Here is the 25 minute version of Europe’s Ill Wind.

To watch the video fullscreen, press the button in the player above.

Please feel free to add comments below. Comments are moderated. Criticism is welcome, but will only be published if it is polite, and relates to the matters raised in the film.

68 Responses to “Europe’s Ill Wind”

  1. Thank you for bringing this issue to the general public, successfully bypassing the mainstream media yet again. Wind “farms” are all about subsidies for the manufacturers, most of whom are now not in Europe anymore but rather in China and India. Not a single conventional power station can be shut no matter how many wind “farms” are constructed. Carbon dioxide has NIL effect upon our climate so the sole purpose of these inefficient machines is pointless to start off with. Not even carbon dioxide can “trap” heat and at the same time release it to warm the earth. It can either do the trapping or the heating, but not both at the same time … if only! And to know for a fact that heating the earth by sending its own energy back to itself is not possible, the entire issue is one of pseudo-science. Flat earthers and phlogiston believers take note: despite most of the world having had the most elaborate formulae to “prove” both issues, reality did not cooperate. Same with carbon dioxide.

  2. Thank you so much for creating this video. It helps us to explain the problems of these inudstrial monsters to the residents of our villages. The proximity to peoples homes, the noise issues and Wind turbine syndrome should not be ignored. A brilliant video!

  3. Michael JR Jose says:

    Godfrey Bloom, UKIP MEP, has produced a hit. The launch of the video and meeting in London on Tuesday last week was a success. The Daily Express and the Readers’ Digest were both there. Representatives from France, Denmark, and Sweden came. The crassness of EU targets and the incompetence and mendacity of UK politicians is clear as never before. Businesses are bribed with huge guaranteed subsidies (by any name, whether truthful or fancy new terms), and can be expected to lie and prevaricate in tune with the government. Let us vote against them, let us do what we can to blacklist the energy companies. Fight back.

  4. simon blackwood says:

    Another factor that doesn’t appear to be covered in this film is the actual, recorded efficiency of wind turbines. In the Scottish Borders figures have been published and the results are well below claimed capacity for existing wind “farms”. Not surprising, the Borders are relatively low lying in comparison to most other regions of Scotland and certainly far less windy than the coastal areas.
    Even so, the applications and proposals are on the increase.
    The fact that the cost of grid connection in the Borders is the 2nd lowest in Scotland hasn’t yet been taken into account by our government even though it is obviously a big financial carrot for the developers. So there is a known relationship between profitability and purpose that has no “green” credentials whatsoever. This should be brought out in more detail throughout the UK.

  5. Nathan Gill says:

    Wind Farms are a blot on the landscape, and if we were not paying for them out of our taxes and utility bills, no power company would build a single one! It is madness that we are having to suffer these white elephants just so Britain can meet its EU CO2 emmission targets.

  6. G says:

    — abuse deleted —

    [ADMIN: We've said above 'criticism is welcome, but will only be published if it is polite, and relates to the matters raised in the film.' So it must say something about the intelligence of the person who didn't like the film that they couldn't answer any of the points it raised.]

  7. Paul says:

    The proposed wind farm for our city is a complete disaster in the making. We are doing our best to stop it and will link your excellent film to our site, http://www.palmerston-north.info

  8. A super film but please do something about the poor camera work in any follow up.

    [ADMIN: The tiny budget and hurried production schedule didn't allow for a camera crew and expensive post-production. I apologise for the distracting camera work, it will be remedied shortly and put online in this film's place. Please don't let it distract you from the good arguments made by the participants of the film. ]

  9. Alex says:

    An honest and succinct discussion of the economics would benefit this video’s arguments.

    [ADMIN: The economics are explored in the section about the Renewable's Obligation system. It was not possible to go further into depth about this in a 23 minute video without losing some of the other valuable points made in it. We will be providing more depth on this issue on this site in due course.]

  10. rcs says:

    I thought that Huhne’s remark about becoming an energy exporter was very interesting. Does he really believe this?

    The use of wind farms large scale is an engineering fantasy.

    I cannot understand why politicians are unable to see the very basic flaws in the wind turbine narrative. I can only assume that they are driven by the complete lunacy arising from the EU.

    When we have major power shortfalls, as we will on the present course, who will be blamed? The finger should be firmly pointed at the EU commission but I expect that the population will get the blame for wanting to use energy, the biggest driver of civilisation, wealth and propserity.

    [ADMIN: Huhne does appear to be serious. He's made the same point several times. His calculation is doubly misleading, because although he talks about sufficient energy being produced by wind farms for 30-something million homes, this does not take into account the need to power schools, hospitals, factories, and transport. ]

  11. [...] Here is the 25 minute version of ‘Europe’s Ill Wind.’ [...]

