Financial Times, 6 January 2022
Getting any national PR has been hard. We believe that this is because most journalists do not dig deep into the issues and simply endorse the “green energy is good” mantra. They fail to understand that there are serious issues relating to the location of onshore infrastructure where the adverse impacts outweigh the benefits.
At last Financial Times journalists have taken time to visit, interview and research the problems associated with the onshore siting of the infrastructure for offshore windfarms and interconnectors and how power from different wind farms can now be integrated at sea and brought to land via a reduced number of cables with brownfield sites used for clustering substations. The FT article is by no means perfect, but at least some of the more detailed issues have been investigated.
If you subscribe to the FT you will be able to see that the article has attracted over 500 comments. Some are brilliant.
“You do realise that SPR’s proposal is the first of 7 of these massive substation complexes? That it drives through and impacts several SSSI’s, the SPA and RAMSAR, and Suffolk Heritage Coast? There was no national debate about turning coastal Suffolk into an industrial site for the benefit of foreign investors. As for what this generation of wind farms is doing to the sea environment, look at what the RSPB has to say” Huw Mussby-Joakin
Sadly other comments belittle local opinion by characterising anyone objecting to the location of this development as NIMBYs. A lazy and frustrating cliché and a great dishonour to many in Suffolk who are IN FAVOUR of offshore wind but unlike some developers, cherish our irreplaceable landscapes that bring a richness not just to wildlife but to our communities.
Coast is far from clear for green power projects, Financial Times 6 January 2022