Wind farm 'fascism' attacked
TOP environmental scientist James Lovelock has likened Government attempts to dampen opposition to the wind turbines "trashing our still beautiful countryside" to fascism.
The Westcountry-based expert aimed a withering tirade in the direction of climate change minister Ed Miliband after he suggested opposing wind farms should become as socially unacceptable as failing to wear a seatbelt.
In 1991, Prof Lovelock, who has lived on the border of Devon and Cornwall near Launceston for more than three decades, opened Britain's first commercial wind farm at Delabole in Cornwall, but has since openly condemned the technology's inefficiency and visual impact.
Writing for the Guardian website, he pointed to the "strength of the opposition many of us feel to the trashing of our still beautiful countryside".
He said: "I recoil at the thought that through misguided faith in renewable energy we could destroy the 1000km South West Coast Path that runs along the seaward edge of Somerset, Devon, Cornwall and Dorset and includes some of the best coastal scenery in the world."
His comments are likely to be echoed by campaigners across the Westcountry.
His daughter Christine is one of many strongly opposed to 22 110-metre turbines to be hoisted up at Fullabrook Down, North Devon, which was only approved following a High Court ruling.
Prof Lovelock argues a campaign is being fought that uses "social rejection" to make the public accept "industrial-scale wind energy stations" across the UK.
The author of the Gaia thesis, which posits the planet is a self-sustaining system, is concerned with what he fears is as an erosion of democratic rights to oppose wind farm developments.
He said wind farms are "no answer to global warming", adding: "If wind energy was the one practical and affordable answer to global warming then I would grit my teeth at the loss of the countryside and accept it."
As an example, Prof Lovelock points to heavy investment in wind power in Germany, arguing, because the wind does not blow continuously, turbines are only 17 per cent efficient. As such, national grids must have back-up power from fossil fuel powered stations.
The figure is disputed by the British Wind Energy Association, which says the efficiency debate is "absolute nonsense".
Speaking at a screening in London of the climate change documentary The Age of Stupid last week, Mr Miliband said Government needed to be robust in its efforts to face down opposition to wind farms.
He said: "The Government needs to be saying, 'It is socially unacceptable to be against wind turbines in your area – like not wearing your seatbelt or driving past a zebra crossing'."
Prof Lovelock said he was afraid any move to smooth the passage of wind farms with the introduction of new planning laws would remove the right of local people to object.
He said: "The right to have public hearings over energy sources is threatened by legislation soon due.
"Although well-intentioned it is an erosion of our freedom and draws near to what I see as fascism. Let us be proud to be nimbys – our backyard is the countryside and that is the face of Gaia."
A spokesman for the British Wind Energy Association, who said Prof Lovelock was a "scientific giant", said including wind energy in a national grid does displace fossil fuel power, but the grid must cope with changing wind speeds. He added: "It's free, it's sustainable and it doesn't pollute – what's not to like?"
11 Comments
View all
by B Jenkins, Truro
Sunday, April 05 2009, 8:16AM
“To call it Fascism is incorrect.
The bundle of sticks being strong when bound together and weak separately is Fascism! This is referred to in Aesop's fable and is the symbol of all the trade unions. Unions, are in fact Fascist organisations.
Cornwall's moto of "One and All" seems to be a classic example of Fascism.
The fact remains that all wind turbines are a waster of finance. Three times desired capacity, and 100% backup on top to ensure continuity of supply. Any real business brains would throw the idea out.”
by Mr L J Jenkins, Cardigan ,Wales
Sunday, April 05 2009, 6:38AM
“Dear Sir,
Of course Prof Lovelock is RIGHT!!
Wind turbines are a waste of time, because the wind does not blow 24/7 and so the turbines need fossil fuel power station back-up working all the time.
Do you know that 500 wind turbines 400 feet high are planned for Wales? They will ruin the hill scenery of Wales,from north to south.Yet they will only generate 250 MW in total....SPORADICALLY..because each will only generate 25 pc of its 2MW installed capacity. Now the UK needs 60000MW at winter peak,but Wales only uses 2000MW. We already produce 4000MW in Wales ,without counting wind.We are also adding another 2875 MW of gas turbine power plants.So Wales is being WRECKED to produce a trivial 250MW of sporadic wind energy....backed 24/7 by fossils.....to serve ENGLAND!! Yet England has hardly any wind turbines in a country 7 times the size of Wales. If you English want wind energy, then why don't you plaster the Cotswolds, Malverns, Chilterns and South Downs with 1000 4000 ft wind turbines? They will generate a paltry 500 MW, but at least you will know what you are talking about!!”