  12. Billyb says:

    You can’t have it both ways – if wind turbines don’t produce much electricity then we aren’t subsidising them by much are we? You get one ROC per MWh produced (unless you are new offshore wind when you get two)

    Before ROCs came along there was the NFFO which subsidised the nuclear industry. Way before that the nuclear industry was secretly subsidised due to its connections with our nuclear weapons programs. Look up how many billions are allocated to nuclear waste disposal and the NDA (wikipedia had it at 73.6billion in 2008)
    How many subsidies went into the coal and gas industries?

    Lets have some balance in this debate !

    Bloomberg even carries a report that wind is reducing power bills http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-04-22/windmill-boom-curbs-electric-power-prices.html

    not so black and white is it?

    [ADMIN: As the film explains, the more wind turbines you have on the grid, the greater the problems you have, and the more backup you need. So consumers have to pay once for the expensive energy from the turbine through de facto subsidies, and again for the back up. The external costs are the problems it causes for people who live near them.

    So to claim that 'if wind turbines don't produce much electricity then we aren't subsidising them by much' misses the point that the subsidies exist to make wind competitive with conventional means of generating. The more wind on the grid, the more the failure, the more the expense. But wind isn't allowed to fail. The government is committed to more, much more, wind energy, and this can only mean more and more costs. It really is black and white, and the Bloomberg report is sheer fantasy. Wind energy costs more to produce per unit than than conventionally-produced energy. It cannot ever reduce energy bills, therefore. The fact that energy is cheaper during the night -- the claims in the report that Germans are paid to keep the lights on -- on serves to demonstrate that wind is particularly useless. It produces electricity when it is not needed. This surplus energy gets included in the measurement of wind farms' load factors.

    The comparison to the costs of nuclear energy is also misconceived. We should firstly question the authority of any statistics from wikipedia, and we should remember that nuclear has become increasingly efficient and safer technology, with much more room ahead. Meanwhile, the potential of wind has a much lower ceiling. Most of the costs associated with it are the consequence of early generator designs, and this is worsened by the decision to abandon the nuclear energy programme made by previous governments.

    If the price of oil, gas and coal is subsidised, perhaps you could tell us how much it is subsidised by. It would be interesting to see what the subsidy per MWh is, for each of the fuel types. ]

  13. Billyb says:

    And I agree with ADMIN (10) – “powering so many homes” is a ludicrous measure! spell it out in kWh or MWh – we are grown up enough to figure it out !

  14. Billyb says:

    The Wiki figure comes direct from the NDA. and the figure always rises at every revision. I wish I did have a decent figure for UK direct and indirect subsidies to the other energy industries, but so far I have failed to find them. This international study gives a clue perhaps http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/aug/03/fossil-fuel-subsidies-renewables and indicates how complex it all is.

    [ADMIN: But that report lacks a sense of proportion. If we exclude the burning of wood (13% of global energy consumption) and hydro (3.2%) from the category of 'renewable', we can see that renewable sources (3%) account for far less of global consumption than their 'non-renewable' counterparts (80.8%). So the complaint that the fossil fuel sector receives 'ten times' the subsidy forgets that it is at least that proportion larger, and then some. On this basis, it seems that the renewable sector receive a disproportionate subsidy. Nobody in the film was defending the principle of subsidies -- which as often as not are intended to achieve strategic aims, anyhow. However, the fact is that investment in conventional resource extraction simply yield much better results than investment in renewables.]

    You say “Wind energy costs more to produce per unit than than conventionally-produced energy. It cannot ever reduce energy bills, therefore. ” – faulty logic. Wind’s fuel costs are NIL – its all in the capital cost of building the things.. Imagine, over the 25-year life of a new wind turbine, that gas / coal prices double or treble or worse. Wind’s costs stay the same. As we saw a couple of years ago when this happens, 100% green (mainly wind) suppliers like Good Energy reaped a windfall bonus by charging the uplifted market price whilst not suffering any increase in costs. I would agree that this is a weakness of the ROC system in that there is/was no corresponding clawback of the subsidy. As more wind comes on the system, the ability to pass on fuel price rises will diminish… and thus reduce energy bills if fuel prices shoot up. With the rising competition for resources from the far east I’d say that this was quite likely. Our “dash for gas” (approaching 45-50% of generation) is a bit of a hostage to fortune, and will depend on the goodwill of the Russians. I can see a good argument for nuclear and feel it is shame that we have flogged off all our nukes to foreigners, whilst we pick up the cleanup costs (more subsidies!). Wind can only exist in a mixed bag of generation technologies and there’s a way to go yet. I think Huhne is a bit bonkers imagining that we can export wind energy though.

