“Jason, Yes I think we agree on the question of reality. However Denmark is not perhaps such a good example as people make out. The bulk of its admittedly significant wind-sourced output is exported to neighbours. It has considerable nuclear capacity and imports from neighbours when local generation is inadequate, much of which imported power come from conventional fuel sources including brown coal. Denmark is a world leader in turbine technology but despite this it has seen several frightening turbine failures/pylon collapses. We have had some in UK too, with blades being throw hundreds of feet. Googling turbine failure produces interesting reading and frightening videos. Few people realise the hazards of wind generation which include risk levels to the public not seen in conventional/nuclear generation.”

“The fact is being reliant on any one form of generation is foolish. Wind, nuclear and carbon based energy generantion are part of a combined approach.
I think Michael, that we both believe in a common sense approach to energy production. Its just that to say none at all is as mistaken as saying nothing but. Denmark is a good example of what can be reasonably done with wind power, France an excellent example of Nuclear. We can take our ideas from both those countries”

“More wind turbines the better. Many people think they are an eyesore but I could think of alot worse things to look at! Stop moaning about it and get a life, more things to worry about then 23 wind turbines!!!”

“Jason, I did read your comment. You said "Unless you are not using any modern, technological systems you have real right to complain about these turbines". Assuming that you missed out the word no between real and right you made a clear statement of support for wind turbines. I pointed out that immense numbers of these huge structures would be required to generate the electricity we need (which even then they would do unreliably). My comment about preferring to see a nuclear plant rather than a countryside of huge masts was pointed at jacko.

From your last post I gather that you are realistic and recognise that not only is nuclear a logical solution it is actually much safer than many would have us believe. However it's still not clear where you stand on littering the landscape with unreliable, ineffective wind turbines.”

“Michael, try reading my comment...The point being made was that people cannot expect to have the benefits of a modern lifestyle without the environmental costs that go with it. I do know nuclear power is the most reliable, secure and actually one of the safest methods of electricity production. However the publicity is such that the mention of it causes ihe generally ignorant public fto have its of terror.”

“Why not dam off the Humber & use the power of the tide to generate electricity. Very expensive to build but the tide can be relied on. This could also be adapted to carry vehicles giving an alternative to the expensive bridge crossing & saving the countryside from wind farms.”

“Bill - The council may argue that planning rules do not take into account depreciation of houses affected, but a recent Land Tribunal case for reducing Council Tax was won by the owners and should be sufficient in law to establish the rights of house owners to object. In any case I would guess that if those affected were prepared to go to the EU Rights Court, they would get a good hearing and cause delay to the council's plans if nothing else.
Andrew - interesting point about gas v coal stations. Unfortunately, because all our gas supplies were not stored but sold to Europe, we are having to buy it back at inflated prices and as far as coal is concerned, although we have considerable deposits in the UK, nobody seems to be prepared to open up mining again.”

“North Lincs has already achieved the Government¿s 2020 target and presumably our share of ONSHORE wind power capacity. Many of the power companies inc NPower are now leading development in offshore wind power and many major schemes are now in the pipeline all around our coast, including the world¿s largest ¿farm¿! of 341 turbines in the Thames Estuary.

The Low Wolds and Burton Hills are a stones throw from the Humber Estuary and East Coastline. 23 onshore turbines would be a drop in the ocean of the thousands of proposed offshore turbines.

I suggest that it is negligence and madness on a massive scale to continue to disproportionately desecrate our limited remaining areas of pristine countryside and high value landscape. The environmental and social impacts, risks and injustice to those affected communities are unacceptable.”

“FAO those of the anti NIMBY brigade: Those of us who have sensibly, wisely and freely chosen and invested in homes without EXISTING detrimental environmental, noise or visual impacts, then we are entitled and we have Rights to moan via freedom of expression; and a Right to (at least try and secure, no matter how futile!?) the respect for our homes and the amenity of our quality of lives.”

“Andrew of Kirton, I hope your experience is repeated here. However I am not convinced how the desirability and demand for these seaside tourism and retirement areas can be compared to rural villages in the vicinity of industrial Scunthorpe and the Humber Bank.”