BS: Onshore windfarms

Subject: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: paula t
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 04:43 PM

I was wondering if anyone has any experience of living near an onshore windfarm? We have just been informed that two companies are looking to build separate "small" windfarms in our area.One is on the outskirts of our village, and the other virtually joins onto it next to a neighbouring village .The wind turbines will be 125 metres high and the blade diameter will be 90 metres if the farm goes ahead.I'm feeling quite emotional about this at the moment and would like to know if I'm being unreasonable or should be preparing to lie in front of a bulldozer!

I have found lots of opposing views from pro and anti windfarm campaigners and have done some rather scary research about "flicker" and noise. I feel the need for some opinions from those who live near turbines.

Can anyone out there help?

Yours hysterically,
Paula

Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Jack Campin
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 05:23 PM

There are few of them a few miles from here (central Midlothian). They're completely silent and rather beautiful. There is an ideal site for a few more turbines just above the village here, half a mile away, but I can't see it happening soon (arsehole landowner wants to use the site for housing; it's presently used for a free-range pig farm, which could easily coexist with turbines).

Large areas of central Europe have FAR more of them than we do. The only reason Britain doesn't have a serious construction programme for them is that the government is on the take from companies with an interest in coal and nuclear power stations.

Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 05:40 PM

From a distance they look quite elegant. I get a little lift knowing that they are making clean power.

However, I have been on a beach near Yarmouth I think where we were quite near about 12 to 18 of them. And they are not silent. The sound though, is not mechanical. It is great whuuuumvmph whuuuumvmph   whuuuumvmph of turning props. Like a slow moving fan on a huge scale.   I imagine windmills sounded more mechanical though as the sails turned geared machine cogs echoing around in a wood or stone chamber.

Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: paula t
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 05:45 PM

Thankyou Jack Campin and Virginia Tam. It helps to get a range of viewpoints with something so important as this.

Paula
x

Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 06:13 PM

Ugly, woefully inefficient, environmentally catastrophic & increasingly linked to various health problems. THIS is worth a read. God knows I'm not alone in being a latter day Quixote tilting at these vile giants bestriding our green & pleasant countryside; like placing the onus for recycling on the consumer, wind-farms, it would seem, are another green scam.

Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 06:17 PM

I think they are beuatiful, but even ugly ones are prettier than a war for oil.

I do believe that some people are sensitive to the noise. For that reason, placing them off the beaten track is a good idea, but to not use such a wonderful source of power? Unthinkable to me. They are saving some farmers from going under. Some areas should be zoned for beauty spots, and some for habitation, but some, like some desert areas and second growth timber areas etc. should be zoned for windmills. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 06:27 PM

I imagine there were people who didn't much like the idea of windmills when they were a new idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Ebbie
Date: 10 Mar 10 - 06:46 PM

What kind of program produced that linked article, Suibhne O'Piobaireachd? Weird. I finally gave up on reading it.

Judging by what I've been told in the US I don't agree with the woefully inefficient, ugly, etc description. In the proper spots, they evidently do a great job. I was told in Palm Desert, California, that they produce power for the entire town.

It is true that seeing the wind farms for the first time took me aback. Whole grids of whirling turbines, of different sizes and set at different heights. It was a futuristic scene, for sure.

Traveling by train over the US I saw many wind farms, some large, some quite small, others, as in Pennsylvania, set in a single line on a hill ridge overlooking the town..

Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 02:51 AM

I can believe that that production and upkeep can be polluting. And I can definitely believe that the sound can create heart beat irregularities. I have been in back of B&Q when some air handling system was dysfunctional and the I thought the sound was going to make me pass out. I was really unwell.


But would you rather have these?

and every we drive near a transformer station I become very ill. I start to feel it long before I can see it and sometimes if I am dozing on the drive, I will suddenly wake with a full uncomfortable thrumming feeling in my throat and head.

Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 03:32 AM

I like them, and can't hear them. I'm going to put a small one in my garden whether the council likes it or not. I don't care if you oppose them, AS LONG AS you have a sensible plan for how Britain is going to generate enough electricity to prevent a return to the Stone Age. (I know there are some nutters here who would like to see that anyway.)

Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 04:19 AM

The programme is a PDF - commonly used for academic papers & the like; worth getting a handle on I'd say.

Fact is, wind turbines don't work - & they know they don't work. All the budget for renewable energy is being poured into what amounts to a crap green appeasement simply so they might rail-road in the new breed of nuclear power stations without going through the usual channels.

I love Stella Power Station (linked to above); but then again I was brought up in an industrial landscape of coal-fired power stations and collieries - and the communities who served them. Here's my old homeland, Blyth in Northumberland - listen carefully & you'll hear Ewan MacColl celebrating it in song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5xwK6dNhtw

20 years on and there's not a trace of it - and all because Thatcher paid off the scientists to justify fucking the miners over. Now the pits are gone, and the old isolated ex-colliery villages are dwarfed by increasingly monstrous turbines adding insult to injury...

Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 05:02 AM

I was told that one of the biggest costs of wind farms was the public inquiries that seem compulsory whenever one is proposed! This article was teh first in a Google search on 'WInd farm arguments fr and against' and seems to deliver a reasonable view. It includes the comment that since the 1980s the cost of energy production continues to deplete.

I think the need for wind farms will increase as we continue deforrestation though. It is a known fact that wind is created by trees waving their branches about - Have you ever seen a windy day when the trees are not waving their arms? We now have less trees so there is less wind and we have to mechanicaly produce it with wind farms. Just you watch - As the trees decrease the wind farms will spread. It is all part of the worldwide plot by the major powers so I suspect this post will not stay about long. Keep wearing the tinfoil hats...

:-)

Cheers

DeG

Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 05:23 AM

I think that the landscape looks better without them.
Compared to Europe we are a very small island, with little enough unspoiled countryside.
They each have a huge concrete foundation that will be in the ground for ever, and vast amounts of CO2 are released in making it.
Their energy is clean, but no generating capacity is replaced.
Back up has to be in place for wndless days.

Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: theleveller
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 05:30 AM

When I look out my kichen window I can see two wind turbines and I really like them - they are so elegant and stately and an interesting contrast to the derelict windmill at the farm across the road (did people used to complain when they built windmills?). In the background, behind the turbines, is Drax, the largest coal-fired power station in Europe. I know which I'd rather have on my doorstep so, really, objecting to wind turbines could be seen as NIMBYism - someone will always have to live with power generators of one kind or another.

Drax, incidentally, now burns some wood, at the rate of 20 tons an hour, I'm told - which has greatly increased the price of firewood in this area.

Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 06:29 AM

Well, we have to do something, costs and noise are likely to drop and efficiencies rise (look at electric cars) and storage may become possible to palliate the need for standby generation.   

If they were put near the Thames estuary it might put paid to Boris's stupid plan for a floating airport.

Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 06:32 AM

It would tale 2640 turbines to provide the power of Drax, on a windy day.
On a calm day an infinite number would not be enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 06:36 AM

Shit, Stella went years ago! That's Sellafield - not cool at all. Drax, on the other hand, is cool by me; it works on a human level, though I don't suppose they're burning domestic firewood on there...

Nimbyism? Well, it's never too long on Mudcat before the name calling starts but - two wind turbines? Think on this - it's going to take another 5,000 (at least) to come anywhere close to Drax - and it takes an olympic-size swimming pool's worth of concrete just to site one of them (see HERE) and they still require nuclear back up.

I used to love going past Ferrybridge on the old A1; you want sculptural beauty you've got it right there.

Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 06:41 AM

For those who can't be bothered to click:

But don't wind turbines help reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions ?

Unfortunately not. In spite of what the power generating companies and the wind farm developers say, wind turbines have very little effect on the total emission of CO2 from fossil fuel power stations.

The reason for this is simple.

Energy output from wind varies from zero to 87% of their rated capacity, depending on the wind. If the wind speed is less than about 5 metres per second (11 mph), no electricity is generated; if the wind speed is greater than about 25 metres per second (56 mph), turbines are shut down for safety reasons.

