Wind Farms

[Just Before Dawn]

one of the key words there is 'if', as in 'if you take an environmentally precautionary approach to siting [...]'. I have no off-shore experience, but developers of on-shore windfarms are a very, very mixed bunch, some of whom take their responsibilities very seriously, others, well, just don't. so it's always going to be difficult to compare like for like if you look at data from the industries.

there's also the problem that different planning laws apply to on-shore and off-shore, just as there are differences between scotland and england/wales.

as for the scale: how many turbines are there in the larger off-shore windfarms? we're looking at around 200 for the proposed lewis on-shore, which probably won't get through planning anyway.

there are many valid environmental and ecological reasons for being very careful about on-shore windfarm placement, construction, maintenance and decommissioning. unfortunately most scottish planners are rather ignorant, and their political masters corrupt. in my opinion, the landscape issues pale into insignificance when compared to factors such as loss of scarce upland habitats, impacts on breeding birds, habitat degradation by estate managers using new roads to access remote parts, risks of peat slides, pollution of upland watercourses....

Good post - with two pertinent points - you're right about the differences in approach of different companies - some are extremely sensitive to a range of environmental issues, others don't appear to understand what the words sustainable development actually mean.

You're also spot-on about the sensitivities of some on-shore sites too, which is why it simply isn't acceptable to approach this in a piecemeal fashion and why Government needs to look at wind-farm locations in the round, rather than the present situation with individual companies submitting individual applications for four turbines here and six there on the basis of which farmers they can negotiate with to take them.

as for the scale: how many turbines are there in the larger off-shore windfarms? we're looking at around 200 for the proposed lewis on-shore, which probably won't get through planning anyway.

Lewis is one of the bigger 'mid-sized' developments. I think when the full number of 'blocks' in the greater Wash area are fully developed, there will be somewhere around 460 turbines.

Edited September 5, 2006 by Just Before Dawn

[PersianPaladin]

How about they cover the wind turbines with solar panels?

Or is that a stupid idea?

[Thundery wintry showers]

Some good points about the problems with regards disruption to habitats. I'm totally with the corrupt decision-making points- much of it seems to me to be a bit of "plonk some turbines there to show we're doing our bit" rather than making well thought-out choices based on environmental sustainability, e.g. the disruption to habitat and pollution arguments discussed. Sustainability, for me, is one of the most important catch-words in general development/environment debates.

Often there's a lot of short-termism and not much long-term thinking. Thinking 'in the round' as suggested above is something I'm all in favour of, but it doesn't seem to happen much.

I don't entirely agree about the insignificance of the landscape issue- just because something is less important doesn't mean that it shouldn't come into it, rather it means that it should, on average, be assigned a lower degree of importance. Sometimes the "small" things add up and can make a difference in otherwise marginal decision choices. The importance hierachy may also vary depending on where the turbine is situated- this has already been suggested for the habitat and pollution issues (the greater the risk, the more important the consideration), it also applies to the landscape issue (e.g. relatively unimportant for turbines situated in random areas of average-attractiveness countryside, but more important for spectacular viewpoints in the Lake District).

Again, it's a case of thinking 'in the round'- priorities vary depending on where the turbine is situated, and this would also apply offshore.

[PersianPaladin]

I do NOT want to see this when I look out of my window towards the rugged dales: -

[Osbourne One-Nil]

You shouldn't underestimate the importance of unspoilt countryside. There's something deep inside us that makes it an essential part of life...somewhere to get away from it all. Add something obviously man-made like a wind turbine, and it's lost...instantly...as far as the eye can see. It's not simply a case of people being precious...it's as important a resource as any other we have. Also, personally, for something as ineffective as wind energy, the trade off isn't even close.

I'll never be persuaded that wind energy isn't simply the latest fad of this government to appear green because if it's a workable solution, even in part, to our long-term energy needs, then I'm Peter Tattum's grandfather.

[Hairy Celt]

I do NOT want to see this when I look out of my window towards the rugged dales: -

there's about 90 turbines in that image, which is typical propaganda. unless i've got the scale totally wrong, that hillside would support no more than about a dozen turbines.

[Hairy Celt]

what is 'unspoilt'? i grew up near where you now live, oon, thinking that was the standard issue british countryside. it's a matter of perception: i now think the lake district looks messy, over-developed, ecologically trashed by 100s of years of sheep, and generally abused by tourists and residents alike. the notion that it's unspoilt is, i think, only maintained so that property values and tourism income are kept artificially high.

we moved to the scottish highlands ten years ago and i spend much of my time working in the hills. it's less 'spoilt' here than further south, but compare this to other parts of the world and it's not.

scale also matters: what fits appropriately into 20km^2 in the highlands would swamp the core of the lake district.

i think you'd better check Peter Tattum ancestry: wind turbines are here to stay in one form or another!

Edited September 5, 2006 by Hairy Celt

[Osbourne One-Nil]

By unspoilt, I mean the Eden Valley. And the Winash Fell development would have blighted one of the real last areas of wilderness in England.

I agree with what you say about the Lake District too, although I think their splendour still outweighs any over development. I think the sort of wild areas which could take it are the areas in between Manchester and Sheffield.

