BS: Onshore windfarms

10 Mar 10 - 04:43 PM (#2861342)
Subject: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: paula t

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

---

10 Mar 10 - 05:23 PM (#2861367)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Jack Campin

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.

---

10 Mar 10 - 05:40 PM (#2861389)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: VirginiaTam

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.

---

10 Mar 10 - 05:45 PM (#2861393)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: paula t

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

Paula
x

---

10 Mar 10 - 06:13 PM (#2861412)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Jack Blandiver

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.

---

10 Mar 10 - 06:17 PM (#2861416)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: GUEST,mg

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

---

10 Mar 10 - 06:27 PM (#2861418)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: McGrath of Harlow

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

---

10 Mar 10 - 06:46 PM (#2861429)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Ebbie

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..

---

11 Mar 10 - 02:51 AM (#2861594)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: VirginiaTam

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.

---

11 Mar 10 - 03:32 AM (#2861605)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: GUEST

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.)

---

11 Mar 10 - 04:19 AM (#2861621)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Jack Blandiver

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...

---

11 Mar 10 - 05:02 AM (#2861640)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Dave the Gnome

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

---

11 Mar 10 - 05:23 AM (#2861658)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.

---

11 Mar 10 - 05:30 AM (#2861662)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: theleveller

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.

---

11 Mar 10 - 06:29 AM (#2861687)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Richard Bridge

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.

---

11 Mar 10 - 06:32 AM (#2861690)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Keith A of Hertford

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.

---

11 Mar 10 - 06:36 AM (#2861699)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Jack Blandiver

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.

---

11 Mar 10 - 06:41 AM (#2861702)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Jack Blandiver

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.

---

11 Mar 10 - 06:42 AM (#2861704)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Ed T

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).

---

11 Mar 10 - 06:50 AM (#2861709)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Dave the Gnome

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

---

11 Mar 10 - 07:36 AM (#2861741)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: GUEST,jonm at work

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.

---

11 Mar 10 - 08:21 AM (#2861763)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: theleveller

"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.

---

11 Mar 10 - 08:37 AM (#2861773)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: theleveller

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'?

---

11 Mar 10 - 10:05 AM (#2861825)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Keith A of Hertford

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

---

11 Mar 10 - 10:42 AM (#2861845)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: pdq

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

---

11 Mar 10 - 10:53 AM (#2861852)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: pdq

Here 'tis, the lovely...

                                    Altamont Pass


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

---

11 Mar 10 - 11:07 AM (#2861859)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Steve Shaw

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.

---

11 Mar 10 - 11:21 AM (#2861866)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: theleveller

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?

---

11 Mar 10 - 11:56 AM (#2861903)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: pdq

"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.

---

11 Mar 10 - 12:43 PM (#2861924)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: gnu

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

blue clicky later... busy

---

11 Mar 10 - 12:47 PM (#2861931)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Becca72

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

---

11 Mar 10 - 01:01 PM (#2861940)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: gnu

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

Hope this works.

---

11 Mar 10 - 01:06 PM (#2861941)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: gnu

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.)

---

11 Mar 10 - 01:29 PM (#2861949)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: paula t

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

---

11 Mar 10 - 01:39 PM (#2861957)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: GUEST,Jack Campin

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.

---

11 Mar 10 - 01:55 PM (#2861965)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: GUEST,Suibhne (Astray)

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...

---

11 Mar 10 - 02:28 PM (#2861991)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: GUEST,Larry K

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.

---

11 Mar 10 - 03:17 PM (#2862027)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Ed T

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

---

11 Mar 10 - 04:46 PM (#2862102)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Geoff the Duck

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.

---

11 Mar 10 - 07:11 PM (#2862202)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: McGrath of Harlow

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.

---

11 Mar 10 - 08:19 PM (#2862242)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Steve Shaw

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.

---

12 Mar 10 - 04:02 AM (#2862398)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: GUEST,Burton Coggles

"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.

---

12 Mar 10 - 04:12 AM (#2862402)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Keith A of Hertford

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

---

12 Mar 10 - 04:13 AM (#2862403)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Jack Blandiver

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.

---

12 Mar 10 - 04:19 AM (#2862407)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Jack Blandiver

Likewise:

NATIONAL WIND WATCH

---

12 Mar 10 - 05:06 AM (#2862424)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)

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.

---

12 Mar 10 - 05:12 AM (#2862428)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)

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

---

12 Mar 10 - 05:51 AM (#2862449)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Jack Blandiver

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.

---

12 Mar 10 - 05:51 AM (#2862450)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: GUEST,Ed

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

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

---

12 Mar 10 - 06:06 AM (#2862457)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Jack Blandiver

Two more sites of interest:



Eurpean Platform Against Windfarms

---

12 Mar 10 - 06:07 AM (#2862458)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Jack Blandiver

That should have included:

NORTH AMERICAN PLATFORM AGAINST WIND POWER

---

12 Mar 10 - 06:11 AM (#2862461)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)

They have a poetry of their own - such spaces embodying a feeling of (to borrow one of SO'P's favourite terms) feral return to a primal condition - like a pack of dogs running wild through a council estate. Not safely domesticated but not untouched by mans shaping intervention either. They can be filled with ghostly echos of what once was, and a sense of the cold imperceptably relentless drip-drip of time, which inevitably consumes all things made. Purely an ambience thing I guess.

Did I mention I like old graveyards too, especially for camping in and having picnics ;-)

---

12 Mar 10 - 07:30 AM (#2862501)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Mavis Enderby

At the risk of thread drift:

Suibhne: "...and all because Thatcher paid off the scientists to justify fucking the miners over"

Please explain!

Pete.

---

12 Mar 10 - 08:39 AM (#2862561)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: theleveller

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

Yes, me too. They evoke the same feelings as ruined castles, ancient barrows and standing stones. They are full of ghosts and almost tangible memories of the humsn interactions that have taken place there - and a melancholy that they have outlived their usefulness.

BTW I love the way Jon Boden captured this in his CD Songs From the Flood Plain

---

12 Mar 10 - 09:05 AM (#2862574)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: theleveller

I'm inherently suspicious about one-trick pony pressure groups like a Platform Against Wind Power/farms - it just seems so blinkered. If it was a Platform for a Sustainable Energy Programme, I'd be inclined to take what they have to say more seriously.

---

12 Mar 10 - 10:21 AM (#2862619)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Mooh

There are scores of windmills just north of where I live. There is also a nuclear power station (Douglas Point/Bruce Nuclear, whatever it's called). Epcor is the company making the windmills. Complaints I've heard have to do with low frequency rumble, the eyesore quotient, investment vs production.

Frankly, I'd hate to see them overlooking my favourite places as I prefer nature unadulterated, but the risks seem less than some other electricity sources. Having said that, I wouldn't mind a small mill in my yard for personal use.

Peace, Mooh.

---

12 Mar 10 - 10:48 AM (#2862635)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Stu

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

It's contemplation.

It's a demonstration of the arrogance of man that he thinks he has dominion over nature.

It's the beauty of the other side, of what was within being revealed.

It's the slow entropy of decay which we are all subject to.

It's realising the emperor is in the nip.

Above all, it's about the transience of absolutely everything.

---

12 Mar 10 - 11:55 AM (#2862682)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: MikeL2

Hi

I have been real close to wind farms both in the UK and in Spain.

Until getting close I never perceived them to be as big as they are.

A strange thing I have found is that I have hardly seen any of the sails turning on any of them - even on the windiest day.

cheers

MikeL2

---

12 Mar 10 - 04:09 PM (#2862918)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Jack Blandiver

Suibhne: "...and all because Thatcher paid off the scientists to justify fucking the miners over"

A polemical paraphrase of the situation, for more on which see HERE & elsewhere.

---

12 Mar 10 - 05:16 PM (#2862965)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)

It's contemplation.

It's a demonstration of the arrogance of man that he thinks he has dominion over nature.

It's the beauty of the other side, of what was within being revealed.

It's the slow entropy of decay which we are all subject to.

It's realising the emperor is in the nip.

Above all, it's about the transience of absolutely everything.

