Successful wind farm to be nuked?

A successful wind farm close to the Lake District national park is one of the sites recently approved by the Government for a new generation of nuclear power plants.
From the Guardian:

One of the oldest and most efficient wind farms in Britain is to be dismantled and replaced by a nuclear power station under plans drawn up by the German-owned power group RWE.

The site at Kirksanton in Cumbria – home to the Haverigg turbines – has just been approved by the government for potential atomic newbuild in a move that has infuriated the wind power industry.

Colin Palmer, founder of the Windcluster company, which owns part of the Haverigg wind farm, said he was horrified that such a plan could be considered at a time when Britain risks missing its green energy targets and after reassurance from ministers that nuclear and renewables were not incompatible.

In a masterful understatement which belies the local anger and bewilderment at the lack of early consultation, Matthew Clayton of Triodos Renewables, the company which owns three turbines on the site said:

“It’s staggering that they [ministers] don’t exclude areas that are already productive sites for renewable technologies as part of the initial screening process. It just isn’t very joined up. They’re stamping out prime wind sites with arguably a much less sustainable technology.”

Simon Hughes, Liberal Democrat Shadow Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change said recently:

“A new generation of nuclear power stations will be a colossal mistake, regardless of where they are built. They are hugely expensive, dangerous and will take too long to build.

“There is a real danger that the government is becoming too close to the big energy companies. The best answer to Britain’s needs is a massive expansion of renewable energy. If billions of pounds are wasted on new nuclear sites, the money simply won’t be available to do this.”

Sign the petition against nuclear power at http://ourcampaign.org.uk/no2nuclear and encourage people you know to do the same.

Read more by or more about or .
This entry was posted in News.
Bookmark the web address for this page or use the short url http://ldv.org.uk/14037 for Twitter and emails.
Advert

15 Comments

  • Thank goodness for that,

    This country will be running out of power in the next 10 years even if we build more power stations at twice the rate we are currently. Wind power is a tiny amateur only addition to the UK’s power needs and is ok for DIY projects and rural homesteads.

    Renewable energy is an oxymoron ! If you mean generated from raw materials that don’t run out then nuclear is obviously your best option. Presumably wind isn’t as viable as so called global warming would require there to be far less wind or else we would have global cooling!

    Wave technology might work as according to the alarmist anti nature warmers we are all going to be under 7 feet of sea sometime very soon

  • This presumably means that the coal or gas-fired power required to back-up the intermittent performance of this wind farm will also no longer be required. Good result for planet earth and the taxpayer surely?

  • Go to Rye. Park at the bottom of the hill, walk up through the town, on past the church, and stand at the parapet by the castle. What do you see? The great expanse of Romney Marsh punctuated only by occasional church towers and a myriad of willows? Yes. And also a clutch of hideous great wind-turbines despoiling this unique landscape. By contrast, the distant hump of Dungeness Nuclear Power Station is a benign presence on the horizon.

    Green hairshirters will tell us that beautiful landscapes benefit people, and people don’t matter, only “the planet”. Well, if there are still Lib Dems who wish to be associated with the Puritan Losers Party (aka the “Greens”), please count me out.

    Nuclear power may not be pretty, but I cannot see a realistic alternative.

  • Dumbest comment I’ve read on the web all day

    “he was horrified that such a plan could be considered at a time when Britain risks missing its green energy targets”

    Ok so assuming Green means no Green house gases then

    Surely the only way we can meet them is by using nuclear?

