Both sides urge Wiltshire turbine debate

This Is Wiltshire: Rowena Quantrill Rowena Quantrill

Campaigners on both sides of the debate about wind farms in Wiltshire have urged the public to make their views known ahead of the deadline for comments on changes to planning rules.

Wiltshire Council is consulting on an amendment to its Core Strategy, the document framing development policy for the next 15 years, which would see minimum distances between homes and turbines come into effect.

The new rules would impose a minimum distance of 1.5km from homes for turbines higher than 50m, 2km for those more than 100m, and 3km for 150m turbines.

Campaigners for the amendment argue it would safeguard homes and residents from ugly and noisy turbines, but those against it say the plan would make it impossible to put turbines anywhere in the county.

Judy Glasson, of Stop Grange Farm Wind Farm’s campaigning against a three-turbine proposal for West Ashton, said: “If you get these three that’s just the start in Wiltshire. They’ll be everywhere.

"The distance being proposed for turbines of this size is 2km. If that goes through, then these giant turbines just won’t happen.

“It’s very important that we get people to write in, that we get people motivated. “We just need this to get through. It’s being proposed by the council, but it needs to go to public scrutiny.”

Rowena Quantrill, of Climate Friendly Bradford on Avon, said: “I feel strongly that the current regulations are adequate for each application to be judged on its merits.

"This issue isn’t just about Grange Farm, it’s about wind turbines across Wiltshire.

“It seems very unfair to support this amendment so that other communities don’t have a choice.

“[The amendment] would mean it would basically be impossible to put any wind turbines of any size anywhere in the county.

“It seems very unfair for communities who may want a wind turbine. I think it’s very short-sighted.”

All the consultation documents can be commented on at www.wiltshire.gov.uk or at Wiltshire Council’s public libraries.

Subject to the weather and approval from the Civil Aviation Authority, SGFWF plans to fly a blimp at 130m on land at West Ashton this weekend, in order to demonstrate the height of the proposed turbines.

Comments (19)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:30am Sun 28 Oct 12

Mrs Donnyfly says...

"...but those against it say the plan would make it impossible to put turbines anywhere in the county."

Nothing wrong with that.
"...but those against it say the plan would make it impossible to put turbines anywhere in the county." Nothing wrong with that. Mrs Donnyfly

7:03am Sun 28 Oct 12

he of one braincell says...

Not saying whether I'm for or against yet, but if we desperately need good renewable / alternative energy sources urgently, what option would you propose instead Mrs D?
Is it that these people are against wind turbines totally (& using the proximity argument), or just that the proximity needs addressing due to noise & visual impact?
Not saying whether I'm for or against yet, but if we desperately need good renewable / alternative energy sources urgently, what option would you propose instead Mrs D? Is it that these people are against wind turbines totally (& using the proximity argument), or just that the proximity needs addressing due to noise & visual impact? he of one braincell

10:50am Sun 28 Oct 12

eddie_the_ead says...

Typical small mindedness from villagers,most of whom have moved in from elsewhere anyway(ex W.A'er of 25 years)
Typical small mindedness from villagers,most of whom have moved in from elsewhere anyway(ex W.A'er of 25 years) eddie_the_ead

8:48am Mon 29 Oct 12

jonners123 says...

As any reasonably bright school kid and they will explain why building a wind farm inland is a stupid thing to do. D'oh
As any reasonably bright school kid and they will explain why building a wind farm inland is a stupid thing to do. D'oh jonners123

12:07pm Mon 29 Oct 12

he of one braincell says...

.. of course, there's no wind!
The trees sway & move by magic, the washing on the line flutters in the wi...sorry, by magic.
The roofs are blown off houses in a storm by, wait for it... magic - that's why insurance companies don't like paying out!
Ask any bright kid why you never see windmills on land, only out to sea, oh, hang on..

Reasonably bright kids may be reasonably bright, but they can still have misconceptions (unlike adults who would never jump to conclusions, & will always be fully informed of facts from The Sun & Mail 1st). These bright kids don't all have the backing of qualifications in fluid dynamics or civil engineering, mechanical eng, or vibration & acoustics engineering, etc.
Must go, I have to put a tooth under my pillow, the reasonably bright kid across the road explained why.
.. of course, there's no wind! The trees sway & move by magic, the washing on the line flutters in the wi...sorry, by magic. The roofs are blown off houses in a storm by, wait for it... magic - that's why insurance companies don't like paying out! Ask any bright kid why you never see windmills on land, only out to sea, oh, hang on.. Reasonably bright kids may be reasonably bright, but they can still have misconceptions (unlike adults who would never jump to conclusions, & will always be fully informed of facts from The Sun & Mail 1st). These bright kids don't all have the backing of qualifications in fluid dynamics or civil engineering, mechanical eng, or vibration & acoustics engineering, etc. Must go, I have to put a tooth under my pillow, the reasonably bright kid across the road explained why. he of one braincell

4:19pm Mon 29 Oct 12

jonners123 says...

