|Home | Bookmark | Tell||Active petitions in over 75 countries||Follow GoPetition|
Petition Tag - wind turbines
E.On’s “Rampion” massive off-shore wind farm, up to 690ft high and as wide as Mid Sussex, should not be approved:
1. Offshore wind farms are unreliable. E.On boasts of an installed electrical capacity of up to 700 megawatt (MW) from the 100 to 195 turbines. This is the potential output if the wind was blowing at optimum speed all the time.
Currently all the 3,500 turbines sited around the country feed on average just 1,000 MW into the grid – no more than the output of a single, medium-sized conventional power station. Because of this unreliability, conventional power stations will still be needed on permanent standby, thereby negating any alleged CO2 savings.
2. Off-shore wind farms are an extremely expensive way to produce electricity – nine times as much as gas-fired power. E.On would not dream of building this wind farm unless they were guaranteed a huge Government subsidy. This comes in the form of a subsidy scheme, paid for by dramatically increasing our household fuel bills, whereby owners of wind turbines earn an additional £49 for every ‘megawatt hour’ they produce, and twice that sum for offshore wind turbines.
What other industry gets a public subsidy equivalent to 100 or even 200 per cent of the value of what it produces?
3. Offshore wind farms do not ‘save the planet’ by cutting our emissions of CO2.
Even if you believe that curbing our use of fossil fuels could change the Earth’s climate, the CO2 reduction allegedly achieved by a wind farm over a year, would be cancelled out by a single jumbo jet flying daily between Britain and America, over the same period.
Sources: The Real Global Warming Disaster – Christopher Booker. The Rational Optimist – Dr Matt Ridley.
GlaxoSmithKline plans two 130-metre wind turbines at their Montrose site on the East Coast of Scotland.
GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) is hoping to install two wind turbines on its Montrose site, taller than the ones at the Michelin tyre plant in Dundee.
Read the full story and GSK justifications in the article of local paper The Courier :
----------- IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT -------------
SOON WE WILL MAKE A WEB PAGE
WITH ALL COMMENTS OF THE PEOPLE
WHO SIGNED THIS PETITION.
THEIR VOICES MUST BE HEARD.
VISIT THIS LINK FOR INSTRUCTIONS.
CLOSE DOWN NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS NOW!!!!
WHEN WILL WE LEARN?
December 12, 1952
A partial meltdown of a reactor's uranium core at the Chalk River plant near Ottawa, Canada, resulted after the accidental removal of four control rods. Although millions of gallons of radioactive water poured into the reactor, there were no injuries.
Fire destroyed the core of a plutonium-producing reactor at Britain's Windscale nuclear complex - since renamed Sellafield - sending clouds of radioactivity into the atmosphere. An official report said the leaked radiation could have caused dozens of cancer deaths in the vicinity of Liverpool.
A serious accident occurred during the winter of 1957-58 near the town of Kyshtym in the Urals. A Russian scientist who first reported the disaster estimated that hundreds died from radiation sickness.
January 3, 1961
Three technicians died at a U.S. plant in Idaho Falls in an accident at an experimental reactor.
July 4, 1961
The captain and seven crew members died when radiation spread through the Soviet Union's first nuclear-powered submarine. A pipe in the control system of one of the two reactors had ruptured.
October 5, 1966
The core of an experimental reactor near Detroit, Mich., melted partially when a sodium cooling system failed.
January 21, 1969
A coolant malfunction from an experimental underground reactor at Lucens Vad, Switzerland, releases a large amount of radiation into a cave, which was then sealed.
December 7, 1975
At the Lubmin nuclear power complex on the Baltic coast in the former East Germany, a short-circuit caused by an electrician's mistake started a fire. Some news reports said there was almost a meltdown of the reactor core.
March 28, 1979
Near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, America's worst nuclear accident occurred. A partial meltdown of one of the reactors forced the evacuation of the residents after radioactive gas escaped into the atmosphere.
February 11, 1981
Eight workers are contaminated when more than 100,000 gallons of radioactive coolant fluid leaks into the contaminant building of the Tennessee Valley Authority's Sequoyah 1 plant in Tennessee.
April 25, 1981
Officials said around 45 workers were exposed to radioactivity during repairs to a plant at Tsuruga, Japan.
April 26, 1986
The world's worst nuclear accident occurred after an explosion and fire at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. It released radiation over much of Europe. Thirty-one people died iin the immediate aftermath of the explosion. Hundreds of thousands of residents were moved from the area and a similar number are belived to have suffered from the effects of radiation exposure.
March 24, 1992
At the Sosnovy Bor station near St. Petersburg, Russia, radioactive iodine escaped into the atmosphere. A loss of pressure in a reactor channel was the source of the accident.
In France's most serious nuclear accident, three workers were contaminated after entering a nuclear particle accelerator in Forbach without protective clothing. Executives were jailed in 1993 for failing to take proper safety measures.