    [ADMIN: Wind is not free of ongoing costs. Turbines require maintenance. They are distributed over wide, remote areas, which makes them difficult to mend. Whereas a power station such as Drax is in one place, and serves 7% of the entire UK, the equivalent supply of wind turbines would occupy a vast stretch of land, making maintenance comparatively expensive. Furthermore, wind requires constant backup of 90% of installed capacity, and in order to preserve grid stability, conventional power stations need to be kept in spinning reserve, burning 7.8 tonnes of CO2 (in the case of a coal powered wind balancing partner) per gWh produced by wind turbines, as opposed to 10.8 tonnes, whilst it is in production. That is what makes it possible to sell cheap, surplus electricity to consumers in Germany at night - it is actually energy from coal or nuclear which is being sold, not wind. So in the cost of the wind energy, we must include the cost of goal and gas that it is used to stabilise the grid, as well as the infrastructure that provides it. In other words, for every 10 turbines you build, you need to build the conventional equivalent of 9 turbines as back up, and those equivalent turbines must be spinning (i.e. burning fossil fuels) all the while, producing CO2. So it isn't 'faulty logic' at all to suggest that wind cannot possibly be cheaper than conventional energy production. ]

  15. Billyb says:

    And google usually know what they are doing http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/oct/12/google-invests-wind-power

    :-)

    [ADMIN: The film makes the point that wind is a good investment because of the subsidies. That's why the mafia got involved. They know a fast buck when they see one, too. ]

  16. [...] But for now, wind farms: Europe’s Ill Wind. [...]

  17. ACL says:

    I live in the United States. Thank goodness we have been able to halt the Democrats’ terrible Cap And Trade legislation which includes penalties for old energy industries and subsidies for new ones, and we are looking forward to a change in the majority party during the new elections this November.

  18. [...] To view the video, click here. [...]

  19. [...] short film “Europe’s Ill Wind” is from the UK and highlights the problems with wind power [...]

  20. Jean Demesure says:

    Very informative film, thank you!
    [ADMIN: no need to discuss the camera work further, thank you.]

  21. [...] Europe’s Ill Wind » Europes Ill Wind. [...]

  22. Sirs:

    Your film was good, but did not go far enough. The fundamental issue is that wind energy (or ANY new source of power) should not be mandated on the public unless it has been subjected to the Scientific Method.

    To date, it has NOT been.

    See Energy Presentation”> for the prespective of an independent scientist.

  23. Sorry: an html error is in the prior post. It should be:

    http://www.EnergyPresentation.Info

  24. TheTempestSpark says:

    Hi, I think people need to see this Documentary, May I re-post it?
    Thankyou.

    [ADMIN: Yes please. Don't forget to tell us where you post it.]

  25. Billyb says:

    You say “wind requires constant backup of 90% of installed capacity,”

    Installed wind capacity as of today is 5080 MW. Please identify the 90% “constant backup” that you allocate to wind.

    [ADMIN: You really need to pay closer attention to what we say, and we we say others say. The passage you're referring to is this:

    "The wind industry itself admits that ’power stations with capacities equal to 90% of the installed wind power capacity must be permanently online in order to guarantee power supply at all times’.[4] “

    If you follow the citation, you will find that its from EON NETZ 2005 Wind Report.

    If you want to criticise what is said here or in the film, you are most welcome to. But you’re straying very close to pointless nit-pickery here, and it’s time to ask if it is worthwhile.]

  26. Billyb says:

    8< --- SNIP --->8
    [ADMIN: Billyb, if you can't be polite, I'm not going to publish your comments. Those are the rules. ]

  27. @ Billyb [27]
    You can find it also in a study of the German Physical Society “Electricity: Key to a sustainable and climate-friendly energy system” (http://www.dpg-physik.de/veroeffentlichung/broschueren/studien/energie_2010.pdf).
    These 90% are in 2010. This backup will raise up to 97% in 2030. (Page 110-111)

  28. Carrie says:

    Great film! I have shared with my fb friends.

    But may I also add:
    This film doesn’t take into account the huge amount of energy they take to make and install in the first place, let alone the replacing of them every 15 years or so.
    They also, because of our very gusty wind, have problems with metal fatigue. The turbines placed in the sea along the Essex coast have, after just a year or so, started showing problems with sea water erosion. These problems are very costly to put right both in monetary terms and also energy wastage terms.
    They also cost the lives of birds especially birds of prey and there are some studies showing that grazing animals, within the vicinity of these turbines, show stress responses to the noise these machines make. Surely this is a concern both for the animals themselves but also for the humans consuming them. Obviously this is also a concern for wild animals in the vicinity.

    When I look at them I am reminded of the alien machines from the War of the Worlds and like their counterparts these turbines will soon be taking over our beautiful countryside; it’s a national disgrace!

    Please join our facebook group:

    http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=107337052636523

    Repeal Climate Change Act 2008 Campaign

    Thank you.

    [ADMIN: Thanks Carrie. It was not possible at all to cover all the problems of wind energy, nor was it possible to cover any issue to the depth that would do justice to the participants arguments in a film this long. We intended it as a starting point, leading to further discussions. So please do keep us informed about anything you feel is relevant either here in the comments sections, or through the contact form.]

