I’ve been wanting to post something about this for quite a while. It’s a subject that seems rife with debate right now, and one that I think needs to be taken seriously, but I’m wary of striking up a debate that I just have no time for any more, having spent hours in the past searching Google for information and news.
Jo and I have a keen interest in wind turbines and other forms of renewable energy. While we lived in York, we kept up-to-date with a proposal for a wind farm near Selby in Yorkshire. Having met with complaints, particularly concerned with the welfare of local birdlife (claims downplayed by the RSPB), the wind farm now appears to be going ahead into planning stages.
Having just moved down to Devon, we’ve found that the area has much the same battle going on with wind farms. Jo’s written a bit on her blog on what she thinks about wind power and wind farms.
One proposed wind farm at Hinkley, near Bridgewater in Somerset, recently had planning permission refused. There were two cases against the proposed wind farm. Primarily, a report found that there may be a small risk of a blade breaking and hitting the nuclear power station that currently sits near the proposed site. The risk is tiny and the developer even said that they would agree to not build the three turbines nearest the power station that were considered a risk. Secondly, there was concern for a population of bats living in the area. Claims that the feeding routes of the bats would be disturbed were found to be unsubstantiated. The local council brought forward the date of the public consultation for this wind farm by one day. Permission was refused. Er, why?!
Another wind farm in the area is proposed for Batsworthy Cross, the highest point between Dartmoor and Exmoor. Great! It would be a good point for a farm.
At the EcoTech Centre in Swaffham, they have a turbine that you can go up in and see the view from their viewing platform. I wanted to go during the Wind Weekend over the August Bank Holiday, but we couldn’t make it. I think such a viewing platform would be a fantastic addition to the area, for example, at a good viewpoint such as Batsworthy Cross. Some seem to think wind turbines are ugly and will ruin the countryside and affect local tourism. I actually find wind turbines elegant and have been stunned by wind farms I have seen. One in particular I remember passing on the way back to York from a holiday in the Lake District via the moors. I wish I could remember whereabouts it was. If anything, I think a viewing platform would attract tourists to a wind farm rather than repelling them! We’ve been told there isn’t going to be one of these at Batsworthy though – a shame, but it’s not as if you don’t get good views from there anyway.
Some anti-wind groups seem to think that wind farms are not good enough at producing electricity. Firstly, I’d point out that there are other sources of renewable energy, so it’s not as if there aren’t other sources to help generate the power we need. It may not be as promising as other renewable energy technologies, but wind power is the most mature at the moment. So, what’s wrong with erecting wind farms, supporting them and the research into other forms of renewable energy? And what’s the alternative at the moment? Oh yeah – nuclear power plants. I would much rather see graceful wind turbines than the ugly power plants that scar the landscape. If you are anti-wind, are you saying that you would rather have one of these giant power plants in your back yard?
I resent the comment made by a speaker from the Realistic Energy Forum at a conference at the end of 2004, who said: “The younger people are, the less they know” when asked by a member of the audience whether it was mainly the older generation that opposed wind farms. I might be wrong, but it seems to me that the younger generation might be the only ones with their heads screwed on, while all the council officials side with the (mostly minority) complaints of the uninformed. Also, it is the younger generations who will have to deal with the consequences of not doing enough now to lessen or stop global warming.
So, my closing thoughts on this one? Well, anyone who lives near a wind farm and can’t stand them, I’ll buy your house from you and install some solar panels on the roof.
32 Responses to “Renewable energy: wind farms”
Don’t apologise for the rant – to be honest I don’t get these guys either.
Got a few wind farms popping up back at home (West Wales as opposed to where I live to work in the south east), and I think they look good. It’s something about nature and technology working in harmony, I can’t really explain it. The noise complaints aren’t really founded, so it’s an odd one.
Now I wouldn’t propose sticking hundreds of them up in any one place, but a couple of dozen in small batches must be a good thing? Stick up some 3G/GPRS/Wi-fi, emergency phones and some seating / wind protection they can actually help people enjoy the countryside safely as well.
You can see a large wind farm from our house on the moors; plus one turbine about 2-mile away at a local sandstone quarry I don’t think they spoil the landscape that much.
Thanks for your thoughts, Richard. Excellent idea to install wifi, etc. I wonder if they’d do office space at the top of a turbine…
And Robert, I am so going to have to visit you when I’m next up north!
