CleanTechnica is the #1 cleantech-focused
website
 in the world. Subscribe today!


Clean Power offshore wind farm UK

Published on March 17th, 2014 | by Joshua S Hill

41

Young Adults Prefer Offshore Wind To Fracking

Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

March 17th, 2014 by  

According to leading market research company Ipsos MORI who have recently conducted a new poll, there are more young people in favour of offshore wind development than there are in favour of fracking.

The poll, commissioned by the UK Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Economic and Social Research Council, shows that 85% of 16-24 year olds support the development of offshore wind farms, while only 47% support carbon capture and storage and 42% support fracking.

The public survey was part of the ‘Public Attitudes to Science 2014′ survey (PDF), based on face-to-face interviews with adults aged 16 and up combined with a booster survey focused on 16-24 year olds conducted throughout the middle of 2013. 1,749 adults were interviewed.

“It’s heartening to see fresh evidence of strong support for offshore wind energy among young people,” said RenewableUK’s Director of Offshore Renewables, Nick Medic. “This is an increasingly important technology for our future and it’s clear that the young people of Britain recognise this.”

Respondents were also believe that offshore wind has a positive effect on the UK’s economy, with 70% saying that it did. Interestingly, with regards to offshore wind’s overall influence, those in the 16-24 bracket were more likely to approve of offshore wind than the remainder of the survey’s adult population — 70% and 53% respectively.

“As the UK is the world leader in this dynamic sector, the enthusiasm of this age group for offshore wind will help us to secure the enormous economic prize – something that young people were also positive about in this survey,” Medic continued.

“It’s partly to do with open-mindedness and better levels of awareness among young people. They view old-school fossil fuels less favourably than renewables, and they’re right to do so, on the grounds of long-term cost as well as the damaging impact of high-carbon fuel sources on the environment, now and for generations to come.”

Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.



Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

Tags: , , , , ,


About the Author

I'm a Christian, a nerd, a geek, and I believe that we're pretty quickly directing planet-Earth into hell in a handbasket! I also write for Fantasy Book Review (.co.uk), and can be found writing articles for a variety of other sites. Check me out at about.me for more.



  • Rick Kargaard

    I don’t believe these types of surveys are worth a crap. Too easy to impart an interviewers bias. Subtle wording nuances also skew results. If you still believe in surveys, you haven’t compared surveys against actual results in recent Canadian elections

    • borehead

      Nor could you from a wind shill blog.

  • Senlac

    I just heard on the radio we waste 2 billion in gas each year from leaks. Good to hear young people are getting it, but we need a lot more education on this issue. Solar and Wind do not leak gas and methane or blow up buildings in New York City.

    • borehead

      No, they only destroy the ocean environment. No big deal, right?

      • just_jim

        Please provide links to the peer reviewed scientific literature.

        Right now, I’m inclined to give you as much credence as the anti-vax crowd. Prove me wrong.

      • just_jim

        According to the National Wildlife Federation (in Europe) offshore wind energy has been developed extensively there, and studies have found no significant or long-term impacts on wildlife in the area.

        http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/05/offshore-wind-farm-has-lack-of-significant-impact-on-marine-life-study-finds Study finds no significant impact on marine life.

        Lindeboom1 et al 2011 showed little negative effects from windfarms.
        http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/3/035101/pdf/1748-9326_6_3_035101.pdf

        There have been concerns about the possibility of negative effect on marine life of off shore wind farms, and most will agree that if sited and constructed carelessly, negative effects are likely, but I’ve seen little documentation to show that responsibly sited and constructed wind farms will cause significant negative impacts.

        • borehead

          Of course you haven’t . That’s not what you look for. Your profile shows that.

          http://billothewisp.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/wrecking-sea-bed-with-offshore-wind.html

          • just_jim

            I look for evidence. And that’s not what you provided with that link. All the the link showed was that the blogger doesn’t like windfarms. He promised to discuss environmental issues in a future blog, but didn’t in the one you pointed to.

            Even if the blogger had discussed environmental issues, I’d only be interested in the facts he brings to the table, not his opinions.

          • borehead

            On the header, there are options. One item is “Wind Power” with a five part series about wrecking the seabed with off shore wind.
            http://billothewisp.blogspot.co.uk/p/wind-turbines.html
            He verifies his opinions with material to back his opinions.

          • Bob_Wallace

            He basically starts with opposition to offshore wind and then exaggerates things in an attempt to build a case.

            Trenches “hundreds of miles long and meters wide” will temporarily disrupt a very tiny percentage of the ocean floor but those trenches will be filled and the bottom ecology will recover.

            Sorry, but this carries about as much weight as the other anti-wind foolishness one encounters from time to time.