Japan's Monju prototype fast-breeder nuclear reactor leaked two to three tons of sodium from the reactor's secondary cooling system.
The state-run Power Reactor and Nuclear Fuel Development Corporation reprocessing plant at Tokaimura, Japan, contaminated at least 35 workers with minor radiation after a fire and explosion occurred.
September 30, 1999
Another accident at the uranium processing plant at Tokaimura, Japan, plant exposed fifty-five workers to radiation. More than 300,000 people living near the plant were ordered to stay indoors. Workers had been mixing uranium with nitric acid to make nuclear fuel, but had used too much uranium and set off the accidental uncontrolled reaction.
NOW.... New Nuclear accident with 6 Nuclear Power Plants in JAPAN
WHEN WILL WE LEARN?
NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS ARE KILLING PLANET EARTH.
Unfortunately, Japanese will learn not to trust Nuclear Power with the hard way.
There are a lot of renewable energy sources. We can use Photovoltaics, Wind turbines, New technology Hydrogen power plants ( www.cnc-machines.host22.com/ftie-enterprises/hpgs.html ) etc.
NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS ARE NEVER SAFE ENOUGH AND THEY ARE NOT CHEAP BECAUSE THEY COST US OUR HEALTH AND EVEN OUR LIVES.
We do not just ask to close down the Nuclear power plants we also propose the alternative solution of Hydrogen. So, there are not excuses.
We must sign as many as possible. We must declare our will to our Governments and this will be our first step.
DO NOT BE SILENT.
On page 5 of the GE Energy publication titled “Wind Energy Basics” (www. gepower.com/businesses/ge_wind _energy/en/downloads/wind_energy_ basics.pdf), it states, “Siting wind turbines and assessing the feasibility of a proposed location must consider factors such as Community Acceptance and compatibility with adjacent land uses. … Hence, megawatt-scale wind turbines cannot be located in densely populated areas.”
In Union Beach, NJ a “densely populated area” begins just 1,080 feet from the Bayshore Regional Sewerage Authority’s site for their planned 380-foot-tall GE industrial wind turbine. There are real and serious concerns regarding the negative impact the turbine will have on property values, health and safety due to its proximity to homes. Many experts recommend a minimum setback of 1.25 miles from residential property lines. Our current BRSA commissioners have categorically denied these dangers in their zeal to erect the turbine, although there is a large and growing body of evidence to support these claims. As for "Community Acceptance," Union Beach, Hazlet, Keyport and Monmouth County have all passed resolutions opposing the turbine. About 80 percent of area residents are staunchly opposed and 10 percent are ambivalent. There is a bill before the state legislature calling for a 2,000-foot mandatory setback. Yet, the BRSA has claimed that area residents are friendly to the idea of a turbine. They clearly are not.
What is most troublesome is that the BRSA already constructed the foundation in order to meet their deadline for receiving fifty percent funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. However, they did this prior to having all their permits finalized and also prior to acquiring an additional half-acre of land from JCP&L on Conaskonk Point, a pristine wetland and bird-nesting ground. They need this to allow for the blades of the industrial turbine to overhang their existing property line. Essentially, they spent that money on spec because they are in a legal battle with Union Beach and its neighbors for the rights to purchase the land and finish the project. The outcome is uncertain. This is the height of fiscal mismanagement. They have spent millions of ratepayer money already and even more ratepayer money is in jeopardy of going down the sewer if the BRSA is unable to erect the turbine and they have to pay back Uncle Sam.
The commissioners were appointed to represent the interests of their towns, residents and ratepayers. Clearly, they do not. The two from Union Beach even voted to sue their own town for putting www.noturbine.com on a sign outside of borough hall. Union Beach won that suit, a First Amendment victory, but it further makes the case that the commissioners put the wind industry above the interests of their communities. An organic outcry has begun among area residents, “Recall and replace the commissioners with ones who represent their towns, not Big Wind.” This petition is in response to that outcry.
The Liberal Government have established 550 meter setbacks from the homes of Ontario residents without performing any health studies. Europe is calling for 1.5km to 5.0km setbacks to reduce the adverse health affects.
In Ontario there are over 110 residents who are experiencing adverse health affects from Industrial Wind Turbines and The Liberal Government continues to deny the adverse health affects and won’t even visit the homes of people impacted. Some homes have been abandoned and others bought out by Wind Developers after legal action.
People are sick all over the world from wind turbines and Ontario must also increase the distances to protect health and property values. Please sign our petition to increase wind turbine setback distances.
An increasing number of victims are reporting adverse
health effects from exposure to industrial wind projects.
Many families have abandoned their homes to restore
or protect their health. Wind turbine noise, including low frequency noise, may cause annoyance, stress and sleep disturbance. Currently there is no authoritative international guideline for wind turbine noise designed to protect the health of children or the general population.
Research the impact of Industrial Turbines on communities;
Destruction of Oak Ridges Moraine
Loss of Property Values
Hydro Rate Increases
Our tax dollars will be subsidizing these Industrial Turbines costing Ontario residents BILLIONS.
