Cliviger residents protest over windfarm plan (From Burnley and Pendle Citizen)

“I don’t think that people realise that these turbines will have to travel halfway across the town, to reach the windfarm, and it will have an impact beyond Cliviger
did the old ones just grow where they are NO they had to travel there people of cliviger get a grip we need to find cleaner sources of energy the old wind farm is no more a eyesore then the council yard,the empty boarded up toilets,the burnt down holme you all just want to kick off at change I have a idea you all go back to the dark ages and try to live without electric you don't mind using it just think where it comes from

It is time the bleak and wild=landscape along Long Causeway was returned to the state it was in since the dawn of Geological time. Away with these giant montrous triffids I say!

It is time the wild and bleak Brontesque landscape that is Long Causeway was returned to the state it was at the dawn of geological time.
Begone with these giant monstrous and offensive triffids, I say...and be they no more!

Well I'm a Cliviger resident and I welcome this redevelopment. It's about time the Luddites put their sledgehammers away and learned to accept that there is no pleasure without pain. The whingers are all happy to accept and use the electricity that is generated, yet they aren't prepared to put up with the method of generation. I'd rather have a hundred windfarms than one nuclear power station. Have we forgotten Calder Hall, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima? What these idiots don't realise is that if there were a similar emergency at Heysham, most of Lancashire would be devastated or become uninhabitable. OK, so wind-farms may not be the prettiest, but they're the least risky. Wake up people.

Oh, and don't forget that the moors above the gorge haven't always looked like they do now - 50 years ago it was open-cast strip-mining, both at Coal Clough and Thieveley. What we see now is a legacy of that.

I am a ex resident of cliviger so I know how narrow minded some people who live there can be also look at the eyesore next to the cliviger fish ponds,the boarded shop on burnley road,the state of the house driveway next to the lovly park the state of the over grow bushes meaning when you go for a walk you have to walk in the road from the cross roads to cliviger,you scream about destroying the landscape look a little closer to home

bikerjohn_uk wrote:
Well I'm a Cliviger resident and I welcome this redevelopment. It's about time the Luddites put their sledgehammers away and learned to accept that there is no pleasure without pain. The whingers are all happy to accept and use the electricity that is generated, yet they aren't prepared to put up with the method of generation. I'd rather have a hundred windfarms than one nuclear power station. Have we forgotten Calder Hall, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and Fukushima? What these idiots don't realise is that if there were a similar emergency at Heysham, most of Lancashire would be devastated or become uninhabitable. OK, so wind-farms may not be the prettiest, but they're the least risky. Wake up people.

Forty percent of all the wind energy in Europe blows over the UK, making it an ideal country for wind turbines. The Northwest region undoubtedly gets the lions share too, with Lancashire, Cumbria, Cheshire and Manchester benefiting the most from wind turbine solutions.Yearly Incident incidents occur with nuclear power going back to 1952. This does not include military nuclear usage
INES level
Country
IAEA description
2011 Fukushima 5 Japan Reactor shutdown after the 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami; failure of emergency cooling caused an explosion
2011 Onagawa Japan Reactor shutdown after the 2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami caused a fire
2006 Fleurus 4 Belgium Severe health effects for a worker at a commercial irradiation facility as a result of high doses of radiation
2006 Forsmark 2 Sweden Degraded safety functions for common cause failure in the emergency power supply system at nuclear power plant
2006 Erwin US Thirty-five litres of a highly enriched uranium solution leaked during transfer
2005 Sellafield 3 UK Release of large quantity of radioactive material, contained within the installation
2005 Atucha 2 Argentina Overexposure of a worker at a power reactor exceeding the annual limit
2005 Braidwood US Nuclear material leak
2003 Paks 3 Hungary Partially spent fuel rods undergoing cleaning in a tank of heavy water ruptured and spilled fuel pellets
1999 Tokaimura 4 Japan Fatal overexposures of workers following a criticality event at a nuclear facility
1999 Yanangio 3 Peru Incident with radiography source resulting in severe radiation burns
1999 Ikitelli 3 Turkey Loss of a highly radioactive Co-60 source
1999 Ishikawa 2 Japan Control rod malfunction
1993 Tomsk 4 Russia Pressure buildup led to an explosive mechanical failure
1993 Cadarache 2 France Spread of contamination to an area not expected by design
1989 Vandellos 3 Spain Near accident caused by fire resulting in loss of safety systems at the nuclear power station
1989 Greifswald Germany Excessive heating which damaged ten fuel rods
1986 Chernobyl 7 Ukraine (USSR) Widespread health and environmental effects. External release of a significant fraction of reactor core inventory
1986 Hamm-Uentrop Germany Spherical fuel pebble became lodged in the pipe used to deliver fuel elements to the reactor
1981 Tsuraga 2 Japan More than 100 workers were exposed to doses of up to 155 millirem per day radiation
1980 Saint Laurent des Eaux 4 France Melting of one channel of fuel in the reactor with no release outside the site
1979 Three Mile Island 5 US Severe damage to the reactor core
1977 Jaslovské Bohunice 4 Czechoslovakia Damaged fuel integrity, extensive corrosion damage of fuel cladding and release of radioactivity
1969 Lucens Switzerland Total loss of coolant led to a power excursion and explosion of experimental reactor
1967 Chapelcross UK Graphite debris partially blocked a fuel channel causing a fuel element to melt and catch fire
1966 Monroe US Sodium cooling system malfunction
1964 Charlestown US Error by a worker at a United Nuclear Corporation fuel facility led to an accidental criticality
1959 Santa Susana Field Laboratory US Partial core meltdown
1958 Chalk River Canada Due to inadequate cooling a damaged uranium fuel rod caught fire and was torn in two
1958 Vinča Yugoslavia During a subcritical counting experiment a power buildup went undetected - six scientists received high doses
1957 Kyshtym 6 Russia Significant release of radioactive material to the environment from explosion of a high activity waste tank.
1957 Windscale Pile 5 UK Release of radioactive material to the environment following a fire in a reactor core
1952 Chalk River 5 Canada A reactor shutoff rod failure, combined with several operator errors, led to a major power excursion of more than double the reactor's rated output at AECL's NRX reactor.

