Why? Because they are unsightly, make lots of noise, cannot be depended on to produce power when it is not windy or too windy, what power they produce cannot be stored, and really, they only people who benefit are those that own and work for the companies that run them. The average citizen isn’t seeing a reduction in their power bill: they’re actually seeing their bills go up because they pay for the subsidies on their power bills
(UK Telegraph) David Cameron and George Osborne are to come down firmly on the side of those who object to payments currently worth £400 million a year to companies who produce onshore wind, The Sunday Telegraph has learned.
Despite opposition from the Liberal Democrats, who strongly support more renewable energy, the subsidy regime for onshore wind and solar panels is now firmly expected to be phased out by the end of the decade. (snip)
At present, householders pay for subsidies to renewable energy producers through an extra charge on household electricity bills. (snip)
Chris Heaton-Harris, the Tory MP who organised the letter to the Prime Minister on wind farms, said: “I struggle to see how anyone can argue for a policy that gives huge sums of money to big landowners and the big six energy companies, whilst at the same time it thwarts growth and forces tens of thousands into fuel poverty.
They are also looking to axe subsidies to solar farms. Tax breaks would most likely be kept, however.
Essentially, so much of what is being done now is building “green” energy for the sake of looking like governments are “doing something”, without any thought as to what this will do to costs (which always seem to go up in the Real World) or to the environment. These projects require huge swaths of land, creating an eyesore. They can displace the animals and such that live on the land. Wind farms kill huge numbers of birds, including those that are endangered.
Interestingly, Gaia theory guru James Lovelock has an interesting opinion on energy
Three years ago, he received a heating bill for the winter totalling £6,000. His age means he has to have the heating on full in his poorly insulted home and, with his disabled son, Tom, living in a house next door, his outgoings on fuel rocketed. Damp winters on the edge of Dartmoor were taking their toll, so in recent years he has overwintered in St Louis, his wife’s hometown in Missouri. The experience altered his attitude to the politics and economics of energy. Having already upset many environmentalists – for whom he is something of a guru – with his long-time support for nuclear power and his hatred of wind power (he has a picture of a wind turbine on the wall of his study to remind him how “ugly and useless they are”), he is now coming out in favour of “fracking”, the controversial technique for extracting natural gas from the ground. He argues that, while not perfect, it produces far less CO2 than burning coal: “Gas is almost a give-away in the US at the moment. They’ve gone for fracking in a big way. Let’s be pragmatic and sensible and get Britain to switch everything to methane. We should be going mad on it.”
So, the guy who came up with the Gaia theory supports nuclear power, despises wind farms, and has flipped and now supports fracking and natural gas. Why? The cold dead mackerel of reality smacked him in the face in the form of high energy prices. This is what happens to many Warmists when their beliefs actually start effecting their own lives.