Study suggests people are in favour of wind energy in UK
Share
A new study into the UK public’s perception of wind energy suggests that people are favourably inclined toward it.
New research by Ipsos MORI for RenewableUK, the trade and professional body for the UK wind and marine renewables industries, shows that 67 per cent of people are in favour of the use of wind power in the UK, with 28 per cent ‘strongly in favour’.
One in 12 (eight per cent) are opposed — with only three per cent suggesting that they are ‘strongly opposed’.
According to RenewableUK, these figures provide more evidence to show that while there is a small but vocal anti-wind energy contingent, a majority of the public support the UK’s abundant wind resources.
‘It’s clear that the majority of those surveyed are supportive of energy from wind,’ said Maria McCaffery, chief executive of RenewableUK. ‘Wind is an abundant, clean, secure and affordable energy source. It is therefore not only undemocratic to allow the vocal anti-wind minority to derail the UK’s plans for renewable energy, but also damaging to our economy, undermining investment and jobs that will help to rebuild communities across the country, and put the UK on a path to future economic prosperity.’
The findings also suggest that the majority find the appearance of wind farms to be acceptable.
Respondents were asked to rate the level of acceptability of the appearance of wind farms on the landscape on a 10-point scale, ranging from completely unacceptable (one) to completely acceptable (10).
The majority (57 per cent) gave a score of between seven and 10, with a fifth (20 per cent) suggesting that the look of wind farms was completely acceptable. At the other end of the scale, one in six (17 per cent) gave scores of between one and four. Two in 10 (22 per cent) were neutral (giving a score of five or six), with four per cent not knowing.
The poll of 1,009 adults aged between 16 and 64 across the country comes ahead of the Clean Energy Ministerial, which will see ministers from more than 20 nations come to London to discuss low-carbon energy.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page
Readers' comments (26)
john turner | 23 Apr 2012 12:35 pm
Had the question been: will you pay £200+ per year in subsidies for windmills? the answer would be
no thanks
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Tony Thomson | 23 Apr 2012 1:12 pm
It would still be yes from me!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Malcolm | 23 Apr 2012 2:08 pm
I wonder how many people were asked to approve the look of Drax or Sizewell B. At the moment we can expect to pay more for electricity from energy sources that are landing in real time than from concentrated sources accumulated over billions of years and thrown away in a couple of hundred. Householders can easily substitute higher efficiency for increased per kWh cost (CFLs and high efficiency appliances). Sustainability and cleaner air at no cost.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 23 Apr 2012 2:24 pm
If the wind power available is so abundant, why can it only supply such a miniscule amount compared to our overall energy needs? If it is such a good investment, why should the hapless general public subsidize it by an enforced amount stolen from them through their energy bills?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Patrick Sudlow | 23 Apr 2012 2:24 pm
People are paying higher energy bills because of subsidies for nuclear and fossil fuels, not for renewables.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Nathan | 23 Apr 2012 5:02 pm
The vast majority of people are ignorant of engineering issues, democratic principle is no basis for making engineering decisions.
Furthermore this sounds more like a dictat emmanating from North Korea rather than reasoned debate.
"‘Wind is an abundant, clean, secure and affordable energy source. It is therefore not only undemocratic to allow the vocal anti-wind minority to derail the UK’s plans for renewable energy, but also damaging to our economy, undermining investment and jobs that will help to rebuild communities across the country, and put the UK on a path to future economic prosperity.’"
The people have spoken and anyone who disagrees is an enemy of the people, of the earth and of mother Gaia.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Paul Noonan | 23 Apr 2012 8:39 pm
It would be interesting to see the results categorised by the profession of the respondent. What would the vote be amongst qualified, practicing, engineers and scientists?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Roger Caplin | 23 Apr 2012 8:53 pm
This has to be a good thing to install, the view is not bad compared with cooling towers, in the long term it is good for the balance of payments. The main problem is where is the energy going to come from if replacement power stations are not built when there is no wind. The cost of generating for short periods must cost more. But whatever is produced will have no long term effect on the climate.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 23 Apr 2012 9:27 pm
Instead of asking these questions, how many of the people draining the public of their income on energy have a wind farm to look out on? Nimby/gravy train leaches ought to be made to live with them. They will all have to come down anyway. As there is much better out there, and they know it.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
tom kawala | 23 Apr 2012 9:34 pm
The UK shoreline suggests that the best will be harnessing tidal power. It is abundant, regular, reliable and predictable. Wind power at low altitudes
is very irregular.
More to say, there are locations with strong currents where harnessing energy can be lucrative business, staying very close to to shore line.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Geoff Wilson | 24 Apr 2012 12:59 pm
Journalists who interview companies involved in wind turbines never ask the question 'Would you be here if the subsidy was withdrawn?' Why should people who are already struggling to pay their energy bills subsidize those who can see a good con like this?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Editor's comments | 24 Apr 2012 12:59 pm
We do ask, and several articles and interviews have referred to the investment climate.
