Windmills will change the skyline but can now be sited in the valleys
Posted on 01/21/2008 8:38:59 PM PST by Stoat
Windmills will change the skyline but can now be sited in the valleys
Britain will be forced to build thousands more wind turbines in the countryside under a Brussels edict to be announced tomorrow.
Energy experts say new EU climate change targets mean the UK will have to generate 40 per cent of its electricity from green sources within 12 years.
In order to meet that target, the number of wind turbines on the land would have to rise fourfold. Thousands more would be needed at sea.
The move would be one of the greatest engineering projects in years - and dramatically change the skyline of Britain and its coastal waters.
But critics say onshore turbines are an expensive blot on the landscape that often fail to generate enough power to justify their existence.
The Government concedes that the shift away from coal and gas will cost up to £6billion a year. Most of that burden will be passed to consumers.
The move is part of the EU's commitment to generating 20 per cent of Europe's energy from renewable sources by 2020.
Under the plans - approved by Tony Blair - every member state will be told its contribution to the "green energy revolution" tomorrow. Britain currently has one of the worst records for renewable energy in Europe.
Years of cheap gas mean that nine out of ten homes use gas central heating, while hydroelectric and wind power produces just 2 per cent of electricity.
Tomorrow, Brussels is expected to demand that 15 per cent of Britain's energy, including heating, transport fuel and electricity, comes from renewable sources by 2020. Because it would cost too much to convert homes and vehicles to green energy, the bulk of the target will have to be met by electricity companies.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs estimates that 40 per cent of electricity will have to be renewable within 12 years.
If it fails to meet the targets - described by civil servants as "difficult" - Europe will impose daily fines on the UK.
Around 5 per cent could come from tidal power if the Government is allowed to build the controversial Severn Barrage, the hydroelectric generator planned to cross the Severn Estuary. A few per cent could come from burning biomass - such as wood or crops - in power stations.
But given the short timescale, most will have to come from wind. The wind energy industry reckons it will need at least 7,000 turbines on land to meet the target. Today there are 1,910.
The Government has already unveiled plans to build huge wind farms off the coast of Britain. However, the energy industry says the number of onshore turbines will also need to rise.
British Wind Energy Association spokesman Chris Tomlinson said: "It's quite a challenge - and it will depend a lot on the public's acceptance of onshore wind turbines.
"In the early 1990s, they tended to be sited on tops of hills and so they were in full view. However, now the technology has improved so that they can be taken down from hills and sited in valleys."
Gordon Brown goes nuclear (BRITAIN to build new generation of nuclear power stations)
Related FR threads that may be of interest:
Wind Turbines 'Are Ruining Our Quality Of Life' (UK)
Unexpected Downside of Wind Power [wind turbines = bird cuisinarts]
“All hail the EU! Your wish is our command!”
(Remember that old Rule Brittania song?)
well it will keep the russians and mussies from a little more blood money - and every little bit helps
Where will all the muslims homes be built? Turbin’s under Turbines?
What happens when you give your sovereignty over to someone or something else......
Maybe they will catch up to Texas now.
They’ll sprout up, in Brussels.
Hmm. . .I think the old Anti-Federalists felt that way about the Constitution.
Remember the original meaning of the word ‘state’, as in “. . .these colonies are and of right ought to be free and independent states. . .”
Parasites on the earth.
No! Oil prices are plunging due to the “recession!” Britain should reject the silly windmill idea and buy more oil. ;-)
The Waterloo battlefield is just south of Brussels..... some British patriots should go there and hold a symbolic burial of British sovereignty, for the nation which led the victory at Waterloo* might as well now be interred there. The nation of Marlborough, Nelson, Wellington, and Churchill has now willingly subjected itself to rule from the continent of Europe..... British sovereignty is no more.
* Little known factoid: only around 25% of the troops commanded by Wellington at Waterloo were actually from the British Isles..... another 25% were from what is now the Netherlands and Belgium and close to 50% were from various Germanic allies. Then of course there were the Prussians in their own army which matched the size of Wellington’s, so the British actually only comprised about 12-13% of the victorious troops that day.
This is crazy. The Brits need to tell the EU to shove it and take back their sovereignty.
Yep. When the Muslims take over the UK, they aren’t going to take orders from Brussels (unless it’s Muslim too).
FReegards!
Who knows? Not I. And, in the larger picture of things, this would probably be to the good, insofar as it would very definitely inconvenience a large number of the Eurocrats in Brussles.
Great chocolate, great beer; otherwise, Brussels should have been fire-bombed in WW II.
Thanks. The reason Waterloo and the Order of Battle come to mind for me in this context is that the Brits have never been numerically dominant in any European context, never mind for the rest of the world. Yet, with the kind of leadership represented by Wellington and Churchill they were able to lead great alliances (and for a good while a great empire) and change the world, in so many ways for the better. Now they are submitting to rule of the bureaucrats in Brussels and it is a sad, sad thing to watch from this side of the Atlantic.
Agreed. If you haven’t already read it, you might be interested in post #17.
The really interesting question is how Belgium could actually be split, I mean who gets Brussels and all those breweries??? When separatists for either the Flemish or the Walloons agitate toward separation they seem to assume THEY would get Brussels, but they can’t both have it..... (could be civil war, although it’s hard to imagine any Belgians fighting over anything these days) unless it’s made into some kind of super-EU-protectorate.
Brussels as a new city-state ruled by the EU as its own fiefdom for pampered socialist bureaucrats..... but that’s certainly not what either the Flemish or the Walloons have in mind when they think of separation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.