Thought for this lunchtime: why do anti-wind rants never back up their claims with solid facts?
Jo’s just posted a useful resource with some good points on wind farms dispelling myths backed up by some facts and figures, which is more than I can say for many of the anti-wind rants I’ve read lately.
I’ve found another useful study, recently published by Oxford University’s Environmental Change Institute for the DTI, which continues to back up the argument for wind power.
Energy Minister Malcolm Wicks said, “The only sensible debate about energy is one based on the facts. This new research is a nail in the coffin of some of the exaggerated myths peddled by opponents of wind power.”
Read about how the UK has the best wind resource in Europe for yourselves, and spread the word!
Your question strikes at the heart I think:
“If you are anti-wind, are you saying that you would rather have one of these giant power plants in your back yard?”
You’re dead right to ask it. I can almost see a possible billboard spoof with a nice coun’ry cottage with alternately a wind farm and a nucleur power plant nearby with the text choose in an accessibly nice large bold font.
That’s a fantastic idea, Jon! And particularly impressed at that accent coming across so subtly.
I live near Batsworthy Cross. The site of a proposed new wind farm.
Although I am in favour of them in principle I am not sure that the case for them is proved.
The biggest problem seems to me to be the massive CO2 emmissions from the construction process. The production of concrete produces (per ton) a similar amount of CO2. The proposed turbines are 100 metres high therefore the foundations must be huge. This is not including the steel, copper & all the transport of materials. This combined with the stated 25 year life span, after which they must be removed causing even more emissions may combine to make any benefits at least marginal.
If anyone knows of any research which includes all these factors I would be very interested to see it before I decide whether to oppose the plan or not
I live near the Batsworthy Cross site and had my first contact with the Green Party at the npower exhibition at Bishops Nympton. How many bits of untrue information were spread at the npower meeting by the likes of Jon Hooper member for Coombe Martin, who does not know how a hydrogen fuel cell works, but did not let that stop him. He told a member of the public that it needed recharging so saved no electricity or emissions, and him a web designer with access to the mass of information on the web. My advice to the likes of Jon is to do some research first, you will find out it uses a continuous supply of hydrogen as its fuel and produces electricity, unlike a battery which has a fixed chemical content and must be either thrown away of recharged. Please do not make it up, it is to easy to disprove.
Carbon emission are set to rise by 37% by 2035 so building a few wind turbines does not even scratch the surface of the problems facing the earth.World CO2 now stands at 26 billion tons per year and will rise to 35 billion tons, by contrast the Batsworthy Cross development, if it is built will reduce world emissions by 1.3 of a millionth of one percent. Do the maths and work out how many turbines we need to get rid of this at 3600 tons per turbine, yes the blades may well will be touching.
UK emission from transport have risen by 2% 2003-2004, we will need 50 turbines just to stand still
Let off your hot air on something like reducing transport emissions, supporting clean car and truck fuels, fuel cells and the like, which we can use in the developing world and so reduce the rise of CO2 emission caused by their industrialisation. Don’t supporting the likes of npower who’s owner, RWE own and run some of europes dirtiest power stations, the ones in Germany account for over 8% of Germany’s total CO2 emission and one is the second dirtiest in the EU(look at the WWF website look for the dirty thirty)and are owners and developers of nuclear power stations. The Green Party and npower make very odd bed fellows! I know you folks shy away from hard facts, but use the mouse, they are just a click away, or are you to frightned of the truth?
Just a thought on the comment by Fairy Jo (4 above)about the only sensible debate on energy is one based on facts, when will we see some of these on her website?
If wind farms aren’t efficient enough, we need to eat more sprouts. Seriously, though, I’d rather have half a dozen wind farms on my doorstep than one nuclear power station eighty miles away. Even if they look ugly (and I don’t think they do) there is just much less risk. I accept the risk of a nuclear meltdown is incredibly low, but using project management methodology to balance the likelihood of an occurrence against the impact of an occurrence, I’d still say nuclear power is high risk.
Any chance of the govt. subsidising people sticking solar panels on their roofs rather than investing in more nuclear power?
“a real friend of the earth”: I’m afraid he’s right and you’re wrong about fuel cells. Where do you think the “continuous supply of hydrogen” comes from? It’s not naturally occuring, so it has to be made. Either from natural gas (emmitting CO2) or from electricity. In the latter case, it’s just acting as a high-capacity rechargeable battery, which will only put out about 40% of the power used to charge it. It most certainly does not save energy or emmissions.