by Chris, Lincolnshire
Saturday, April 04 2009, 6:05PM
“hi Theo
The 100m tall Industrial Turbines, I have a view of, have turned very little since the middle of November. This is because the wind speeds have been very low (although one of them does'nt turn at all, I imagine its broken, they were built in the summer)...How much energy did Stonehenge produce over the winter?”
by Charles Henry 1945-(diuturnity), Somersetshire
Saturday, April 04 2009, 4:02PM
“:| You will be TAXED to install WIND Turbines. . CHARGED for the power they produce, and then TAXED to INSTALL Nuclear Power Stations that will have to be built for when the Wind doesn't blow. . . You will then be TAXED again when they have to be decommissioned. . People will keep flying around the planet and Some people will get very RICH. . But you will just be TAXED.”
by Ann, Central Illinois, USA
Saturday, April 04 2009, 3:08PM
“This issue is just now growing in the U.S. In the area where I live, they are installing wind turbines as fast as they can because there is a storm path from Canada to Mexico down through here. I have had my doubts about this whole matter, and your experienced input has been very valuable. I am hearing a lot about the tax increases that all American families will be getting as a result of all this 'green power'.
i.e. $3,000/yr per family....that is quite a big amount but I have heard that from several sources.”
by Theo H, Lifton
Saturday, April 04 2009, 2:29PM
“Nimbys!
If local people could have "had their say" Stonehenge would not have een built.”
by Farringdon Loon, Menabilly
Friday, April 03 2009, 5:54PM
“Gordon, though I would dispute the figures represented here, the issue you raise about reliability, availability, etc., are what this issue is all about.
Installed capacity means nothing. Think about it like a dam. It can be as big as you like but if there is no water in the reservoir, there is not prospect of generating electricity from the hydroelectric turbines.
I don't see how the windpower proponents don't get the argument. No wind, no electricity. That's the deal.”
by Gordon, Cornhill
Friday, April 03 2009, 5:42PM
“So, the efficiency debate is "absolute nonsense" according to the BWEA.
Are they saying that the head of Dena, the German energy agency, was talking nonsense:
¿Demand increases and supply volatility arising from a growing share of erratic production from renewable sources still make new coal and gas-fired power stations necessary, Dena Managing Director Stephan Kohler said during a trade fair.¿
'Kohler illustrated problems with wind energy, saying 23,000 MW were nominally installed, but high pressure fronts in January curbed wind speeds. On one day, only 113 MW capacity was active.' (Reuters, 10 February 2009).
113MW is 0.5% of German capacity!
Is the head of California ISO, the not-for-profit public-benefit corporation charged with operating the majority of California¿s high-voltage wholesale power grid talking nonsense:
'California legislators need to remember wind generation is not the answer to California's growing energy capacity needs, said Yakout Mansour, president and CEO of the state's Independent System Operator.
'On August 9, while giving a summary of the ISO's performance during last month's heat wave and energy crunch, Mansour told California's Senate Committee on Governmental Organizations that while conservation, demand response, interruptible programs, and voluntary load reductions played a "significant role in making it through the tough days," wind resources were on average only supplying about 5% of their installed nameplate power capacity during peak hours.¿
(Platts Power Markets Week, 29 August 2006).”
by Farringdon Loon, Menabilly
Friday, April 03 2009, 1:09PM
“Sorry, I meant, of course, 'socially UNacceptable'!”
by Farringdon Loon, Menabilly
Friday, April 03 2009, 1:06PM
“There are a number of early developers of windpower technology whose initial enthusiasm has turned to scepticism. Those that remain fall into two categories: 1. the big power producers who are hedging their bets and capitalising on subsidies paid for by you and me; 2. those smaller 'niche' companies who are simply in it for the subsidies and the moral blackmail that is part of everyday life now in 'Green Britain.' Both categories are aided and abetted by the extremely well organised windpower PR organisations in Britain, Europe, etc., which use climate change fear tactics in order to promote their members.
Any sane individual will support windpower to a degree; just as any sane individual will support the development of any renewable to a point where it is truly viable. The sanity ends when idiots like Miliband claim any opposition to the technology is socially acceptable.
Prof Lovelock's beliefs are founded on science. Miliband's are not. And he belongs to a government that has avoided the issue of energy policy since it came to power. Now we will all pay the price for failing to build a new generation of clean, safe, efficient, and carbon-friendly nuclear power stations.”