On average, wind turbines in the UK generate about 23% of their rated capacity.

All power plants need a certain amount of backup to cover down times, but wind power is unique in that the down times are intermittent and unpredictable. The backup for wind power must be running continuously, ready to go on stream immediately in response to changing weather conditions. The crucial point here is that this "spinning reserve" is burning fossil fuels and emitting CO2 even when not producing electricity.

To date it has been assumed as self evident that wind generated electricity will save carbon. There is very little evidence that this is the case and indeed mounting evidence that wind generated power is not carbon friendly. Current available figures bring us to conclude that during its lifetime one 3MW turbine will "save" 6,356 tonnes of carbon and "cost" somewhere between 27,213 and 40,773 tonnes of carbon. Dr. Sarah Myhill, of Llangunllo, Powys, has studied the problem. Click here to download her research paper.

Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 06:42 AM

Local noise has been a concern...but, likely is a minor issue, as they are not normally located near houses. I suspect the impact on birds is small (but, may vary by location) ?   Whether they are attractive or not, likely depends on the location, number and personal views. The location of transmission lines has been an issue (i.e. western PEI, Canada), as some folks have had concerns about health impacts (likely not proven by science... yet, that is).

Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 06:50 AM

So, there we have it. They are no good at producing electricity so they MUST be being used to generate wind...

Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: GUEST,jonm at work
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 07:36 AM

At current prices, the average land-mounted wind turbine has a design life of 20-25 years (this is getting longer as designs improve) and will generate sufficient free electricity (over and above the cost of maintenance etc.) to pay for itself in 40-45 years (this figure is coming down due to economies of scale). This means that at the moment no turbine is generating sufficient electricity to pay for itself, however, their cost-efficiency is not bad compared with coal-fired power stations (nobody ever values their break-even costs - we need the power regardless).

The predicted environmental impact of manufacture of turbines is no greater than that involved in providing similar generation capacity from a NEW coal-fired station (obviously, with an existing station, the only impact is that due to ongoing operation). Pollution in operation is minimal, although there is ongoing research into the potential health impacts of vibrating equipment on cardiac arrhythmia which this will no doubt contribute to.

As a political issue, the environmental lobby are obviously pro-wind and will tend to marginalise the impacts to highlight the benefits, while the government will do the opposite, since they are "strongly influenced" by the fossil-fuel lobby.

It is apparent that this government is only interested in funding researhc which supports its own pre-conclusions and will actively manupulate research funding criteria to ensure that only positive outcomes reach publication. The environmental lobby appear to be retaliating, judging from the above links. What we can be sure of is that most research output will exhibit inherent bias in this emotionally-charged area.

Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: theleveller
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 08:21 AM

"Nimbyism? Well, it's never too long on Mudcat before the name calling starts"

The words 'pot', 'kettle' and 'black' spring to mind here, S O'B. What I actually said was "objecting to wind turbines COULD BE SEEN AS NIMBYism". Anyway, I personally see little aesthetic merit in Drax, Eggborough or Ferrybridge power stations, all of which I can see on a clear day. A better solution would probably be tidal power and the Humber estuary is an ideal place for this, with the extra advantage of providing a tidal barrage. Don't know what the capacity would be or how far advanced the technology is.

BTW, the two turbines on my doorstep are used by Yorkshire Water to power a sewage treatment plant - a local solution to a local need (no contribution from me, though - we're not on mains drainage) and, I believe, they sell any excess to the National Grid. I remember reading recently about a village that built their own wind turbine and, after providing the villagers with power, generated an income of several thousand pounds a year for the village coffers. That makes sense to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: theleveller
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 08:37 AM

Looking out of the office window, it just occurs to me that local power generation isn't anything new. I can see five mill chimneys, where each factory would have generated its own power. Now if new factories etc. were all built with the means to generate their own power..... Is this what's meant by 'think global, act local'?

Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 10:05 AM

They only show a profit because of the subsidy.
If they really do not save much carbon, the subsidy is misplaced.

Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: pdq
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 10:42 AM

So far, windmills built for the production of electricity are:

          visual polution

          extremely noisy

          cost more to build and operate than the electricity is worth

          kill a huge number of birds, some endangered species

          take "alternate energy" money supply that can better be used elsewhere

Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: pdq
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 10:53 AM

Here 'tis, the lovely...

                                    Altamont Pass


Remember, there are about 6000 of these government-subsidized windmills in this area.

Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 11:07 AM

How anyone can regard a huge, way-beyond-human-scale, concrete and metal structure "beautiful" is completely beyond me. They are never going to contribute more than a tiny single-figure percentage towards our energy needs and they are inefficient and noisy. They are all over Cornwall like a rash now. They are there to make us feel good about leaving the telly on standby. They have nothing to do with reducing our utter addiction to profligate energy use. We have a clump of 'em near Delabole. I could bloody weep in summer when I see convoys of motor homes and huge4x4s streaming past them on the nearby road. I bet the drivers think the turbines are beautiful too.

Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: theleveller
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 11:21 AM

A couple of questions to those who dismiss wind power out of hand. Are wind turbines any more unsightly/unhealthy than electricity pylons (or mobile phone masts)- plenty of those across the country that no-one seems to protest about too much any more? If wind isn't the solution to our energy problems (which it probably isn't), what is? More gas/coal/oil power stations? Nuclear? And whose backyard will these be built in?

Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: pdq
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 11:56 AM

"If wind isn't the solution to our energy problems (which it probably isn't), what is?"

Firstly, wind farms only address the problem of electricity production, not energy use as a whole. Yes, there are some electric cars, but not enough to change the overall picture.

Most energy is used to heat buildings, propel automobiles and trucks, and to power industry.

Each house or industrial facility should be studied to determine which method(s) will work best there and there only.

I used to drive a small (Datsun) pickup powered by compressed (liquid) natural gas (methane). After 150,000 miles the engine was like new and the oil was still honey-colored when it was time for an oil change.

I have one friend who retrofitted his house with an underground thermal transfer sysyem. He uses a bit of electrictity to power fans and pumps, but the house is just as comfortable as it was when it was usung heating oil.

Many people nowdays use roof-mounted solar systems.

The long-term solutions will come with on-site installations and not huge remote facilities that polute the countryside and have major losses in distribution systems.

Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: gnu
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 12:43 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6DLyruTqHI

blue clicky later... busy

Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Becca72
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 12:47 PM

I was SURE this thread was about 'Spaw...

Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: gnu
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 01:01 PM

WAIT... that link has been sabotaged... lemmie try again...

Hope this works.

Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: gnu
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 01:06 PM

Yup... it does... hope a CLONE can remove the errant link.

Beer (Adrien) alerted me to this technology. Might save a lot of birds from wind farm turbines, especially on migration routes. (No, I don't... that's what I heard somewhere.)

Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: paula t
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 01:29 PM

Thanks for the response everyone.
I don't really want to be a NIMBY but at the moment I admit that I want to scream "Not in my back yard !" very loudly.

I'm filled with horror because there don't seem to be very many accepted objections any more.The government seems to be ignoring them and making that policy. E.g. it is apparently not even an acceptable argument that there is insufficient wind at a particular site, because technology might improve in a few years.The landscape here (South Northants) is very soft and beautiful and has small, stone villages.I hate to feel enclosed and hate noise, which is one of the reasons we live here (I can't bear those sonic cat scarers etc because they give me a headache. I can't live near busy roads because the constant "hum" soon gives me a headache).

I don't know how I will be affected by flicker and the noise, and seeing these huge structures all the time.Maybe I'm overreacting, but at the moment I just don't know...........So keep those views coming. There have been some interesting ones so far.

Paula

Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: GUEST,Jack Campin
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 01:39 PM

Nuclear power stations can't cope with load variation either.

That's why we have pumped storage power stations, like Dinorwic and Falls of Cruachan.

It doesn't take a very large volume of pumped-up water to store enough energy to cope with a countryful of Christmas dinners or a drop in the wind.

Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: GUEST,Suibhne (Astray)
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 01:55 PM

The words 'pot', 'kettle' and 'black' spring to mind here, S O'B.

Not guilty, theleveller - in fact the biggest offence I've caused around here was DEFENDING another 'catters right to call me a c*nt without his posts being deleted. Now that's what I call Nambyism; & namby I ain't, I just object to the countryside being ruined by ugly inefficient white elephantine wind turbines whilst other more viable sources of renewable electricity are ignored. I'm also cool with coal power, but not nuclear - and the wind farms are waving in a whole new generation of nuclear reactors under our noses.

Decentralised power is worth looking into; I once ran a wee wind dynamo made from a washine machine engine which did very well whiulst hooked up to banks of car batteries in the attic. Great fun, until it blew down in a storm and wrecked the greenhouse...

Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: GUEST,Larry K
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 02:28 PM

A few facts about windfarms in Michigan USA

Current cost to produce existing coal/nuclear    $.03 kWh
current cost to produce wind                     $.08 kWh
Cost to produce new coal/nuclear                $.08 kWh

More expensive than current production, but in line with future new plants.   Issue is that coal/nuclear can run 24/7.   Wind in Michigan is only at 20%-25% capacity. In addition wind blows most at midnight in spring and fall.   Least energy needs are midnight in spring and fall.

Biggest energy need in Summer for air conditioning. Wind blows least in summer.

I have been to several wind farms and had a wind developer give me a guided tour inside a wind mill. (Rich Vanderveen- Macinaw City wind Farm)   At the Harvest Wind Farm in Pigeon of 32 wind turbines, I had to turn my car off to hear them from 50 feet away.   They were less noisty than the car engine. I also have had private tours of the biomass cow digester plant in Elsie Mi, Fermi 2 nuclear plant, Monroe Coal plant (one of the biggest int he world) and riverside landfill biomass plant.   All of these have a place in our fuel mix.

Flicker- I don't see this as a serious problem.
Birds- cats kill more birds in 1 week than windmills kill in 2 years. If you want to save the birds, than get rid of the cats.   I proposed sending all the cats to Ohio. I called it my "cat and trade proposal" For more info look up the white paper by Mick Segrillo in Wisconsin.

Wind has good points and bad points.   Make up your own mind.   I think they have a place in the generation mix of electricity.

Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 03:07 PM

SoP provided the link to the document from which the nimby reference hails.    "I make no apology for being termed a NIMBY....." Please don't flap when another poster employs a term that technically you introduced to the thread?

Now to get back on track... birds killed by turbines google turned up some interesting things.

Eagles 'killed by wind turbines

and this

Birds Not Being Killed by Wind Farms -Ecologist

Thu Nov 25,11:19 AM ET

LONDON (Reuters) - Two major offshore wind farms in Denmark are giving the lie to fears that birds are being killed by flying into the huge vanes of such installations, a conference heard on Thursday.

In fact, not only were birds not dying, the Danish farms had actually benefitted the local environment, ecologist Charlotte Boesen of Denmark's Energi E2 energy trading and generation firm told the conference on wind energy.

Birds were simply flying over or around the huge packs of turbines, and the seabed foundations had created an artificial reef that was attracting new species to colonize and providing a haven for fish as trawling there was banned.

"So far the observed effects have been positive," she said.

and this Audubon Society supports wind energy

Farmland birds still chirpy despite wind turbines

and from how stuff works.com

Man-made structure/technology Associated bird deaths per year (U.S.)

Feral and domestic cats Hundreds of millions [source: AWEA]

Power lines 130 million -- 174 million [source: AWEA]

Windows (residential and commercial) 100 million -- 1 billion [source: TreeHugger]

Pesticides 70 million [source: AWEA]

Automobiles 60 million -- 80 million [source: AWEA]

Lighted communication towers 40 million -- 50 million [source: AWEA]

Wind turbines 10,000 -- 40,000 [source: ABC]

Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Ed T
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 03:17 PM

Some interesting perspectives on the issue:
http://www.helium.com/debates/71106-are-wind-farms-good-sources-for-environmentally-safe-energy

Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Geoff the Duck
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 04:46 PM

My Personal View - They are lovely to watch. Gentle slow stately rotating wings, a bit like a surreal flying swan on a stick!
There were a few of them on Water Board land a couple of miles from where I used to live. On a quiet day it was a nice place to visit and watch their gyrations. I don't recall hearing much other than the wind that had always whistled over that spot.

