Wind Farm on the hills of Donegal. (Click for full image.)

Forgive me if this insults the Greenies among my readers, but I have to ask, ” Is it worth it?”

Is destroying a landscape worth the 50 pence worth of electricity that these German manufactured monsters are producing?

Now I see that we are set for a massive hike in the  number and size of these wind farms  – BWEA News – where I’m told:-

“By 2010, across the UK as a whole, the onshore wind industry could generate 50 per cent more electricity than previously predicted, expecting to install 6,000 megawatts (MW) of wind power capacity, generating almost 5 per cent of UK electricity supply, avoiding up to 13 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions and delivering nearly half of the Government’s 2010 renewable energy target, according to a report published by the British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) today (27 March 2006).”

And BWEA goes on to tell me:-

About wind energy in Northern Ireland:

  • There are already 12 wind farms totalling 107 MW generating in Northern Ireland, representing 8 per cent of the UK’s current wind power portfolio, including the newly commissioned 13 MW Callagheen project near Belleck in County Fermanagh.Do we need all of these?
  • New wind farms identified for completion by 2010 will bring Northern Ireland’s total to 543 MW, representing 9 per cent of the UK’s total forecast build by 2010.
  • 543 MW of onshore wind will generate 1.4 terawatt hours (TWh) of electricity in an average year, assuming 30 per cent capacity factor as applies across the UK, equivalent to the annual electricity needs of over 300,000 homes.
  • Economic benefits accruing from wind energy development in Northern Ireland by 2020 include £35 million in landowner income and £11 million in payments to local communities
  • A target has been set for 12 per cent of electricity demand to be generated by renewables in Northern Ireland by 2012/13.

Am I the only one who is worried by this build up?

Does anyone else care? Can anyone assure me that, at the very least, we’re destroying some of more spectacular views for a worthwhile cause?

Advertisements

13 Responses to ‘Tis an ill wind?

  1. comdenom says:

    I care, wind energy is not techy and it’s not new. We are regressing energy technology for the purpose of conserving earth’s natural resources because the UN demands it. Their main concern is consumption, imposing efforts to ensure resources aren’t depleted when they take over the world. If you control the resources, essentially you control the world. Wealth redistribution also plays a critical role, following the enviro fervor on the agenda.

    The green ecco-movement are either paid or followers that unwittingly accepted the guilt and propaganda. Yes…tis an ill wind.

  2. talkni says:

    Hi comdenom…interesting point of view. So you figure that the UN are going for total control of all the resources?

    Can you clarify that stance a wee bit for me? By UN do you really mean the USA and the G8 nations? Or am I misreading you there?

    • comdenom says:

      The UN (United Nations) has many things in place for world governance except total breakdown of sovereign nations, some barriers still exist. The UN has already written governing documents that will replace or usurp national protection. In the US this would be “The Bill of Rights”, The American Constitution”, human rights etc. They have a whole playbook for Leaders of nations to govern telling them what to focus on and implementation. They are essentially set up to be the current authority on leadership as depicted with the Agenda 21 documents; http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/res_agenda21_00.shtml
      You will find a great deal of focus on consumption and population. History has proven past regimes dictatorship spawned from greed. The economical breakdown of the richest, most powerful nations is necessary to implement more control. Attacking industry and agriculture using vilification and manufactured science is a great attempt to strike down the source of a nation’s wealth. Upon devising a plan to redistribute the wealth via a treaty with developing nations not only serves to prevent industrialization of those nations (prevent them from gaining wealth) but to economically disadvantage the richer nations from both ends. Wealth is power to defend.

      The UN believes there is a finite amount of natural resources, to protect those resources they cannot simply demand control they have to incrementally take it. What better way than to prove us all environmentally inept then play on our guilt and coerce co-operation?

  3. talkni says:

    Ah… ok.. I see.
    Now who will profit from this activity? Is there a grand scheme, do you believe, where the current most powerful nations are “stacking the deck” in the favour of nationality instead of humanity as a whole?

    I could live with a UN protecting/planning for resource shortage on the behalf of the world -(I don’t for a minute reckon that is the situation!!!!!) – but I really can’t see a UN having the pull to overcome the NATIONAL interests of G8 countries.

    But… if your position was to be correct what would you propose as the way forward?

  4. comdenom says:

    Dictatorship has never worked out well in history, usually resulting in extermination of people that stand in the way. When the breadbasket of the Ukraine was invaded it resulted in 7000000 deaths (genocide) in a span of one year for an effort called collectivization during World War 2.

    Propaganda is the tool of choice to gain support. Climate change is the 20th century tool. First they use the power of persuasion, when that doesn’t work they segue into the persuasion of power. Last week we were in danger of losing our wetlands, today the wetlands are contributing to the growing methane alarmism. This is the air we breathe. I got this article from the UN website showing how hard they are pushing this agenda. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122638800

    The science is bad, corrupt and incorrect with massive contradictions and opposed by scientists that are underfunded, essentially those not on the government payroll. We would be handing authority to the UN under false premises for management over something that cannot be controlled. We couldn’t possibly be killing the planet with the same constituents that built it. Their theory goes against earth’s natural purpose of constant cleansing and renewal. Every ecosystem proves this, that’s what an ecosystem and a biosphere is.

    I propose checks and balances in government that prevents any one body of government gaining too much power, power is too easily abused. I then call for dismantling of the UN and nations to pull out.

  5. johnf says:

    The offshore windfarm is likely to be held up as the cure for the coming shortfall of cheap fuels, particularly gas and oil.
    The construction of forests of concrete columns in the sea will give added value to the marine evironment, reduce the damage produced by dredging etc. There will be changes in the balance of species and opportunity for new fisheries.
    The onshore connections to these windfarms will require hundreds of pylons, rated at the maximum delivery from the installation.
    In fact, if a windfarm over- produces and cannot “sell its wares” the value of its electricity becomes negative.
    Storage of electricity is difficult involving chemical flow battery, as at Letterkenny, or Hydro Pumped Storage as at Turlough Hill and Camlough (as might have been in the 70s and may be again…)
    I respectfully suggest debaters brief up on the environmental practicalities particularly with respect to the huge environmental impacts not only of the windfarms but also the enhanced amount of interconnections
    which will be required to stabilise a widely spaced network of irregular high power contributors.
    For starters, Google Sorne Hill,Tyella AONB, ORIEL, Rush Co. Dublin, Behind That Door…and for blue sky thinking, the Spirit of Ireland convention.
    I am not so worried about the fate of idealistic democracy as with the prospect of leaving an un-liveable environment to my kids.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: