Wind turbines for river banks?
HUGE wind turbines could spring up along the banks of many of the region's most picturesque rivers under controversial plans being drawn up by a Government agency.
The Environment Agency wants to install up to 80 turbines nationwide to help power its buildings and generate £2.4 million per year in revenue from selling the surplus to the National Grid.
-
The Environment Agency confirmed yesterday that while the exact locations of the 100m turbines have yet to be confirmed, some will be placed in the South West.
The plan, which has the backing of the Government, will be announced in a speech today by Dr Paul Leinster, chief executive of the Environment Agency.
It has been attacked by countryside campaigners who fear it will destroy the look of some of the most picturesque parts of the region if they are built here.
Tim Hale, chairman of the Devon branch of the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England, said: "The Environment Agency now has responsibility for the safety of rivers. But it is not responsible for the country's power supply. It should not get into something it does not understand. It is wrong."
He said he felt the move was motivated more by financial motives that green credentials, because of the subsidies available to producers of environmentally friendly power.
Because of its geographical location and landscape, the Westcountry is a prime area for wind power companies. But many local people oppose their development, mainly on aesthetic grounds.
Dr Leinster told a Sunday newspaper yesterday: "By developing these renewable energy projects, we are helping to limit and adapt to the effects of climate change, reduce our dependency on fossil fuels and help develop a low-carbon economy."
An Environment Agency spokesman said that exact locations for the 100m turbines would be decided later next year, but that some were likely to be built in the South West.
Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, said: "We want even more homes, communities, businesses and public sector organisations to join in this national effort to play their part in defeating climate change."
7 Comments
View all
by Dr Phillip Bratby, Rackenford, Devon
Tuesday, November 25 2008, 9:01AM
“This is another example of a government agency towing the party line and living in cloud-cuckoo land with the aim of 'defeating climate change'. What nonsense words are those.
Tim Hale is right. The Environment agency should be in the business of looking after the environment, not in the business of ruining it in pursuit of a quick buck.”
by Trev, north devon
Monday, November 24 2008, 11:35PM
“I really do not see the problem of wind turbines.
You cannot have enough of these especially if it resolves the pollution issues caused by the other ways of getting this power.
I live in a very nice part of the county where there has been some contraversy over the Den Brook Valley proposals. My opinion remains the same - if I had the choice of living within 100 yards of a wind turbine or within one hundred miles of a nuclear power station then bring on the turbines.
We happen to live in one of the windiest areas of the country where most electricity can be generated. Maybe it could be put back into the grid and the profits rendered could go towards subsidising our exhorbitant water rates.
We need alternative ways of generating our electric and need to do it whilst we are still in a position to do it. It is no good doing it once it is too late.”
by Harvey, Porstmouth
Monday, November 24 2008, 9:56PM
“David is right, and his hat is safe! What people aren't told is that fossil fuelled or nuclear power stations HAVE to be built to keep the lights on when (for 70% of the time) windpower is unavailable. Few would deny that windfarms have their place (except, possibly, those with one in their back yard) in the energy mix. But as a panacea for our energy woes, no way. A Labour govt. in the 1970s killed off our nuclear industry when we could have sold the technology all over the world. Thatcher's govt. destroyed our coal mines yet now our scientists and engineers are world leaders in clean coal technology (but we'll have to import the coal if we're ever permitted to burn it, which is doubtful). We're unable to reap the commercial and economic benefits of either, being forced instead to import the technology of other countries, like France, our great political ally in Europe. What's left? Oh yes, that will be nuclear, rubbished by the present Labour govt in its White Paper just five years ago, but now conveniently back on the agenda. But it may be too late. The skills have all but disappeared altogether. And to build a nuke takes 10 years. So don't spend too much this Christmas on gadgets unless you stock up well on batteries!”
by David, Chilla, Devon
Monday, November 24 2008, 8:48PM
“More lunacy. The day a coal fired power station closes down because of wind power is the day I'll eat my hat. It will also be very interestng to see what impact 1,000 tons of concrete used for the base of each turbine has on the water tables close to these rivers...”
by Jim, Devon
Monday, November 24 2008, 2:52PM
“Here we go again, a cavalier attirude to flood risk and the pain and expense flooded homes and fields can bring. Wind turbines need tons of hardcore support on land - riverside drainage is problematical and important to treat with loving care. No such problems with offshore turbine building .....”