As for efficiency, I have never properly researched the lifetime energy budget for them, but have always had a feeling that taking them from unsmelted metal ore, through manufacture, transport, erecting and routine maintenance it would need to put a lot of energy back into the system before it finally wears out, for the balance to end in an overall energy gain.
That said, total energy produced is not the only factor. Daily running does not produce acid rain or particulate pollution (Don't know about the manufacturing processes). Also, if energy is produced by converting wind power, it may reduce the need for some proportion of fossil fuels currently being burned.

In my book, the main thing I would like to know is an accurate assessment of the energy produced versus consumed and whether the result is a gain or a loss.

If there is even a small overall gain, I would like to see as many turbines as could be built. Put them down the central reservation of every motorway in the UK at a height above the lorries. Stick one in my back yard. Give us forests of the blades on desolate hillsides.

Build Jerusalem among these white angelic mills!

That said, I think that water power, tidal and water wheels should not be ignored. Water powered the Industrial Revolution in England.
Quack!
Geoff the Duck.

Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 07:11 PM

Clearly some people see them as ugly. Others, including me, are inclined to see them as rather beautiful. That's not a difference that can really be settled by discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 11 Mar 10 - 08:19 PM

No but we can still discuss it. Beauty in nature comes from the perfect synergy of form and function. Wind turbines fail the test both on form (ugly aluminium alloys won at great energy cost from the ore, and 19th century bicycle dynamo technology - stop pedalling and the light goes out) and function (requiring constant maintenance - look at any windfarm and the odds are that at least a couple of the turbines won't be working at all, not to speak of the fact that they only work anyway when the wind blows). Tell yourself that a turbine is beautiful, then go and look at a tree.

Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: GUEST,Burton Coggles
Date: 12 Mar 10 - 04:02 AM

"19th century bicycle dynamo technology - stop pedalling and the light goes out"

Is there any form of electricity generation where this isn't the case?

Pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 Mar 10 - 04:12 AM

Wind turbines kill bats.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7581990.stm

Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 12 Mar 10 - 04:13 AM

They mess with aesthetics too. One of my favourite views in the world is from New Kyo to the west of Stanley in Co. Durham looking over the Stanley Burn valley to the fellside above Quaking Houses, beyond which the lands falls away to the coastal plain. Not pretty-pretty by any means, but on a clear day might feel on top of the world. The two gigantic wind turbines of the Holmside Wind Farm sighted are on a scale which dwarfs the rural, woodland & architectural features into virtual insignificance. The same happened along the B6301 out of Tow Law with the siting of an initial six turbines of the East Hedleyhope Wind Farm which have now spawned other such monsters ruining the surrounding countryside and the views of same for miles around.

For other considerations the Moorsyde Action Group webpage is well worth a look.

Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 12 Mar 10 - 04:19 AM

Likewise:

NATIONAL WIND WATCH

Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 12 Mar 10 - 05:06 AM

Know nothing about their efficiency or otherwise but I love the look of them! I like gas works, power stations and all kinds of industrial landscape. I like miles of motorway lit up like golden serpents. I like waterworks (especially at night) and some factories. And I like wind turbines too.
Wind turbines just look a bit more modern compared to other existing big stuff around.

Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 12 Mar 10 - 05:12 AM

And as a counterpoint to man conquering nature, I also dig decay: I also like dumps, wasteground, half demolished buildings and abandoned air fields.

Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 12 Mar 10 - 05:51 AM

Me too, CS, but thanks to wind farms & attendant myths, I've lost my favourite industrial landscapes: Blyth Power Station - 1955-2003. For my personal paean see here.

Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: GUEST,Ed
Date: 12 Mar 10 - 05:51 AM

I also like dumps, wasteground, half demolished buildings and abandoned air fields.

Fair enough, but I'd be interested to know why?