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


Clean Power summer-windmill

Published on April 17th, 2014 | by Guest Contributor

4

Brits: We Prefer Onshore Wind Farms Over 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

April 17th, 2014 by  

Originally published on Ecotrictity.

summer-windmill

Wind favoured over fracking.

Government accused of ignoring own research on energy policy

The majority of people in Britain would prefer to live near a wind farm than a fracking site, new YouGov research commissioned by Ecotricity revealed today.

When given the choice, 62% said they would rather have a wind farm in their local council area than a fracking site, with just 19% preferring to have fracking nearby¹.

The research comes as Ecotricity founder Dale Vince today accused the Government of contradicting its own research on public attitudes to onshore wind.

The Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) has been conducting its own Public Attitudes Tracking Survey since July 2012 – with the latest results showing that 64% support onshore wind, with only 28% of people supporting fracking in the UK.

But while both polls reflect a continued public preference for onshore wind over fracking, the Government is reportedly preparing pre-election promises to the contrary, with generous tax breaks and planning short cuts for fracking – while potentially bringing the development of onshore wind energy to an end.

DaleVince, Ecotricity founder, said: “You have to ask why the Government is ignoring the results of its own surveys on both wind energy and fracking – they are actively going against public opinion on both issues. If Cameron and the Conservatives believe that wind energy is worth opposing because it is unpopular, who do they think it is unpopular with? The Government’s own polling clearly shows that they can’t be thinking about the general population. What level of approval does wind power need in order to shape the Prime Minister’s energy policy?”

Reports suggest that the Government is to offer greater commitment to solar and offshore wind at the expense of onshore wind, while the attack on onshore wind continued last week as the Communities and Local Government Secretary, Eric Pickles, announced an extension to a special planning policy enabling him to call-in and make personal decisions on renewable energy projects for another 12 months.

Dale continued: “Sacrificing onshore wind for offshore wind and solar makes no economic sense, especially in these times of austerity and cuts. Onshore wind is the cheapest form of renewable energy available to us; large solar projects cost bill payers 50% more per unit of energy made, while offshore wind costs 100% more than onshore.

“We need all three forms of renewables for our long term energy security, and keeping onshore wind in the mix keeps the overall cost of green energy down. It’s illogical to pay more for green energy than you need to – and this from a government that only recently blamed the cost of supporting green energy for the rising price of our nation’s energy bills.

“Government policy on this issue makes no sense, whether you measure it by public opinion, financial cost or the energy security. It only makes sense if you see it as political manoeuvring. We need an energy policy driven by facts not politics, working in the long-term interest of our country – and that would have to incorporate onshore wind.”

Highlights from Ecotricity research

  • Wind power preferred over fracking

62% said they would rather have a wind farm in their local council area than a fracking site, with just 19% preferring to have fracking nearby. 19% did not know.

 

  • Wind more popular than fracking amongst supporters of all four parties

Conservatives:           50% chose wind, 33% chose fracking, 17%did not know

Labour:                      76% chose wind, 9% chosefracking, 14% did not know

Lib Dem:                    78% chose wind,14% chosefracking, 8% did not know

UKIP:                        41% chose wind, 36%chose fracking, 24% did not know

 

  • Fracking is more popular with the older generation

Of those that favour fracking over wind, 29% are over 60, while only 12% are 18-24

 

  • Fracking less popular with women than men

9% of women would prefer a fracking site compared to 68% preferring wind

29% of men would prefer a fracking site compared to 56% preferring wind

 

¹ Full question: ‘Which one of the following energy projects or plants would you most prefer to have operating in your local council area?’

62% opted for a wind farm, 19% chose a fracking site, and 19% did not know.

Sample size: 2061. Fieldwork carried out 8-9th April 2014. Prepared by YouGov on behalf of Ecotricity.

All figures, unless otherwise stated, are from YouGov Plc. Total sample size was 2,061 adults. Fieldwork was undertaken between 8th- 9th April 2014.  The survey was carried out online. The figures have been weighted and are representative of all GB adults (aged 18+).

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

is many, many people. We publish a number of guest posts from experts in a large variety of fields. This is our contributor account for those special people. :D



  • Mike H.

    An overriding consideration appears to be mitigation of so-called
    climate change. And yet, despite more than 20 years of massive financial
    support – public subsidies in truth – for wind, we’ve yet to see any
    evidence of meaningful reductions in the causes/pollutants wind
    proponents claim as justification for further development; more huge
    subsidy and more bystanders seriously impacted by potentially health
    damaging noise such as, for example, Excess Amplitude Modulation or EAM
    as it’s more commonly known..

    Looking at the wider picture then, could it be that continuing along this seemingly unsuccessful route is providing nothing more than an extremely expensive band-aid for a bruised arm?

  • Mike H.

    .
    An overriding consideration appears to be mitigation of so-called climate change. And yet, despite more than 20 years of massive financial
    support – public subsidies in truth – for wind, we’ve yet to see any evidence of meaningful reductions in the causes/pollutants wind proponents claim as justification for further development; more huge
    subsidy and more bystanders seriously impacted by potentially health damaging noise such as, for example, Excess Amplitude Modulation or EAM
    as it’s perhaps more commonly known..

    Looking at the wider picture then, could it be that continuing along the seemingly unsuccessful route with wind is providing nothing more than an extremely expensive band-aid for a bruised arm?
    .

  • JamesWimberley

    The political opposition to onshore wind in England (not in Scotland) is weird and out of line with other countries. You’d expect some local opposition on amenity grounds, which is normally balanced through local democratic politics with job and rental gains. You’d expect a scatter of wins and losses.

    Sytematic opposition is I suggest rooted in the character of London political élites, especially in the Conservative party. Cameron and his Old Etonian chums are wealthy Londoners who escape at weekends into a Marie Antoinette life as pretend country gentlemen in the Chilterns and a few similarly bucolic areas within comfortable driving distance in the Range Rover. The countryside they want is as artificial as the view from Blenheim Palace, with the village and its smelly peasants removed out of sight. More so, as eighteenth-century toffs were seriously interested in raising farm output and rents. Turnip Townshend would have built wind farms like a shot. The opposition to rural wind farms is created by people who wouldn’t recognize a turnip if you hit them over the head with one.

    • wattleberry

      Yes, it’s noticeable how much less enthusiastic are the Conservative supporters. There is at present a series on BBC 2 tv
      http://www.bbc.co.uk/search/?q=Ian+Hislop%27s+Olden+Days
      which, if you can watch it, probably throws some light on the topic. The proposition of the programme is that, throughout history, UK developments have had to take into account the preservation as far as possible of some, often mythical, bucolic past, a sentiment no doubt reinforced by the consciousness of the small landmass occupied and its fragility. Despite this, as part of the Industrial Revolution, many of the most scenic areas were blighted by ugly mills and factories, most of which are still evident today, and the present sensitivity is no doubt rooted in a determination to avoid at all costs a repeat. This attitude is, in my opinion, seriously misguided because it fails to recognise that most of the unsightly legacy we inherited was in the form of the harmful and ongoing pollution now posing such a threat. Hitherto it was accepted that the price that had to be paid for increasing prosperity and the inestimable benefits thereof to humanity was some damage to the landscape and this is still the case, albeit without the pollution, thereby enhancing those benefits, the greater good.Furthermore, as and when wind farms themselves are outmoded, they are so designed as to be recyclable to either restore the original appearance and/or install their replacements.

Back to Top ↑