[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?! 

and I don't accept 'spoiling the view' as a reason to avoid infrastructure

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

[Johnny Brown]

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

Why? The proposal is for 150-200m. Assuming you think they'll be reduced under the EIA?

I see the Walshaw Moor estate will stop grouse shooting if it goes ahead. They've been under a lot of pressure for poor management over the years, makes you wonder why this site was chosen. Of course the cunt landowner wins either way.

Re: spoiling the view, this is one of the nicest bits of the South Pennines, and close to a lot of people. There are plenty of areas in the Yorkshire dales I'd value less, although they're more protected.

It's difficult. The temperature stats for the last 12 months are absolutely terrifying. The sensible response is probably a moratorium on a lot of travel, but I don't see much sign of that. The techno fixes are too far away.

[Adam Lincoln]

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

Why? The proposal is for 150-200m. Assuming you think they'll be reduced under the EIA?

They just dont need to be that height onshore. Even the biggest offshore ones are only getting to that height.

[Dingdong]

and I don't accept 'spoiling the view' as a reason to avoid infrastructure development.

Reminds me of this great piece of writing by John Ruskin about the Monsal Dale Viaduct which is now considered a lovely and historic piece of the scenery:

"There was a rocky valley between Buxton and Bakewell, once upon a time, divine as the Vale of Tempe… You Enterprised a Railroad through the valley – you blasted its rocks away, heaped thousands of tons of shale into its lovely stream. The valley is gone, and the Gods with it; and now, every fool in Buxton can be in Bakewell in half an hour, and every fool in Bakewell at Buxton; which you think a lucrative process of exchange – you Fools everywhere."

[petejh]

It's difficult. The temperature stats for the last 12 months are absolutely terrifying. The sensible response is probably a moratorium on a lot of travel, but I don't see much sign of that. The techno fixes are too far away.

I'd choose a moratorium on bitcoin mining before travel JB.

Supply stagnates, price rockets, no more energy used. Win-win 

[abarro81]

Will respond more later, but I find Pete's argument hugely unconvincing! Waiting 25 years in case something better comes along is a terrible plan

[petejh]

If that was my argument I'd find it unconvincing myself!

That isn't my argument 


I'm not making a strong argument - relax I know it's the internet and ukb but not everything has to be an argument. I'm questioning the idea, implied in your post, that onshore wind - a generation tech which pisses off a great many people on aesthetic grounds due to the natural landscapes involved but is low carbon - is an essential contributor to the national grid for it to a; run smoothly without overload and b; prevent global warming due to reducing emissions of CO2e. In the context of what else we can do and how that balances against costs - social, loss of local goodwill, and otherwise.

Bit more nuanced. But that's not entertaining.

[spidermonkey09]

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

I hope so! 

Re your hypothetical, good question. I found myself similarly conflicted over the Lake District coal mine. Ultimately I concluded that the reason I was instinctively against it was because it was in the Lake District, (if Cockermouth counts as the Lake District...) rather than because I was adhering to a maximalist 'no more coal ever' philosophy. If I accept the reality that we need coal for steel, then its a question of whether I think all that coal should be imported or whether it would be good to provide some internally. As such I am tentatively ok with the coal mine being approved now, although its taken a while. I suspect I'd eventually arrive at the same conclusion re your hypothetical nickel/copper mine, even if the thought of it does make me suck my teeth a bit! In both cases I'd be a lot happier if the infrastructure was state owned rather than private. I do also think that wind farms don't spoil the view at all, although thats obviously an aesthetic choice. I live very close to the wind farm at Scout Moor  and I really like looking at them and walking the dog up there.

Re the opposition, all big infrastructure is unpopular, completely hypocritically and illogically so. The list is absolutely endless. The wind farm mentioned above was hugely unpopular initially (andy _e might remember!). My mum is against Sizewell C in Suffolk despite having benfitted from the construction of Sizewell B the last 20 years she has lived in Suffolk  Even the Channel Tunnel was unpopular when it was proposed. I am definitely becoming more and more of a YIMBY because I am sick of the complete absence of development in the UK. The litmus test of this is that I would support plans to build houses on the green field behind my house, because as we all know its impossible to meet our housing needs by only building on brownfield sites, despite what politicians continue to imply. Starmer has come the closest to acknowledging this reality.



