Seret: I agree. With a cautionary (non-nimby) caveat that keeps turbines at a noise-and-suspected-health risk distance. Better be safe than sorry. Ask any victim :)

jms452: You are right, of course, but the devil is in the detail. Why live close to power lines, for example, when there is a chance - indeed a likelihood - that they are causing problems? Selling the house may, admittedly, be difficult. I had first-hand experience of this when a customer where I installed UFH/rads and heatpump contracted leukaemia. HT power lines ran directly above the house. I was there for a total of about a month, and had headaches, which I never normally get. The builder, now retired, was there for around two years and says he has never been the same since working there. Anecdotal, but powerful stuff when you attend the man's funeral.

Not arguing about power lines, some detail below - my point is why risk it? Cheers.

Childhood Leukemia

In 1979, a study published in the "American Journal of Epidemiology" by Nancy Wertheimer and Ed Leeper of the University of Colorado Medical Center reported a direct link between electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure from power lines and childhood leukemia. The findings made headlines and spawned dozens of further studies over the years seeking to replicate the results.

Evidence that the extremely low-frequency field (ELF) generated by power lines directly affects biological molecules is limited, however, according to the Health Physics Society. Experiments since the Wertheimer/Leeper study have yielded inconsistent results, though a paper by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences suggested that children in residences near power lines did indeed show an increased risk of childhood leukemia. The report demonstrated no link between power lines and adult cancers.
Low Voltage Transformers Low Prices. Quality Products. Get 50w/VA- 250w/VA 12v Transformers. www.TheInternetElectricalStore.com
Sponsored Links
Lymphatic and Bone Marrow Cancers

A 2007 study led by Prof. Ray Lowenthal of the University of Tasmania and published in the "Internal Medicine Journal" established a link between its survey group of 850 Australians and adult onset of lymphatic and bone marrow cancers. Respondents who lived within 300 meters of power lines before the age of 5 reported five times the incidence of adult cancers; those who lived within that distance at any point up to age 15 were three times as likely to develop cancer.
Lowenthal allowed that his team's results were suggestive rather than conclusive, noting that previous studies examined the short-term effects of living near power lines, and that additional studies, like his, assessing the long-term risks are needed.
Brain Cancer

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have compiled statistics relating to EMF exposure in the workplace as well as in the general environment, and determined that workers exposed to above-average levels of EMFs do report higher-than-normal cancer rates. The CDC stops short of establishing causation, however, noting that other factors not studied may be at play.

Studies compiled by the CDC show that workers exposed to greater than 4 milligauss, a unit of magnetic flux, showed increased rates of leukemia and brain cancers, though the inconsistency of cancer type makes conclusions difficult to draw. Additional data have shown a link to breast cancer and even a possible relationship to Alzheimer's, but research in these areas is ongoing as of 2010.

Read more: http://www.livestrong.com/article/192700-health-effects-of-radiation-from-power-lines/#ixzz27hG2PMpx

Brianwilson,

the problem is that no matter how we produce energy it will have some impact on wildlife and the world. I dare say that even burning fossile fuels must have some negative effects though I do not know if this has been researched

It is about time that the various interest groups started looking at the big picture instead of individual points.

Jonti

though what you say about the access to offshore being problematic in certain circumstance the same could be said of onshore. Too high winds, access road washed out or blocked, deep snow, etc.... offshore has the advantage of plenty of room and being easier to transport heavy equipment too. I suspect that as the numbers start increasing so the cost will come down.

Jonti- I agree to a degree but snow blowers clear roads. Washed out roads are not a problem I have ever seen. High winds, well that is the same for both onshore and offshore. Obviously swell comes with wind and this is a mojor problem offshore. I have experience of managing both and offshore is without doubt, 100% harder to manage.
I agree regarding the costs though....

Brianwilson,

my point was that no matter what is proposed there will always be a reason for not doing it because of damage to this, that or the other. Staying as we are is not a possibility and it is a fact that we will continue to use energy. It seems to me that it is therefor important that we take a big picture look at things and decide which way will cause the LEAST amount of damage. The problem is that each individual pressure group says 'oh, you can't do this because.......' but don't really care about any consequences outside their area of interest.

In short it would be better to find out what we should do as apposed to what not as you also have pointed out.

Jonti

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/sep/28/gas-fired-power-stations-uk

Especially as we are closing nuclear and coal plants.
I think it is a good interim measure with out current infrastructure. Not as if it is done on a whim, lots of thought and calculation will have gone into this. Lets see the 'greens' come up with a viable plan and compare the two.

Re cost reduction of offshore - here is a study on exactly that:
http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/media/305094/Offshore%20wind%20cost%20reduction%20pathways%20study.pdf
looking at various pathways and corresponding costs. Suggesting costs will come down, but only slowly unless there is serious volume and investment (which does seem to be happening, and in that scenario they will actually go up a bit more first due to supply constraints).

Onshore is still half the cost (where do you get 3 times from gusty?). And there remains plenty of potential. I'm not sure all the 'we don't like onshore turbines' whingers have really appreciated that getting what they ask for means doubling the cost of a good chunk of their power.

Hordes of interesting discussion on this, e.g. comments following on from
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/18/1111331/-Is-nuclear-energy-more-expensive-than-offshore-wind
(comparing the subsidies for offshore wind and that recently asked for by EDF to build new nuclear in the UK).