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."
Going by the examples set by America's 'ruling class' (Teddy 'the swimmer' Kennedy) I would say that the UK muzzies will demand prime real estate for themselves with grand vistas unobstructed by such things as wind turbines.
Do you dare object? You're a racist!
Good tagline.
If you consider the point for a bit, the situation is rather like the Israelis and the ''palestinians'' (which term BTW was coined in about 1969 -- there are no such things as ''palestinians'' except in the fevered mind of the Israel-haters).
Of the Flemish-Walloon arguments, whatever the hell they are, I've A) no clue, and B) no interest. That silly nation -- and I flat DARE any FReeper to come on here and say otherwise -- has been a net negative for the entire world since WW II.
There won't be any sort of civil war in Belgium, I think. Both sides in that nation are far too gutless to take up arms. There will doubtless be some sort of bureaucratic war there, likely boring to death in its details.
I'm thinking just now that, the sooner the Belgies can invent the 'Q' bomb (or perhaps in their case, the 'q' bomb), the sooner they can try to extort ''foreign aid'' from the US. (I trust you take my reference...heh heh).
There's a remote possiblity that even the Eurocrats in Brussels might take sides. This would be all to the good -- we'd end up being shed of X number of bureaudorks, and the Eurocrats would have to move the seat of government, which would keep THEIR bureaudorks busy for several years.
The Dutch get Flanders, the French get Wallonia and Germany gets back eastern Belgium. The people there speak German. The region could easily be integrated as a 17th state.
The Brits can get the exiled royal family. They love royals.
Belgium already uses nuclear power more than all other types of electrical generation combined. Nuclear power provides about 56% of their electrical generation.
World Net Electricity Generation by Type
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/RecentElectricityGenerationByType.xls
Q: What would a Belgian civil war look like?
A: Both sides’ lawyers and bureaucrats try to bore each other to death.
As long as you don’t mind taking orders from unelected Euro-commissars in Brussels.
Loss of freedom is loss of freedom, no matter where your commissars are located: Moscow, Berlin or Brussels.
That’s very interesting and quite relevant, thank you very much!
The casualties in that war would be enormous!
;^)
Indeed. This is stunning! A bunch of unelected anonymous bureaucrats in Belgium, telling the United Kingdom what it has to do with its countryside and billions of pounds.
Holy moly.
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.