I really rated this video if anyone is interested. Ignore the wideboyz esque clickbait thumbnail...

I'd also be interested in your view andy if you can summon the energy!

[petejh]

It's a good point you make about 'getting used to windfarms and now quite like seeing it'. I think people adapt and get used to a lot which at first can seem a threat. Natural instinct to dislike big changes, in anything.

I think I'm probably a bit biased from seeing how they plonked the huge Trawsfynydd concrete block right in the middle of the beautiful mountains I love. And it was only producing electricity for 26 years! So wasteful. Bit like the75-90% waste involved in digging up the mountains next to where I live for the slate. But I can see how I could get used to a windfarm and stop being bothered by it. Like I say I wonder about necessity in the big picture - AI datacentres alone use as much elec as Japan, BTC* also small country-scale, unnecessarily large cars, loads of other wasteful inefficiencies in the current system - versus the costs involve in building stuff that directly impacts on people, like onshore wind. I do think we're going down the road of pouring more electricity into a system of ever-growing demand to feed some v.questionable needs.

* I add gold mining into the same 'bonkers and wasteful' category. To use massive amounts of energy to dig out a gram of something we don't need except to be able to say that we own it and it's rare.

[spidermonkey09]

I do think we're going down the road of pouring more electricity into a system of ever-growing demand to feed some v.questionable needs.

I actually agree with this but I think I would file it squarely under 'yep, but best of luck making sufficient changes to peoples behaviour that would actually produce material benefit.' Wouldn't the state directly mandating what is and isn't a necessary need run fairly counter to your generally liberal instincts as well? It wouldn't run particularly counter to mine but then again thats my inner authoritarian speaking! 

[petejh]

I actually agree with this but I think I would file it squarely under 'yep, but best of luck making sufficient changes to peoples behaviour that would actually produce material benefit.'

Oh yeah totally. I'm not someone who believes we as individuals or even large groups of individuals can change much about that aspect of civilisation on a global scale. And I don't believe behaviour to do with energy use/demand scales up from the small scale - I think it probably needs to come from above. lAlso I've worked in and seen too many places such as Fort McMurray to not be a realist on energy demand/energy production and what we do to sustain lifestyles.

Wouldn't the state directly mandating what is and isn't a necessary need run fairly counter to your generally liberal instincts as well? It wouldn't run particularly counter to mine but then again thats my inner authoritarian speaking! 

Probably a bit, but I think I'm pretty sensible when it comes to energy use/energy conservation - I just naturally don't like waste and inefficiency! For e.g. I'm not too far off net zero energy use at my place, large 6.67kwp solar on the roof and good storage. More for lower ongoing cost of living (sans salary) than signalling my virtue or saving carbon.

[Johnny Brown]

I actually agree with this but I think I would file it squarely under 'yep, but best of luck making sufficient changes to peoples behaviour that would actually produce material benefit.'

Oh yeah totally. I'm not someone who believes we as individuals or even large groups of individuals can change much about that aspect of civilisation on a global scale.

I took a lot of hope from the pandemic. In a lot of places sanctions were led by the general population en masse, often followed reluctantly by a dithering government. Whether climate will always move so slowly as to avoid similar panic, we'll see. Plus the changes in behaviours will need to be more or less permanent, although, as in the pandemic, we can probably ease into them by convincing ourselves it won't be for ever.

I'm not too far off net zero energy use at my place, large 6.67kwp solar on the roof and good storage. More for lower ongoing cost of living (sans salary) than signalling my virtue or saving carbon.

Good effort. The main drive for me limiting my footprint is my conscience. I think if what was happening was more widely understood we'd soon see some big changes. Hopefully the last 12 months is a blip, but it could equally be a new paradigm. If so, we're in deep shit.

[Johnny Brown]

If anyone doesn't know what I'm talking about:



We're currently about 4 sigma above the average over the last 40 years.

Although comparing climate and weather is always risky, I doubt it is a coincidence that the last 18 months are the wettest England has ever experienced.

[spidermonkey09]

JB- what I don't get is that despite the temp rise you point out you don't seem to be in support of the project (apologies if wrong). If the situation is that bad surely we need ambitious projects like this? Thats not a dig

[Johnny Brown]

I’m absolutely in support of wind power.

Just sticks in the craw a bit when it’s going to make a grouse moor owner with a terrible record even more stinking rich, when I suspect there may be better locations not too far away. But that’s England for you I suppose.