To he of one braincell.........
Most bright kids understand why it is generally windier near the coast and, with a little bit of scientific knowledge, can quite reasonably explain the best locations of wind farms. You obviously have misconceptions that are a danger to children - suggest you research the simple facts and then comment.

The fact is a wind farm built inland is as good as useless - they will not generate power in high winds (never mind storms) nor in very light winds. Using convection currents by the shore is the best way to use these devices.

Hope you wake up with a sixpence......
To he of one braincell......... Most bright kids understand why it is generally windier near the coast and, with a little bit of scientific knowledge, can quite reasonably explain the best locations of wind farms. You obviously have misconceptions that are a danger to children - suggest you research the simple facts and then comment. The fact is a wind farm built inland is as good as useless - they will not generate power in high winds (never mind storms) nor in very light winds. Using convection currents by the shore is the best way to use these devices. Hope you wake up with a sixpence...... jonners123

4:58pm Mon 29 Oct 12

Grumpyoldgit99 says...

jonners123 wrote:
As any reasonably bright school kid and they will explain why building a wind farm inland is a stupid thing to do. D'oh
Nice to see that the Flat Earthers are making a valuable contribution.
[quote][p][bold]jonners123[/bold] wrote: As any reasonably bright school kid and they will explain why building a wind farm inland is a stupid thing to do. D'oh[/p][/quote]Nice to see that the Flat Earthers are making a valuable contribution. Grumpyoldgit99

5:40pm Mon 29 Oct 12

he of one braincell says...

to jonners:
we've gone through decimalisation, so no sixpences, sorry.
What would my misconceptions be that are a danger to kids then?

"The fact is a wind farm built inland is as good as useless" - which corresponds to why there are rather a lot built inland around the world. Something tells me that if they were chocolate-teapot like, this practice would have ceased a while ago.
I didn't deny that wind farms at sea produce far more electricity, I just disagreed that building them inland was stupid, or that kids would believe it stupid.
And to add, although I have researched some / simple facts, my research isn't extensive, but it is enough to make rational & reasoned comments (note: rational). I do also have direct knowledge as well, in that my father had a wind turbine on his land, which was used to 'sell electricity' back to the grid. It was nowhere near the coast strangely... & worked well.

I would also accept that there may well be dangers to humans, if turbines are sited too close to inhabited areas. But as I also accept that I am not qualified enough in these areas, nor have I seen conclusive sensible (non dramatic!) evidence to prove / disprove either way, I don't jump on bandwagons, & make irrational statements. My previous comments (see 'magic', etc) were tongue in cheek, not irrational.
to jonners: we've gone through decimalisation, so no sixpences, sorry. What would my misconceptions be that are a danger to kids then? "The fact is a wind farm built inland is as good as useless" - which corresponds to why there are rather a lot built inland around the world. Something tells me that if they were chocolate-teapot like, this practice would have ceased a while ago. I didn't deny that wind farms at sea produce far more electricity, I just disagreed that building them inland was stupid, or that kids would believe it stupid. And to add, although I have researched some / simple facts, my research isn't extensive, but it is enough to make rational & reasoned comments (note: rational). I do also have direct knowledge as well, in that my father had a wind turbine on his land, which was used to 'sell electricity' back to the grid. It was nowhere near the coast strangely... & worked well. I would also accept that there may well be dangers to humans, if turbines are sited too close to inhabited areas. But as I also accept that I am not qualified enough in these areas, nor have I seen conclusive sensible (non dramatic!) evidence to prove / disprove either way, I don't jump on bandwagons, & make irrational statements. My previous comments (see 'magic', etc) were tongue in cheek, not irrational. he of one braincell

6:19pm Mon 29 Oct 12

jonners123 says...

to Braincell.......

Many countries around the world are much bigger than the UK - if you don't believe me look at an atlas. This is why in these larger countries their inland wind farms are built in the highest places possible where the wind speeds are more consistant - not on flat areas, the least favourable, as is being suggested in Wiltshire!
On a general note - who will be paying for this? I expect it is us, the tax payer, borrowing from countries to fund our green initiative whilst those same countries are knocking up new coal fired power stations every week.
to Braincell....... Many countries around the world are much bigger than the UK - if you don't believe me look at an atlas. This is why in these larger countries their inland wind farms are built in the highest places possible where the wind speeds are more consistant - not on flat areas, the least favourable, as is being suggested in Wiltshire! On a general note - who will be paying for this? I expect it is us, the tax payer, borrowing from countries to fund our green initiative whilst those same countries are knocking up new coal fired power stations every week. jonners123

7:28pm Mon 29 Oct 12

Mrs Donnyfly says...

Wind turbines are touted as ‘green’, yet wind turbines are made by a heavy industrial process. All those moving parts wear out and need replacing. Wind turbines need a whole team of maintenance guys and engineers to keep them working. A constant supply of spares. And as they have moving parts they also need oil, which is what they are supposed to be replacing.

Wind farms are unsightly, noisy, expensive and inefficient. They are subsidised at the expense of the taxpayer in the name of an imagined environmental catastrophe.
Wind turbines are touted as ‘green’, yet wind turbines are made by a heavy industrial process. All those moving parts wear out and need replacing. Wind turbines need a whole team of maintenance guys and engineers to keep them working. A constant supply of spares. And as they have moving parts they also need oil, which is what they are supposed to be replacing. Wind farms are unsightly, noisy, expensive and inefficient. They are subsidised at the expense of the taxpayer in the name of an imagined environmental catastrophe. Mrs Donnyfly

10:30pm Mon 29 Oct 12

Grumpyoldgit99 says...

Mrs Donnyfly wrote:
Wind turbines are touted as ‘green’, yet wind turbines are made by a heavy industrial process. All those moving parts wear out and need replacing. Wind turbines need a whole team of maintenance guys and engineers to keep them working. A constant supply of spares. And as they have moving parts they also need oil, which is what they are supposed to be replacing.

Wind farms are unsightly, noisy, expensive and inefficient. They are subsidised at the expense of the taxpayer in the name of an imagined environmental catastrophe.
Absolutely. Wind turbines are well known for the vast quantities of oil that they consume and huge teams of engineers that are needed to make them work, unlike conventional power stations that run on oofle dust and are maintenance free.
[quote][p][bold]Mrs Donnyfly[/bold] wrote: Wind turbines are touted as ‘green’, yet wind turbines are made by a heavy industrial process. All those moving parts wear out and need replacing. Wind turbines need a whole team of maintenance guys and engineers to keep them working. A constant supply of spares. And as they have moving parts they also need oil, which is what they are supposed to be replacing. Wind farms are unsightly, noisy, expensive and inefficient. They are subsidised at the expense of the taxpayer in the name of an imagined environmental catastrophe.[/p][/quote]Absolutely. Wind turbines are well known for the vast quantities of oil that they consume and huge teams of engineers that are needed to make them work, unlike conventional power stations that run on oofle dust and are maintenance free. Grumpyoldgit99

11:08pm Mon 29 Oct 12

Mrs Donnyfly says...

Grumpyoldgit99 wrote:
Mrs Donnyfly wrote:
Wind turbines are touted as ‘green’, yet wind turbines are made by a heavy industrial process. All those moving parts wear out and need replacing. Wind turbines need a whole team of maintenance guys and engineers to keep them working. A constant supply of spares. And as they have moving parts they also need oil, which is what they are supposed to be replacing.

Wind farms are unsightly, noisy, expensive and inefficient. They are subsidised at the expense of the taxpayer in the name of an imagined environmental catastrophe.
Absolutely. Wind turbines are well known for the vast quantities of oil that they consume and huge teams of engineers that are needed to make them work, unlike conventional power stations that run on oofle dust and are maintenance free.
My point being that wind farms are not as cost efficient as some would have us believe. Billions of pounds of taxpayers money has been spent on a couple of thousand turbines that are subject to the vagaries of the weather and which contribute less electricity than just one medium sized nuclear power station - which, although needing more than oofle dust to run on, costs a couple of billion, and produces about 3% of our total energy needs.