That doesn’t make it useless, it might be useful for evening out uneven wind generation, but fuel cells are not an energy solution by themselves.
Peter Clay
Well I think I am right and know that every scientist will agree. A fuel cell is not a battery, as ever the usual spin of the facts. A fuel cell uses fuel to produce power an the same way as a car engine uses fuel to produce power. Yes we need to produce the hydrogen but the energy needed to extracted it is no greater than that used to produce conventional fuels. We don’t produce a gallon of petrol without using energy and I would not call an internal combustion engine a battery. We use lots of energy to build a wind turbine and once again I would not call it a battery. Millions of magawatts of power are used to mine coal and transport it to a power station but I would not call it a battery. May I suggest that I know I am right and that you refer the the dictionary
Just looked at Peter Clay again.
Peter, how efficient do you think a petrol engine is, 40% would be very good so what is your point. I am not saying fuel cells are the way forward, just pointing out that I was upset by someone spinning an answer not telling the truth. The green lot have shot themselves and the rest of us in the foot with the constant mantra that wind is the only way. Well as ever the more times you say it the more people think its right, until you hit the energy brick wall as the government have just done. So where can they turn, the greens have led them down a blind alley and all they have left is nuclear. I want these even less than wind but where can they go. Will everyone give up their car, heating, lights, TV, games, computers etc.
We all have serious decisions to make and most blogs like this just mislead people and miss the point. Unless we reduce CO2 by a massive amount, if the predictions on global warming are right most of the world is doomed. Over the next 30 years CO2 will rise by 37%. Wind farms, Biomass, wave power are such insignificant side issues as to be non existant in the scale of the problem. Don’t all be sidetracked by this green window dressing. 60% of our CO2 comes from things other than electricity generation so remember this, renawables will save 10% of 30% I.E. 3% of total emissions, don’t be fooled by the hype.
In response to the request for facts on my website that relate to the wind debate, I have included links to several sites that contain facts and research on the various issues. I think this allows people to find things out for themselves and make up their own minds, rather than simply telling them what to think.
Further to this debate, Peter Clay does not seem to be claiming that fuel cells are batteries, nor that they are useless. He simply states that they work in a similar fashion to rechargeable batteries and that Jon Hooper was not wrong in his assertions that fuel cells do not save energy (as “a real friend of the earth” – the only anonymous poster in this discussion, incidentally – claimed).
I also note that “a real friend of the earth” has not tried to disprove anything said by either myself or dotjay. The fact is, there are lots of things we need to do to combat global warming – building wind farms is one part of the solution. Developing research into other forms of renewable energy so that we have a wide range of environmentally friendly sources of electricity is another. Cutting down on our use of electricity and cars are two other ways. There are yet other things we can do as well – and we need to do as much as we can, now.
BTW, I have still not found any facts supporting the anti-wind argument that have been properly sourced.
Hi all. Sorry I haven’t been able to reply to this – busyness with the business!
I said I didn’t want to get involved with another debate on this, so I’ll try not to. However, I would like to add a couple of comments.
Firstly, I’d like to ask that comments stick to the topic of conversation and do not make personal attacks at others. There’s really no need for it. This is my personal blog where I post my opinions and impart some of my knowledge on subjects I choose. I welcome comments on my blog that are constructive on the topic discussed.
Regarding fuel cells: a battery is formed from two or more cells. A fuel cell is still an electrochemical device with similarities to the common battery. More relevant would be whether they are actually worth pursuing due to the amount of energy consumed in manufacturing the hydrogen fuel.
@ John Turner :
John, I hope this helps you to answer your question. Please bear with me though – I’m an engineer and like to base my opinions on facts and figures.
The way I see it, our energy requirements are unlikely to decrease. But then, putting any figures on our future requirements is nothing but speculation. We can cut our emissions where we can, but we’re still going to need the energy from somewhere, no matter how our demands change. As the existing sources of energy run out, we are going to need to have new sources. No source of energy is going to last forever. Eventually, nuclear power plants et al are going to be shut down. So, let’s build a load of new nuclear power plants to source our energy. How much energy does that take?
Something to think about: how is the construction, maintenance and removal of a wind turbine different from that of a nuclear power station? Something is going to have to be built to supply the energy, so it may as well be a bunch of wind turbines in my opinion.