The community of Cliviger can only benefit from the wind farms. Do they have a support group for the wind farm within the 2500 community.? Why not start one if not. Most people in the community will be objecting to the turbines because it makes them feel part of the community and most probably couldn't give a f@rt about them.

Fellow biker.
Ride Free.

Excellent post Info warrior!

re article in the daily mail 6.1.13-
"Why is Britain about to pay to enter a new Dark Age?"
Can I hear the counter argument to this article from pro wind power people?

"Biker John"...I scarcely know where to begin!! Several points.

1/ Referring to people as "idiots" is a not a way to win hearts and minds.

2/ You refer to people who don't uncritically embrace wind power as "whingers", but then launch into a near hysterical scaremongering diatribe against another form of power generation. "Pot", "kettle" and "black" spring readily to mind!! Frankly you are far more likely to reach an untimely end riding your bike than through a nuclear accident...WAKE UP!!

3/ Your typically naive comment about "I'd rather live next to 100 win d turbines than a nuclear power station" implies you have little genuine understanding of the REALITIES of large-scale power generation.

"Wind" is an inherently fickle, low density and intermittent power generation source that requires a huge spatial footprint for a piddling dribble of electricity. It is thus a "parallel" generating source and not a replacement for "nasty nuclear's" base-load generation. It is not an "either/or" choice as you imply. You would need thousands of huge wind turbines covering an area the size of greater London to equal the power output of a modern nuclear reactor. Bearing in mind the UK population is set to reach 70 million by 2030, where would you put them all??

4/ Please stop buying into all the anti-nuclear hysteria from "info warrior". You do your argument no favours by quoting the likes of Chernobyl and Fukishima. These were old reactors of a dilapidated and obsolete design, often built with "weapons" development rather than power generation in mind.

France currently has 58 modern, low-carbon, highly efficient, reliable and SAFE reactors, helping to keep French energy tariffs amonst the lowest in Europe. If you check out the "Gridwatch Templar" website you will see for yourself just how little "wind" will contribute over this forthcoming cold and windless snap compared to nuclear. Do you really want to rely on wind??

Info-warrior...you are of course entitled to your opinion, but comments about local communities "benefiting the most from wind turbine solutions" (no examples cited) sounds suspiciously like the demented utterances of a browbeating "green" activist extremist or a hired shill of the wind industry.

Either way, I will be relentlessly challenging your blatant pro-wind/anti-nuclea
r propaganda from this point on with facts, logic and reason.

By the way, here's a simple question for you....

Please explain how wind can replace nuclear as a base-load provider??

I look forward to being suitably enlightened.