The real reason the Government is pushing for more wind farms, using environmental groups to lobby on their behalf, is that our country is legally obliged by the European Union to generate at least 30% of our electricity from renewable sources by 2020 regardless that nuclear power is cheaper, cleaner and more cost efficient.
[quote][p][bold]Grumpyoldgit99[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mrs Donnyfly[/bold] wrote: Wind turbines are touted as ‘green’, yet wind turbines are made by a heavy industrial process. All those moving parts wear out and need replacing. Wind turbines need a whole team of maintenance guys and engineers to keep them working. A constant supply of spares. And as they have moving parts they also need oil, which is what they are supposed to be replacing. Wind farms are unsightly, noisy, expensive and inefficient. They are subsidised at the expense of the taxpayer in the name of an imagined environmental catastrophe.[/p][/quote]Absolutely. Wind turbines are well known for the vast quantities of oil that they consume and huge teams of engineers that are needed to make them work, unlike conventional power stations that run on oofle dust and are maintenance free.[/p][/quote]My point being that wind farms are not as cost efficient as some would have us believe. Billions of pounds of taxpayers money has been spent on a couple of thousand turbines that are subject to the vagaries of the weather and which contribute less electricity than just one medium sized nuclear power station - which, although needing more than oofle dust to run on, costs a couple of billion, and produces about 3% of our total energy needs. The real reason the Government is pushing for more wind farms, using environmental groups to lobby on their behalf, is that our country is legally obliged by the European Union to generate at least 30% of our electricity from renewable sources by 2020 regardless that nuclear power is cheaper, cleaner and more cost efficient. Mrs Donnyfly

12:05am Tue 30 Oct 12

moonrakin wurzel says...

Wind farms are essentially eco activist totem poles and subsidy sticks - the ludicrous subsidies attract chancers looking to whack 'em up wherever they can get away with it. They even get paid when they have to turn them off because the wind's too strong.... The epidemic of windmills are causing instabilities in power grids across Europe and are causing more damage to base load efficiency than the power that they actually generate when they are going flat out which isn't very often.

The political meddling and cronyism that has skewed the economics of power generation is a scandal. WIND AND SOLAR CAN NEVER EVER PROVIDE ENOUGH POWER TO EVEN RELIABLY RUN MORE THAN A TINY PERCENTAGE OF THE POWER REQUIRED BY THE POPULATION WHEN THEY ACTUALLY NEED IT - if this carries on we will be reduced to huddling over a few smoldering twigs with a Chinese head torch at night.

Meanwhile the utilities continue to use this lunacy as a vehicle to ratchet up prices while wholesale prices remain static or fall....

I think it should be mandatory to fit almost every UK windmill with a large pair of fiberglass tusks so that they more closely resemble what they actually are - white elephants.

I am prohibited by law from connecting an unstable power generator to the electricity grid - yet here we are paying a hefty premium for connecting machines that we know are damaging to the electricity system....

Funny old world
Wind farms are essentially eco activist totem poles and subsidy sticks - the ludicrous subsidies attract chancers looking to whack 'em up wherever they can get away with it. They even get paid when they have to turn them off because the wind's too strong.... The epidemic of windmills are causing instabilities in power grids across Europe and are causing more damage to base load efficiency than the power that they actually generate when they are going flat out which isn't very often. The political meddling and cronyism that has skewed the economics of power generation is a scandal. WIND AND SOLAR CAN NEVER EVER PROVIDE ENOUGH POWER TO EVEN RELIABLY RUN MORE THAN A TINY PERCENTAGE OF THE POWER REQUIRED BY THE POPULATION WHEN THEY ACTUALLY NEED IT - if this carries on we will be reduced to huddling over a few smoldering twigs with a Chinese head torch at night. Meanwhile the utilities continue to use this lunacy as a vehicle to ratchet up prices while wholesale prices remain static or fall.... I think it should be mandatory to fit almost every UK windmill with a large pair of fiberglass tusks so that they more closely resemble what they actually are - white elephants. I am prohibited by law from connecting an unstable power generator to the electricity grid - yet here we are paying a hefty premium for connecting machines that we know are damaging to the electricity system.... Funny old world moonrakin wurzel

12:22am Thu 1 Nov 12

moonrakin wurzel says...

http://www.bishop-hi
ll.net/blog/2012/10/
31/lost-horizons.htm
l
http://www.bishop-hi ll.net/blog/2012/10/ 31/lost-horizons.htm l moonrakin wurzel

3:56am Thu 1 Nov 12

Grumpyoldgit99 says...

moonrakin wurzel wrote:
Wind farms are essentially eco activist totem poles and subsidy sticks - the ludicrous subsidies attract chancers looking to whack 'em up wherever they can get away with it. They even get paid when they have to turn them off because the wind's too strong.... The epidemic of windmills are causing instabilities in power grids across Europe and are causing more damage to base load efficiency than the power that they actually generate when they are going flat out which isn't very often.