Mark Preston | 24 Apr 2012 1:36 pm
Would those in the anti-wind minority like to bring a solution to the table rather than objections, and stop whinging. If something absolutely fantastic comes up tomorrow then the wind farm can be taken down and re-deployed elsewhere without trace. In the mean time we NEED TO DO SOMETHING, and wind is part of that. So the anti-lobby are just going to have to get used to looking at beautiful, elegant structures that demonstrate our commitment to trying to solve the problems that we face. Not only that, but having our energy production clearly visible - local to the community, acts as a constant reminder of the power that we consume and is valuable in helping to educate future generations be less wasteful than we have been.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
S. Martin | 24 Apr 2012 1:54 pm
Mark Preston, solution? Thorium.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
S. Martin | 24 Apr 2012 2:03 pm
Unfortunately the public has no real knowledge of the subject ot the issues it faces, and these are not just financial. Many people base their thoughts on a concept or model of windpower, often sold to them by expert manipulators in the media or Government, and not the realities. How many are aware of the alternatives? and how many are aware of the cheaper and more reliable options which exist. How many of those for wind power suddenly changed their mind when a windfarm was built near to them and they has the issues of low frequency white noise, and constant bird strikes to name two issues.
This underlines another issue, that of Government wasting considerable sums of taxpayers money on untried and untested windfarms. They too were sold a concept or ideology, and invested heavily in it based on a concept and an ideology, and not actual data. Had they made a small investment into it and properly evaluated the results and issues, its very likely they wouldn't have wasted so much taxpayers money. Such money could have gone into much more research, and into projects with PROVEN results, and which didn't affect people.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
randydutton | 24 Apr 2012 4:44 pm
Did the respondents know that China has a 97% monopoly of the rare earth elements (REE) required to make the wind turbines? Thus, China benefits greatly, less so for UK industry...just ask the German wind industry. In the US, ratepayers are having to pay wind energy companies NOT to produce power because we have a cheaper surplus. In the NW US we're paying $50 million, and in Minnesota they're paying about $70 million for them to shut down the turbines. Think about that.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Adrian | 24 Apr 2012 6:30 pm
No one where I live wants wind turbines. We have the most beautiful countryside in Wales and no work. But we do have tourism. So they want to despoil it with Massive turbines and huge pylons to transport the energy. The actual delivered energy is only 13% of the quoted capacity! The farmer who gets the wind turbine on his land gets money. The Danish Manufacturers get a British subsidy and the jobs. We lose out. The main users of energy are in the cities. Put the turbines in Hyde Park, St James Park and Regents Park. hmmmm That would work wouldnt it! What about Chipping Norton where the Prime Minister lives? I think that would fail. In engineering terms we need to use Tidal and Wave power. There we have a real advantage and can sell to the world.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Neil Kermode | 25 Apr 2012 7:23 am
Good news to get some grounding on the percentages on public opinion. I have lost count of the number of times I have had conversations with people who feel that they are out of step in their views that wind turbines are OK. They seem surprised to discover that it is OK to say you like them. Maybe this will go some way to give them some confidence that they are actually the norm, not the exception.
To answer one of the respondents above: I AM an engineer and I know it works. As I type this I know my county is running on renewables (live web feed says we are generating nearly double demand) and since August we have been around 75% on average powered by renewables.
I know this can work, because it IS working..... but we do have to get storage into the mix urgently.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Tony Thomson | 25 Apr 2012 9:03 am
Storage in the form of Electromechanical batteries is a realistic option for variable energy generation, and Urenco is one of the companies developing suitable forms of these.
In the end, and paraphrasing Carl Sagan, the amount of power we use MUST not exceed the amount provided via the sun or we generate a surplus of heat. To dump that additional heat into space would require the Earth to raise it's temperature.
Multiple energy generating systems will be needed. Wind, Hydro, Solar, and others as they become viable. Wind is viable now, the others are slowly following.
The quicker we accept and embrace the need for a zero net energy surplus for the whole planet, the better for everyone.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
JohnK | 25 Apr 2012 10:35 am
Generation:
Wind - Actual = 13% of stated
Tidal - Actual = 100% of stated
Visual impact:
Wind - Colossal
Tidal - Negligible
Subsidy:
Wind - Substantial
Tidal - Minimal
A no-brainer?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
MH | 25 Apr 2012 2:54 pm
Interesting discussion...encouraging to hear some positive news in relation to renewable electricity....I'm an engineer who is opposed to nuclear due to the failure to address the hazardous waste issue amongst numerous other reasons....
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment