It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Wind Power: New Poll Finds 66% Of UK Public In Favour

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Wind Power: New Poll Finds 66% Of UK Public In Favour


www.guardian.co.uk

Two-thirds of the UK public are in favour of wind power according to a new poll, published on the same day as a national anti-wind campaign launches in parliament.

Overall, 66% of Britons were in favour and just 8% against when asked: "to what extent are you in favour of or opposed to the use of wind power in the UK" in the Ipsos Mori poll, commissioned by wind trade body RenewableUK.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
National body opposing wind power to launch in Westminster
Has the wind revolution stalled in the UK?
Wind energy companies fear government's commitment is cooling
edit on 19/4/12 by domasio because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 09:02 AM
link   
Personally I think this is great. However, further down the article it states that "101 Tory MPs wrote to the prime minister asking him to cut subsidies for onshore windfarms."

Is it just me, or are these MP's just ridiculously stupid?! Wind power is renewable, clean and creates more jobs, and even if it wasn't those things, 66% of the public are FOR it, therefore surely the majority wins? But no, all that matters is what the small collection of people in a Government building want.

I'd love to see more renewable energy, both wind, geothermic, solar and wave-powered. With all of these, you wouldn't need one single nuclear powerstation, or need oil, coal or gas any longer.

Wishful thinking of course, this wouldn't make as much money as these companies would like.

www.guardian.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by domasio
 





With all of these, you wouldn't need one single nuclear powerstation, or need oil, coal or gas any longer.


Thats not realistic at all in foreseeable future. That said, I certainly support the development of non-fossil energy, but I am not surprised these subsidies are among first to be cut in tough economic times.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 09:41 AM
link   
to be honest, i hate wind turbines.
i like the fact that they produce clean energy but it's so inefficient producing around 10% of their capacity, and they've screwed up the view from my window.
i don't mind offshore wind farms because they don't cover a large area of what used to be nice mountains.
nuclear energy is what we need until we find something better.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 


100% agree, it's not like we can just build up all the energy-producton I mentioned all at once. Like you said though, if it was gradually introduced, in the "slow and steady wins the race" sort of way, then hopefully one day we could live without the very real threat of al being irradiated and polluted beyond recognition.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 10:00 AM
link   
bring on Thorium nuclear power.

The UK used to lead in nuclear power (magnox anyone ?) I am sure if the right incentives were put in the right places we could do it again.

Shame the MP's in this country have their heads up their arses



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 10:10 AM
link   
reply to post by listerofsmeg
 


Yeah, 10% efficiency isn't very efficient. Then, all it would take would be to somehow figure out a way to maximise their potential, gaining as much power as possible from them.

I don't think their ugly though, they look like windmills, or those small twirly things you hold that spin in the wind. I'm easily amused



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   
wind power is not the way forward.

at the moment the power generating companies get a nice fat kick back if they can generate power but the national grid does not need it.

for example



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by diddy1234
 


Like I said, wind power isn't the only way, there are many ways of generating enough power. All the power needed to keep the world and it's technology going is available through natural means. But like has been said, it would take years and lots of hard work to implement such technology to harness the energy.

I agree though, wind power is one of the least efficient natural means, but I also think nuclear power is not the way forward. There will always be a meltdown every so often, and it takes far too long for the radiation to die off, therefore it would leave us all to stew if enough disasters such as Chernobyl/Fukushima happened.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by domasio
 


Um it's just you. Every country that has tried "wind farming" has failed miserably. The machines break to often, are to expensive to maintain, don't generate that much electricity, sell at expensive rates, and use vast amounts of real estate.

The title should read: 66% of UK are complete idiots that can't read international media regarding failed wind graveyards.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 10:38 AM
link   
Those Mp's calling for subsidies to be cut back. I guranatee you this they do not want to loose the money they probably have pulled from the profits of those Companies who have profited from the consumer.

Build more Wind Turbines, those MP#'s will loose the money they have been raking in.

They need to invest more in Alternative power to fossil fuels. It is ridiculous that they know that the frakin is causing small earthquales. But the UK Government is so stupid a green envy eyed, they will allow this to go ahead at expense of someone being hurt



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 10:39 AM
link   
I agree with '66% of UK are complete idiots that can't read international media regarding failed wind graveyards'.
However I would shorten it to '66% of UK are complete idiots' :-)

certainly a lot of brain washed idiots here in the UK.
Most lives their lives like Zombies.

As for alternatives, currently unreliable but wave power could be another way of harnessing power (if proper amounts of money was put forward).
edit on 19/4/2012 by diddy1234 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 10:44 AM
link   
Hot air is very powerfull
Depending on how it's applied, it causes brainwashing
Which produces tax dollars



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   
We need a 'balanced' supply system. It used to be a nuclear, oil, gas, coal mix. These days it needs to be:

-Majority next generation nuclear (thorium, as posted above - a star for you sir)
-Augmented by wind/wave if people will pay the extra
-With some gas stations retained for flexibility and emergency back up.

Sadly most people are ignorant. Thats not to say stupid, just ignorant. The Tories began the assault to undermine our power infrastructure and labour dithered about the entire time it was in office.

Disrupt the gas supply to this country and the lights will go out quickly. The same people protesting against new nuclear will be the first to complain sitting cold in the dark.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   
Wind power is a joke and not at all a new technology. Back in the late 1800's to the early 30's before the R E A formed most farms in the US were powered by windmills and 6 volt batteries. It is totally inefficeint, not reliable, and in most cases costs more to build the power grid to get the power out than the over priced windmills themselves. Redistrubution of wealth, plain and simple, using sheeple as the tool.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 02:35 PM
link   
I've no idea who the 66% are because the things are awful! they produce next to no energy and are unbelievebly ugly, I believe the way forward is solar power, much more effecient and no where near as ugly.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   
It is a sort of loaded question, I mean, in theory, most people will not "oppose" wind power, it would be great ifI could power every energy need in my house right now with my own SMALL turbine, so I don't have to pay £100 per month to the electricity company!

But realism is needed, we need to secure energy needs now and in the immediate future which will invole nuclear power
edit on 19-4-2012 by blueorder because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 02:51 PM
link   
SPAM removed by Admin
edit on Apr 19th 2012 by Djarums because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 07:32 PM
link   
A friend studying environmentalism showed me some calculations once.

Basically, windfarms cost more energy to build and run, than they will ever generate in their working lifespan. the only thing that was worse in those terms, were photovoltaic cells.

Essentially, they are a white elephant.



posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 07:47 PM
link   
I love wind turbines, I think they are beautiful, like kinetic works of art. I wouldn't mind if they built a wind farm outside my front window (far enough away to not be too noisy though).

People who say we shouldn't build them because they aren't cost effective enough... well I would like to say that there must have been a time in the development of any new technology where it is more expensive than the old technology, but somebody's vision and belief carried it through to success.

For instance.. the automobile versus the horse and carriage. There must have been naysayers who said it was dangerous, expensive...

Electricity and lightbulbs versus gas lamps.

Whether you are convinced by the idea of global warming or not, the undeniable truth is that one day soon, fossil fuels will run out. And far sooner than that, they will become so expensive due to scarcity, that we will NEED to find alternatives. Its better to start steering the Titanic away from the iceberg sooner rather than later, right?



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join