Three new wind farms will 'destroy our beautiful landscape'
The three new wind farms in Wales have the potential to generate enough electricity to power 350,000 Welsh homes' annual average electricity needs
(Image: Local Democracy Reporting Service )
The announcement of the locations for three new wind farms planned by the Welsh Government has been met with disappointment by most Wales Online readers. The project, spearheaded by Trydan Gwyrdd Cymru, is expected to create 650 construction jobs.
These three wind farms could potentially generate enough electricity to meet the annual average needs of 350,000 Welsh homes. The sites have been revealed in Denbighshire, Carmarthenshire and Rhondda Cynon Taff. Trydan Gwyrdd Cymru, a company fully owned by the Welsh Government, has set a goal to develop 1GW of new renewable energy generation capacity on Welsh public land by 2040.
The estimated cost of constructing these sites is around £500m, with a total of 67, 6MW wind turbines proposed across the three locations, subject to approval. The turbines are anticipated to stand approximately 200m tall.
The wind farms will be erected on the Welsh Government's woodland estate, aligning with their plan to generate sufficient renewable electricity to cover 70% of Wales' consumption by 2030, increasing to 100% by 2035. Trydan stated that these three sites would result in 650 construction jobs over a span of up to two years, and up to 40 direct and 55 indirect jobs over 35 years.
Consultation events are planned before planning permission is sought by mid-2027. If granted, construction is likely to commence in the early 2030s, with energy production expected from 2035.
Commenter EUandMe asks: 'Will our energy bills decrease with all this additional 'free' electricity? No? Thought not!'
Article continues below
Septimus replies: 'Renewable energy sources like solar and wind power have become increasingly cost-competitive with fossil fuels, and in many cases, are now the cheapest options for new electricity generation.'
Goatman thinks: 'Destroying the beautiful landscape. Nobody wants them, they destroy wildlife and devalue the landscape.'
Charlie2015 retorts: 'I agree they are absolutely destroying our beautiful landscape, I so much prefer the huge ugly grey pylons. They look so much better! All this moaning, but power has to come from somewhere. I wonder what you'd all be like if we had no electricity you'd probably all have withdrawal because you wouldn't be able to charge your phones which you've all become so reliant on. We've lived for years with pylons all over the country. What difference are these white windmills going to make?'
Novvypoo adds: 'What about the fossil fuel shortages on the horizon? And how will it destroy wildlife? Swoosh them to death?'
Harry Crumb thinks: 'Clean energy is the future.'
Blackhand18 replies: 'Clean energy is produced by environmentally damaging methods. Lithium mining for electric car batteries is destroying the environment and large swathes of the world. What difference are these multiple noisy eyesores going to make? These 3 are going to power 350,000 homes - 1 large town. Wow! In the meantime farmers producing food will be non-existent and all our food will be imported by air creating higher emissions.'
BlueBuoy points out: 'Wildlife seems to be doing OK to me, I never thought I'd see numerous birds of prey again in our skies, otters in our rivers, beavers, red squirrels, salmon in our rivers, although to be fair, the water companies have probably put us back on that!'
Gravytraindeactivated says: 'Building these will result in unpredictable energy generation and we will pay even more money to have them taken off the grid (capacity payments) when there is too much solar or too much wind. We should be investing in pumped storage (hydro) or hydrogen generation and storage for steel production instead of paying for over capacity.'
Brad1954 thinks: 'We had the coal tips and they were bad enough, but at least you could seed them and turn them green, these turbines are an eyesore and will end up in landfill without justifying the cost.'
