So this is good-
One of the largest offshore wind farms in the world has been approved to be built off the coast of north Wales. The 250 turbines of Gwynt y Môr offshore wind farm will be built eight miles off the coast, 10 miles away from Llandudno, Conwy. Gwynt y Môr, combined with three other nearby wind farms, will provide enough green electricity to power the equivalent of 680,000 homes. It has been approved by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC). The wind farm will start to produce power from 2012, subject to consent for onshore electricity works.
But John Lawson-Reay, chairman of Save our Scenery, who campaigned against the wind farm, said he was “shattered” by the scheme’s go-ahead. “Tourism is the only major industry in Wales basically,” he said. “Llandudno is the queen of Welsh resorts, as has been often said, and we think and we believe and the views we get from visitors we speak to is that the scenery is the primary number one reason for people coming here. They want to get away from industrial areas.”
Gwynt y Môr is the latest wind farm to be approved off the north Wales coast. North Hoyle, which has 30 turbines and Burbo, which has 25 turbines, are already up and running, while Rhyl Flats, with its 25 turbines, is into the latter half of its construction phase.
I diagree with those against offshore wind farms, I think they look nice, ok maybe a difference of aesthetics but …an industrial ruination of Llandudno…calm down. Money for boat tours of the wind farm alone will be a plus, dammit I’d book (get the sunset one, take a camera, sweet). (Although I think there is a point about areas ouside of wealthy enclaves being picked as softer targets in regards of well connected nimbyism.)
4 December, 2008 at 11:50 am
I don’t get it. Surely if they’re built *eight miles* offshore, nobody will be be able to see the buggers. There’s an offshore wind farm off the coast of Fleetwood in Lancashire that you can only see through binoculars (more’s the pity). Who’s views are they ruining?
4 December, 2008 at 6:25 pm
These controversies get heated up so much because we are stuck in the old mindset where nobody is willing to pay the full price of energy (or anything else, including what gets made with energy, which is usually designed to break as soon as possible, or go out of style, etc.).
If windmills make a part of Wales a less appealing vacation destination or residential area, it could lead residents to move, or fewer visitors to spend money therre. Maybe they will build places elsewhere, in more “natural settings,” causing them to expend more energy in the construction process. Maybe these places will be farther away from jobs, and so they will have to commute longer, buring more fossil fuel. Maybe the vacationers from London will fly somewhere farther away on Ryan air.
Even if people don’t move away, travel far, and build elsewhere, the property values and business income may well decline relative to other places. If so the tax base will be reduced, meaning long-term loss of wealth to the community, including the UK as a whole.
If the cost of lost values do not get factored into the prices people pay for that energy, many types of alternative energy will not prove as environmentally friendly in practice as in our hopes.
The only way I see to avoid fooling ourselves into thinking that the windmills are going to prove positive is if we make sure that they — and every other energy source and everything we buy — cost what it actually costs to produce, which need to include damages to other kinds of things that are valued.
5 December, 2008 at 3:04 am
I have a sense that part of the objection is based on a lack of trust in government, and I suspect that is greater in a place like Wales with less political and economic power.
I also think that green power goes over better when there are green jobs to go with it.
7 December, 2008 at 5:23 pm
People would have more respect for these schemes if power generation was in public hands and as citizens we received our energy at cost to the benefit of all. Forget the green angle, times are too tough for such fancies. Since the economic troubles became headlines it has seemed to me that the necessity to be green has taken a back seat. And rightly so, in my view.
7 December, 2008 at 6:30 pm
chickyog- Well yes, even if you dislike them intensely they are not exactly close, they will be seen in clear weather, but again I don’t see why they are so offensive to some. And in the end we need electricity in some amount and this beats the dirtier options.
Jotman- I agree externalities/the full cost of all energies are ignored, but in this case the opposition to the windmills is I think not that wide spread and possible negatives are being exaggerated. I’m ok with this new farm but it is noticeable how this does tend to happen in areas where politicians are not fighting for votes/less wealthy areas. I think it will be a plus for Llandudno in the end.
GLH- Yes I think that goes to Jotman’s points too, costs and benefits should be better weighed and if this meant better and greener employment that would help. Lack of trust in govt. is involved, I think govt holds the blame for that, that’s another thing the future and the planet require, no more lying pols working for the elites and feeding us bullshit. We’re in this together, although I suspect the elites figure they can build a dome surroudned by mercs and survive while we all die.
conger- yes socialised power utilities would be excellent, we’d also see the location of plants alter. Also where people have good resources (wind, sun) they should get subsidised means to have their own systems, the corporations are against that as it removes dependence on them. But the green angle cannot be forgotten because it’s not something we can ignore, short term solutions will mean disaster within children’s lifetimes. Which admittedly we can get away with but they will will be mightily pissed off at our profligate ways. We need to use less energy better and generate it cleaner.
8 December, 2008 at 7:25 am
Conger is leery about going to green at this time. This point is understandable as “green” is too often presented like some kind of exotic or luxury brand. That’s the way it has been marketed.
I think we might be better off if we didn’t distinguish between green and non-green, but rather just talked about uncosted Vs costed energy. The problem with coal or oil is that the price doesn’t include the real costs — damage to environment, including long term costs such as global warming.
But green sources are nothing other what usually proves the lowest cost energy when all the social costs that are not commonly included in the cost of energy are factored into the price. For example, windmills are usually “green” because what it costs — in total — is generally far less than burning oil or coal actually costs.
My above comment was meant mainly to suggest that there may be times and places when a particular green branded “thing” won’t actually turn out to be lowest cost. But these are exceptions to the rule.
But the bigger problem seems to be that people are not yet accustomed to thinking about green as being true-low-cost, and that’s because the prices of the alternatives don’t reflect true-cost. So we have people saying “we can’t afford green” which is tantamount to saying the true-low-cost option is way too expensive!
So what we have is a fundamental pricing problem that creates all these arguments. Since the market does not provide a true pricing mechanism for energy, a useful place to start would be a a carbon tax.
9 December, 2008 at 4:10 pm
People are worried the benefits to Wales will be zero as the power will go to England just as they did with the water. But hell what would you like a hundred windmills stuck eight miles off shore, or a flaming big coal fired power station, which is what we in South Wales are being promised plus an open cast coal mine
9 December, 2008 at 10:40 pm
Jotman- Well put, yes the problem is how the externalities of long term processes are not part of the market’s model. Did you see the Chinese proposal for carbon allowances for the whole planet? It was useful in that it made the point the industrialised nations for a century and more had already used up everyone’s fair share. Ultimately though without a great deal of tinkering markets are just too short term for planet time scale activity, I think intervention on scientific grounds will be needed.
Robert- yes, the place nearest should get first dibs on the power. I also see ‘clean coal’ is being pushed which is a made up PR scam really.