          • borehead

            The old saying is, you can lead ‘m to water, but,,,

          • Bob_Wallace

            We get a fair number of people passing through here who have their own personal issues that they put ahead of climate change. We commonly see them take something that irritates them and blow it far out of proportion.

            When I look at the size of the ocean and the tiny part that will be used for wind farms, and the very small of permanent change that will be made to the ocean floor, I just can’t get excited.

            The same holds for those who are so alarmed about the very small percentage of desert land being used for solar installations.

            What I look at is how we are likely to really screw up our oceans by continuing to dump huge amounts of carbon into them and how we’re likely to disrupt/destroy 100% of desert ecosystems if we continue burning fossil fuels I just can’t get on board with the special interest groups.

          • just_jim

            No he doesn’t verify his opinions.

            In addition he uses assumptions that are worse than questionable. They are flat out wrong. One of his major problems with the off-shore wind power is the foundations used to support them. Apparently he’s never heard of floating turbines.

            He is also, from his blog a nuke hugger. Yes, because nuclear power is so much better for the environment than off shore wind.

            Your source is just not credible. Feel free to try again.

          • borehead

            Jim Hansen: World’s Greatest Crime against Humanity and Nature: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2014/20140310_ChinaOpEd.pdf

          • Bob_Wallace

            Hansen is very right about fossil fuels and climate change.

            But he’s very wrong about nuclear and renewables.

        • Bob_Wallace

          It’s quite likely that wind farms will benefit sea life.

          First, they will create ‘no commercial fishing’ zones. Places where the sea floor won’t be scraped bare and places where smaller fish can hang out and grow large without being caught in gigantic nets. Even relatively small fishing free zones have been shown to be very beneficial to sea life.
          And the underwater structures will provide places for creatures to attach. That means more food sources and even better fish growth.

          Of course there’s the obvious. The less carbon we put into the oceans, the better change sea creatures have of surviving. As it is we seem to be heading toward oceans populated by jellyfish and little else.

          • borehead

            Well, Bob, you obviously don’t know a God damned thing about the fishing industry, or the lowest carbon foot print industry that produces food for human consumption! Jellyfish. Gimme a fucking break.

          • Bob_Wallace

            Clean up your language.

            You obviously know far less than you think you do.

          • borehead

            I’ll disregard your assessment of my knowledge, Bob.

          • Bob_Wallace

            That’s likely.

            And if that’s your routine practice to not learn from feedback then it’s why you think you know more than you do.

          • borehead

            You made a foolish statement.

            “It’s quite likely that wind farms will benefit sea life.”
            Not knowing anything, Bob, but reading plenty, I recalled seeing this in an article.

            “Overdeveloped shorelines and structures in the open ocean even serve as nurseries of a sort to jellyfish. The surfaces provide more habitat to the young animals, which attach themselves to fixed structures as polyps”
            Maybe your routine practice is to start a post with random notion!
            Personally, I’m amazed at how much I don’t know, but that’s my personal assessment of myself.
            You, on the other hand, seem to think you know more than I do, something you have no baseline to judge me on.
            You don’t know anything about the fishing industry. I’ll stand by that statement.

          • Bob_Wallace

            Wind energy is one of the ways we cut down on ocean acidification which is happening because we are burning fossil fuel. Ocean acidification will wipe out shellfish and likely other sea creatures. The most likely survivors will be jellyfish.

            http://www.co2science.org/articles/V13/N30/B1.php

            “No-take marine fishery reserves sustain commercial stocks by acting as buffers against overexploitation and enhancing fishery catches in adjacent areas through spillover.”

            http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0036906

          • Rick Kargaard

            I don’t see how you can reach that conclusion from the link you provided to co2science.
            This quote would seem to suggest the opposite “And in this context they report that in Puget Sound “pH fluctuates from 7.2 to 9.6 in 2.4-meter deep water over the span of a couple of days,” stating that “with such large pH fluctuations due to plant photosynthesis during the day and respiration at night, many organisms may be exposed to low pH conditions routinely.” And, obviously, they are also successfully dealing with those low pH conditions routinely, as are an enormous amount of other marine organisms.”

          • Bob_Wallace
          • borehead

            I don’t have a problem with land based wind mills.
            I do have a problem with a bunch of crony capitalists destroying the OCS!
            I also have a problem with a bunch of corporate funded ENGOs that claim to be enviros, going along with it, but hell, we all gotta eat, right? The Pew oil funded prostitutes are eating very well.
            No take zones have a negative effect. They cause localized depletion. There should be no closed areas, as TAC is what controls the amount of fish that can be landed., set by science, enforced by law.
            We are underfishing in a lot of places in the US.
            Chronic Underfishing – The Real New England Groundfish Crisis
            http://www.fishnet-usa.com/chronic_underfishing.htm

          • A Real Libertarian

            So off-shore wind is as evil as fishing quotas and seal clubbing bans?

