Opportunity Wind Blow

“While offshore wind is still favoured by ministers, the blow to onshore wind – which is much cheaper, and when carbon emissions are taken into consideration is cheaper than traditional fossil-fuel forms of generation – has been a cause of concern to wind investors.” (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/feb/03/worlds-largest-offshore-windfarm-to-be-built-off-yorkshire-coast)

UK government may have misunderstood which sort of blow windfarms need.

8 responses to “Opportunity Wind Blow

    • Very knotty, thorny and…beaky. Thank you for highlighting as I’d missed this post on Avery’s blog. But to stick to offshore wind turbines (lest I sink into the breach quagmire), I suspect their being offshore and fewer people objecting may be linked to few people living/working/recreating offshore. This doesn’t mean less impact on other life. But we’re only interested in what we can see. Ultimately it’s a tremendous shame that, like grouse shooters who claim to love nature, reserve visitors don’t seem able to pay enough to maintain it for itself, unless they get to pursue their own special interest there, thereby compromising it. And thus corporate sponsorship weasels in, distorting the ethics. Or have I missed a point? I didn’t read all 91 comments! How to be part of it without destroying it… Thanks again for your comment.

      • Spurn has been run in the main for many decades by volunteers who generated income for the popular reserve. Spurn had to generate revenue for head office to fund core staff etc. But despite this it was a wildlife reserve people visited rather than a country park for people with gardened wildlife.

        Now there is money to had YWT in York seem more interested in pr spin and white elephants where important species are present. Local engagement and consultation has failed miserably and that’s evident even by outside observers.

        The E-On monstrosity is hardly discreet or in keeping with the area?

        I suppose if your priority is a business model which prioritises revenue generation, alienation of local community, damage to sensitive areas and not the natural environment but big on public engagement spin then all the boxes are ticked?

        • It all sounds very sad. Do you feel YWT is still trying to do things right, just poorly, or have you lost all confidence?
          What is your stance on energy generation? I think it should be where it’s needed i.e. on our buildings, not massive constructions taking up vast remote tracts of wild-ish land or sea. But technology isn’t there yet and it would take ‘power’ away from corporations which they would resist.

          • YWT are most definitely not what they were. Profit over principles and people – don’t take my word for it, ask me ask the local community.

            Energy, we need a completely different approach. Energy conservation for starters, but as you comment – that doesn’t help the multinational companies shares or profits.

            Then yes, energy efficient homes and buildings – again that doesn’t bolster corporate coffers.

            Fracking is now promoted as the answer, as was wind, as was solar, as is nuclear (but Osborne’s massively inflated guaranteed feed in price is still struggling to secure takers?). When the public can’t be influenced by community fund inducements, local decisions get taken back to Westminster and imposed on the masses?

            One might be forgiven for thinking that politicians are in the pockets of industry? Politics appears devoid of evidence based policies (perhaps the public observer might be forgiven for thinking that they read as if they are written by industry consultants) and as for any independent or robust science ….

            • I’ve seen a general shift in charities toward more aggressive marketing, pestilent bleating for donations and ‘partnership working’ with (taking handouts from) large, filthy companies looking to greenwash their images. However, I feel more comfortable with Scottish WT who don’t seem to have compromised their principles, although I could probably start a debate if I asked around. What to do… Walk away with your annual subs or exercise your membership and wade in?

              You’re right: the promotions and inducements do nothing to help inform the public of the facts and risks associated with energy generation options, and the current subsidies i.e. fossil fuels! It’s almost as if they don’t trust us, ha.

              Politicians in the pockets of industry? Appointments among government departments and profitable boardrooms look like a revolving door. It’s frustrating trying to hold politicians to account when the corruptions of power seem so great. Still, Avery’s blog fosters a strong community…

            • It’s sad that a once respected county wildlife trust no longer values its long standing volunteers. Equally sad that legacies (both types) are being lost.

              Avery, Miles King, your good self & others – so as long as we make available robust science then we will collectively and collaboratively continue to grow that community voice – long may we continue.

Comments welcome

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.