| Wind Watch is a registered educational charity, founded in 2005. |
Wind turbine plans give no thought to the wildlife
Translate: FROM English | TO English
Translate: FROM English | TO English
More wind turbines are set to crawl across our rural vistas adding to the blight facing North Devon and Cornwall.
Like boils on the Mona Lisa, these behemoths mar the canvas.
Wind farms are proposed near Bulkworthy, Crimp and Wheelers Cross, which, given the proximity to Bradworthy, could result in 11 turbines gesturing obscenely to each other.
Meanwhile, given the appalling government secrecy surrounding the decision to light up 22 approved wind sores at Fullabrook Down, NDC is seeking a judicial review to quash the overall decision.
Rackenford and district face the prospect of 26 giant, whirling reminders that this type of energy production sucks prosperity from the consumer, enriches the developers and impoverishes the landscape with scarcely a thought for ecological damage.
Residents of the Denbrook Vale had anguish thrust upon them by another government Inspector. He approved nine turbines among a multitude of designated wildlife sites choosing to impose unwanted noise upon nearby homes. Perhaps if it were his house the decision would have been different.
Great Torrington will shortly gaze upon three at Darracott. Locals can anticipate the low frequency noise emitted, as can the fish in the adjacent reservoir from which there is no escape.
Wildlife protection laws are circumnavigated. Why have legislation safeguarding all UK bats if a host of wind turbines is permitted alongside their roosts, knowing some of the creatures will be killed?
This is what was decided at both Darracott and Denbrook Inquiries. Will the Crimp Inquiry differ? Not if the developers have their way. They think creation of a small energy supply must take priority. There’s little money in bat preservation, but plenty from Renewable Energy Obligation Certificates.
Birds are equally unimportant. The Fullabrook Inspector decided that, provided an artificial feeding ground was introduced, the golden plover (a European conservation species) could be displaced.
Never mind, they can run the gauntlet of 66 rotor blades when flying from the estuary to their new habitat. What happens if they choose their old feeding grounds because they haven’t read the report?
Wind proponents claim a need for clean energy. The government’s policy platform rests on this premise. Yet no matter how ‘clean’ the supply it can still be used to create pollutants. How ironic that wind turbine energy produces electricity used to smelt materials that release noxious gases that wind turbines are supposed to prevent!
IVAN BUXTON,
Quoditch,
Devon
3 January 2008
This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.
The copyright of this article resides with the author or publisher indicated. As part of its noncommercial educational effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations. Send requests to excerpt, general inquiries, and comments via e-mail.
| Wind Watch relies entirely on User Funding |
 (via Stripe) |
 (via Paypal) |
Share:
[ Short URL: https://wind-watch.org/news/?p=9678 ]