How much energy is involved with building the foundations of a wind turbine?
At the exhibition last weekend, npower had a sheet of information about the foundations of the wind turbine. I don’t remember all the numbers, so someone can correct me if I’m wrong about the dimensions.
A large turbine tower is about 5 metres in diameter at the base. The concrete base is three times the diameter of the base (so that’s 15 metres) and 2.5 metres deep. This gives us a volume of concrete of around 442 cubic metres. Of course, concrete is one of our major concerns because of the CO2 emissions involved.
Concrete weighs about 2400 kilogrammes per cubic meter. So, our volume of concrete weighs around 1061 tonnes. It has been estimated that, in 2006, the energy required per tonne of concrete manufactured will be 1.3 kWh (PDF, ref. page 6). That’s about 1379 kWh of energy for the foundations per turbine.
The turbines proposed for Batsworthy are 2 MW turbines. Operating at an average of say 33%, this gives 487 MWh per month. Wind turbines repay their energy used in construction in about 4 months on average. So, we can estimate that total energy in manufacture is approximately 1948 MWh.
Statistics state that a typical 1 MW turbine in the UK produces an annual 2630 MWh on average. Take those numbers and apply to a 2 MW turbine over our 4 months and you get 1753 MWh, so our estimate is realistic.
1379 kWh (energy in manufacturing the concrete foundations) is 0.071% of the 1948 MWh. Therefore, that’s about the percentage of energy invested in the foundations of a turbine compared to the energy used in its whole construction.
I would compare this to the construction of a nuclear power station, but I don’t have those figures, or the time to calculate them. 🙂 Something I’m sure of though, is that wind turbines are easier and less harmful to construct and demolish than nuclear power plants. If anyone knows of further sources providing direct comparisons of construction, emissions, lifespan and other energy considerations, I’d be interested in reading them.
Also, there is published research (albeit from 1992) that compares emissions from wind and coal. You might be interested in reading it.
Final thoughts?
Time is an issue here. None of us have a whole lot of time here, so I’d rather start to do something positive now. Wind power is currently the most mature of the renewable energy sources. Why will people not even give it a chance? Wind energy is part of a solution and a step in the right direction – it does have a positive impact on our environment with respect to the alternatives.
I don’t pretend to know exactly what the percentage reduction in CO2 emissions is purported to be, but even if it is as low as the 3% stated in these comments, is that not a good start, and too significant to ignore?
I’M TRYING TO FIND THE REALISTIC ENERGY FORUMS’S WEB SITE. CAN YOU HELP? tXS IN ADVANCE.
tHEO.
As far as I know, Theo, the Realistic Energy Forum doesn’t have a website. A Google Search for Realistic Energy Forum brings up contact details though.
Tnx.
It is probably the http://www.countryguardian.net as the home of the Realistic Energy Forum. Anyhow, its got loads of anti turbine stuff.
I’m a greenie (yoghurt waeving sandaled type) and I have been scouring the pages of the Wester Morning News, (WMN)the regional daily. http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk
Each and every windfarm produces an anti-turbine campaign which the the WMN covers well, as the editorial line is agaist turbines and loads of letters, mostly against turbines.
An anti campaign might be OK if the persons/communities were concerned to reduce their own carbon footprint. However, over a year or so, and perhaps with 50 letters and 15 editorial arrticles, and even leading articles, I have never ever, not once, have I read that those against take on board that their carbon emmissions cause the problems that turbines (good or bad) are designed to solve.
Theo H
Hello again
Dotjay
Not sure what sort of engineer you are, but don’t build en extention!!! 330 foot tall weighing around 300 tons with the wind blowing, it will fall over on 2.5m footings, I recon nearer 30M. Also don,t work back from a companies figures they are not to be relied on. In fact if you did some real calculations you would see the wind industry as the sham it realy is. Theo, yes I use energy saving bulbs and burn wood to heat my house. I also run an economical car with a catalyst. Recycle my rubbish etc. Please dont be so patronising just because you eat yoghurt, so do billions of others. What are you lot doing about your carbon footprint? Yes wind turbines cause local and world wide opposition, we all have a right to our opinion, I am not so arrogant as to believe you should not have yours. Maybe it is the 20%-50% drop in house prices that causes concern, or the unproven health implications, or the fact that these industrial monsters are so out of human scale. I have said it in other forums, give 20%-50% of the value of your home to a green renewable energy project and then you have the right to condem the people who want to protect their property, visual and sound enviroment. Until you do that you can not hold the moral high ground.