Article continues below
How do you feel about wind powered energy? Are they an investment in the future? Have your say in our comments section.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Leader Live
38 minutes ago
- Leader Live
Court reforms vital to tackle ‘scandalous disgrace' of backlog, says Ken Clarke
Given the mounting trial logjam, the Government has 'no choice' but to swiftly accept proposed reforms, which would see less cases heard by juries, according to the Conservative peer. Last week, plans to reduce the number of jury trials and create a new type of crown court where cases are heard by judges were unveiled by Sir Brian Leveson. The review commissioned by the Government seeks to 'reduce the risk of total system collapse' amid a record-high backlog where some cases are listed for 2029. It comes after the crown court backlog in England and Wales passed 75,000 cases for the first time, rising to 76,957 at the end of March. Sir Brian's recommendations are expected to save approximately 9,000 sitting days in the crown court each year from some of the main changes, such as by diverting cases to magistrates' courts or to the proposed Crown Court Bench Division for trials to be heard by judges. Juries would be reserved to hear the most serious cases. Ministers are now considering the recommendations and will respond in the early autumn with a view to legislation. The Government has already accepted a raft of reforms proposed in a separate independent sentencing review by former justice secretary David Gauke to tackle jail overcrowding. Speaking in Parliament, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, who also previously served as justice secretary, said: 'Does the minister accept that it is a scandalous disgrace that in this country some victims and people charged with offences have to wait months and sometimes years before a trial can take place? 'Does he therefore agree that, in those circumstances, the Government have no choice but to accept as quickly as possible the excellent recommendations made by Sir Brian Leveson, because I hear of no alternatives? 'Will he undertake that they will not take too long reviewing and considering these matters? 'This should proceed as rapidly as possible with the full support of everybody who has the interests of the rule of law and justice in this country at heart.' Welcoming his support, justice minister Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, who is also a sitting magistrate, said: 'Data published last month showed the backlog stood at nearly 77,000 cases. That is an increase of 2,300 cases over the previous quarter. 'If we were not to take any action, it is projected that the outstanding caseload would be 100,000 in 2028. Clearly, that is unacceptable, and I absolutely take the point he made.' Leading lawyer and independent crossbencher Lord Pannick said: 'Does the minister agree that, in addressing the very serious problems faced by the criminal justice system, it is important not to romanticise the jury, given that 90% of all criminal trials in this country are heard without a jury and relatively speedily – not as speedily as perhaps they could be, but relatively so – and they are heard effectively and with justice.' Lord Ponsonby said: 'Of course I would agree because, as a magistrate, I was among those who hear 90% of all criminal cases. 'There is no right to a jury trial. However, there is a right to a fair trial. 'For a fair trial, it must be heard in a timely manner. That is where we are failing. 'We need these systemic changes to address that fundamental problem, so that people – both victims and defendants – can get a fair trial in a timely way.'
South Wales Argus
an hour ago
- South Wales Argus
Court reforms vital to tackle ‘scandalous disgrace' of backlog, says Ken Clarke
Given the mounting trial logjam, the Government has 'no choice' but to swiftly accept proposed reforms, which would see less cases heard by juries, according to the Conservative peer. Last week, plans to reduce the number of jury trials and create a new type of crown court where cases are heard by judges were unveiled by Sir Brian Leveson. The review commissioned by the Government seeks to 'reduce the risk of total system collapse' amid a record-high backlog where some cases are listed for 2029. It comes after the crown court backlog in England and Wales passed 75,000 cases for the first time, rising to 76,957 at the end of March. Lord Clarke said there is 'no choice' but to implement Sir Brian Leveson's recommendations (Stefan Rousseau/PA) Sir Brian's recommendations are expected to save approximately 9,000 sitting days in the crown court each year from some of the main changes, such as by diverting cases to magistrates' courts or to the proposed Crown Court Bench Division for trials to be heard by judges. Juries would be reserved to hear the most serious cases. Ministers are now considering the recommendations and will respond in the early autumn with a view to legislation. The Government has already accepted a raft of reforms proposed in a separate independent sentencing review by former justice secretary David Gauke to tackle jail overcrowding. Speaking in Parliament, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, who also previously served as justice secretary, said: 'Does the minister accept that it is a scandalous disgrace that in this country some victims and people charged with offences have to wait months and sometimes years before a trial can take place? 'Does he therefore agree that, in those circumstances, the Government have no choice but to accept as quickly as possible the excellent recommendations made by Sir Brian Leveson, because I hear of no alternatives? 'Will he undertake that they will not take too long reviewing and considering these matters? 'This should proceed as rapidly as possible with the full support of everybody who has the interests of the rule of law and justice in this country at heart.' Welcoming his support, justice minister Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, who is also a sitting magistrate, said: 'Data published last month showed the backlog stood at nearly 77,000 cases. That is an increase of 2,300 cases over the previous quarter. 'If we were not to take any action, it is projected that the outstanding caseload would be 100,000 in 2028. Clearly, that is unacceptable, and I absolutely take the point he made.' Leading lawyer and independent crossbencher Lord Pannick said: 'Does the minister agree that, in addressing the very serious problems faced by the criminal justice system, it is important not to romanticise the jury, given that 90% of all criminal trials in this country are heard without a jury and relatively speedily – not as speedily as perhaps they could be, but relatively so – and they are heard effectively and with justice.' Lord Ponsonby said: 'Of course I would agree because, as a magistrate, I was among those who hear 90% of all criminal cases. 'There is no right to a jury trial. However, there is a right to a fair trial. 'For a fair trial, it must be heard in a timely manner. That is where we are failing. 'We need these systemic changes to address that fundamental problem, so that people – both victims and defendants – can get a fair trial in a timely way.'