  29. nofreewind says:

    >t would be interesting to see what the subsidy per MWh is, for each of the fuel types.
    for US energy subsidies, Look here, page 16
    http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/subsidy2/pdf/chap5.pdf
    Wind and Solar subsidies are out of sight compared to traditional energy sources.
    Wind/Solar is subsidized 15x more than nuclear
    50x more than coal
    100x more than nat gas
    per unit of production.
    thanks for the great film!

  30. Munky says:

    It is very pleasing to see the myth of wind power finally being exposed.

    I can’t get my head round the incredible scale of the scandal of climate change and CO2. It is the largest transfer of public wealth to private pockets since the banking bailouts. It is a creeping death for our society and our economy that is doing nothing for the environment or the growing energy problem.

    There was a time when our politicians would at least pay lip service to representing us, the electorate. Now we are ignored and treated with contempt.

    Keep up the good work. Never forget; information is the real power.

  31. David Morrow says:

    Hello I have started a local face book page for powys, please join the page and send important information about how to oppose these wind projects, we are all aware that wind power is not legitimate, the important information that is most needed on the page is effective methods of resistance, please help the link is below.
    http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#!/pages/Residents-of-Powys-against-damaging-wind-farm-over-development/166914229989858

  32. Billyb says:

    You say “wind is particularly useless. It produces electricity when it is not needed.”

    Really? Here is my analysis of the last 3 month’s data.
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/39349403/WindGenTOD

    (re 29. Sorry Marco – my O-level German isn’t up to it )

  33. David Simmons says:

    Good film – but it doesn’t go nearly far enough. There is a study in The Netherlands (sadly I’ve lost the link) which shows, quite conclusively, and without any jiggery-pokery, that wind farms actually INCREASE CO2 emissions, due to the way which the backup generating capacity has to be managed to cope with the erratic and occasional output from these monstrosities. I thought the object of the exercise was to REDUCE CO2 – the above study does not, of course, take into account the huge amount of CO2 released in the manufacture and installation of wind turbines.
    How is it that the politicians are so blinkered when this subject is discussed..? Are they SO deeply in the pockets of the developers and manufacturers that they cannot see the damaqge they are doing to the countryside – to no good end..? Not to be forgotten of course, is the additional infrastructure (roads; transmission lines and pylons; substations, etc) which is required to carry the output from remotely-located wind farms to join up with the existing national grid.
    Very interesting to get the opinions of the Danish contributors – a country which is held up to be a sort of wind farm utopia – seems that’s a myth as well.

    [ADMIN: The film simply isn't long enough to go into the necessary depth on any of the issues. If you do manage to find the link, please do send it to us, or post the link here.]

  34. Neil says:

    Hi there, [ADMIN: fair's fair... let's be civil as we can be to BilllyB]. Anyone who’s first port of call for proof is wikipedia has already lost the argument.He would be well advised to read the honest factual DTI energy digest and the Eon (the main German grid operator so they know the truth) publised data on wind farms. He would then see the real stupidity of building wind turbines. Even the government, who would dearly love to, can not use the lies and false pseudo facts publised by the green zealots. What is so interseting is the lack of actual data from National Grid about the amount of fuel wasted providing back up for wind, we have the Eon Netz numbers but no empirical figures, maybe its even worse than we think! Thanks you for a well balanced and well moderated feedback page. PS well done in making it to the Icecap.us website, Your readers can see what the greens realy want to do to those of us who do not toe the line, look at the item on the 10.10 web site, they blow up non believers!!!

  35. Eddie Freeman says:

    Developers are planning to build the second biggest wind farm in Scotland in our unspoilt glen north of Loch Ness. About 25 500ft pylons are planned, one three fields away from my house and many others and all of them will be ‘right in our face’. How will I ever be able to sell & move house? There is no chance of any compensation. Our biggest chance of getting it rejected is if it disturbs or kills red squirrels, bats, rare birds or (say) rare wild orchids. The population are simply not important. For anyone to propose these acts of vandalism as ‘green’ is absurd. The film brings home important points. If the cameraman had stopped playing with the focus and zoom controls, it would have been easier to watch.

  36. Jonathan says:

    If any of you had read Taleb’s “Black Swan” you would understand why it is pointless to try and change the minds of politicians and “Greens” and “green” scientists regarding their beliefs about wind power etc. That plus the remarks made in articles such as here: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100058598/global-warming-fraud-the-tide-begins-to-turn/
    show that those of us who have open minds regarding this issure have a “huge hill to climb” in order to make the general public aware of how they are being fooled.

