Developer cuts number of turbines in proposed giant wind farm near Winchester (From Hampshire Chronicle)

Should Hampshire be represented by people who are as ignorant as Jackie Porter?

Firstly, even if we carpet the county and the country in wind turbines we still need to build reliable power generators.

As a minister in the last government admitted: "In answer to the question that was asked earlier, wind generation is intermittent and therefore needs—may I use a technical term?—base-load capacity, which means we need to build for coal and gas to back up the wind. That is why it is not the most effective source in terms of energy security of supply..." (Lords Energy Questions, 23 June 2008).

Professor Sir David King, government chief scientific advisor 2002-2007, said:
“We can’t rely too heavily on wind because it always requires a gas-fired turbine to be able to be switched on to provide alternative energy,” ( ‘Green setback for UK as British power supplied by renewable sources falls’, The Guardian. 28 June, 2010).

We have a local election next year which will be an excellent opportunity to question councillors who don't have the first idea about wind power or the lack of it.

How about ZERO wind turbines and an armed escort out of town.

Jim.

When Eastleigh MP Chris Huhne was Energy Secretary he told the people of Northumberland to learn to love 'beautiful' wind turbines and called for hundreds more to be given the go ahead in the county (‘Wind farms poll shows nine in ten reject minister’s backing’, The Journal, 8 October, 2011).

At the time (October, 2011) Hampshire had only 12% of its electricity consumption in built and consented renewables, with 0% from wind (DECC figures).

Northumberland, by comparison had 327% of its consumption from operating and consented renewables, and 160% from wind.

In that Mr Huhne and his Lib Dem colleagues keep telling us that wind power is so popular with the voters, might I suggest that he starts telling the people of Hampshire how beautiful they are, and how he wants hundreds of 125m+ turbines in the Hampshire countryside.

This would be an interesting practical, democratic experiment - come on Mr Huhne, stand on the 'Let's have hundreds of wind turbines in Hampshire' ticket.

Wind power is actually very efficient and effective - thats why big companies such as EDF want to build wind farms. It makes good sense to invest in wind at a time of rising energy bill prices - we need a range of different sources of power and it is a far safer and better looking option than a nuclear power station!

Test Valley Friends Of the Earth wrote:
Wind power is actually very efficient and effective - thats why big companies such as EDF want to build wind farms. It makes good sense to invest in wind at a time of rising energy bill prices - we need a range of different sources of power and it is a far safer and better looking option than a nuclear power station!

Typical nonsense from FoE.

Wind is neither efficient or effective because it produces in inverse proportion to need - check the official figures for winter peak output for the last 5 years.

Your argument makes no sense because wind is not an alternative to base load power generation, as you imply.

National Grid tell us that even if we built DECC's worst case 23GW of onshore and 51GW of offshore wind capacity by 2030 we would still need 30.5GW of NEW nuclear and some 36GW of NEW gas-fuelled capacity just to keep the lights on (see NG, 'Seven Year Statement , 2011).

The only reason EDF want to build wind turbine arrays is the grossly excessive subsidy they get from consumers through the Renewables Obligation.

As Paul Golby, CEO of Eon.UK, a major player in the wind business, said :"Without the renewable obligation certificates nobody would be building wind farms.” (Daily Telegraph, 26 March 2005).

Test Valley Friends Of the Earth wrote:
Wind power is actually very efficient and effective - thats why big companies such as EDF want to build wind farms. It makes good sense to invest in wind at a time of rising energy bill prices - we need a range of different sources of power and it is a far safer and better looking option than a nuclear power station!

Test Valley Friends Of the Earth should actually read "Test Valley Friends Of Wind Industry kickbacks."

It is beyond doubt that we live in a world that needs huge amounts of electricity.
Given this fact where will we obtain the power for generations to come?
Oil, coal and gas will get much more expensive in the coming years, oil and gas will not last forever and the easily extractable (i.e. cheaper) oil and gas is nearing peak production. So in my children’s lifetime we will need alternatives. There may be huge coal reserves around the world but it is massively dirty and polluting. Coal like gas and oil power plants are themselves incredibly inefficient and waste most energy as a heat. On the other hand nuclear power requires massive amounts of energy to process the ore into fuel and again will run out in 50 to 100 years.

