Wind Farms' Unpopularity With Tory MPs Confirmed By Letter To Cameron

Wind Farms Tories

PA/The Huffington Post UK   First Posted: 5/02/2012 05:47 Updated: 5/02/2012 06:15

More than 100 Tory MPs have written to David Cameron calling for a dramatic cut in subsidies to onshore wind farms and more influence for local people to stop them being built.

In a major revolt against government policy, they joined forces with politicians from other parties to express serious concerns over the level of taxpayers' money going to the sector.

State help for one of the most controversial sources of renewable energy is being cut but only slowly, under plans set out by ministers last year.

But in what will be an early headache for new Energy Secretary Ed Davey - promoted to the job after Chris Huhne's resignation on Friday morning - the MPs demanded an acceleration.

"In these financially straitened times, we think it is unwise to make consumers pay, through taxpayer subsidy, for inefficient and intermittent energy production that typifies onshore wind turbines," they write in a letter, seen by the Sunday Telegraph.

They also expressed concerns that the proposed National Planning Policy Framework "diminishes the chances of local people defeating onshore wind farm proposals through the planning system".

The letter can be seen as an immediate attempt to sieze control of the renewable energy agenda within government, and will confirm fears by green lobbyists that Chris Huhne's departure will lead to a subtle shift in government over climate change.

Critics say the giant turbines are a blot on the countryside, and a recent report from the economist Ruth Lea suggested they were highly inefficient compared with nuclear energy.

Organised by backbencher Chris Heaton-Harris, the letter's 101 Tory signatories include senior figures such as David Davis, Bernard Jenkin and Nicholas Soames and well as many of the new intake.

Among them is Matthew Hancock, a close ally of Chancellor George Osborne - which will raise suggestions that the Treasury is sympathetic to the calls.

A Downing Street spokeswoman said: "We need a low carbon infrastructure and onshore wind is a cost effective and valuable part of the UK's diverse energy mix.

"The Government has commissioned a review of subsidy levels and we are already proposing a cut for onshore wind subsidies to take into account the fact that costs are coming down.

"We are committed to giving local communities the power to shape the spaces in which they live and are getting rid of regional targets introduced by the last government.

"The draft framework also aims to strengthen local decision making and reinforce the importance of local plans."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST UK POLITICS

More than 100 Tory MPs have written to David Cameron calling for a dramatic cut in subsidies to onshore wind farms and more influence for local people to stop them being built. In a major revolt ag...
More than 100 Tory MPs have written to David Cameron calling for a dramatic cut in subsidies to onshore wind farms and more influence for local people to stop them being built. In a major revolt ag...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 161
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
03:45 PM on 02/23/2012
they have placed quite a number of these useless windmills about four miles off the coast where I live. They hardly ever seem to be working and it seems when it is too windy they have to be turned off....what kind of nonsense is that?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Ben Wilson
Might as well laugh while you still can.
05:07 PM on 02/14/2012
Is it just me who likes how they look? Yes if there's a risk to wild-life I am concerned, but the protesters rant on about birds, when from what I know, it's bats that suffer. We have this debate in my area, Nottingham Uni want to put 4 up and the people of 'Clifton Grove' are up in arms even though most can't see them from their homes and they are on the other side of the Trent next to the big dirty BCM Boots factories.

It seems like we dont want anything, coal nuclear or renewable. People are basically of the view 'I dont carewhat's important to you or the nation, what's more important is the possibility of me picturing it.'
06:00 PM on 02/08/2012
Get behind this new initiative - please GOOGLE "E-PETITION 22958" follow the link and sign up to add your support.

Please get your friends to do the same.
07:22 PM on 02/06/2012
I bet Mr Ca-moron's father in law is working David like a glove puppet???????????????
04:24 PM on 02/06/2012
Stop scratching around with these silly little projects. We need 8 or 10 large Nuclear Power Stations built IN large cities so that the wast heat can be used for district heating.Stop fooling about and get on with it!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Paul Wagland
Resistance is fertile
11:01 AM on 02/07/2012
Unfortunately uranium is a finite resource, just like oil.
02:44 PM on 02/06/2012
Like everything else that comes with subsidies, renewable energy schemes have been abused.
I live near a famous footballer who is a multi- millionaire and he has dozens of solar panels on his property. There are several barns and outbuildings on his land which are covered in them and he is being subsidised by the rest of us who can't afford to install them for ourselves. (I was given a quote of £8000 for installation which I can't afford)
The same with wind farms they are giving large amounts of money to wealthy landowners who agree to have them on their land. Meanwhile ordinary consumers are paying for these people to be subsidised.
This comment has been removed.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ccraiglamont
Sometimes funny, other times...not!
10:58 AM on 02/06/2012
We could always build down instead of up. Heat our little caves with the warmth from the earth around them and grow foodstuffs and crops above them. Fanciful? Yes, Impractical? Probably, but sometimes we have to think outwith the norm. Of course we would still require electricity to charge our smartphones and watch our 3D televisions and to power our computers because we couldn't possibly live without those....could we?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Paul Wagland
Resistance is fertile
12:20 PM on 02/06/2012
Actually insulation is one of the most important steps we can take to reduce our energy use, so earth-sheltered housing has a lot going for it. There are some amazing designs... check out the Hockerton Housing Project, and Bob Marshall Andrews' house in Pembrokeshire.

http://en.wikiarquitectura.com/index.php/House_in_Pembrokeshire
10:34 AM on 02/06/2012
Solar panels on every roof would soon put the Electricity companies out of business.

