the shizzle > get involved: access, environment, BMC

Proposed Calderdale Wind Farm

(1/17) > >>

spidermonkey09:
https://calderdalewind.co.uk/

https://www.stopcalderdalewindfarm.co.uk/

I've been keeping a vague eye on this as it bubbles away. I'm finding it very hard to work out to what extent local opposition to this proposed wind farm is straightforward NIMBYism and how much of it would be classified as fair comment. I'd be interested in what insight people can add. I'm always deeply cynical of local opposition groups which say 'i support renewables/nuclear/new housing, just not here, where I happen to live' because that is the standard NIMBY calling card and lack of investment in pretty much anything infrstructure based is the biggest issue in the UK right now I think.

As far as I can see, the proposed wind farm is very big but not sure how size would affect much; if there is a wind farm of any sort there the view is obviously changed, and I don't accept 'spoiling the view' as a reason to avoid infrastructure development. Its also Saudi backed; I would prefer all UK infrastructure to be state owned but that appears politically unlikely right now so I can't get too bent out of shape about foreign ownership.

Basically, help me out UKB! I'm willing to be open minded on it bit I am predisposed to be in favour of renewable infrastructure projects even if they aren't perfect.

dunnyg:
Will be interesting to see how they get the windmill bits up there. Access from either side would be quite exciting.
Also be interesting to see more about the impact on flooding claimed.

Adam Lincoln:
I love how on the opposition page they state they will be way bigger than Blackpool tower. They wont be.

petejh:
Is that a can containing worms I hear being opened?!  :P



--- Quote from: spidermonkey09 on March 14, 2024, 12:08:53 pm ---and I don't accept 'spoiling the view' as a reason to avoid infrastructure

--- End quote ---

OK, a hypothetical. On that principle of 'not accepting spoiling the view being a reason to avoid infrastructure'. How would you feel if the infrastructure spoiling the view were, say, a modern open pit nickel mine instead of a wind farm? To directly provide the nickel for battery storage; or an open pit copper mine to provide the copper for electricity generation? In both cases using modern best-practise for tailings storage and other environmental protections being adhered to (no huge mine pollution disaster scenario envisaged)? Would you still not mind that spoiling the view? If you would, then it's not infrastructure per se it's 'particular infrastructure' i.e. a windfarm.

Not a dig at all btw. I think if you can honestly say you wouldn't mind the view being spoiled by an open pit mine, then you're likely in a small minority. That's one of the issues at the heart of the current pickle that Europe/UK finds itself in around energy security and building industrial infrastructure.

Personally, I'd be strongly against a windfarm going up on the hills and mountains around me (national park, hopefully it wouldn't happen), purely on nimby/aesthetic grounds. While I completely accept how hypocritical I am by feeling that way. It saddens me to see the huge concrete block of Trawsfynnyd nuclear power just sitting there not producing anything just sitting gathering dust like a big hulk of brutalist architecture smack bang in the middle of one of the nicest, quietest bits (the Rhinogs) of a beautiful mountainous area. But again I'm a total hypocrite for feeling that.

I do wonder if when you examine the lifespan of onshore wind farms (25-30 yrs? I dunno?), the # of Kwh's produced, and the visual impact they have on the wild landscapes loved by the people who visit and (unlike offshore wind) live around them; and compare versus the technical progress that's going to take place in other technology over the same timescale (small nuclear, battery, remote solar - e.g. N.Africa solar farms cabled vast distances to UK/Europe) whether it makes sense to create that visual impact. But then the wind farms could be dismantled, so maybe it's a nothing argument for the sake of 30 years of having to put up with it.

Within 25 years, will onshore wind really be essential to smooth running of the national grid? Maybe they still will be. Or by then will we have something better for generation with far less visual impact on wild areas? If it's likely we'll have progressed, then I don't see that it's worth the short term impact versus just having another gas turbine or two. The carbon difference is inconsequential in reality, if not politically/ideologically.

andy_e:
edit: can't be bothered arguing online

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page