Last Exit for the Lost wrote:
"Biker John"...I scarcely know where to begin!! Several points.

1/ Referring to people as "idiots" is a not a way to win hearts and minds.

2/ You refer to people who don't uncritically embrace wind power as "whingers", but then launch into a near hysterical scaremongering diatribe against another form of power generation. "Pot", "kettle" and "black" spring readily to mind!! Frankly you are far more likely to reach an untimely end riding your bike than through a nuclear accident...WAKE UP!!

3/ Your typically naive comment about "I'd rather live next to 100 win d turbines than a nuclear power station" implies you have little genuine understanding of the REALITIES of large-scale power generation.

"Wind" is an inherently fickle, low density and intermittent power generation source that requires a huge spatial footprint for a piddling dribble of electricity. It is thus a "parallel" generating source and not a replacement for "nasty nuclear's" base-load generation. It is not an "either/or" choice as you imply. You would need thousands of huge wind turbines covering an area the size of greater London to equal the power output of a modern nuclear reactor. Bearing in mind the UK population is set to reach 70 million by 2030, where would you put them all??

4/ Please stop buying into all the anti-nuclear hysteria from "info warrior". You do your argument no favours by quoting the likes of Chernobyl and Fukishima. These were old reactors of a dilapidated and obsolete design, often built with "weapons" development rather than power generation in mind.

France currently has 58 modern, low-carbon, highly efficient, reliable and SAFE reactors, helping to keep French energy tariffs amonst the lowest in Europe. If you check out the "Gridwatch Templar" website you will see for yourself just how little "wind" will contribute over this forthcoming cold and windless snap compared to nuclear. Do you really want to rely on wind??

Nuclear technology was designed to destroy the world and it will do exactly what it says on the can. Millions are dying across the world due to cancers caused by radiation leaks and nuclear experiments. All checkable on line if you do your research..

Last for the lost may not have lost anyone from the horrors that nuclear technology can muster. Those within approximately a six square mile area (for a 1 megaton blast) will indeed be close enough to "ground zero" to be killed by the gamma rays emitting from the blast itself. Ghostly shadows of these people will be formed on any concrete or stone that lies behind them, and they will be no more. They literally won't know what hit them, since they will be vaporized before the electrical signals from their sense organs can reach their brains. Meaning that your SOUL is no more.


On the morning of April 26, 1986, a fatal testing error caused an explosion in Reactor No. 4 at the Russian Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant. Within seconds, the surrounding area was blasted with a radioactive release 400 times more potent than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima Japan. Close to a quarter of a century later, the region is still suffering enormously from the deadly effects of the disaster which should be regarded as a global disaster rather than a Chernobyl disaster. Which is most probably the cause of many many cancers that have struck down people all over the world.

Nuclear fallout, or simply fallout, also known as Black Rain, is the residual radioactive material propelled into the upper atmosphere following a nuclear blast or a nuclear reaction conducted in an unshielded facility, so called because it "falls out" of the sky after the explosion and shock wave have passed. It commonly refers to the radioactive dust and ash created when a nuclear weapon explodes, but this dust can also be originated in a damaged nuclear plant.

Initially little was known about the dispersion of nuclear fallout on a global scale. The AEC assumed that fallout would be dispersed evenly across the globe by atmospheric winds and gradually settle to the Earth's surface after weeks, months, and even decades as worldwide fallout. Nuclear products that were deposited in the Northern Hemisphere are becoming "far more dangerous than they had originally been estimated

The French have just made a disasterous attempt trying to free a french spy from capture. They don't know were the hostage is and two of their top rated soldiers are dead.(R.I.P) Lets trust the french and follow their examples as Last Exit For The Lost as recommended 58 nuclear reactors each day getting older then another another day older then another and before you know it we have 58 Chernobyls 26 miles from our southern shores.

Me and Biker John and anyone else who values their life will stay free riding in the wind thankyou very much and you can stick your nukes where the sun don't shine.

The unreliability of wind power facilities was exposed by a report produced by environmentalists.
It showed that in two tears prior to 2011 wind turbines metered by the National Grid ran at just 10 per cent of capacity for more than one-third of the time.
They ran at less than 20 per cent of their capacity for more than half the time.
They reported cited the output from the 1,247 turbines across Scotland and 648 from other parts of the UK frequently dropped so low that the electricity produced could boil just 6,600 kettles – around three for every turbine.
The report, Analysis of UK Wind Generation, also rejected the industry claim that wind farms generate on average 30 per cent of capacity. How many triffids will it take to match the output equivalent to just one nuclear power station load? Do we want to cover our green and pleasant land with these triffids?
As for the historic quarrying referred to earlier this was never on an industrial scale and like the Isle of Portland actually helped encourage wildlife to thrive.

