Wind Farms

[Osbourne One-Nil]

When I used the word stupid, it was meant to be glib.

Many people who live within the vicinity of wind farms complain of a low frequency thud from the turbines.

I just don't see why we're investing so much money in a technology that doesn't really answer our needs, when there are other more useable and predictable technologies out there, such as tide, hydro and solar.

[Pickles]

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.

Tests have proven them to supply around a third of the electricity needed by an average house, plus when it is producing electricity overnight when demand is lower you can sell it back to the national grid and there is talk of energy credits that you can sell to the power companies so they can meet there renewable energy obligation.

[Osbourne One-Nil]

Now THAT sounds like a good idea.

[Gray-Wolf]

"Lest we forget"

The majority of the uplands in the UK today that windfarms are/should to be sited on are in no way natural. Their beauty is man made/forced. Go back 9,000yrs if you don't believe me and have a peep.

If the reckoning of the NIMBY's of 'destroying our natural beauty' is to be believed then we should ignore them for the next generation (by the same flawed logic) will be fighting for their (the windfarms) retention. :huh:

EDIT: Maybe it shows deep insecurity and a wish for everything to stay the same..........there, there, change is inevitable dontcha think?

Edited September 6, 2006 by Gray-Wolf

[Hairy Celt]

Tests have proven them to supply around a third of the electricity needed by an average house, plus when it is producing electricity overnight when demand is lower you can sell it back to the national grid and there is talk of energy credits that you can sell to the power companies so they can meet there renewable energy obligation.

have a look at this:

http://www.scoraigwind.com/citywinds/index.htm

i have an anemometer on my roof, and wind speeds this year so far have been at or above 4m/s for only 22% of the time. i'm on the coast, exposed to the west.

When I used the word stupid, it was meant to be glib.

Many people who live within the vicinity of wind farms complain of a low frequency thud from the turbines.

I just don't see why we're investing so much money in a technology that doesn't really answer our needs, when there are other more useable and predictable technologies out there, such as tide, hydro and solar.

tidal: i agree, the moon's not going to go off orbit for a while. the problem is they're at the mercy of coastal storms. a couple of experimental sites in scotland were destroyed by gales.

hydro: much bigger environmental and ecological footprint than any other renewable.

solar: yes, but the technology is struggling. look at the price of pv cells: they're still an extravagence.

looking at those drawbacks, wind power doesn't seem so 'stupid'. this is its time and place if carried out with due care. 20 years in the future, who knows, but we have to get there first, slowly reducing our dependence on hydrocarbons.

Edited September 6, 2006 by Hairy Celt

[Thundery wintry showers]

"Lest we forget"

The majority of the uplands in the UK today that windfarms are/should to be sited on are in no way natural. Their beauty is man made/forced. Go back 9,000yrs if you don't believe me and have a peep.

If the reckoning of the NIMBY's of 'destroying our natural beauty' is to be believed then we should ignore them for the next generation (by the same flawed logic) will be fighting for their (the windfarms) retention. :huh:

EDIT: Maybe it shows deep insecurity and a wish for everything to stay the same..........there, there, change is inevitable dontcha think?

I'm afraid I can't agree there.

By that line of argument, taking the comparison with power stations (which those who think "it spoils the scenery is nimby" argument love to make), if we were to install a massive power station in an area of scenic beauty, we would be fighting for its retention after it had been installed because it would be destroying our natural beauty. Therefore we should build massive power stations as it's just that people are resistant to change.

I sense a straw man here- people are talking about asthetic scenic appeal, not protecting scenery from being touched by humans. Which brings us back to the point- it's how and where they touch it that is key.

As for the above site that HC linked to, it suggests that the rooftop turbines may be inefficient in a city- but might still work for more rural communities.

[Osbourne One-Nil]

"Lest we forget"

The majority of the uplands in the UK today that windfarms are/should to be sited on are in no way natural. Their beauty is man made/forced. Go back 9,000yrs if you don't believe me and have a peep.

If the reckoning of the NIMBY's of 'destroying our natural beauty' is to be believed then we should ignore them for the next generation (by the same flawed logic) will be fighting for their (the windfarms) retention. :huh:

EDIT: Maybe it shows deep insecurity and a wish for everything to stay the same..........there, there, change is inevitable dontcha think?

There's a difference though between the organic moulding of the landscape over hundreds of years, weathered as it goes, and huge great metal structures.

There are always going to be people who aren't bothered by such things, but equally there are always going to be people who are, and until it's proven that Wind Power is not some fad, and can make a real difference, then I'm in favour of retaining the status quo.

[Pickles]

have a look at this:

http://www.scoraigwind.com/citywinds/index.htm

That is why the advice by the experts/manufacturers, is to get a site survey done before spending money on a system that does not work well in that position. if the mean windspeed was not viable across the whole of the UK then there would not be any windfarms.

Also his calculations have been made from old technology, the 'windmills' of today are much more efficient than those of 2-3 years ago so his savings would be much better with newer technology.

[Gray-Wolf]

In the land of my Fathers people didn't travel much (unless at the govt.s expense to the latest war) nor did the have the habit of complaining about their 'visual amenities being tampered with...', a different world back then. Today everybody travels. Even the Chaviest of Chavs make it abroad under their own steam (and are repatriated at the Govt. expense).

No-one complained about the sight of Cooling towers going up (along with the national grid) because they were far more focussed on their more immediate needs. If we tried to put up Pylons across the UK today do you think they'd be met with the same lack of resistance that they met with when they were origionaly erected???

When , in 1993, a windfarm was mooted on the moor above me Thatchers press agent rallied the NIMBY's from far and wide to object (including letters from Japan) and to what end??? He is an agent for UKAEA...........

[Hairy Celt]

That is why the advice by the experts/manufacturers, is to get a site survey done before spending money on a system that does not work well in that position. if the mean windspeed was not viable across the whole of the UK then there would not be any windfarms.

Also his calculations have been made from old technology, the 'windmills' of today are much more efficient than those of 2-3 years ago so his savings would be much better with newer technology.

the main point is that the dti database (which is what most folk use) is rubbish. i don't know where to get figures from for this, but my guess is that the vast majority of uk houses are in turbulent flows in the lowlands. this is why windfarms are in the uplands away from buildings, trees, etc. i don't deny that some houses could benefit from small roof-top turbines, but probably not many.

errr.... isn't a 'windmill' something that mills?

[Thundery wintry showers]

There are always going to be people who aren't bothered by such things, but equally there are always going to be people who are

I think that's the key point.

It's important to recognise that different individuals have different perceptions on what effects turbines and the like have on the scenery- and thus to aim for the greatest mean level of contentment.

As it happens, I tend not to get too aggravated by the sight of turbines, but I'm nonetheless taking note that there are people who do, and that they deserve to be listened to just as much as those who don't.

[Pickles]

errr.... isn't a 'windmill' something that mills?

Apparently not :huh:

[Hairy Celt]

I think that's the key point.

It's important to recognise that different individuals have different perceptions on what effects turbines and the like have on the scenery- and thus to aim for the greatest mean level of contentment.

As it happens, I tend not to get too aggravated by the sight of turbines, but I'm nonetheless taking note that there are people who do, and that they deserve to be listened to just as much as those who don't.

i agree, and i hope most folk would. the problem is that the planning process puts a disproportionate emphasis on those who stand up and shout, even if they're in the minority. that's a democracy, though, and i'd rather it this way than any other.

Apparently not :huh:

'tis so. i looked it up.

[Devonian]

There's a difference though between the organic moulding of the landscape over hundreds of years, weathered as it goes, and huge great metal structures.

Do you know how many thousands of miles of hedges have been grubbed out since WW2? I don't think that is 'organic moulding' - it was destruction, plain and simple. Elm trees vanished inside a decade - did anyone protest? De we do sweet fa about it? You think if something similar happened to the mighty oak we'd, as a people, get off our butts? NOT A CHANCE!

Yet, a few thousand windmills that, as a small start, begin to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, a small change in a direction of living off the planets excess energy not treat it's atmosphere as a dustbin for products of combustion, and it's 'stupid' (not just you, or mainly you) and many people offer voiciferous criticsm, protests. Honestly...

It makes me dispare for my species :huh:

[Osbourne One-Nil]

Do you know how many thousands of miles of hedges have been grubbed out since WW2? I don't think that is 'organic moulding' - it was destruction, plain and simple. Elm trees vanished inside a decade - did anyone protest? De we do sweet fa about it? You think if something similar happened to the mighty oak we'd, as a people, get off our butts? NOT A CHANCE!

Yeah - I'm a landscape architect so I'm a bit biased anyway.

[Thundery wintry showers]

I don't agree with the above line of argument- it compares people's tolerance levels 10-20 years ago with the present. In general people are less tolerant of intrusive development than they used to be- 20 years ago a new road and tree demolishing plan would have gone without protest, but these days, if someone proposes building a new road through countryside, the protests are at least as strong as for building of wind turbines. Deforestation of any kind is now seriously frowned upon, again at least as much as building a turbine ever is.

The "it destroys the scenery" argument was heavily used when campaigning against the Sunderland Academy of Light overlooking Cleadon and Whitburn on greenbelt land, even resulting in a petition- and much stronger than if they'd argued for putting a few turbines there. In the end Sunderland AFC applied to Prescott and he brought the ideas through. The argument was not that the Academy shouldn't have been built, but rather that it should have been built on a more brownfield type location. The reason for building it on greenbelt? Short-term economics-driven capitalism.

Which brings us back to the point about turbines. If they are useful for generating power, and we have a choice between building them in a scenic area and building them in a non-scenic area, with other factors being largely equal, surely it makes sense to build them in the non-scenic area rather than saying "build in the scenic area because scenery is nimby"? Of course sometimes you may have to make a controversial sacrifice when there is no alternative to putting them in a scenic area, but the task should be to implement as much renewable energy as possible at minimal detriment to other factors.

Until fairly recently women had very few rights. So could we argue that women have no right to argue that they should receive the same pay as men for doing the same work, when they put up with vastly greater inequality in the past?

[Snow Queen one]

Haven't read all the posts here but in Kent offshore of reculver/Herne Bay we have a very big wind farm which is lovely to look at when the sun sets behind it and in Maidstone much to the nimby's rage we have a new incinerator which will burn our household waste and produce enough electricity to supply most of Maidstone. Although the burnt waste will no doubt provide another thing to rant about it is still i think a good idea.

I also feel that these new ways of obtaining energy are dissed because they do not give the government or the utilites suppliers enough profit. The utilities will have to spend money and that is something they do not want to do.

[The Penguin]

Okay, so wind turbine has become the accepted phrase; so be it. But be aware that their supporters use that phrase to imply a certain level of efficiency, which they just don’t have. And remember, historically windmill became the generic word for a piece of wind driven machinery whether it drove a mill or not - they can’t make that much flour in the Netherlands.

Talking about efficiency, the current performance based analysis of actual output from wind farms in the UK is 25% of the theoretical maximum. Across the country this varies from 35% in Scotland and the Southwest down to less than 15% elsewhere. Hardly impressive figures, but worse is the fact that the wind farms are intermittent in their supply of power, that is to say, when it’s either not windy enough or too windy for the plant to operate they don’t produce. At all. Not the sort of thing to base a national energy strategy on, is it?

At least with solar power there is some certainty of a source of supply during daylight hours, even when it’s cloudy. And with wave and more especially tidal derived energy production the output is more certain, and continuous, still.

In principle I agree with developing non-carbon based energy generation, but what I don’t agree with is being led down the garden path by mono-agenda groups and a spin-it-up-coz-it-sounds-good government. Especially when the technology is weak and the capital and operational costs are excessive.

[Osbourne One-Nil]

In principle I agree with developing non-carbon based energy generation, but what I don't agree with is being led down the garden path by mono-agenda groups and a spin-it-up-coz-it-sounds-good government. Especially when the technology is weak and the capital and operational costs are excessive.