Hi there,
Theo again.
You seem to do most of the energy reducing things I do. I burn wood – even bought my own wood here near Tavistock. Yes, low energy bulbs and all that sort of thing. I try to limit the carbon footprint of my driving so chose not to attand ther meeting at Knowstone to fight against the turbines. (I now live near Tvistock)
But what concerns me is, as far as I can see, that most protesters are not prepared to see their own energy use as key to the problem.
I was interested to read that James Lvoelock has been trashing windmills, and to read what he says on this.I am prepatred to give Lovelock a lot of mailage.
He is quoted in the www. countryguardian site at being agaist the mills.And, indeed he is. Lovelock
But what I find very interesting is the http://www.counntryguardian site censored his remarks.
Lovelock wants 1. To go totally nuclear now. And 2. For all fossil fuel use to stop now. In a talk he gave at the Schumacher College about a yeare back, he talked about “De-developing” the world. http://www.countryside.etc missed out part 2. I assume as this waas too uncomfotable?
There are some quite good arguments against windturbines, but my impression of Knowstone (I once tried to buy a woodland there, and I have been to the Knowston Arms (?) the pub a few times) is that much of the village is big, big fashionable 4×4s.
I am happy to listen to critisim of the mills – but not from those who often have an ostentatious lifestyle based on high carbon loading.
What I feel I hear people sare saying about mills is we want our cake (no mills)and to eat it (High carbon liestyle).
There was some recent critism of anti_Batsworthy protestors in that the parish hall they recently met in had high intensity spots rather than low energy flourescents.
Is this still the same, do you know?
Theo H
Theo H
I’m open to the opinion of others. I’m just expressing mine. 🙂 I’m eager to find a plan of action, but I am yet to hear a well-assembled argument against wind farms.
Regarding turbine foundations, I was working with what I had – the figures I could remember. Tell me dimensions of a turbine pile-type foundation and I’ll calculate that too.
If you wish to reduce co2 emissions, and you wish to have a reliable source of electricity then windpower cannot help. If the UK reaches the 10% target for 2010 in renewables (8% will have to come from wind)this will reduce global co2 emissins by less than one thousandth i.e. < 0.1%. This is too small to measure never mind have an effect on climate change. The load factor (the actual amount produced as a percentage of total capacity) for wind power in the UK is 26%. Gas is 85%, nuclear 80% so get real folks, wind is merely ‘green’ tokenism and if you include subsidies is more than twice the price of normal electricity. It is irrelevant whether you like them (windfarms) or not, these subsidies would be better spent on feeding the people in Africa and providing them with clean water.
Bob Graham
If they build the windfarm opposite my house, the current market value is £300,000. I’ll be in touch. Of course you won’t honour your “promise”, but I’ll give you the chance if they build here. Publically now.
Failing that put you could put your money where your mouth is and buy some houses off folk who are already at their wits end. It shouldn’t take you long to find some, if you look. Contact Country Guardian with your chequebook ready is my advice.
Another couple of grand for hot water panels, or £10,000 for solar elctricity shouldn’t cause you any problem.
And will it “save the planet?” Of course not. Do you even know how many wind turbines are needed to replace one nuclear power station? It’s about 550. E.g. Sizewell A at 420MW, based on it’s load factor of about 80%, divided by the load factor of a 2MW wind turbine (30% at best). A bit more than “a few”. A fair poster Jon Tan?
If you can’t do that math keep out of the debate. Some of us can do the maths, and yours is plain wrong.
And what on earth makes you think it’s the view most of us object to?
Or is it easier to believe that, than the unvarnished facts. As Bob Graham above has already set out. If you want moral high ground, give your cash to the starving. Windfarms won’t feed them “real friend of the earth”.
Colin
So Colin you support Nuclear? Interesting.
What happens to the Earth when a turbine fails? Nothing. What happens to the Earth when something goes slightly wrong in a test-profile? Chernobyl.
560 turbines (see – I can do the maths) is hardly any. A couple of kilometres of off-shore wind/wave could easily provide 420MW far cheaper, more reliably and at a less environmental impact than Coal, Gas or Nuclear.