[petejh]

Good effort. The main drive for me limiting my footprint is my conscience. I think if what was happening was more widely understood we'd soon see some big changes. Hopefully the last 12 months is a blip, but it could equally be a new paradigm. If so, we're in deep shit.

It's certainly understood by me. I've been tracking the storms and rainfall and notice the extremes - I noticed how close the UK was in January to catching the 130mph+ hurricane 'Ingunn' that hit Norway and only by chance very narrowly missed us - pretty much unmentioned in the UK media.. it was about 3-4 days after worst of the winter storms that did actually hit us. Would have been devastating, and appears only a matter of time before we get one like that*.

You'd need to unpack what exactly you think you mean by saying 'my conscience'.. because that leaves me scratching my head.


* onshore wind turbines.. 

[James Malloch]

Not that i know anything about wind farms or energy production, but when i see the turbines dotted around my parents in SW Cumbria, I’m always in awe of how we can use our natural landscape to produce power. I think there are quite beautiful (though haven’t seen a huge concentration of them except for offshore farms).

If they impacted on someone’s peace, such as hearing them from their house, then i wouldn’t agree with the location. But otherwise i think they are great!

[Johnny Brown]

You'd need to unpack what exactly you think you mean by saying 'my conscience'.. because that leaves me scratching my head.

More for lower ongoing cost of living (sans salary) than signalling my virtue or saving carbon.

I thought that was a strange statement. I’ve not done a thorough audit of my footprint but I confident it’s below average for the Uk. Appreciate some signalling across the population would be involved driving societal change, but still, strange to me to suggest that’s what it’s about vs living a self-examined life. Simply curbing excesses would count for a lot.

[spidermonkey09]

If they impacted on someone’s peace, such as hearing them from their house, then i wouldn’t agree with the location. But otherwise i think they are great!

All infrastructure that we need for modern society to function impacts on peoples peace. Train lines, motorways, factories, power stations, electricity pylons, water treatment plants, substations...

Its all a question of what impact is acceptable, because infrastructure investment guarantees impact. I imagine you'd be able to hear this proposed wind farm from a very small number of houses up on the moor. Personally not convinced I'd cancel a project for that!

[Dingdong]

Good effort. The main drive for me limiting my footprint is my conscience. I think if what was happening was more widely understood we'd soon see some big changes. Hopefully the last 12 months is a blip, but it could equally be a new paradigm. If so, we're in deep shit.

It's certainly understood by me. I've been tracking the storms and rainfall and notice the extremes - I noticed how close the UK was in January to catching the 130mph+ hurricane 'Ingunn' that hit Norway and only by chance very narrowly missed us - pretty much unmentioned in the UK media.. it was about 3-4 days after worst of the winter storms that did actually hit us. Would have been devastating, and appears only a matter of time before we get one like that*.

You'd need to unpack what exactly you think you mean by saying 'my conscience'.. because that leaves me scratching my head.


* onshore wind turbines.. 

Obviously climate change is a big part but hasn’t the El Niño event in 2023 also been a big driver in temperature rises into 2024 too? I’m assuming that’s what’s causing the water surface temp rises, correct me if I’m wrong though!

[petejh]

It's the 'my conscience' bit I was puzzled by. I'm less puzzled now you've said that you believe this:

'Simply curbing excesses would count for a lot'

We don't agree. Firstly the word 'simply' shouldn't appear in the same sentence as 'curbing excesses' when talking about energy use on a scale that's meaningful in global terms. Secondly I don't think they (individual actions) would 'count for a lot'. It needs engineering and top down change* imo. Based on that, I questioned where your 'conscience' comes into it, because using the word conscience implies you believe you can make choices that will make a meaningful difference - and being that I believe you aren't doing anything (because you can't) that will have any meaningful impact whatsoever, conscience doesn't come into it. I'd like to not make my tiny part of the world any worse for future generations (would hope better), but my individual choices around carbon emissions don't factor into that because the scale involved, even scaled up within realistic bounds, is inconsequential to the global issue of carbon emissions.


* for e.g. everyone being made (not politely encouraged) and paid to insulate, put up solar/wind, change to smaller vehicles, pay a realistic carbon tax on manufacturing from China (or anywhere else) so that people in the west are fully aware of the upstream reality of the stuff they buy, etc.