          • borehead

            Quota’s and TAC are not the same thing, and if the TAC is science based, what’s wrong with that?
            Seal Hunt?
            Its called stewardship.

          • Bob_Wallace

            “No take zones have a negative effect. They cause localized depletion.”
            Let’s see some data.

            “We are underfishing in a lot of places in the US.”

            What places outside specified no fishing zones?

          • borehead

            Did you read the Chronic Underfishing article? Loaded with NOAA/NMFS statistics, and data? or am I supposed to waste my time presenting you with information for nothing?!!!
            Have you looked at other links I’ve posted here? They should interest you. I’ve got a website to run, don’t waste my time if you’re not going to read them.

          • Bob_Wallace

            No, I responded from email and the bottom of your comment was chopped off. Sorry.

            I have to admit that I’m having a bit of a problem taking you seriously due to your attitude/demeanor.

          • borehead

            I’m not very polished, Bob, and as a fisheries advocate/activist, I find myself in constant contact sport mode,
            I’ve invested hours and hours presenting information that is constantly ignored, even though, I’ve built mountains of it in posts that a blind man could see, only to have someone with 20/20 say they never saw it. In this case, you acknowledged that you missed it. That’s a hell of a lot more than anyone would admit. Thank you.
            Everyday I review between twenty to a hundred articles related to the fishing industry, ocean industrialization, marine science, and related political articles, press releases, and so on, to decide what to post at my website.
            I find time, now and then, to make a comment or two. Like here!
            All, it takes to get my back hairs standing up is for someone to launch the first jab, then its off and running.

      • Senlac

        Ok, lets just drill for oil instead, drill baby drill. That never hurts anything. There are floating turbines now, which are less expensive and you don’t have to drill into the bottom. Wind by far is far less damaging to the environment than oil or gas. Go bother another board troll.

        • borehead

          Listen to you with your moronic name calling, talking shit about something you know nothing about!
          Because of this planned destruction of the ocean environment with fairy dust bull shit Enron engineered snake oil schemes, oil and gas drilling is coming to the East Coast Outer Continental Shelf, thanks to the Obama Administrations “All of the Above, Smart from the Start” energy policy.
          Go bother another board? Go learn something about it, Wind Shill moron.

          • Senlac

            Boy aren’t we nasty. The only reason Obama has this all or nothing policy is because of all those Republicans. Glad to hear you are not for off shore East Coast oil drilling. You have yet to state any facts about why off shore wind farms are so bad. Facts please! I stated, Wind would be far less damaging to an ocean environment than drilling for oil, a fact I believe to be true.

            Now lets try to say something sensible. If not, you are indeed a troll.

          • borehead

            What’d you do? Flag my comment? You accuse me of being a troll, and then report my comment? You’re not a sissy are you?
            Why should any ocean industrialization occur on the OSC?
            We harvest food there. A lot of food. Why screw it up with junk piles of steel?
            We have an energy glut. Wind works on land.
            Its not just that, its the coming habitat destruction from offshore aquaculture, and mineral and gravel extraction, and other non ecologically friendly to the ocean environment ocean zoning ventures for who? Corporate America? Crony capitalist thieves?
            Scroll up a few comments and open the link.
            Oppose ALL ocean industrialization.
            Oh! Support the Seal Hunt.

          • borehead

            Scroll up a few posts, check the link. Read about the damage. Read about the methane gas. Read about the pile driving and cable trenching.
            Oppose all ocean industrialization.

          • Senlac

            I did not flag your comment. The change in the pH of oceans is one of the greatest dangers for our oceans and it is directly attributed to the build up of CO2 in the atmosphere. Coral Reefs are in serious danger of disappearing. We can regulate the way oceans are industrialized, we aren’t going to stop shipping, which is probably contributing the most damage to oceans. I would rather have off shore wind than more natural gas plants, fueled by fracked gas, and retire coal plants sooner. Less carbon based fuels more solar and wind and any other renewable we can develop.

          • borehead

            Localized wind makes sense, Huge swaths of wind farms does not, at least the way they are planed, as far offshore as they can place them. Its un economical, and wreck less.

            Put them within five miles of the beach, I may look at it differently. Lobstermen could work around them inshore, and scallop and fish nurseries would not be affected them. I’m all for solar.

            I retract my accusation.

  • borehead

    This only proves the general public’s ignorance about off shore wind, and the lack of attention to a very harmful, neatly packaged scam.

    • just_jim

      Yes that a full 42% would still support fracking shows their lack of attention to that harmful scam.

      I don’t think that 85% approval of off shore wind can be used as evidence about public ignorance. 100% approval is just not feasible.

  • Banned by Bob

    Did anyone try to quantify the amount of $ it would cost each of these people to make this choice? I would fly First Class every time, but it seems to cost more so I don’t.

Back to Top ↑