    Alternatively we could

    SCRAP the CAP

    CAP as in “The common agricultural policy” whereby

    rich, white, green welly wearing, middle Englanders

    are subsidized by us tax payers

    to do nothing

    they could be growing bio-fuels

    but the CAP means rich white green welly wearing farmers get to actually get paid to do nothing

    they get paid with our money actually

    makes you think we come so far since the days that our forefathers worked as a servants for rich land owners

    I do believe it was Thomas Paine who said something to the effect that actually

    The landowners owe us money for making money from our land

    SCRAP the CAP

    and lets get some efficient usage of the land that

    1) lowers food prices

    2) Helps the environment by producing very profitable bio-fuels

    3) F@cks over rich white people

    The only way we can save the environment is by taking the land off the rich upper class people

    (Its not taking cus as soon as we cut the subsidies they lose control of it)

    and giving it to privately owned enterprises that can deliver to us food and GREEN fuel at a reasonable price

  • For anyone who wants to raed a reasonable assement of how we can run a green economy

    please read this book

    http://www.withouthotair.com/

    download a PDF for free here

    http://www.withouthotair.com/download.ht

  • “We need energy use reduction”

    Not really

    thats the last thing we need

    we need to encourage growth in energy consumption in the third world

    when Africans have plasma screen TV’s and Internet access fossil fuels won’t be sufficient to supply to world’s energy needs and hence

    alt-energy will be cost afordable

  • Cheney’s UK spokesman on the 9/11 Truth Movement, Mr George Monbiot, is talking claptrap, as usual.

    Perhaps Monbiot is too young to remember the 1970s, when the CPRE led a highly publicised campaign to stop open-cast coal mining in the Vale of Belvoir. (Yes, he was too young; he was still at Stowe, fees paid by his rich father.)

    Incidentally, the first Green Party activist I ever met (it was called the “Ecology Party” in those days) told me his party was strongly in favour of digging up Leicestershire for coal. “We’re not pretty pretty environmentalists,” he told me. (The man came from an elite family and was subsequently done for possessing indecent images of children – sorry, couldn’t resist that one.)

    The guy who says that I have never objected to electricity pylons reminds me of apologists for the Soviet Union who never failed to accuse those who criticised the human rights record of that country of not excoriating South Africa, Chile, etc, with the same vehemence. Didn’t matter if it was true or false, they always said it.

    Actually, I have objected to electricity pylons, but it is a bit of a waste of breath to do so, because they are built by statutory undertakers who don’t require planning permission. The other day I was on Cleeve Hill in Gloucestershire and I was appalled to see a line of pylons that were almost as high as the hill.

    The gentleman who lays into the CAP has a point. Believe it or not, one of the few good things the Labour government has done is use some of the subsidy to pay farmers to replant hedges. Does that make Gordon Brown a “pretty pretty environmentalist”? I hope so.

  • “Presumably wind isn’t as viable as so called global warming would require there to be far less wind or else we would have global cooling!”

    Not true. Wind can be warm wind or cold wind, but that’s not important. What’s important is the frequency and strength of the wind. Wind, being movement of air particles, is just simply kinetic energy, and it is this movement of air that can be used to drive turbines.

    And actually under global warming, hurricanes should become more frequent and stronger, so global warming increases the wind we get.

    Wind may seem cold to you, but it carries a lot of energy (though not as much as nuclear: Simon Hughes is wrong to rule it out, and I think the poll on this site agrees with me).

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • User Avatartom 19th Dec - 9:19am
    You've been an excellent party president.
  • User AvatarAndrew Emmerson 19th Dec - 9:12am
    We may not always have agreed, and you may have had to listen to me moan at you more than once, but i for one...
  • User AvatarRoland 19th Dec - 9:11am
    JohnTilley - Thanks for the confirmation, I did suspect that I was suggesting something similar to what was promoted to industry in the 80's, namely...
  • User AvatarJohnTilley 19th Dec - 8:42am
    Mark Valladares as so often is a voice of sanity in LDV. How many people will have read this from him and quietly nodded in...
  • User AvatarJohnTilley 19th Dec - 8:32am
    Roland 18th Dec '14 - 9:59pm Roland I am guessing that your research into the beginnings of what came to be commonly known as West...
  • User Avatargl 19th Dec - 8:24am
    It's all so confusing, they voted for the Bedroom Tax as part of the Coalition, then they said they didn't like it, but when given...