7:30am Sunday 16th November 2008
I was very disappointed to read the misguided, misinformed and clearly inflammatory actions of the Dorset Against Rural Turbines (Dart) and Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) groups protesting against the proposed Alaska wind farm (‘Wind farm protest gathers momentum’, Echo, November 4).
With comparatively very little wind power provided in Dorset we have a real opportunity with Alaska to get behind a development that is beneficial to both the local and national economy.
Whether the Dart and CPRE likes it or not, we have to provide alternatives to the use of fossil fuels – this is a legal mandate.
Onshore wind power is currently the most cost effective renewable power generation technology being very close to on-par with conventional generation techniques (indeed once the oil price rises again in about six-12 months time that gap will narrow even further).
Presumably the nimby attitude expounded by the CPRE and Dart illustrates a preference for the more expensive (but out of sight) offshore windfarms that in 12 years will form the bulk of National power generation.
I am glad that the members of Dart and CPRE can afford this option (presumably the quoted £100k devaluation of his house represents only a modest decline!) but for the rest of us facing rising fuel bills, we must encourage such developments wherever possible.
I was equally disappointed with the litany of misinformed puerile arguments that were offered: 1. ‘The developers ‘massive subsidies’ were £1billion this year’. This is completely fanciful. Wind generation is not subsidised in the slightest by the UK government. There is no taxpayers’ money being spent on wind power.
2. ‘Wind power being unpredictable would require fossil fuel back up’. This notion is perhaps the most tragic of their suggestions illustrating clearly that the members are just indulging themselves in knee-jerk reactionary action rather than acting as an informed public body. Wind farms we all know are intermittent and can not be relied upon to provide 100% of the country’s energy needs – other mechanisms do need to supply a base load of generation to smooth out peaks and troughs. This of course does not need to be fossil fuel – hydroelectric, nuclear, marine renewables all exist and can be utilised for base load generation.
3. ‘The noise will affect us as well’. Members should familiarise themselves with planning guidelines that enforce restrictions on positioning based on noise limits at for example residential properties. This is simply not allowed – the planning process for wind energy is very rigorous.
Unfortunately the UK seems to have lost its way of late in terms of celebrating engineering achievement. We live in unique times with massive engineering undertakings being required to both preserve out future and our economy.
I strongly believe that at the end of the century our descendants will look back at the early 2000s and be impressed not embarrassed at our foresight and action in redefining our energy mix – the very core of our society. The efforts should rightly be viewed alongside Bazalgette and Brunel - and hopefully the myopic back yard attitude of the CPRE and Dart will be consigned to history.
Windfarms are often viewed as dramatic and aesthetically pleasing the CPRE and DartT should be proud of these local efforts.
Dr Chris Minto, Portwey Close, Weymouth.
© Copyright 2001-2012 Newsquest Media Group
http://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/trade_directory/