  37. Billyb says:

    Neil says “What is so interseting is the lack of actual data from National Grid about the amount of fuel wasted providing back up for wind,”

    Maybe that is because the answer is zero. A counter argument is that wind generation is so small as to appear as noise or random fluctuations at present. This will clearly change as more wind is added to the system, but when and by how much? I have always found the “spinning reserve” arguments against wind to be very confused and totally divorced from any UK facts or evidence, and I have been following the wind debate for 5 or 6 years now. Surely REF could have gathered some evidence by now?

  38. John Bolton says:

    The pastoral landscape runs deeply through our nations cultural DNA. Elgar, Vaughn Williams, Wordsworth, Constable, and Turner, to name just a few, express deep emotions through the subtle beauty of our unique island home. To face the prospect of this resource being so unnecessarily and indiscriminately vandalised by these inhuman industrial monsters is totally and utterly soul destroying.

  39. Riman says:

    I guess this is the summary of this farce; wind energy is the new politics! I have my doubts about all this global warming, and how to mitigate its effects. I now see it is all about money.

  40. Jonathan says:

    Billyb, for you not to understand why there has to be backup power to wind and solar in order to stabilize the Grid casts doubt on all your other statements. The only other energy source able to kick in rapidly to make up for any drop-off in wind power levels is a peaking natural gas turbine, many of which are being built/used for that purpose in North America.

  41. [...] UPDATE: The video below is by a group of British anti-wind-farm activists, telling the tale from their point of view on the website: Europe’s Ill Wind [...]

  42. Billyb says:

    Jonathan – there has to be backup for all generators and its already in place. AFAIK no extra has been added as a result of wind on the system – wind shares what is already there (I’m open to points of information on this – anyone?). It can do this because of the relatively small amount of wind power on the system compared to other generators and the spare capacity already in the system.

    The anti-wind argument has always been expressed as if every MW of wind capacity has to have its own MW of dedicated backup (or 97% or whatever). AND that these are wasting fuel as if they were at full throttle all the time. I don’t think so. The fuel efficiency of these thermal stations may vary at different loads, but lets have some information on this and how much extra inefficiency can be attributed to wind. Has anyone done the work?

    And its not just gas – hydro, pumped storage and coal stations can all be ramped up at short notice.

    In fact every morning over 10GW of these reserve stations come onstream between about 6 a.m. and 8 a.m. That is some ramp rate. I have done some analysis of wind’s +ve and -ve ramp rates and wind comes nowhere near that rate – less than a tenth. So I can well understand the Grid’s thinking it isn’t a problem.

    However if Huhne is serious about expanding wind substantially then there will come a problem at some time – lets debate where that point is. But not with armwaving. ISTR that the Grid don’t think any amount of wind on the system is a problem – just an extra cost.

    The real issue for the country’s energy policy is the forthcoming retirement of large coal and nuclear baseload stations.

  43. Billyb says:

    Jonathan – I have read Black Swan and appear to have missed the reference to politicians beliefs in wind power – would you be so kinds as to let me know the page number. Thanks.

  44. Jonathan says:

    It was not a reference to politicians beliefs in windpower but a reference to trying to change anyone’s mind once it has come to a conclusion. Contrary evidence is ignored, supporting evidence is emphasized. It is a human trait that is very difficult to overcome even if one is aware of it. (I think it is around chapter 10. It is hard for me to look it up as I only have the book in digital audio form) Scientists are supposed to be open to all facts, especially those that contradict their beliefs or positions and consequently engage in honest open discussion to try to resolve differences/discover the truth. The problem is also that many people have hidden agendas that they mask behind their stated positions. Some “greens” support AGW because they feel it is the only way they can stop the depletion of finite resources and/or stop the polution of the environment, no matter what the current human cost is. Whether that is right or wrong only time will tell. Others will do enything to ensure that noone will take away their “golden ricebowl”.

  45. Tom says:

    I would have liked to make a response to Carrie ( number 29 on list) but thread does not have that feature.

    Carrie, wind turbines repay the energy (and Carbon) used to manufacture, maintain, install and operate in on average, less than year, often only a few months in places with a greater wind resource. It is impossible to say they use a “huge amount of energy they take to make and install in the first place.” In addition no you don’t have to replace in 15 years, its closer to 25 years. This stacked against almost all other energy generation technologies is good (considering how easy and quick they are to build and install, in terms of time and energy).

    Furthermore, turbines do NOT kill a lot of birds. There have been several unfortunate cases that turbines have been placed in migration paths of birds and they have killed many. BUT stacked against other electricity generation technologies they kill VERY few animals.

    However I believe it is not even worth thinking about bird deaths (since they are so very negligible in the first place). Have you ever considered human deaths? A little more important.

    you then go on to talk about animals being disturbed by them. I don’t know where you live but I live in the countryside in Cornwall and I know personally farmers that install turbines on their land with livestock on them…… the animals don’t care. I know cattle farmers, farmers with horses etc etc and I have seen the animals happily grazing, only to turn up their head as I walk by or a car drives past, because despite being under turbines, me and the cars are the only things changing that they check out.