Yes I agree with people above there is a need to sustain the base load and on those windless, cloudy days, power must come from somewhere. Energy storage is part of the current and long term solution, such that wind power can give you your power on those windless days. Energy storage is expanding and techniques such as intelligent grid are achievable in the medium term. We do have the technology now to live sustainably, to live without fear of sea level rise, to live without disastrous changes to weather patterns in the third world, if we carry on with ‘business as usual’ people will be displaced by the millions, wars will be fought over scarce water supplies and will cost the world untold billions of ££££ to the world.

So I ask if not a wind farm that does not pollute, is part of a long term energy solution, pays off the investment in a matter of years, if that is not the solution, are you willing to pay a great deal more in the long run for alternate power solutions. And where are these going to be placed – ‘not in my back yard’ is not the answer I will be looking for.

Increasing installed renewable capacity is essential in the face of climate change caused by fossil fuels, threats to energy security due to reliance on these sources and rising costs of importing oil and gas in unstable energy markets. Once turbines are installed and maintained, you are essentially harvesting a free, abundant and non-polluting power source. Turbines must be appropriately sited and selected (designs are constantly being improved to prevent birds and bats being harmed for example.).They cannot be put just anywhere. Wind must be over a certain speed for a significant number of hours per week -say- and from a regular direction. This is true of a standard wind farm. The UK has some of the highest and most regular wind occurence/speeds in Europe, particularly near the coast.
It is rare that there is no wind blowing somewhere on these isles and in a renewable-powered Britain ,there are a number of ways to make up for a shortfall. Biomass, burning organic waste, can supply a reliable base load, as can biogas-fired combined heat and power. Researchers on the Zerocarbon Britain project at the Centre for Alternative Technology and the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge are making fast progress in the development of local Smartgrids to manage gaps in supply. Large scale hydro and fuel cells could potentially store energy for such a scenario.
The cost of onshore Wind in the above study is found to be immensely competitive and will only become more so. You are also creating local jobs and keeping money paid for energy in the local area rather than going to Russia for example.
Hampshire is below target for the required reduction of CO2 for 2020 and an efficient (where properly installed) and effective way to meet these and provide large scale power for homes in the coming years can only be welcomed.

Any disadvantages of these turbines must be weighed out with the alternatives which are less attractive (run away climate change if we are looking on a much larger scale, energy wars, a coal-fired or nuclear plant on the site). These are dwindling and becoming less attractive at an increasing rate.
I refer readers to DECC, the Energy Saving Trust and the sources I have quoted above for further information.

You need to stop believing what you read and to quit trying to convince others of your ignorance. Maybe in the next 3 years If you really understood wind energy you would realize the great limitations of this source of energy. Wind energy can not possibly save mankind, make one bit of difference towards climate change, or supply society with enough energy to offset any other form of energy production. If you did understand, you would recognize that wind energy is really just a very expensive and highly destructive supplement to the Grid.

By destruction I am referring to hideous view sheds, fragmented ecosystems, the avoidance by mammals due to infrasound, and that this source of energy is slaughtering off the bird populations across the world.

Dave WN.

More misinformation.

Gas is not reaching peak - huge new reserves of conventional and unconventional gas reserves are being found all the time.

There is no guarantee that gas prices will increase in coming years - they have fallen to 2003 levels in the US, reducing CO2 emissions and leaving the wind industry in crisis.

The comments about nuclear are just plain wrong. Fuel is plentiful and cheap and nuclear is substantially cheaper than offshore wind according to all levelised costs (which include decommissioning and storage).

Energy storage is not "part of the current solution" - the only large scale storage currently available is pumped storage which is hugely expensive and only viable at a few sites and which lasts for only a few hours.

Your examples of climate hysteria are quite ludicrous. I would anyway point out that if you were serious about reducing CO2 emissions you would be asking for an immediate gas and nuclear solution to energy generation, without any wind.

According to the experts gas and nuclear alone would deliver greater CO2 savings at lower cost than the wind rush which is a highly expensive way of not saving any significant CO2 emissions.

A number of green thinkers - including Mark Lynas, George Monbiot, Chris Goodall and Stephen Tindale, former director of Greenpeace - have recognised that the reflex anti-nuclear hysteria propagated by FoE and Greenpeace has actually prevented substantial CO2 savings being made (see: 'nuclear power? Yes Please..', The Indy, 23 February 2009).