RSPB and Ecotricity to build new wind turbine in green energy partnership (RSPB) (1 Viewer)

[Jimmybirder]

Wind is far from cheap, it is subsidised to the hilt and in many cases is shut down (whilst still getting the cash) more than it is on. Our landscapes and wildlife are quite literally under attack by the wind industry. We are being conned on an epic scale because some people have seen an opening to make lots of money by sticking a "green" tag on it. Sadly, the once great conservation organisations have now become an extension of the environmentalist Green Party lobby, who don't actually give a stuff about birds or wildlife, as long as these trendy new wind farms are getting lots of cash. The RSPB now has one of these monstrosities on a its HQ reserve. Personally I will be sending the money I would have sent in years past to the society to one of the many brave community groups up and down our great country who are battling to stop what is left of our landscapes and wildlife being forever decimated by these god awful things. Of course in the eyes of the so-called bird lovers in the echelons of the RSPB of 2016 this makes me a pariah.

It would be interesting to see who are the major donors to many of these "green" groups nowadays.

 

[Scooby2]

Not according to this MIT study - the facts are that the more wind farms that are built, the more expensive energy bills become. That's why Germany and Denmark have the most expensive power in the EU.

http://www.economist.com/news/finan...-more-expensive-commonly-thought-sun-wind-and

It's not an MIT study, it was a non peer reviewed op-ed that had to be corrected by the 'Economist'. The MIT method it was based on back in 2011 put wind generation (globally) marginally behind nuclear (with negligable roll out costs in comparison).

Here.

There's a blizzard of pwp being written about this subject. Just ask yourself why onshore wind farms are still being planned in thr UK without subsidy. That answers the question.

 

[Jimmybirder]

There's a blizzard of pwp being written about this subject. Just ask yourself why onshore wind farms are still being planned in thr UK without subsidy. That answers the question.

Really??

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-33227489

Also

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/08/03/electricity-cost-v-renewable-capacity/

Same story in the US. Like most wind energy advocates you focus on the wholesale cost of energy - the retail cost of energy is where the real cost of wind power appears, as it includes the costs of pylon sprawl, back up generation etc. that wind power imposes on a grid

 

[Scooby2]

Oh well, I guess we'll wait and see...Amber Rudd rekons she has a few proposals on her desk (But you're right, she'll probably chuck them in the bin).

Look, you (those against onshore wind energy) have effectively won the political battle already. The current government has pretty well done all it can to close down the industry and the UK (England) now finds itself in a situation where it's pledged to reach very ambitious low carbon targets without being able to utilise the cheapest renewable energy currently available.

I hope they can do it. But signing up to a generation of fracked gas simply isn't going to hack it, and there needs to be some serious strategic thinking as to where to invest heavily and with some urgency.

As for the RSPB? I think they're doing the right thing. Taking responsibility for one's own emsissions is what we should all be doing.

I look forward to you all campaigning as vociferously for investment in (bird friendly) Thorium, fission, fusion, tidal lagoons, wave generators, high altitude kite turbines, biomass, geothermal, solar, hydro or whatever....

Because if we (and every other nation on the planet) aren't carbon neutral within the next 80 years or so you can kiss goodbye to any treasured landscapes in the Birtish Isles (turbines or not), a shocking proportion of our biodiversity and a large chunk of the coastline too....for millennia.