gme said:
Genuine question for those who know.
Is onshore wind not a quick and easy fix to electricity production that is also pretty temporary. If we come up with a better way in the future they can be just removed and the land put back to how it was with very little long term damage.
Or is this not true.
100%. The only lasting negative visual impacts are the roads, which can take many years to blend in again, oh, and siting them on deep peat - that should just be banned really! (it's becoming economically unviable anyway as it's such a pain the hoop to build on anyway.
Foundations, buildings, cables, buildings etc. all pretty easily removable and land reinstated. I'm working on various life extension and decommissioning projects at present.
It's nigh on impossible to get planning consent in England, and now the government has gone and put a surcharge on remote sites to pay for the infrastructure (fine) but also to encourage, via pricing signals, more development in the areas where....nimby's block them.
Offshore is clearly easier to digest, but it's most expensive, more dangerous, and quite a bit less carbon-saving (all those ships for survey, install, O&M).
We considering rooftop solar, but instead are looking to get in on the next round with Ripple - there you buy a chunk of the solar/wind farm and get fixed bills forever - without having to faff around with panels, maintenance, installs etc. (we're a block of 3 flats, so it would be complex).