Dear Sirs

 

Re: FORCE should not be seen as a competitor to KNOll to Wind Farm,

 

We are disappointed, but not surprised, that a range of hugely important, related, but separate debates are being misunderstood and misrepresented in the public domain. We therefore thought it would be helpful to provide some clarification..

 

Wind Power is not an alternative to Nuclear Energy

 

We understand that many people in the Burnham-on-Sea area are concerned about the safety of Nuclear energy, and the implications of proposals to decommission, expand or replace the power station at Hinkley Point. As near neighbours, we too share any exposure to such risk.

 

 It is important, however, to recognise that whether as individuals, we support or are anti-nuclear power, this is not relevant in the debate about wind power. No commentators, nor government, suggest that wind is an alternative to nuclear power. The alternatives to nuclear are fossil fuels, or biomass combustion.

 

Alternative forms of “Green energy”, such as wind, tidal, or solar power, can and will contribute to our energy needs, but only as a relatively marginal contributor.

 

We should not therefore confuse the debate about nuclear energy and/or Hinkley Point with the debate about wind farms at Burnham-on-Sea, or anywhere else in Somerset. It is quite possible to hold anti-views about both.

 

 The only people it benefits for us to confuse this debate are the commercial developers of wind farms.

 

Supporting wind power in Somerset

 

We believe that it is also quite possible to support wind power in Somerset, or elsewhere, and object to the proposals for a wind farm between Burnham and Brent Knoll. Each proposal needs to be assessed on its own merits.

 

We have legitimate concerns that this location would unnecessarily create

 

·        Health and Safety;

·        Economic; and

·        Environmental impacts

 

that would be lessened in alternative locations.

 

The only people it benefits for objections about this site to be seen as “anti-wind” are the owner of the land and the developer who stands to profit from this development.

 

Objecting to this location does not make people “environmentally unfriendly”.

 

For the same reasons as above, objecting to this location as a site for a wind farm does not, per se, make individuals environmentally unfriendly.

 

 Some people would argue that by trying to prevent the industrialisation of the countryside through the construction of wind farms that they are protecting the environment, and that wind turbines should be located off-shore. Again this appears a legitimate point of view to hold.

 

“Environmental friendliness” needs to be considered in overall terms. KNOll to Wind Farm Action Group, for example, has used the proposals for the wind farm as a “wake up call” to encourage the Brent Knoll community, which is already quite “green” to strive to become “greener”.

 

Indeed, Mr. Dale Vince, the Managing Director of Ecotricity, who are the developers proposing to construct and profit from the Burnham wind farm, when questioned on television about why he drove a “gas guzzling” Range Rover said it is important to “consider the big picture” when assessing someone’s greenness. This is one area where we can agree with Mr. Vince.

 

In conclusion, lets not over simplify or pigeon-hole this debate as “Green” v. “anti-Green”, or “Wind” v. “Nuclear”. Those are not the right questions nor the basis of debate.

 

The question is far more straightforward;

 

 

Most of these risks would be minimised or avoided in a location which is much further removed from a large residential population, a significant range of community activities, and in where the environmental impact would be much less.

 

Lets not waste our energy, efforts and good intentions by debating the wrong questions and casting aspersions on peoples motivation.

 

Yours faithfully

 

 

Knoll to Wind Farm