The political meddling and cronyism that has skewed the economics of power generation is a scandal. WIND AND SOLAR CAN NEVER EVER PROVIDE ENOUGH POWER TO EVEN RELIABLY RUN MORE THAN A TINY PERCENTAGE OF THE POWER REQUIRED BY THE POPULATION WHEN THEY ACTUALLY NEED IT - if this carries on we will be reduced to huddling over a few smoldering twigs with a Chinese head torch at night.

Meanwhile the utilities continue to use this lunacy as a vehicle to ratchet up prices while wholesale prices remain static or fall....

I think it should be mandatory to fit almost every UK windmill with a large pair of fiberglass tusks so that they more closely resemble what they actually are - white elephants.

I am prohibited by law from connecting an unstable power generator to the electricity grid - yet here we are paying a hefty premium for connecting machines that we know are damaging to the electricity system....

Funny old world
Your statements are getting more and more ludicrous. Can we not have some facts and figures rather than hysterical ramblings?
[quote][p][bold]moonrakin wurzel[/bold] wrote: Wind farms are essentially eco activist totem poles and subsidy sticks - the ludicrous subsidies attract chancers looking to whack 'em up wherever they can get away with it. They even get paid when they have to turn them off because the wind's too strong.... The epidemic of windmills are causing instabilities in power grids across Europe and are causing more damage to base load efficiency than the power that they actually generate when they are going flat out which isn't very often. The political meddling and cronyism that has skewed the economics of power generation is a scandal. WIND AND SOLAR CAN NEVER EVER PROVIDE ENOUGH POWER TO EVEN RELIABLY RUN MORE THAN A TINY PERCENTAGE OF THE POWER REQUIRED BY THE POPULATION WHEN THEY ACTUALLY NEED IT - if this carries on we will be reduced to huddling over a few smoldering twigs with a Chinese head torch at night. Meanwhile the utilities continue to use this lunacy as a vehicle to ratchet up prices while wholesale prices remain static or fall.... I think it should be mandatory to fit almost every UK windmill with a large pair of fiberglass tusks so that they more closely resemble what they actually are - white elephants. I am prohibited by law from connecting an unstable power generator to the electricity grid - yet here we are paying a hefty premium for connecting machines that we know are damaging to the electricity system.... Funny old world[/p][/quote]Your statements are getting more and more ludicrous. Can we not have some facts and figures rather than hysterical ramblings? Grumpyoldgit99

10:05am Thu 1 Nov 12

moonrakin wurzel says...

Grumpyoldgit99
Is there a particular bit you'd care to have clarified or get some assistance understanding ?

Let me try again... windmills and photovoltaics do *not* guarantee electricity when it;s needed and do not "save carbon" - the idea that 20% of electricity can be provided by 2020 using "renewables" is a delusion fueled by wholesale technical ignorance on an epic scale. There are other viable methods of reducing fossil fuel burn which work with the present grid system - but they have not been explored as idiots and shysters are driving the politics. The concentration on the two technologies listed above is a political decision taken by activists - primarily, I suspect because they are both highly visible (totem poles) and not from a pragmatic evaluation of the technical aspects of the situation.

The facts and the figures *are* out there.

Trouble is, - this has nowt to do with engineering or verifiable arithmetic and much to do with the mining of subsidies - and totem poles of course .....
Grumpyoldgit99 Is there a particular bit you'd care to have clarified or get some assistance understanding ? Let me try again... windmills and photovoltaics do *not* guarantee electricity when it;s needed and do not "save carbon" - the idea that 20% of electricity can be provided by 2020 using "renewables" is a delusion fueled by wholesale technical ignorance on an epic scale. There are other viable methods of reducing fossil fuel burn which work with the present grid system - but they have not been explored as idiots and shysters are driving the politics. The concentration on the two technologies listed above is a political decision taken by activists - primarily, I suspect because they are both highly visible (totem poles) and not from a pragmatic evaluation of the technical aspects of the situation. The facts and the figures *are* out there. Trouble is, - this has nowt to do with engineering or verifiable arithmetic and much to do with the mining of subsidies - and totem poles of course ..... moonrakin wurzel