HAHAHAHA - I like your style!

[J10]

My position is that the most important aspect is where any wind farms are placed. Tourism is a major part of income for many seaside towns and cities across the UK. Locating wind farms in areas of (or close to) outstanding natural beauty we may not only destroy the landscape for future generations, we may also effect tourism and job prospects for locals. So if the wind farms are placed further offshore, which initially may be more expensive, in the long run, may be cheaper to the community as a whole and also better from an athestic point of view .

As with a lot of issues there are benefits and drawbacks to wind farms on both land and sea, and we must tread carefully.

[Hairy Celt]

My position is that the most important aspect is where any wind farms are placed. Tourism is a major part of income for many seaside towns and cities across the UK. Locating wind farms in areas of (or close to) outstanding natural beauty we may not only destroy the landscape for future generations, we may also effect tourism and job prospects for locals. So if the wind farms are placed further offshore, which initially may be more expensive, in the long run, may be cheaper to the community as a whole and also better from an athestic point of view .

As with a lot of issues there are benefits and drawbacks to wind farms on both land and sea, and we must tread carefully.

i'm about to explode. 1, 2, 3, 4.....

on-shore windfarms have a designed life of 25 years after which sites are restored.

Edited September 6, 2006 by Hairy Celt

[J10]

i'm about to explode. 1, 2, 3, 4.....

on-shore windfarms have a designed life of 25 years after which sites are restored.

I was mainly talking about the effects of offshore windfarms, perhaps I didn't really make myself clear, and even in the short timespan of 25 years, some of the dangers I have outlined above can have effects.

How long is the designated life of offshore windfarmd by the way?

[Devonian]

Okay, so wind turbine has become the accepted phrase; so be it. But be aware that their supporters use that phrase to imply a certain level of efficiency, which they just don’t have. And remember, historically windmill became the generic word for a piece of wind driven machinery whether it drove a mill or not - they can’t make that much flour in the Netherlands.

Talking about efficiency, the current performance based analysis of actual output from wind farms in the UK is 25% of the theoretical maximum. Across the country this varies from 35% in Scotland and the Southwest down to less than 15% elsewhere. Hardly impressive figures, but worse is the fact that the wind farms are intermittent in their supply of power, that is to say, when it’s either not windy enough or too windy for the plant to operate they don’t produce. At all. Not the sort of thing to base a national energy strategy on, is it?

At least with solar power there is some certainty of a source of supply during daylight hours, even when it’s cloudy. And with wave and more especially tidal derived energy production the output is more certain, and continuous, still.

In principle I agree with developing non-carbon based energy generation, but what I don’t agree with is being led down the garden path by mono-agenda groups and a spin-it-up-coz-it-sounds-good government. Especially when the technology is weak and the capital and operational costs are excessive.

How efficient is a coal or oil fired powerstation? The figure I have in my mind is a whopping 30% or so.......

[Hairy Celt]

I was mainly talking about the effects of offshore windfarms, perhaps I didn't really make myself clear, and even in the short timespan of 25 years, some of the dangers I have outlined above can have effects.

How long is the designated life of offshore windfarmd by the way?

don't know. there's one off the caithness coast that tugmistress cited earlier in this thread with a web address that may give info. and apologies for the bold font.

[Thundery wintry showers]

i'm about to explode. 1, 2, 3, 4.....

on-shore windfarms have a designed life of 25 years after which sites are restored.

As far as tourism, scenery and job prospects are concerned, 25 years is a long time. Indeed, it's one-third of an average person's lifespan. Plus, once the old turbines run out, what guarantee is there that the sites will be restored? There's more probability of them being replaced with new ones, if the old ones weren't abandoned before then.

Indeed "they will be restored" sounds to me like propoganda to keep the so-called "nimbies" happy. As I say, I'm not against wind farms when placed appropriately; I didn't even have a strong opinion on them, but what's annoying me is the biased propoganda, straw men and Ad Hominems being used against the "nimbies".

JACKONE's points, for me, are very valid both for onshore and offshore developments.