Anyway, wind power is a farce so up your....

[Hairy Celt]

By unspoilt, I mean the Eden Valley. And the Winash Fell development would have blighted one of the real last areas of wilderness in England.

I agree with what you say about the Lake District too, although I think their splendour still outweighs any over development. I think the sort of wild areas which could take it are the areas in between Manchester and Sheffield.

Anyway, wind power is a farce so up your....

so, after all this, all you can say is '.... farce....'? come on, express yourself, lad!

Edited September 5, 2006 by Hairy Celt

[PersianPaladin]

there's about 90 turbines in that image, which is typical propaganda. unless i've got the scale totally wrong, that hillside would support no more than about a dozen turbines.

That picture is real, the wind turbines in that image were planted in the late seventies\early eighties in the US and they are a lot smaller than the ones we have now.

so, after all this, all you can say is '.... farce....'? come on, express yourself, lad!

There are places in the Durham Dales (Weardale\Teesdale) as well as Northumberland and the Cumbrian border areas that look as wild and as untouched as the moon. Just because they are much smaller than such places in Scotland, doesn't give developers the right to develop on them. These places, however small, have their own genius loci and cultural setting. They fit-in to the general landscape morphology and socio-economic geographies of an area.

Edited September 6, 2006 by PersianPaladin

[Hairy Celt]

That picture is real, the wind turbines in that image were planted in the late seventies\early eighties in the US and they are a lot smaller than the ones we have now.

There are places in the Durham Dales (Weardale\Teesdale) as well as Northumberland and the Cumbrian border areas that look as wild and as untouched as the moon. Just because they are much smaller than such places in Scotland, doesn't give developers the right to develop on them. These places, however small, have their own genius loci and cultural setting. They fit-in to the general landscape morphology and socio-economic geographies of an area.

even if the picture's real, it's irrelevant because no current or future development would look like this. the turbulence created by the turbines at that close spacing reduces their efficiency.

i agree that some places should remain free of windfarms. most of these are already designated and should be protected sites (national parks, scotland's 'national scenic areas' and england's 'areas of outstanding natural beauty'), although some are already being nibbled at. there's no good reason to put them here.

[Wynn D Woo]

Actually very little of the land in the UK has not been altered by man, wild wood should dominate but has been felled, so adding wind turbines would merely be man changing a landscape already changed by man.

There are a few wind farms around here and they are far more attractive to look at than the Aberthaw power station and infinately more preferable to a nuclear power station and the thousands of years of harmful waste they produce. GW may be a bad thing but nuclear waste is a whole lot worse.

[Thundery wintry showers]

I still don't get why, in the debate re. effect of turbines on landscape, people are trying to make the idea of turbines on a landscape more attractive by comparing them to power stations... but hell, that's just me.

I could justify any proposal that some people dislike by comparing it to a much worse possibility.

[Osbourne One-Nil]

Actually very little of the land in the UK has not been altered by man, wild wood should dominate but has been felled, so adding wind turbines would merely be man changing a landscape already changed by man.

True, but we all have an image of countryside in our minds, and I'm sure there are all parts of the countryside that inspire us.

The area of land at Whinash Fell, where there were proposals to erect 27 turbines, each 400ft tall, including 1000ton concrete bases, lies conveniently in between the Yorkshire Dales National Park and the Lake District National Park, and is highly visible from within both of them. Regardless of whether it's NIMBYism on my part or not, this was not the place for them, and pressure from almost every body except Greenpeace ensured that the project was ditched.

There have got to be rural areas without the quality of Whinash that could accommodate these farms (like the god-awful Fens) should anyone be stupid enough to think they'd make a difference.

[Great Plum]

There is a magnificent wind farm in Cornwall along the A30 near where they are dualling the road - it appaears out of nowhere and looks splendid!

[Hairy Celt]

True, but we all have an image of countryside in our minds, and I'm sure there are all parts of the countryside that inspire us.

The area of land at Whinash Fell, where there were proposals to erect 27 turbines, each 400ft tall, including 1000ton concrete bases, lies conveniently in between the Yorkshire Dales National Park and the Lake District National Park, and is highly visible from within both of them. Regardless of whether it's NIMBYism on my part or not, this was not the place for them, and pressure from almost every body except Greenpeace ensured that the project was ditched.

There have got to be rural areas without the quality of Whinash that could accommodate these farms (like the god-awful Fens) should anyone be stupid enough to think they'd make a difference.

stupid? any chance of some justification?

Edited September 6, 2006 by Hairy Celt

[The Penguin]

Stupid as in a total waste of space, in every possible definition of the phrase. Just stupid.

[Pickles]

Without the use of renewable energy (wind, tidal, solar) where would we get our required electricity supply from? Very few people want nuclear stations due to the visual impact and safety concerns and the waste material issue, yet If we continue to use the traditional methods of production e.g. fossil fuel, then what is this going to do to the environment we live in? Are the Fens and Dales etc going to remain unspoilt for eternity or will they become wrecked by environment change?

99.9% of the UK population require electricity to to lead a normal life (I know in economic terms they don't but I am talking in reality terms) and with the UK population growing by means of immigration and birth rate, demand on the electricity suppliers is getting greater, put this together with the demand from the developing world and importing electricity becomes more and more expensive.

So how do they produce electricity that keeps everyone happy? they cant. The thing is that wind generation is a lot, lot more cost effective than solar power and it doesn't destroy the environment like fossil fuel emmissions.

I know I would rather see a landscape with a few turbines on it rather than have to wear breathing apperatus to go and see them.

Edited September 6, 2006 by Pickles

[The Penguin]

Pickles, I’m sorry but just about everything you say is incorrect. If you look at my earlier post dealing with the relative efficiency and land requirement of various power generation methods you will see that compared to traditional generators, which are arguably becoming environmentally more acceptable in a technological sense, wind power is by far both the least efficient and most intrusive. There is not the slightest chance of wind power being a practical substitute for CCGT or Nuclear generators in the foreseeable future.

I would also respectfully question your assertion that ‘very few people want nuclear stations’, especially as the visual impact of these, as you cite, is miniscule compared to the visual impact of a corresponding output wind farm.

As an aside, it is a complete misnomer to call these blooming great things ‘wind turbines’ as this is patently not what they are. A turbine denotes blades enclosed in a duct that greatly improves efficiency and control, which these windmills aren’t and don’t.

[Hairy Celt]

deleted

Edited September 6, 2006 by Hairy Celt

[Thundery wintry showers]

I will just say one thing- I'm not entirely against the deployment of onshore wind turbines, but one has to take the habitat and pollution disruption- and also disruption to appeal of landscape- into consideration when deciding where to put them. In some areas the disruption to habitat is low, in others it is high. Similarly, in some areas it can be non-intrusive on the landscape and, for some, actually improve the asthetic appeal, while in others they are an eyesore for many.

Large-scale sets of turbines to supply a small amount of power to a large number of homes strike me as being inefficient. The "they spoil the scenery" arguments would have a lot more behind them if we needed a million turbines to be deployed in National Parks in order to generate 50% of our electricity demands. One good idea might be to implement them in non-scenic areas to provide electricity to relatively small local communities and/or workplaces, which would also be cost-effective in terms of the cost of distributing the electricity to the homes.

As for alternatives, I'm sure geothermal energy has been brought up before and there has been discussion on how this could be made cost-effective, at least for local power generation.

[Pickles]

Pickles, I’m sorry but just about everything you say is incorrect. If you look at my earlier post dealing with the relative efficiency and land requirement of various power generation methods you will see that compared to traditional generators, which are arguably becoming environmentally more acceptable in a technological sense, wind power is by far both the least efficient and most intrusive. There is not the slightest chance of wind power being a practical substitute for CCGT or Nuclear generators in the foreseeable future.

I would also respectfully question your assertion that ‘very few people want nuclear stations’, especially as the visual impact of these, as you cite, is miniscule compared to the visual impact of a corresponding output wind farm.

As an aside, it is a complete misnomer to call these blooming great things ‘wind turbines’ as this is patently not what they are. A turbine denotes blades enclosed in a duct that greatly improves efficiency and control, which these windmills aren’t and don’t.

yes these are becoming more acceptable in a technological sense but what about when the natural resources of gas/coal run out? insnt that what renewable energy is about.

As for the Nuclear power-stations perhaps I should have said many are against them, as I can remember a thread on them in the serious discussion area, where many people were against them.

As for the terminology I am sorry to have referred to them as turbines but I am only going from what others on here and this

A wind turbine converts wind to electricity. Usually a turbine consists of three blades mounted on a horizontal axis, which is free to rotate as the wind blows.

Have referred to them as.

Yes wind generated power is not as efficient as traditional methods of generating energy but it is more cost effective than a lot of the renewable energy sources such as solar.

This may be of interest to some.

Daily telegraph

And this

The company

Edited September 6, 2006 by Pickles

[Osbourne One-Nil]

stupid? any chance of some justification?

Work a percentage of the time, are inefficient and don't cater for differing levels of demand. Poor value for money, visually intrusive, unreliable and the creation of low-frequency noise pollution in a wide area.

There's a place for wind energy, but the government are using at as a cop-out.

[Thundery wintry showers]

Those rooftop turbines sound quite a good idea to me, though it remains to be seen how well they will work. Worth a try, is my assessment.

[Devonian]

Work a percentage of the time, are inefficient and don't cater for differing levels of demand. Poor value for money, visually intrusive, unreliable and the creation of low-frequency noise pollution in a wide area.

There's a place for wind energy, but the government are using at as a cop-out.

Visually stunning, once set up the energy is free, renewable and non polluting. I've not noticed any noise from the wind farms I've visited, and I'd rather have winds farms in my back yards than some foul coal power station, or depend on voilatile countries for energy supplies more than we have to.

Will I justify myself with some figures? Nope, it opinion like your post. I will say we have a wind powered water pump. It's pumped god knows how many thousands gallon of water at a cost, once set up (in the £100/s) of practically nowt.

I will, however, refrain from using the word 'stupid' as glibly as others have in this thread....