Home | The Application | Wind Facts | Pictures | Links | Contact Us | Gamesa |  FAQs |  NEWS

Q  Don't we need renewable energy?

A  Yes, but we need a form which will replace fossil fuels effectively, to reduce carbon emissions.  Wind power cannot replace the energy supplies we have at the moment, as it is intermittent.  If the wind is not strong enough, or too strong, power stops.  For this reason a back up supply, either fossil fuel or nuclear, is always running.

Q  Isn't trying windpower better than nothing?

A  Yes, but not at any cost.  At the moment windpower is very highly subsidised, making it very profitable to big businesses.  It is subsidised so the government can try to meet their short term CO2 emission reduction target.  Billions of pounds that could be spent researching an effective long-term solution is being wasted on what amounts to little more than tokenism.

Q  What could work in the long term?

A  Other energy forms worth serious consideration are tidal, wave and biomass.  If every application for a new building carried the requirement for a micro-renewable energy supply (individual turbine, solar panel, biomass generation) the target for carbon emission reduction would almost certainly be met.  In the shorter term, a huge contribution to emission reduction could be made if we all turned appliances off when not in use, and replaced light bulbs with the energy saving tubes readily available.  Stopping the tax breaks on aviation fuel could prevent an enormous amount of carbon emissions, but it would dramatically increase the cost of flights, and tragically, that would be too unpopular for a government to consider. 

Q  Isn't raising objections to wind farms just a bad case of NIMBYism?

A  Until the campaign about the Whinash proposal, many COST members thought wind power seemed a good idea: the turbines have an elegance, wind is free and carbon emissions need cutting.  But then we started to read about global warming and the energy crisis and the sad fact that nothing is currently being done to address these two looming crises effectively.  Investment in effective, constant, renewable energy is essential.  Subsidising windpower is like baling out a sinking ship with a tea cup.  Maybe until the impact is personal we do not have the time or inclination to learn more.

Q  Aren't turbines elegant, or indeed beautiful? 

A  Yes, compared to power stations, and almost any other industrial building they certainly are, but no, not compared to many of the landscapes threatened or already damaged by them.

Q  Shap is already ugly, with quarries, kilns and a motorway on it's doorstep, it's a good place for a wind farm, isn't it?

A  Shap has some industry, and the proposed M6 prevented the area being included in the national park originally.  Much of the land covered by energy park proposals are included in a recent report as suitable for designation as National Park in the near future.  The motorway is at the lowest level in the area and therefore has limited visual impact; the quarries are within the natural roll of the countryside.  Turbines reaching to 118 metres on top of some of the highest land in the area will dominate the scenery around Shap and impact on a corridor of land 25 - 30 km across.  The man-made moving objects will break up the natural landscape for residents and visitors and distract the eye from the splendour and wilderness of Cumbria.