    I then saw on your facebook your facebook you are part of a group that does not believe in climate change as a result of humans. This is ridiculous and I urge you to back that up with any real logic or data.

    Furthermore, it really does not matter about climate change when talking about renewable energy. Other arguments are far greater to back the need for renewable energy:

    1. Security of Supply. We import the vast majority of the fuel and energy we use today from Russia, Middle East and Australia. This needs to change and you cannot argue against this.

    2. The Economy. If our country and it’s peoples embraced renewable energy it would greatly benefit our economy and general national well-being. Countries that have embraced renewables have seen huge growth in new and existing industry.

    3. Jobs. Renewable energy has the potential to create MILLIONS of jobs in our country, not just up to 2050 when we might reach our targets, but far far far into the future.

    4. Local environment. No billowing clouds of smoke into the sky and sitting in valleys, no smog, cleaner air in cities and rural locations, less human deaths as well as fewer animal deaths etc etc etc

    5. No nuclear waste with renewables. As well as, contrary to popular belief nuclear is not endless and if we begin to use it more heavily in the next few years, it will run out in 100 years or less.

    6. No particulate matter

    7. Non renewable sources ARE running out. There is not avoiding or denying it. Unless we embrace renewable energy in the future (even as close as 50 to 100 years) there will not be enough electricity for what we need resulting in blackouts. More so as other non renewable sources of fuel become more scarce they will become very expensive.

    I welcome any argument against anything I have said. Wind Power is needed as an overall contribution the the future of our energy mix. We have the most wind in Europe yet are not using it, and have far far less installed wind power (and renewables) than other countries.

    There is no avoiding we need renewable energy and wind is a part of it.

  46. F says:

    This is a very serious issue that has an effect on everyone. I am most concerned about the health effects suffered by people living near turbines, substations and pylons. Unfortunately Wind Turbine Syndrome seems to be dismissed by people.

    I wish wind power was more viable and didn’t have these associated problems. Linked are issues with substations that are needed to transfer power from wind turbines, and then giant pylons to take the power to the grid. None of these structures should not be built near to anyone’s home or workplace, and ruin beautiful rural landscapes and local economies.

    Please visit and register at our website http://notritonknollsubstation.webs.com/ and ‘like’ our facebook page to show your support.

  47. Billyb says:

    F – I’m afraid “Wind Turbine Syndrome” has been used as an exemplar of “Bad Science” by Ben Goldacre (author of the book on the subject)

    http://badscience.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=10816 or just google the term.

    [ADMIN: the link doesn't seem to work. Could you post again, and I'll replace it. The link itself appears to lead to a discussion fora, not Dr. Goldacre's views on WTS. On the subject of WTS, it may well be premature to claim that there's a specific problem which can be identified as WTS, with a specific cause. But by the same token, it is premature to disregard the phenomena that people seem to connect to wind turbines, simply on the basis that the WTS hypothesis is premature. The facts are that turbines make noise and that people find that noise disturbing, and so they claim that the methods for measuring wind noise are inadequate. We know also that lack of sleep causes many health problems. We can question the need to group that effect and other, less well understood phenomena under a 'syndrome', but we cannot rule out the claims which Pierepont identifies as belonging to WTS. ]

  48. IainB says:

    It’s all really about about making money of course – Wind power is the new industry replacing the farming industry as a money spinner – but (beyond the politics) don’t be so short termist as to ignore what’s really happening, generating funds to develop the renewable technologies BEYOND wind power. Wind power is proven to give a return, other renewables can’t yet do that BUT they will within a few decades if funds from wind farms are properly invested.
    OK the older people in the film may not ever see this happen so I can understand their sceptical viewpoint to some degree.

  49. Derek Clark MEP says:

    As the co-presenter of the DVD I am delighted, but not surprised at the response to those who have seen the film. To those who want some facts and figures you will find an outline in the supporting pamphlet which I co-authored with Godfrey Bloom, MEP. My contribution was the technical data which lends itself more as written information than to viewing on a DVD.

    If you would like a copy of the pamphlet please contact my office by email; mep@derekclarkmep.org.uk

    Derek Clark MEP (East Midlands)

    [ADMIN: The FAQ is also reprinted above, under the WIND FAQ menu. ]

  50. C. Hanssen says:

    Some of the objections in the video against windmills are exagerated. Whether a windmill disturbs a landscape or not, is a subjective opinion. Speaking for myself, I don’t find them disturbing but am always happy to see them knowing that clean energy is produced. The same can be said about the sound of a windmill, the perception of which is again subjective. I for myself, rather like to hear the reassuring sound of a windmill than the noise of a highway.