Wind is not the panacea to all our engery problems, nor is it the only solution. It is, however, part of the solution and anyone who says otherwise is surely a NIMBY (who’s opinion can, and should, be discounted when we’re talking about the future of our planet) or so stuck in the C19 mindset they cannot understand either the mathematics or engineering principles involved.
Between Wind, Wave, Solar (heat transfer systems), geothermal and KE (stored water drop) systems we have both the technical skill and the breadth of natural resources in this country right now not to need to build more Nuclear (disastrous) stations or Gas burners (Gas runs out in 30 years – so not viable anyway).
The one thing I do not get with the right-wing Green argument on issues like wind power is they do not suggest any viable alternatives. Simply stating “we don’t like wind power” is not enough – if you’ve got an idea put it up, if not sit down and keep your ignorant mouths shut.
Ooops-a-daisy.
Colin, I think we forgot to tell folks, especially Nathan, that as well as his 550 plus 2MW turbines, he’d still need his Sizewell A if he wants to keep a light on when the wind blows too much, too little or not at all.
Must Fly – rather a lot to do
“Truth Fairy”: you’ll note I only put forward wind as part solution not the whole solution.
Still waiting for your solution BTW.
Dear Nathan,
You can use as much ‘colourful’ language as you like but it won’t alter the FACTS. Renewables and in particular wind cannot and will never replace conventional supply. It will only be in addition to existing supply. You clearly have little understanding of reality. If for example you wished to replace Dungeness nuclear power station with biomass, this would necessitate covering the whole of Kent in coppiced willow just to provide enough fuel. Many of us share your concerns about nuclear power but accept the inevitability of it because we wish to keep the lights on. I live in Scotland where nuclear power provides more than 60% of our base load (Torness and Hunterston ‘B’). The combined output of these 2 power stations is 2652 megawatts and to replace this with windpower would require 4,420 (yes 4.42 thousand) 2 megawatt windturbines, and that would be allowing for a very generous load factor of 30%. The real issue is that both nuclear power stations would have to remain running for when there was not enough wind, or too much. If you wish to discuss the technical and economic realities of solar power, I’ll be delighted to oblige.
Please don’t reduce this site to a personal slagging forum, come up with intelligent and preferably researched arguement.
Regards
Bob Graham
In reply to questioning last year (Question 140), in a house of lords select committee, Graham Sinden, author the Research carried out at the Environmental Change Institute at the University of Oxford for the DTI replied:
” There will be times when you have quite low speeds and consequently you have low electricity output from it. The analysis that I ran was of wind speeds being so low that electricity would not be generated, that was the criteria for it. As I said, the single worse case in the last 21 years was 11 hours over summer when that did happen. If you raise the bar higher and say “We want 20 per cent output or 30 per cent output” then it may look a little bit different but we have not carried out that analysis”
Re: Note re foundations – At the time of npowers Batsworthy Cross wind turbine proposal exhibition, it was not confirmed that the foundations to be used would be the same as those in the exhibition foundation drawings!
Thanks Nathan. Firstly, for the record I did not say I supported nuclear. I used the Nuclear power station reference to counter the over simplistic poster idea above. Secondly, wind power is not more reliable than nuclear. No onshore wind turbine has yet reached a load factor of 30% – how is that more reliable than (and to use your example) nuclear at 80%? And the good fairy is also right – you’d still need a main line power station for the 7 days out of 10 the wind turbines are not producing.
I do support renewable energy, but it needs to be viable economically. That’s the way of the world. And wind power is not, or it would need no subsidy at all, surely? The money is better spent on tidal or geothermal perhaps. My solution would be to change building regulations in favour of much higher levels of insulation, negating the need for most space heating, and also to put solar water heating in houses when built then subsidise low energy bulbs to make them as cheap as filament bulbs. This solution would make more difference to the planet than any number of wind turbines.
Colin
Well, comments are now closed on this blog entry. Thanks to everyone for their contributions, both the named and anonymous. Just a final comment from me then…
I’d like to note that I am still to find a solid, well-reasoned argument against wind energy, so I still believe wind energy has an important part to play in the solution to climate change.
The anti-wind stance still seems to me to be dismissive of wind energy as any part of an environmentally-friendly solution. In its current state, wind energy may not be a long-term solution, but it’s a good start towards getting electricity from renewable sources. Yes, there are other things that should also be done to combat climate change, but until someone can convince me that wind farms do more harm than good or that there is a better solution, they still have a role in my view.