Wind or/and PV?

collective rating: 
| implemented: 
I fully agree that Hull should own renewable energy resources, but I think the current initiative has some drawbacks. Wind mills within the city could pose a hazard to wildlife and people. They are known to present a hazard to birds. They also need a large clear area around due to ice debris falling from them (I've been in Oak Park when a lump of ice the size of a bus fell from the turbine). For these reasons, siting them would be difficult. I guess having a turbine in the Humber would be possible and highly visible as a landmark (I imagine t-shirts with Humber Bridge and Hull Turbine). In terms of value-for-money, buying the output of an off-shore turbine, while the turbine was operated by Semens/Orsted, could notionally increase the proportion of electricity used in Hull that was renewable; and so contribute to the carbon neutral target. For public engagement purposes, it would be good to have visible renewable energy generation within the city. Another way to achieve this would be for council house roofs to be used for photovoltaic arrays. The council owns a large number of suitable roofs. Given the payback period of about 7 years, the capital could be provided by private investors. This would be highly visible and would provide those in the council houses with free electricity.