Leader Live
an hour ago
- Leader Live
MPs slam ‘disgraceful' rollback of Northern Ireland veterans legislation
A debate over withdrawing the legal protections established by the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act, which shield veterans from being prosecuted for historic actions between 1969 and 2007 during Operation Banner, took place at Westminster Hall on Monday. MPs critical of the move suggested it would open a 'witch-hunt' against veterans who served to protect citizens across communities in Northern Ireland. The debate followed a public petition against repealing the legislation which attracted more than 170,000 signatures. Conservative MP John Lamont, who opened the parliamentary session, said the rollback could lead to 'two-tier' payouts for figures such as former Republican politician Gerry Adams. Mr Lamont said: '[The change] could result in a six-figure payout for Mr Adams, simply because his interim custody order was not considered by the secretary of state, but rather a junior minister. 'That is simply outrageous. 'We have seen a lot of examples of two-tier justice since the Labour government came to power, but this may simply be the worst of all. 'Is the Government really contemplating creating a system to drag northern Irish veterans through the courts, whilst potentially paying millions to terrorists? 'We should also be clear about the differences between the actions of soldiers and terrorists. When terrorists get up in the morning, they go out with murderous intent to use violence to attack our democracy. Soldiers do not. 'The Legacy Act is by no means perfect, but it is better than the disgraceful spectacle of veterans being dragged through the courts. 'Doing so is not sustainable – legally or morally.' Others echoed Mr Lamont's comments, highlighting the implications the rollback could have on the armed forces in future conflicts. Conservative MP Sir David Davis argued the change would mean that British soldiers would be abandoned by the country they served. He said: 'Getting this right is not just a matter of historical justice. 'The legal witch-hunt won't end in Northern Ireland. 'It'll cast a shadow over every future conflict that our armed forces engage in, and undermine their abilities to defend us.' He added: 'Those who freely talk about human rights would do well to remember that our rights, our law, our democracy and our nation were protected by the very veterans that are at risk today. 'So let us all make one promise, that no British soldier will ever again be abandoned by the nation they have so bravely protected.' Other MPs voiced their support in favour of the Government's proposals, arguing that the current act is not fit for purpose. Labour MP Louise Jones suggested that the lack of support for the legislation among victims, politicians across parties in Northern Ireland, and veterans themselves meant it ought to be repealed. She said: 'This Legacy Act has been found to be unlawful. It gives immunity to terrorists, and it denies justice to the families of the 200 service personnel that were murdered by terrorists during the Troubles. 'It is not supported in its current form by victims, it's not supported by a Northern Irish party, and many veterans are troubled by it. It must go and be replaced, and I call on the minister to outline how we can protect veterans from malicious lawfare of any conflict.' 'We have a huge duty here in Westminster to work with those communities not against them, and I hope everyone here will reflect on that important undertaking.' Northern Ireland Secretary Hilary Benn pointed to statistics from the Centre for Military Justice that show that only one British soldier has been convicted since the Good Friday Agreement in 1998. He suggested that this was the case over the 27 years, despite immunity for British military personnel not being enshrined in law for the majority of this time. Mr Benn also argued that the changes would allow incomplete investigations into the deaths of soldiers to reopen. He said: 'Legacy is hard. This is the unfinished business of the Good Friday agreement. 'And that is why we need to listen to the many families who lost loved ones, including the families of British service personnel, who served so bravely. 'There are more than 200 families of UK military personnel who are still searching for answers 30, 40, 50 years ago about the murder of their loved ones. 'The Police Service of Northern Ireland recently confirmed they had 202 live investigations into Troubles-related killings of members of our armed forces, and a further 23 into the killings of veterans. 'Each and every one of those investigations was forced to close by the Legacy Act, and we will bring forward legislation to deal with that. 'The other challenge is the lack of confidence in the act on the part of communities in Northern Ireland, which we are going to seek to reform. 'We owe it to all these families.'
