To: John  who wrote (1384 ) 5/19/2015 4:45:02 PM From: joseffy  1 RecommendationRecommended By  John
    Respond to    of 1400  Wind farm 'needs 700 times more land' than fracking site to produce same energy   Shale gas site 'creates the least visual intrusion' compared with wind  or solar farm for same energy, according to Government's former chief  scientific advisor on energy  	   By Emily Gosden, Energy Editor  2:57PM BST 14 Aug 2014  Telegraph  Excerpt:      A wind farm requires 700  times  more land to produce the same amount of  energy as a fracking site,  according to analysis by the energy  department’s recently-departed  chief scientific advisor.    Prof David MacKay, who stood down  from the Government role at the end of  July, published analysis putting  shale gas extraction “in perspective”,  showing it was far less  intrusive on the landscape than wind or solar  energy.    His  intervention was welcomed by fracking groups, who are battling to  win  public support amid claims from green groups and other critics that   shale gas extraction will require the “industrialisation” of the   countryside.    Hundreds of anti-fracking protesters on Thursday  occupied a field near  Blackpool neighbouring a proposed fracking site  for energy firm  Cuadrilla.    Prof MacKay said that a shale gas  site uses less land and “creates the  least visual intrusion”, compared  with a wind farm or solar farm capable  of producing the equivalent  amount of energy over 25 years.    He rated each technology’s  “footprint” against six criteria covering  aspects of land use, height,  visual impact and truck movements to and  from the site.    The  shale gas site or “pad” was the “winning” technology on three  measures,  solar farms won on two, while wind farms did not win any. None  was  deemed to have “won” on truck movements as all types generated  “lots”  of traffic.    Prof MacKay, who is Regius Professor of Engineering  at the University of  Cambridge, said that a shale gas pad of 10 wells  would require just 2  hectares of land and would be visible - due to an  85-foot-high drilling  rig - from 77 hectares of surrounding area.  However, the drilling rig  would be in place for "only the first few  years of operations".    By contrast, a wind farm capable of  producing the same energy would span  an area of 1,450 hectares,  requiring 87 turbines each 328-foot tall.    Prof MacKay noted  that the actual turbines, access roads and other  installations for the  wind farm would have a smaller footprint, of 36  hectares, as “the wind  farm has lots of empty land between the turbines,  which can be used for  other purposes”.    But the large area covered by the farm as a  whole would mean it would be  visible from a surrounding area of between  5,200 and 17,000 hectares.    A solar farm generating equivalent energy would span a 924 hectare area, directly building on 208 hectares of it.    An estimated 7,800 lorry movements would be required for the wind farm and between 3,800 and 7,600 for the solar farm.     The fracking site could require the fewest lorry movements, at 2,900,  if  water is piped to and from the site. However, it could require   significantly more than the other technologies - 20,000 trips - if water   was transported by truck.    Prof MacKay said the analysis  showed that “perhaps unsurprisingly, there  is no silver bullet – no  energy source with all-round small  environmental impact”. He said that  all sources “have their costs and  risks” and said the public should  “look at all the options”.      Article