Large wind energy turbines:
Generate a wide range of noises and vibration, day and night, that cause loss of sleep, headaches, tinnitus, irritability, dizziness, nausea, and other symptoms in people who live near them.
Raise noise levels to a degree that is incompatible with the rural or wild environment in which they are typically sited.
Create intrusive shadow flicker over a long distance when the sun is behind the turning blades. May shed and throw large pieces of ice over a great distance.
Are subject to stresses that often cause catastrophic blade failure, collapse, and fire.
Large wind turbines therefore need adequate setbacks to protect the health and safety of nearby residents. A minimum distance of 2 kilometers (or 1-1/4 miles) between homes and the turbines is recommended by a number of noise and health experts.
In certain terrains, such as rolling hills, in quiet rural areas, and under some climatic conditions, greater distances of 3-5 km (~2-3 mi) are required to protect the health and welfare of neighbors. Any specified setback, however, must be part of a robust set of regulations to also limit noise and protect the environment and landscape.
For more information, see
(scroll down for petition; e-mail addresses are not public and will not be used for solicitations of any kind; you can also choose to hide your name)
Large wind energy turbines:
- Generate a wide range of noises and vibration, day and night, that cause loss of sleep, headaches, tinnitus, irritability, dizziness, nausea, and other symptoms in people who live near them.
- Raise noise levels to a degree that is incompatible with the rural and wild environments in which they are typically sited.
- Create intrusive shadow flicker over a long distance when the sun is behind the turning blades.
- May shed and throw large pieces of ice over a great distance.
- Are subject to stresses that often cause catastrophic blade failure, collapse, and fire.
In certain terrains, such as rolling hills, in quiet rural areas, and under some climatic conditions, and with increasing numbers of turbines, greater distances are required to protect the health and welfare of neighbors. Any specified setback, however, must be part of a robust set of regulations to also limit noise and protect wildlife, farm animals, the environment, and the landscape, all of which may well require much greater setbacks.
For more information, see
- "Noise and Health Effects of Large Wind Turbines"
- "Safe setbacks: How far should wind turbines be from homes?"
Show it to your legislators and government officials in discussing regulation of the wind industry. Use it as a starting point for local zoning. Use it as a model for local petitions.
Use one of these graphics on your web site or blog:
Also see the European (epaw.org) and North American (na-paw.org) Platforms Against Windpower.
'Wingates Not Wind Farms' action group is set up to fight the proposals by Novera Energy, Coronation Power and Res (UK) Ltd in their plans to build several wind farm sites which would envelope Wingates village and the surrounding area.
Our 3 key objectives are simple
Protect Northumberland landscape
Protect Northumberland people
Protect Northumberland local businesses
Information, links, photos and video are below that describe this issue:
Video of Surfrider members being interviewed on this issue.
Direct Link To Video at tcpalm.com
FULL DETAILS ON THIS ISSUE AT THE TC SURFRIDER WEBSITE
SURFRIDER.ORG BLOG ON ISSUE
TC PALM NEWSPAPER STORY ON ISSUE
SURFRIDER FOUNDATION MAIN WEBSITE
TC SURFRIDER WEBSITE
MYSPACE PROFILE FOR TC SURFRIDER
TC SURFRIDER YOUTUBE PAGE
April 3, 2006
The Niagara Escarpment in wrongly being threatened with destruction. Recognized as one of the most scenic landmarks in Canada, characterized by its rolling hills and forested regions, little can replace the natural spectacles viewed there.
However, this environment is challenged by the Superior Wind Energy, who wishes to implement 133 wind turbines, structures that stand over 400 feet tall and would obliterate the serenity and splendor of the region. Not only would these turbines be unappealing to the aesthetics of the Escarpment, but also rival the sustainability of many species of animals populating the region.
Considering that very rare species of vegetation, birds, reptiles and amphibians inhabit this if would be a tragedy to see these natural organisms become extinct.
Another quality of the Niagara Escarpment the implementation of Wind Turbines would affect is the local economy. The tourism industry would be gravely hurt by such construction because many hikers blaze the trails of the Niagara Escarpment, but with the Wind Turbines obstructing the trails the serenity of the region would be impeded.
Also with less space for housing development and the threat that some current habitants might choose to move because of the turbines, local businesses and industries will not be able to reach there full potential without adequate numbers of employees.
The last topic that will be mentioned is the very relevant fact that so many alternatives to wind energy exist. Solar energy, geothermal energy and bioenergy are all safe and not obstructive method of retaining energy, which do not supplement harsh on the surrounding Escarpment as the potential wind energy would, and these other options must be considered.
The Blue Highlands Citizen Coalition would like to take this time to thank you for taking the time to read our petition, and with you we hope that we have bestowed the knowledge of how many species of wildlife would be affected by potential wind turbines, and we trust that you have become aware of the vital need to prevent any construction of this nature.
Thank you for your patronage.