Calder, UK, planners reject wind plants.

http://www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/news/Planners-turn-down-towering-turbines.3806603.jp

Don't they know a nuke plant would be better?

I'm still waiting for them to sell me a backyard nuke plant, when the hell is technology gonna give me what I want? Eh?

Seriously, there needs to be some penalty for the NIMBYs. Refusing to participate or allow renewable energy solutions due to the view or impact on lifestyle should result in some commensurate discomfort. This must include the gentry

http://www.bbc.co.uk/cumbria/content/articles/2006/10/16/sellafield_50years_feature.shtml

It is obvious that a nuke plant would be better, as is widely reported in the scientific literature...

...Less risk, less cost, internal and external, more reliability.

Calder Hall (Cumbria) is about 75 miles from Calderdale (Yorkshire). Just FYI... :)

I live closer to nuclear plants than the citizens of Calder.

Where is my backyard nuke plant? I can put up solar, wind and whatever, but I can't get a nuke plant of my own? Why not?

... is that they don't manufacture nuclear plants that generate as little
electricity as your "backyard" solar, wind or whatever.

Now if you were in the market for 1GW continuous for your house (i.e., not
only having the space for the wind/solar farm but the money for it AND the
energy storage systems to keep it *continuous*) ... I'd suggest you start
conserving energy instead of wasting so much!

:P

On a serious note, it's really a case of "horses for courses".

Distributed solutions (like solar thermal, solar PV, wind, GSHL, small-scale
hydro, methane digesters, ...) are exactly what you *should* be putting in
your back yard (or on your roof, under your garden, in your river, etc.).
These will reduce or remove the demand on the national grid (=electricity
generated "somewhere else" causing pollution "somewhere else") from your
house and that is a good thing indeed (as we both know).

The remaining demand needs to be generated in as efficient and non-polluting
fashion as possible - hence big (GW) plants rather than small (kW) ones.

:hi:

.
.
.



The proposed mills are over 400ft tall,

taller than anything else in the area

I'm all for wind power,

In the right place.

Thousands of new offshore wind turbines could power every home in Britain by 2020, the government announced today, as it set out new wind-energy plans.

John Hutton, the business secretary, proposed the creation of up to 33 gigawatts of offshore wind energy at a European energy industry conference in Berlin.

He called for companies to invest in large-scale farm development to generate enough power for up to 25m homes in the next 12 years.

That would require around 7,000 turbines, or one every half-mile, Hutton told the BBC's Politics Show yesterday.

He admitted that "tough choices" would have to be made if the UK wanted to respond to climate change and become more self-sufficient.

"It is going to change our coastline, yes, for sure," he said.

"There is no way of making the shift to a low-carbon technology without there being change and for that change to be visible and evident to people.

"We've got a choice as a country about, you know, whether we rise to this challenge of change or whether we stick our head in the sand and hope it's going to go away."

The expansion will be subject to a strategic environmental assessment, which Hutton also launched today.

Currently just 2% of Britain's power comes from renewable energy sources, and wind provides less than half a gigawatt...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/dec/10/politics