Is there an alternative?

For goodness sake, what is the problem here? Surely they won't be transporting the turbines through the town forever.

Another bunch of NIMBYs who no doubt wouldn't be complaining about anything if we had already run out of fossil fuels to burn and they were sitting in their homes cold and dark. Wakey wakey people!

Whats next, stop all transport traffic, food, electrical goods, perhaps they should revert back to horse and cart.

As someone has pointed out it won't be forever

whAT are they meant to do - helicopter them into place ??? these NIMBYS are no doubt in the pocket of the nuclear / coal industry, there complaints are to be ignored, i would cut their electricity supply of for a month - see how they value electricity then

they are luddites they must be crushed like the luddites where or they will hold us all backwards

it is interesting to note from the photos how most of the folk complaining are my generation of retired old folk who probably wont even be around in ten years time when the turbines are up producing their power

how selfish can you be to condem your grandchildren to having no power and living in an extreme climate with more storms, floods and heat waves what selfish backwards wicked wicked people

Pathetic...These people really do need to get out more!

people like this are holding our economy back, you dont get these kind of grumbles in china, they welcome the progress, welcome the jobs, people like this is why britain is no longer great any more, they hold us back in the dark ages and ensure our competitors abroad will overtake us economically, technologically and environmentally,

we must be strong against their nimbyism and proceed to develop more on shore wind turbines which are easily the most cost effective renewable electricity option by a mile the alternative is dirty power or unaffordable power

people should calm down, we all want more wind turbines in this country of course, but you have to be considerate if you had lots of lorries coming past your house every day you would be perturbed, these lorries are really big ones too. would it not be greener to get them there by rail instead ? or perhaps they could do them at night atleast to minimise any nuisance, i dont know there has to be a comprimise though surely to get them into place if we can engineer these amazing feets of technologies like surely we can think up a clever way to crane them into place, gosh after all our ancestors moved rocks from wales to stone hendge without any lorries!!

clearly there isnt another route into mid wales for large HGVs - so should they not be asking for a bypass then really rather than being anti-wind

i suspect they are more against the turbines than the actual lorries its a classic tactic deployed by NIMBY anti wind people - i have no idea why they are so anti this wonderful technology which will put UK PLC back in business when we build more here but also then become a world leader and start building them for and installing them in other countries too

the future is wind, visit yes two wind dot com

The reporter should have gone to specsavers there were only eight people with plackards outside the town hall

That does not constitute streets line with protesters

since when did eight peole outside the town hall constitute 'streets lined with protesters

its easy to say NIMNY but would you really want those ugly things spinnign round in your area? they are ugly and modern fine in the city or telford or whatever but not in our pecious pretty countryside

I understand the convoy was stopped once off the A483 to allow traffic to pass it, thereby not hindering local people passing through Welshpool. This is why the convoy took 20 mins, but there was minimal affect to other traffic. I believe the wide test drive took only 7 mins to pass through Welshpool.

I just cannot understand why there is so much fuss, the lorries will be moving slowly, progress is what we need not protest.

These protesters should be listened to respectfully, but I think we should all keep our focus on the long-term benefits of wind.

Creating green jobs, strengthening our energy security and cutting our carbon emissions.

Surely some sort of compromise is possible.

On the exact timings of the transport, perhaps.

WHY NOT DO IT BETWEEN 9 TO 5 WHEN EVERYONES AT WORK - SURELY THATS A GOOD COMPRIMISE

i would like to start a campaign FOR more wind turbines in shropshire and mid wales, why must the OAPs who are anti wind and shout the loudest always be heard more, WE WANT MORE RENEWABLES IN SHROPSHIRE AND POWYS NOW!!

spencer, you said, 'no matter what is suggested regardless of the long term issues, people complain/protest and the powers that be stop listening..'

With the Telford incinerator the powers that be DIDN'T stop listening.

Telford and Wrekin Councillors listened because the protesters focused on the long term issues; sustainability, progress towards zero waste and the fact that emissions were potentially harmful to people's health in the long term.

In the Welshpool case, the protesters' arguments are focused on the short-term inconvenience.

Logistical problems can be overcome if the powers that be are sensitive to people's views, and respond intelligently and creatively, while staying focused on the long term issues.

Some months ago I attended a presentation on this subject addressed by the Town Clerk of Welshpool, Mr Robert Robinson, and a representative of the turbine company, in which the opposing views were put over, and considerable details of the proposals were revealed. One suggestion put forward was that the convoys should travel overnight, thus eliminating a lot of the congestion. This was a no-no on the grounds that Cheshire Police would not let the convoys leave Ellesmere Port until after 9.00 a.m. Daft or what? Another point is that there are two issues here. One relates to the undoubted chaos, inconvenience and damage which will be caused by the convoys (certainly the early ones); the other seems to centre around the perceived value or otherwise of wind turbines per se, and the selection of emotions displayed in earlier posts indicate a lot of confusion between the two. I have yet to see a convincing analysis of projected power yield over the life of a turbine compared to its environmental, construction and maintenance costs (that's everything including transport emissions and so on). Anyone care to take this up?

as per usual a small minority complaining against progress, our planning system is not fit for the 21st centruy

big deal

try living on the A49 we have lorrys every day here get over it

i agree the turbines are loathsome things though, subsidised to the hilt and make virtually no power, just another greenie lefty con from Nu Labor, lets hope the new government stops all this climate mumbo jumbo pronto and puts brit in business

'virtually no power'?

Wind provides nearly 20% of Denmark's power.

'climate mumbo jumbo'?

This is the sort of thing that UKIP's Deputy Leader, Lord Monckton, would say.

For a calm but devastating rebuttal by a scientist of Lord Monckton's arguments and mis-use and mis-interpretation of the science of climate change, just google 'Abraham v Monckton'.

Wind power is not the answer. Expensive and only built with subsidy piad by all.

Readers should go to www ConWithTheWind . com

Considering you need 2,341 turbines to replicate the power output of one nuclear power station I would question the logic of using wind turbines when there is clearly a more efficient means of generating power.

For those of you who do not like nuclear waste I can assure you that the damage to the planet caused bypoorly managed nuclear waste is nothing in comparison to the mining, refining, transport and construction of 2,341 wind turbines. Tens of millions of tons of earth, millions of tons of steel, thousands of tons of neodymium (look it up, it is a show-stopper for our green future). thousands of miles of copper to connect all of the turbines together. There is a long, resource unfriendly list for turbines, never mentioned by the wind-pro lobby.

Wind turbines are the right solution only when there is no more efficient means of generating electricity. Anything less than this uses up world resources that we need to lengthen the time we can live on the planet in comfort. The sooner we all realise this the better.

We are supposed to be one of the smartest nations of people on the planet. Wind turbines simply make us look stupid.

Perhaps we are.

80 countries are now using wind power on a commercial basis (source: Worldwatch Institute).

Does Thethinker believe that these 80 countries are ‘stupid’, too?

And is calling others 'stupid' the best way for people in one of the smartest nations of people on the planet to promote the building of nuclear power stations?

In my opinion the 80 countries using wind turbines simply understand that -in an age of peak oil and global warming- the fossil-fuel-burning status quo is unsustainable, and that we need energy which doesn’t pump carbon.

Thethinker said, ‘Wind turbines are the right solution only when there is no more efficient means of generating electricity.’

I disagree.

Thethinker is ignoring the relative carbon emissions of different energy sources (see Öko-Institut figues #19).

When 90% of the UK’s energy currently comes from burning fossil fuels, wind turbines are one of many solutions (see Stanford University’s Mark Z. Jacobson’s list above at #19) to kick our fossil fuel addiction, slash carbon emissions and pass on a livable, affordable future to our grandchildren and their grandchildren.

The extraction of rare earths may have a few question marks over it (interesting point), but the extraction of fossil fuels is infinitely more risky, politically destabilising, energy-intensive and environmentally damaging (eg deep-sea oil-drilling, tar-sands exploitation and open-cast coal-mining), so we need technologies which will help us cut carbon emissions by 80% by 2050. Wind is one of those.

Could Thethinker provide a source for his/her 2,341 turbines point before I comment on that?

Nuclear power emits 25 times more carbon and air pollution than wind energy (source: Mark Z. Jacobson).

Nuclear energy plants take much longer to plan, permit and construct than wind farms, so the cuts in emissions would take longer.

I would also imagine that transportation of nuclear waste through Welshpool would elicit a bigger negative reaction than the transport of turbines.

What do you think, Thethinker?

In reply to the critical comments of Huw Peach: It is up to you if you feel other nations that use wind power are 'stupid'. I was commenting on the UK alone where we have access and resources to investigate power sources that are genuinely clean and efficient.

As for the rest of your discrediting comments, good luck to you, I hope you have a long and entertaining debate with someone.

If you find yourself in an arguement with someone else, just remember that it has to be the case that both of you feel that you are right, otherwise there would be no arguement. Both of you must be missing some of the facts, otherwise you would both realise that you are both right bearing in mind the facts available to each of you.

The bigger picture is out there for us all to see but we do not want to discuss it - what do we do with the worlds ever increasing population? 6 billion people and limited world resources.

We do need to dump oil, it'll make it cheaper for poor countries to use. They will use it up rather than us, it wont save the planet.

80 other countries use wind power.

These 80 countries are clearly keen to cut their carbon emissions.

You think the UK, the windiest country in Europe, is 'stupid' to be doing the same and exploiting one of its major resources, Thethinker.

Do you, like winja, think it is 'stupid' for 80 countries to be using a proven technology to cut their CO2 emissions?

You said, 'the bigger picture is out there for us all to see but we do not want to discuss it' but inexplicably didn't mention the imperative of slashing carbon emissions by 80% by 2050.

Is this as insignificant for you as it is for winja, Thethinker?

I DO want to discuss this and if possible have a long and detailed debate with you, and I think climate change is just as important a factor in this debate as over-population.

Poor countries should definitely have the right to exploit fossil fuels as their economies catch up with us.

However, richer countries like the UK, who have been burning these fuels for longer have an obligation to lead the way, develop green industrial revolution technologies and switch to a low-carbon economy so that our energy use does not hinder the development of future generations.

What do you think?

Is climate change not a vital part of this discussion, Thethinker?

Hi Huw,

Putting our own opinions to one side for the moment, what matters for the people of Welshpool is that they are right on the main access route to a handful of wind farms, not just one or two and this is why they are worried. 12 months of disruption for one wind farm is one thing but repeating this continually for many years as is likely to be the case, unless another route is found, is something else entirely.

The authorities are keen to keep public cash so want to avoid the cost of a new road if at all possible which is very commendable. I suspect that if a by-pass was built the resistance would disappear as I doubt many of them give a toss about wind power, they just don't want the town spoilt in the process.

Where are the developers in all of this? If they claim to be saving the planet why are they not prepared to spend some cash? They will make more than enough back in return once the windfarms are up and running.

Please put yourself in the shoes of those living in Welshpool, they are not NIMBY's, they want to be sure that they dont find their town trashed as the transport numbers for the wind farm zone are very high.

This is a reasonable request, do you not agree?

The reason why I am taking part in this discussion is because I DO give a toss about wind power and the potential it offers our country to slash our carbon emissions, and I don't think that an issue like climate change is something, which you can just put to one side for a moment, especially if your moniker is Thethinker.

I am putting myself in the shoes of people living in Welshpool, who associate wind energy with green jobs and green industrial manufacturing.

I am putting myself in the shoes of people living in Welshpool, who want our country to kick our fossil fuel habit and combat unthinking denial of climate change.

I am sure these people exist, and I am hopeful that their long-term aspirations will overcome short-term difficulties if they start to make their voices heard.

Hi again Huw,

As you appear not to be able to answer any of my questions in the previous post I wrote to you, I must conclude that you are not a reasonable person and this is a shame because we need reasonable people at the moment to bring some common sense to the fore.

I feel sure that Wales is happy to accept lots of wind turbines if Welsh Assembly so desire. But they must do a proper job of it otherwise those living in the area will suffer unfairly.

Ensuring the roads to the windfarm zones are good enough to take the extra traffic without slowing down the local economy or damaging roadside property is the right and fair thing to do.

If WAG are serious about wind power they will realise that for acceptance of wind turbines throughout the Country, issues like those of Welshpool must be properly solved and not 'bodged', because other towns and villages will see what might happen to them and that would not be good publicity for anyone, including the wind farm industry. Who incidentally are often also in the nuclear power generation business.

If you are a supporter of wind turbines, why not write to WAG and ask why they are not properly addressing the highway issues to wind farms? Because they appear to be shooting themselves in the collective 'foot'.

No member of the public or business should have to suffer more than any others, we are all to pay the same price for polluting the planet.

As you appear unable or unwilling to deal with my point about climate change, I must conclude that you see cutting carbon emissions as an issue which doesn't bear thinking about, Thethinker.

Is this a reasonable position in this day and age?

Perhaps it is 'common sense' to adopt this position if you are UKIP's Deputy Leader, Lord Monckton, who thinks global warming is a 'non-problem'.

However, most reasonable people do not share this view. (Just google 'Abraham vs Monckton presentation' for a highly reasoned, well-researched, sourced demolition of Monckton's 'non-problem' argument).

How should reasonable people campaign for faster measures to cut carbon emissions in this country if their arguments are met on threads like this by an unthinking wall of denial?

Back to your points, now.

Yes, the campaigners should be listened to, but the logistical problems they are raising are short-term, and the big issue is a long-term one.

By the way, could one anti-wind campaigner give evidence of other towns being 'trashed' by turbine transports (#28)? So far this claim has been made several times, but no evidence has been given.

Reasonable people would expect supporters of nuclear power (#24) to give the source for their (2,341 turbines) statistics about the relative merits of different energy sources, and for their assertion that (#30) wind farm companies are in the nuclear energy business.

Could you provide this, Thethinker?

In light of your final statement, what do you think of coal companies, who have demonstrably distorted the climate change discussion through misinformation and disinformation campaigns (See 'Climate Cover Up, The Crusade to Deny Global Warming' by James Hoggan with Richard Littlemore)?

Until you told me I was not a reasonable person, I thought it was reasonable to support the best technology available to cut carbon emissions.

That technology is wind.

Hi Huw,

Why do I need to provide you with sources for the number of wind turbines it takes to produce the same average power as one average nuclear power station (2,341 of them)? With all due respect, work it out for yourself. What matters is that it is an astounding number compared to one building and one grid connection for nuclear.

The most important question that you ask is how to campaign for faster measures to cut carbon emmissions. I would suggest avoiding discrediting peoples facts and beliefs as cognitive dissonance is ugly at the best of times. How can you expect to change the minds of people who are as adamant that they are right as you are? You'll be argueing with them way past the point where the climate has flipped to its cold state, or is it hot state? Why not set an example and try a bit of positive encouragement? This is always effective at getting people to change their behaviour, their beliefs and their values.

On a national level it is much harder because unfortunately our world of science seems to have been hi-jacked by business and our leaders do not appear to be well enough read to be able to figure things out for themselves. So they rely on 'evidence' which seems often to be only part of the whole of the truth. Sadly the BWEA has an astounding number of political lobbyists. Normally something that is a good idea will be propelled into reality on its own merits and not need pushy people to help it along.

If you want to make a difference, why not help WAG to get their wind turbines up by asking them not to spoil the welfare of Welshpool in the process by building a by-pass or at least upgrading the road through the town.

As for evidence - please show me a place similar to Welshpool, similar topography and similar number of wind turbines proposed. I think you will struggle. I would like to see evidence that it will NOT damage the town and otherwise err on the side of caution. It is far from usual to have lots of wind farms served by just one little road.

I am not an 'anti-wind' campaigner. I think that they are a great idea when there is no more efficient means to produce electricity, like places lacking a national grid, or where more efficient means of producing power cannot be afforded. I have my own wind turbine in the garden and I am very proud of it.

I think coal companies are no better or worse than wind, nuclear, oil or gas at playing some very naughty games to make a profit and blindly using the 'we can save the planet' routine to claim god-like rights to step on and over the public who have very little protection indeed. If you can sort this aspect out Huw and gain those affected by wind farm developer activities some rights to protection of their property and livelihoods, be it alongside a construction route or near to a wind farm, then the playing field will be far more level and the developers will have much more freedom to put up wind turbines where ever they please.

Help Welshpool and you help the wind industry get their turbines up....