11:39am Thu 1 Nov 12

Grumpyoldgit99 says...

moonrakin wurzel

I do find your use of language interesting. Anyone who does not agree with your world view is automatically labelled a shyster, idiot or activist. You also use words like ignorance and delusion. I am afraid that such an approach, on what is affectively a technical discussion, does not fill me with confidence. On the issue of backup, my understanding is that no power stations run at full capacity and that whatever the form of fuel used, backup is required to ensure that the network is robust.
moonrakin wurzel I do find your use of language interesting. Anyone who does not agree with your world view is automatically labelled a shyster, idiot or activist. You also use words like ignorance and delusion. I am afraid that such an approach, on what is affectively a technical discussion, does not fill me with confidence. On the issue of backup, my understanding is that no power stations run at full capacity and that whatever the form of fuel used, backup is required to ensure that the network is robust. Grumpyoldgit99

2:40pm Thu 1 Nov 12

moonrakin wurzel says...

Grumpyoldgit99
On the subject of capacity and backup I suggest that you look at the video link I posted earlier.

Your understanding is flawed. The aim of power stations is to run at the most efficient (i.e. economical) point and moving away from this is avoided where possible - The present system caters essentially for three tiers of demand. - watch the first part of the video....

Windmills in particular are very destabilizing to the grid with abrupt jumps in power output both up and down - the European experience is that this is enormously destabilizing and highly inefficient. Ask the Danes and the Germans.... (And by association the Norwegians and Czechs who are dealing with the consequences)

To compare solar and wind to the present system is at best misleading and in the worst cases downright lies are wheeled out.

I make no apology for the tone or content of my criticism of what's actually happening at the moment.

This isn't about "world view"- it's about the practicalities of the situation and it's obvious with a little investigation that we're being lied to for a carnival of reasons...

Instead of engaging in the technical discussion you allude to - we are regularly treated to "save the planet" when inconvenient truths are pointed out.... and promoters of saving the planet are presenting themselves as the arbitrary judges of the best way of increasing energy efficiency, and reducing our dependence on finite fossil resources.

It is becoming increasingly clear that politicians, green activists and depressingly many public servants are technically illiterate and fatally prey to exploitation on that basis alone.
Grumpyoldgit99 On the subject of capacity and backup I suggest that you look at the video link I posted earlier. Your understanding is flawed. The aim of power stations is to run at the most efficient (i.e. economical) point and moving away from this is avoided where possible - The present system caters essentially for three tiers of demand. - watch the first part of the video.... Windmills in particular are very destabilizing to the grid with abrupt jumps in power output both up and down - the European experience is that this is enormously destabilizing and highly inefficient. Ask the Danes and the Germans.... (And by association the Norwegians and Czechs who are dealing with the consequences) To compare solar and wind to the present system is at best misleading and in the worst cases downright lies are wheeled out. I make no apology for the tone or content of my criticism of what's actually happening at the moment. This isn't about "world view"- it's about the practicalities of the situation and it's obvious with a little investigation that we're being lied to for a carnival of reasons... Instead of engaging in the technical discussion you allude to - we are regularly treated to "save the planet" when inconvenient truths are pointed out.... and promoters of saving the planet are presenting themselves as the arbitrary judges of the best way of increasing energy efficiency, and reducing our dependence on finite fossil resources. It is becoming increasingly clear that politicians, green activists and depressingly many public servants are technically illiterate and fatally prey to exploitation on that basis alone. moonrakin wurzel

4:28pm Thu 1 Nov 12

DavidP2012 says...

I am delighted that this debate is so lively even if some intemperate language is being used. It is good that people are engaging in issues that affect them directly. In general terms I favour renewable energy and strongly oppose nuclear since no one has yet found any way to deal adequately with the large quantities of waste produced by that technology. Wiltshire Council should have been open about the wind turbines and not slipped an amendment into the plan at the last minute.
I am delighted that this debate is so lively even if some intemperate language is being used. It is good that people are engaging in issues that affect them directly. In general terms I favour renewable energy and strongly oppose nuclear since no one has yet found any way to deal adequately with the large quantities of waste produced by that technology. Wiltshire Council should have been open about the wind turbines and not slipped an amendment into the plan at the last minute. DavidP2012

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree