Isn't is strange that the exhibitions are in the main during the hours when most people work?

Could this be so that they report that there was very little interest and hence very little opposition?

Jane, please check out the Scoutmoor wind farm controvosy. A very small number of small minded individuals driving 4x4's put that proposal down at every oppourtunity. Unfortunatly at the public enquiry all their arguments were answered successfully or dismissed by real facts. Be careful not to charge in making wild statements about house prices falling and noise. Stick to facts. Which if you do you will begin to see the bigger picture and the benefit of the windfarms as part of an holistic strategy.

Ask specifically if the company can exclude any likelihood of aerodynamic modulation.
We welcomed our wind farm - for all the reasons already identified - but 108 nights of disturbed sleep out of 113 is causing us to think that extra studies and research (which is about to start) needs to be completed before any new farms are "grown".......

To Wardle Resident - Or could it be that the people presenting the proposal also have families like the rest of us and also want to be at home with them. I found the time to get to the Scoutmoor presentations as it was important for me, I also found the info on the web. Additionally I believe one of the sessions will run into the evening. Here we go again, antiwindy nimbies complaining about nothing. Please please please look at the facts with a n open mind.

It is increasingly evident, that even with the level of subsidy the operation of wind farms is uncompetitive... see United Utilities pulled out of Scout Moor, which approved remains unbuilt.

The more important debate is UK energy security which is not being addressed - in 2015 we will import 80% of the energy used to generate electricity as gas or coal. Look what has jappened to the Ukraine - and today with Georgia who rely on Russian gas.

We need a massive national debate about energy security not endless windbaggery about a tiny wind farm here or there.

Edward, is this evidence that windfarms are not viable another anti windy made up bit of evidence because they have decided that saving the planet is someone else's problem. UU got a fine settlement for selling their share of the Scoutmoor development so there is money in it. Also Scoutmoor is not yet built as these things take time to build or were you expecting 26 turbines to be erected overnight. The biggest hold up on the Scoutmoor job was the anti windy nimbies making up facts and figures about the windfarm and insisting on a Public Inquiry. So if you want to see these things built stop moaning about them. Also if you actually did some research, in the new building regs, that's Part L if you didn't know, you would find that this government is tackling climate change from every angle as all new builds have to provide 10% of their own clean energy and this is just the tip of the ice berg, better insulation, lower energy consumption and air tightness are all covered. There has been a debate about energy and it was very good. You missed it as you had your blinkers on complaining about positive moves by others. Come on - Get on board and do some good for a change.

Of the six comments so far, three are from the self-styled Friend of Scoutmoor. His arguments, if that is what they are, are peppered with unpleasant comments about other peoples attitudes on wind turbines.
My own feelings are that I am beginning to understand what it feels like when others mention 'battle-fatigue'.
Many of us have been through all this before when we battled against the intrusive and destructive (or our fragile uplands) proposals to erect these wind generators on Great Hill and Hogs Head Hill and more recently on Scout Moor. All were summarily rejected by our democratically elected representatives. The Scout Moor rejection was only overturned by the government inspector which considering the government's desires is no surprise (see below).
These wind turbines are not efficient enough to merit the destruction of the wild places which many of us cherish. The bigger (and more efficient) they get the more destructive they become. They may be a 'partial solution' to the problem of energy production but they are demonstrably a small part, yet their impact on our countryside will be enormous. In order to replace just one conventional power station completely there would need to be literally thousands of these large fans whirring around and disfiguring the area. To make a significant impact overall on this country's energy needs we would have to have thousands and thousands of them from Land's End to John O' Groats in every windy place there is.
Do we really want to have a situation where you can't get away from these things?
The drive to have such sources of energy production is politically motivated and is driven by the desire that we, as a country, can point to our attempts to reduce carbon emissions and thus persuade the world to take similar action. Nothing wrong with that in principal, but not by these ill-thought-through gestures, without concern for the other effects which come from them.
There are other means of production of energy that are more efficient by far and not so destructive of our countryside.
And of course, the one thing I agree with in 'Friend's' comments, there is much that can be done to reduce consumption without destroying our competitiveness with the world.

20 years ago climate change was raised as an issue and 99% of people rejected such an issue could exist. Now 99% of people accepts the issue exists. Unfortunatly it is the 1% who repeat the same myths who are preventing us from doing something about it. Should such people be criticised - quite simply yes. I have tried the approach of educating people, I used to repeatedly invite a FOSM leader to CIBSE discussion groups amongst other such events so they could see what else was being done by so many government led and non government bodies. Unfortunatly the only meeting they were interested in attending also had a lunch with David Bellamy on the agenda. I remember when the FOSM website was running the majority of comments were in favour of the windfarm. I also remember a classic series of posts when a prominent FOSM member declared FOSM are not against windfarms in general just Scoutmoor as it is inapropriately located. Offshore is fine as are other hills, apparently. Almost the next post by the same person was a responce to an offshore campaigner telling them how to go about ending the invasion of these monstrosities and which web sites had a set of standard statements you should make during planning to force a PI. That has to be crazy talk in anybodies book. When you are dealing with this level of preconcieved, built in negativity you have to respond at a level to hit home and wake people up. Now if Edward would like to prove his comments - I'll read the proof and appologise if I am wrong. Please post the proof. Unfortunatly the issue of subsidies to help new technologies develop is essential and not something we shoudl use as an argument for not doing something. The frustrating thing about the anti windy nimby's is that there is a tremendoes amount of information out there on what can and is being done as a holistic strategy to tackle climate change. Windfarms are needed as part of the package. Unfortunatly we repeatedly see a blinkered argument where no attempt has been made to seek out the whole truth. As for why the local councils opposed the windfarm - it's becasue they all knew the inspector would make the tough decision for them and that they would not have to face the angry minority on the streets. They could hold up their hands and say hey we tried. ~75% on this forum (RO) wanted scoutmoor to go ahead and given the vocality of the FOSM that is very very high. Picking up on headline grabbing statements - you state these windturbines are going to destroy the moorland - hmmm come on - are they really. When technology improves and we do not need them they will dissapear and leave no mark. What destruction. Climate change will destroy the moorland. Lack of action will destroy the moorland. On the point of replacing power stations, lets look at the reality of the UK's energy consumption. This has been increasing year on year and if you need proof just take a look at the expensive but poor quality apartments being built in Manchester or indeed any city. Yet we have not needed to build a raft of new power stations. why - in part it is because we had some slack anyway in the system and we have also added to the system capacity with wind turbines. Now however we are in a position where the rate of building has increased so much and the nuclear plant are coming to the end of their natural lives that we can not support the extra load. If I could see the FOSM putting in the same 'energy' (excuse the pun) to pushing local authorities to use less energy, recycle more, improve U-values in affordable housing projects, improve Part L further on lighting efficacy, tax high energy users, reduce light pollution etc etc then I would also respect their view on wind farms. Unfortunatly the majority of FOSM are simply against Scoutmoor because they live close to it. That's unnaceptable.