Dear All
I would like to register my concern and comment on the fact that the
Residents Association adjacent to Riddlesdown School has blocked the
installation of a wind turbine. This proposed installation has many
positive points and very few (if any) negative ones
*Teaches the children about renewable energy and our energy needs.
*May encourage some of them to go onto careers in energy generation and
sustainability. Sorely needed
*Reduces electricity costs for the school thus easing their budget
*Any excess produced goes to the National Grid
*Wind turbines take up very little land area.
*At the end of the turbines life decommissioning is very easy ie unbolt
it and it is as if it never existed. No pollution, no damage to the land unlike
nuclear power I would add.
Given our current energy situation (and the fact that energy has to be
produced to power our consumer lifestyle) I feel that the Residents
Association's attitude smacks of NIMBYism ie not in my back yard.
Renewables to my mind are the way forward and future generations need to be aware of
the choices. The local residents must use electricity in their lives and this has to be
generated somehow.
Perhaps they would prefer the future installation of coal fired or nuclear power stations
or noisy energy from waste plants? I know that I would prefer a wind turbine installation any
day in my local area. I would urge them to reconsider.
Yours Sincerely
J Clugston--------------------------------------------------
Tags croydon, greenparty
3 comments:
This turbine is unlikely to generate as much energy over its lifetime as it took to make. Such developments give wind power a bad name.
Wind turbines are only really useful for local generation, when there is no mains power available, and as large turbines on unobstructed hilltops and ridges where they generate very large amounts of power.
Jim, well written letter, view power company's like SSE who generate large amounts of wind and Hydro renewable energy.
Regards Geoff Smith
geoff_smith1colt@yahoo.com
"Wind turbines take up very little land" is a baffling statement. Neil deGrasse Tyson also pushed that ruse in "Cosmos" episode 12.
By far the BIGGEST problem with wind turbines is their huge spread on the landscape, horizontally & vertically, plus wide access roads that often carve up mountaintops. Large wind farms can extend well over 20,000 acres. These are vast fields of skyscrapers, not benign structures!
Why do you think so many people protest their looming presence? People don't just stare at the ground directly in front of them and say "I only see the BASE of this 400-foot tower, the rest of the landscape looks perfectly normal!"
Wind turbines use a lot of airspace, too. Many birds and bats can't avoid the huge sweep of those blades; up to 1.5 acres for larger models.
Ironically, lobbyists for oil drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) have pushed a similar fable regarding the footprint of wells. They claim the wells will only occupy "2,000 acres" when 1.5 MILLION acres could end up webbed with well pads and access roads. They make it seem like only a concentrated section would be affected vs. the total spread of that acreage. Devious!
Post a Comment