Yet that is the way forward.

The cost of generating electricity is too high both economically and climatically. If Governments are serious about renewable energy then they should start to subsidise the installation of panels for everyone.
photo
rabidrightwatch
Green lefty & active environmentalist
10:41 AM on 02/06/2012
..in short, Raldor, the Government does subsidise the installation of solar PV - for everyone who applies. have a look at energysavingtrust.org website for full information.

This Government is not serious about solar PV; evidence the severe reduction in FiTs which, in turn, has led to many redundancies in the budding solar industry.

Solar on every roof is not feasible - many simply face the wrong way or are in partial or constant shade, others are in conservation areas which persist in no allowing 'new' installations on rooftops (some even won't allow TV aerials, so you see the problem..?) so not quite as straightforward.

I installed solar PV in 2006 - it works well and has significantly reduced my energy bills & I would recommend it unreservedly.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ccraiglamont
Sometimes funny, other times...not!
10:51 AM on 02/06/2012
I live within a conservation zone and despite having a low pitched roof correctly positioned for attracting the maximum possible day/sunlight I cannot get planning permission to put solar panels on my roof. Furthermore, I am not permitted to build a small wind turbine as my house is adjacent to a large pond which hosts migrating and domestic species of wild birds and the turbine has been identified as posing a risk to their welfare. The one thing I do have is an abundance of logs from the many trees on my land, but sadly these do not saw/cut or chop themselves. :(
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Paul Wagland
Resistance is fertile
10:30 AM on 02/06/2012
Fossil fuels and nuclear power benefited from decades of investment prior to becoming viable energy sources. Coal and oil powered our industry long before we had a national grid, and nuclear power was a military issue long before it was a civil one.

Wind power (and solar, geothermal etc) are still in their infancy and have a long way to go before they match the 'efficiencies' of older technologies, but if we don't invest in renewables we will be stuck with a very serious energy shortage in the future. Coal, oil, gas and uranium are all going up in price because China, India and South America are demanding their fare share.

In the UK we have some of the best natural energy resources on the planet - we have plenty of wind, quite a bit of sunshine, a high ratio of coastline and plenty of scope for hydroelectric. We should be leading the world, and making the industry our own.

We also need to accept that we cannot continue wasting energy in the way that we have done for years. We need better, cleaner transport links, a sweeping (and pretty savage) raft of legislation to improve our construction techniques, and we need to stop throwing away everything we make six months after we've made it!
photo
Reality always bites
Sometimes just a bit peckish
07:50 PM on 02/06/2012
The first nuclear chain reaction at Oakmont USA was in 1943. This led to development of nuclear generated electricity. No then - when was the first use of nuclear power as a military issue?
Oh yes August 1945!
I can't be bothered to counter the rest of your 'Report'
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Paul Wagland
Resistance is fertile
08:02 PM on 02/06/2012
Wrong. The first man-made reactor was Chicago-Pile 1. It achieved critical mass in 1942. It was part of the Manhattan Project - the purpose of which was to make plutonium for bombs. The first time electricity was produced from a nuclear reactor was in late 1951, six full years after the bombs had been dropped.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Saint wright
Dyslexic old chippy
09:16 AM on 02/06/2012
I would like to nominate the planning Inspector who having agreed a wind farm would damage the national important Battle of Naseby site, has never the less approved it, as Pratt of the Year. Can you imagine the American people allowing a wind farm to be built on Little Round top at the Gettysburg Battle site?
Northamptonshire now as more applications for wind farms than anywhere else, even though our wind speed is the lowest in the Country, looks bad, what’s going on, something smells, it makes no sense, other than the generation of massive £283,088 per turbine for the greedy power companies?
The wind farm already built in the county generates a feeble 19% of capacity, no wind farm should be built that cannot achieve 30% of capacity. Prince Phillips agrees it’s a disgrace, perhaps he could put some Royal stick about.
06:40 AM on 02/06/2012
Meanwhile who has a stake in electrcity companies - the general public or Tory MP's?
06:09 AM on 02/06/2012
I completely agree that we must move towards an energy supply away from oil but there are many ways to do this and our government is overly focussed on two aspects, centralised generation and wind. What we need is a total 'supply and use' approach with more lateral thinking.
With things like improved insulation and more efficient electrical devices we can reduce our overall requirements. In our country it is more efficient to use solar water heating in combination with a storage tank as we use a huge amount of power just heating water eg for heating. It would be easy to regulate for both insulation and water panels for all new buildings - offices, flats and houses.
Unfortunately, it is the wind companies that seem to have the best marketing and publicity and our MPs seem incapable of free thinking.
Ian Jarvis
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
03:08 AM on 02/06/2012
No 4 leaf clover here. Nice pic though.
11:47 PM on 02/05/2012
If the money for these very inefficient turbines were invested in a Severn and Wash barrier plus other outlets we could have twenty-four hour energy production with very little running costs.
With nuclear power we have the waste that is not only expensive to handle but also to store, not for a short time but for centuries.
I know environmentalists will complain about the environment changing but nature is a wonderful thing and will evolve a new environment.
They could be designed to fit into the surrounding areas and not sticking up above the horizon and those at sea would not be a danger to shipping as they could be at the moment.
We have more than enough rainfall in the UK to make a continues flow of energy.
If sufficient barriers were to be built we could possibly export energy and make a profit for the countries coffers.