Time, Blair, has already shown the failure of industrial-scale wind power.

Thanks for the figures anti-green, I'm glad I'm not in the fossil fuel business in the former Soviet territories or China. The numbers make nuclear look good.

I found this link http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update42.htm on pollution from coal usage in the US. I don't know how reliable or objective the Earth Policy Institute is but if the figures are accurate I'm even more convinced renewables are the way to go wherever possible.

Why aren't we discussing offshore wind power? Many of the "cosmetic" problems could be eliminated. And why aren't the people of this wealthy nation insisting that governments properly regulate pollutant industries to cap their lethal emissions. Strangely, communities actually believe that environmental departments, along with their masters, are safe-guarding the environment and community health whilst in fact they are destroying it! Emissions are on the increase and governments are obsessed only with economic success. More profits for pollutant industries, more profits for governments! The Kyoto forum is a cop-out for Australia and we must look first at the parochial practices of governments in this country. While they have been finally forced to ackowledge that greenhouse gases are actually a concern, they fail to advise on all the other uncontrolled, carcinogenic chemicals spewing out from stacks whilst rubbing their hands in glee!! Whilst we the citizens, are prosecuted for breaking any law (no economic argument allowed), successive governments have permitted the destruction of our eco systems and the degradation of community health! And the status quo will be maintained whilst sincere, discerning community members fail to identify the culprits. Capping of all hazardous air pollutants would enable us to immediately breathe fresh air which has not been privatised through greed!!

If bird societies won't oppose windfarms that are set to kill eagles or other endangered birds (ornithologists are making money from the wind rush), who will?

- Ramblers!

Here are excerpts from an article in the Observer, UK:

RAMBLERS DEMAND AN END TO SPREAD OF WIND FARMS

Victory in Scotland prompts full-scale attack on energy policy

Rob Sharp
Sunday September 17, 2006
The Observer

The Ramblers' Association is set to announce its opposition to the construction of onshore wind farms across the country. The move is a major blow for the government, which is struggling to maintain its pledge to increase the amount of electricity generated by renewable energy sources.

The decision to try to block large wind farms in Britain follows the association's role in persuading the Scottish Executive to stop construction of a group of turbines in Perthshire on the grounds that the development would damage the environment.

........

Having drawn blood north of the border, the Ramblers are set on following this up in England and Wales. In a policy document to be published next month, the association - which has almost 140,000 members and whose president is Labour peer Chris Smith - pledges its commitment to pushing the government towards other forms of non-fossil energy, including nuclear power. The move is a radical departure from the stance of groups such as Greenpeace, which welcome wind farms and criticise plans to increase use of nuclear power.

.....

COMMENT:

It's about time people realized windfarms will turn the great outdoors into an industrial junkyard.

BTW, a poll in Spain showed that 60% of tourists to a national park would not visit a place where wind turbines dot the landscape.

There appears to be some debate over the effectiveness of windfarms reducing greenhouse gases. And to reiterate a question I asked in a previous post, why is there no debate on offshore windfarms such as the German projects?

Well let's now have a peek at the nuclear industry and the insidious, lethal effects it has on human and animal health and the environment.

Globally there are about 440 nuke power plants which supply only 17% of the world's energy requirements. When you consider the entire nuke process, from uranium mining to an operative power plant, the emissions of greenhouse gases (and other radioactive and hazardous waste compounds), are sufficiently excessive to make one's hair stand on end.

By 2002, American citizens had already forked out 18 billion dollars for the Yucca Mountain waste repository in Nevada - proposed opening in 2010 and dubious at that! By 2002, 6 billion dollars had been spent with costs rapidly blowing out!

We are all aware of the ramifications of decommissioning a nuclear power plant and the legacy that nuclear imposes on our great grandchildren's great grandchildren. However, to decommission a windfarm is totally environmentally safe and all materials can be recycled.

To my knowledge, with the exception of Holland, no windfarms have yet been decommissioned in Europe. I recommend that we proceed down this path (warts and all), with a serious look at other sustainable energies, particularly solar energy.

Should nuclear energy proceed, I trust the "clean and green" proponents of NE will still be around to witness the establishment of more than 3,000 nuclear plants scattered around communities and the massive increase in radioactive waste and greenhouse gases, since this is the number of plants required to make any dent in the world's current energy needs.

And even then, how does one propose influencing the coal industry to shut its doors?

It's amazing the way the anti wind zealots will find or invent all sorts of excuses to condemn wind farms while conveniently ignoring all the problems of nuclear or coal powered generation.

The "look" of a wind farm apparently troubles them far more than nuclear waste hazards, the health effects of coal fired power stations, the financial handouts these energy dinosaurs extract from government's to produce their artificially low-priced electricity or the fact that they are transferring economical and the ecological time bombs to generations to come.