    [ADMIN: If there is a subjective component to the complaints against windfarms, then how can they be 'exaggerated'? It's great that you have a preference for wind turbines and that they make you happy. Maybe, then, you could offer to buy a house near a windfarm from somebody who would doesn't share your preference, at the full market rate. After all, house prices, too, reflect 'subjective' values.]

  51. Anonymous says:

    Hey, I can’t view your site properly within Opera, I actually hope you look into fixing this.

    [ADMIN: Could you use the contact form to explain the problem to us. Thanks.]

  52. denis says:

    There is a lot of erroneous information about the energy return on energy invested—-EROEI—of wind turbines, such as the energy used in construction and deployment can be generated in less than a year of a wind turbine`s life.
    This a most complicated subject, and rather than rehash what has already been written, I would urge anyone interested in this topic to go to theoildrum.com, and look up the recent articles written by Jeff Vail on the calculation of EROEI with particular reference to wind and solar alternative energy systems.
    He shows quite convincingly, that it will probably take up to 8 years if not more, to repay the energy debt incurred in the birth of a wind turbine, and the energy produced is not of the same quality as that which went into its construction ie wind turbines only produce electricity when the wind deems it to, not when the consumer necessariy wants it, and it is virtually impossible to make the liquid fuels that were used in the construction and deployment of the wind turbine, by the electricity coming from it.
    The bottom line here is that wind turbines will never be able to put out enough energy to replace themselves when they wear out, and give any meaningful electricity to the grid as well, and in 25 years
    time when we have squandered all our cheap fossil fuel on building crazy energy producing systems such as wind turbines, we will not have enough fossil fuel left to build those energy systems that could last a lot lot longer than 25 years and which could give us the energy to build the next generation of power stations such as fusion, that may be able to power our world into the long future.
    Nuclear power has to be adopted now, to give us our transition energy supply for the next 80 years.

  53. Phil Richards says:

    We were threatened with an offshore turbine installation of some 50 units off Porthcawl, here in S Wales. The concrete base on the seabed was of a similar size to a football pitch for each turbine. What would be the CO2 cost of producing the Concrete alone for such a scheme, what would the turbines have to produce before they became carbon Neutral? and effectively started to SAVE emissions. Eon finally decided the scheme was not viable and have abandoned it, together with a test tower on the sandbanks which is a lone, forlorn reminder of the folly that could have been.
    50 turbines on a still day produce absolutely NOTHING we have many still days, believe it or not! when they turn they become death traps to Seabirds, the installation would have been next to a wildlife reserve and an SSS.I They have to reach an optimum speed to produce! and it is a fact that output from these towers is some 15-20% of capacity.

  54. Patti says:

    Living on Lake Huron in Ontario we are now dealing with this issue. Despite the fact that no health studies have been done by our government ministries we have been inundated with Wind Farms with minimal setbacks (500 meters at most) and no true forram for public feedback. Municipal governments have had to forfeit all input to the provincial government with no room for local interests. I have seen the health affectson too many people to count, I have watched farmers vacate their ancestral homes to escape the turbines’ low frequency sound and stray voltage. I have seen wind companies take tax payer dollars and pile away green credits allowing them to continue destroying the environment with other projects, such as the tar sands. And worse I have seen a government which I believed to be for the people become deaf to all popular concerns. This is not the country I came to in the 70′s when I left the U.S. for a cleaner, calmer lifestyle. Oh Canada – what happened?

  55. John says:

    OK, put all wind turbines offshore and that answers many of these emotional pleas. As for wind reliability, surely in the decades ahead the wind is going to be more reliable than oil and uranium supplies. As for economics and subsidies, at least the money spent on wind energy need not be a drain on our foreign reserves. If we build up a wind energy industry of our own the money can stay at home. As for excess energy on very windy days let’s develop fuel cells to store this power. On quiet days let’s fall back on fuel cells. Sure, every technology has its detractors and reasonably so but this video is so far from balanced and objective as to be worthless. Don’t kill this technology in its infancy. The oil will run out and the atmosphere can choke with pollutants. Don’t listen to all this bias and bile.

    [ADMIN: If the technology existed to make fuel cells that could store the electricity from turbines, don't you think they would have already been deployed? Electricity storage is very expensive, and how much would you need? Enough for an hour without wind? A day, a week? On the point about developing a domestic wind energy industry, this too is not something that is as easy to merely pull out of a hat, as you seem to think. Finally, on the point about 'balance'. The film does not pretend to weigh up the pros and cons. It is quite clear about it being a film which presents the arguments that have been ignored by the government as 'antisocial', and 'NIMBYism'. Did you demand 'balance' from Ed Miliband? Did you criticise him for his 'bile'? I rather think you didn't.]

  56. Phil Epp says:

    Thanks for your efforts. Excellent film. Phil Epp

  57. marianne woods says:

    The wind turbins that I know about in California are located in remote areas,
    obviously a better idea as long as it doesn’t encroach on the natural habitat unduly .

  58. Leo Smith says:

    My only criticism of this film is that it was too short. And seemed to cut from topic to topic.

    But it still remains the very best I have seen on the subject.

    Where can the full version be obtained?

  59. helen crow says:

    Will be posting this excellent video on the dartdorset website (Dorset Against Rural Turbines).

  60. Steve Harness says:

    http://www.theengineer.co.uk/in-depth/the-big-story/building-a-supergrid-for-europe/1005262.article
    There is more to this crazy scheme than we are being told. 50gw of potential wind turbine generation is madness for the UK due to grid instability. The scheme that is outlined in The Engineer above fills in the dots that our government have left blank. We are part of a HVDC supergrid and our obligation to our European masters is to obey.

  61. Rinaldo says:

    Very interesting information that the EEA (European Environmental Agency) should include in their web site!
    This delirious campaign by the EU in favour of compulsory development of Wind and Solar FV application should be questioned by some serious EU – MEP (Member of Parliament) from the various countries, to compel the EU Council to make a serious and appropriate investigation about the real benefits and dangers of this increadibly expensive madness.
    I would suggest that several of us try to discuss this point with their MEP local contacts, to invite them to take the initiative.

  62. John steading says:

    Interesting points made at number 48 and typical of the pro wind lobby who are now being asked serious questions rather than being allowed to take advantage of a naive and illinformed public. Lets look at his points:

    1) Security of supply. Hardly from an intermittent and unreliable source of energy such as wind. Remember the spinning reserve.

    2) The economy. Wind turbines are imported so no benefit there. They increase manufacturing costs and of course the public’s electricity bills while the money goes abroad to foreign investors. So we have more and more families falling into fuel poverty as the subsidies line the pockets of the rich. The payment for ROCs is not means tested. Just how many cold related deaths do we have each winter in the UK?

    3) Jobs. What jobs? The turbines are manufactured abroad mainly Denmark, Germany and to a lesser degree Spain with China coming up fast on the rails. So we must be talking about the few part time construction jobs. Better keep the money, invest in public services (much needed now) and you will see real jobs that will benefit us all.

    4) Local environment. Power stations idling in order to produce back up to wind produce, pro rata, more emissions. As for the picture of smog etc never seen that but ever heard of clean coal or carbon capture?

    5) Wind will replace nuclear. I would guess this is the driving force behind your wind worship. Nuclear is base load wind is intermittent and unreliable. So wind replacing nuclear, dream on. If however we hadn’t wasted all our money on this one trick renewables pony and invested in more reliable sources of renewables and more importantly energy conservation e.g. increasing the thermal insulating properties of all new build housing, including micro renewables with all new housing developments, making better use of planning to reduce car travel then we might be able to look at dispensing with some of our nuclear/ conventional power stations.

    6) No Particulate matter. See 4

    7) Non renewable sources are running out. Of course they are unless being shipped in from outer space but the time frame for some is a lot more than people like Tom would have us believe. Also see 1)

    In summary Tom you might see yourself as a champion of the environment but all your doing is regugitating old and mostly discredited propaganda which has led us to a one policy agenda that will do little to improve the environment and will prevent more effective measures from being adopted. So please Tom by all means promote a better environment but before you do ensure you are better informed.

  63. Tom says:

    ‘its all about making money’ is the most pointless objection to anything. So, too is building child safety seats in cars. But that isn’t a reason not to let manufacturers make them! This issue is so tangled up in complexity that it brings out both the very best in us (a desire to create a sustainable future but one that is thought through) and the very worst (nimbyism). I have read all the above and more on the pros and cons and think the issue very much changes case by case. This is not a time for vehement gut reactions. If you really care about the planet rather than yr house prices you should see that in certain cases there just may be a good argument in favour of wind energy. In others there is clearly not. To me the most terrifying aspect is not the technology but the infiltration of this business by the mafia .

    [ADMIN: But there isn't a good argument for wind energy. It doesn't work. It doesn't produce reliable or cheap electricity, and it doesn't save carbon emissions even when it does work. ]

  64. Elsa Watson says:

    Please see also the report: “Green energy target ruining Scotland’s Scenic landscape, warn tourism and industry experts. 2008 report reveals chicanery ?”, which is on the ukipscotland blog. Some new detail, with particular regard to Scotland. New “official” reports and some stratling conclusions, yet the Scottish Government seem oblivious to their own advisors advice, and corroboration of the bad news about windpower from disparate sources.

    http://ukipscotland.wordpress.com/2011/04/28/green-energy-target-ruining-scotlands-landscape-warn-experts/

  65. Ian Baldwin says:

    If wind is so efficient why did grain miller’s stop using windmill’s ?

Leave a Reply

(required)

(required)

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

© 2010 Europe's Ill Wind Suffusion WordPress theme by Sayontan Sinha