Info Warrior....instead of answering my perfectly reasonable and extremely relevant question in a logical, rational manner you have resorted to an extraordinary tirade of unreferenced/unsubst
antiated and grossly exaggerated accusations of nuclear-inflicted carnage, death and destruction, pathetic “guilt-trip” inferences that I don’t value life and even thrown in some bizarre reference to French spies!!

Adopting your logic I could just as easily accuse you of being an anti-technology luddite who doesn’t value the lives of all those people being driven into chronic fuel poverty by expensive, “Green” energy subsidies and initiatives for wind turdbines…but then I try not to use emotional blackmail techniques as a weapon!!

Seeing as you are clearly unable/unwilling to answer my question, I will (for the benefit of anyone reading these comments), answer it for you. You CAN’T replace nuclear base-load with wind. Tangible proof of that is Germany. They have carpeted their countryside with over 20,000 industrial wind turbines and destabilised their electricity grid due to crippling issues with intermittency. In a panic-stricken response to Fukishima (very few tsunamis in the Fatherland!!), they have decommissioned their own nuclear reactors, but now have a massive shortfall in reliable, predictable base-load generation crucial to keeping the lights on. In response to this, they have been forced to commission 23 coal (lignite) power stations thus rather defeating the object of moving to low-carbon “renewable” power generation….total genius!!

Here’s a suggestion Info Warrior. If wind power is so wonderful, please enlighten us with all the bright and shining evidence of its world-wide success. I have researched the pros and cons of wind power for years, compiled a 2,000 page dossier of information, statistics and evidence and come to the logical conclusion (like “Morganonthewing�
�) that wind power (especially onshore) simply cannot compete with just about any other form of power generation. That competition can be on just about any criterion: reliability, availability, financial cost and (dare I say it) environmental cost per Mwe, rendering wind turbines as useless, expensive and landscape-blighting "eco-bling".

By the way, I thought it would be interesting to see exactly who has changed their opinion on nuclear power.

Many who see themselves as "environmentalists" are by default, anti-nuclear. They close their minds and blankly refuse to acknowledge the possibility that 21st century nuclear energy can ever be anything other than the demon of their nightmares.

Maybe the names below may trigger one or two of them to re-examine their position. After all, the luminaries below changed their position based on the EVIDENCE. Maybe their example may get others to examine their position and base their position on scientific fact rather than narrow-minded hysteria or what they have been told to think.

Some of these folk are well known, other less so. All are influential and independently minded.

George Monbiot: World renowned environmental Journalist used to be rabidly anti nuclear. Started to see things differently in 2009 then became publicly (and vocally) supportive of nuclear in 2011.

Patrick Moore: Co-Founder of Greenpeace. (not the fat guy who studies the moon) I gather he is generally regarded as “persona non grata” by our green zealot friends now. Pro nuclear 2003.

Stephen Tindale: Former Director of Greenpeace. About as popular with Greenpeace today as Patrick Moore is. Pro nuclear 2009.

Hugh Montifiore: One of the founders of Friends of the Earth, FOE evidently regard him with distinct unfriendliness today (pro nuclear 2004)

Chris Goodall: Green party activist, parliamentary candidate and author. Probably a ex-Green party activist by now.

Stewart Brand: Author of "Whole earth Catalog"

Mark Lynas: Author of "Six degrees"

Chris Smith: Former Labour party chairman of the Environment Agency.

Prof James Lovelock FRS: . Renowned environmentalist. Author of the “Gaia hypothesis”

Prof David McKay FRS: Renowned Physicist and author of “Sustainable Energy Without The Hot Air"

Dr James Hansen: World famous climatologist

Prof Barry Brook: Renowned environmental scientist.

Jared Diamond: Scientist and author


So how many have gone the other way? i.e. pro/neutral to anti?

There appears to be only one ...

Prof Ian Lowe President of the Australian Conservation Foundation, although he reckons he changed his opinion back in the 1970's so personally I don't think that counts!!

Never mind Info Warrior, you and your new chum Biker John (now strangely silent) can "stay free riding the wind" in the face of such blatant realism and common sense!!