I can hear that as the lyrics to some kind of 'neo-pagan gangsta-rap' hybrid. I reckon all us melancholic Mad Max wannabe's aught to form a 'dereliction club' - it works for me anyway!

---

12 Mar 10 - 05:26 PM (#2862972)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)

I might add that my last post in response to Sugarfoots was informed by listening to Gangsta Rap, for whatever that may be worth! Anyhoo a Dereliction Club sounds about right - though I'm afraid that formally recognised and actively preserved sites of decay simply will not do!

---

12 Mar 10 - 06:18 PM (#2863001)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: VirginiaTam

though I'm afraid that formally recognised and actively preserved sites of decay simply will not do

ya mean like mudcat?

---

12 Mar 10 - 08:40 PM (#2863062)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Mavis Enderby

Suibhne - based on that article I can see we're never going to agree on this!

But:

If I remember correctly the main environmental reason proposed for abandoning UK coal was acid rain, caused largely by it's relatively high sulphur content leading to sulphuric acid production. Hence the argument put forward for importing low sulphur coals and moving away from coal powered power stations. I don't remember global warming/climate change/CO2 emissions featuring much in the arguments, if at all. Acid rain was a very real environmental problem at the time. (Amusingly, John Gummer was called a shitbag by the Norweigan minister for Environmental Affairs when he refused to discuss the problem)

There were/are ways around the acid rain problem which should have been pursued. Low sulphur dioxide combustion technologies have existed for a long time, as has flue gas desulphurisation. But this was regarded as uneconomic compared with importing coal. When you combine this with the political will to break the unions, and especially the NUM after 1974, you can see why the mines were doomed.

Apologies for the tread drift - now back to wind farms!

Pete.

---

13 Mar 10 - 04:01 AM (#2863178)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Mavis Enderby

I think a large part of the problem with windfarms is that they are imposed on, rather than owned by, communities which are affected by them. Possibly as a result farms are getting bigger in scale.

Small scale farms can be attractive. I was quite taken with the community-owned turbines on Gigha, which look to be a success story - more info here

There must be some reliable data on whole-life costs of windfarms now - some have been in place for many years. It would be nice to get an unbiased view - the problem with windfarms and so many environmental issues is that they are highly emotive and have vested interests on both sides.

Pete.

---

13 Mar 10 - 05:28 AM (#2863221)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: VirginiaTam

I agree Pete. Ideally, wind farms should owned by the nearest villages so they reaped the benefit of them and could sell unused power back to the grid.

Unfortunately, not many have this option. Sounds like room for legislation that states the company buying the land and putting up these farms must make the neighbouring village a major stakeholder.

---

13 Mar 10 - 07:15 AM (#2863283)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Jack Blandiver

But what village is going to want to ruin their landscape with these monstrous turbines that are barely effective at doing the job they're supposed to? And when it's too windy, or not windy enough, what do we do for electricity then? Let alone the noise, health risks etc. etc. Seems many communities are boldly tilting against the bloody things. Again I link to the Moorsyde Action Group site which really is worth a look.

---

13 Mar 10 - 01:21 PM (#2863467)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Ebbie

NOTES:

In California, they told me that a selected number of turbines are shut off in response to the needs of the day.

I see no reason why in time the power that is generated can not go directly to banks of storage.

The noise from them that I heard was somewhere between a hum and a whoosh.

As to aesthetics, does anyone agree with me that electric and telephone lines above ground are ***))U&&&!!!! ugly and intrusive?

---

13 Mar 10 - 01:31 PM (#2863481)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: GUEST,Peter Laban

But what village is going to want to ruin their landscape with these monstrous turbines


Some communities do And it's alternative, Moneypoint coal powered generating station, can be seen from a lot of places in Co Clare. If you think that's less of an eyesore, that's your prerogative, I can tell you though the sulphurish green/yellow cloud that on quiet winter's days sits on the Western horizon until it settles on the Connemara mountains isn't particularly attractive.

---

14 Mar 10 - 05:02 AM (#2863757)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Jack Blandiver

Wind turbines: 'Eco-friendly' – but not to eagles

---

14 Mar 10 - 07:07 PM (#2864155)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: paula t

Wow! How lucky can one little village get?

I've just been asked to join a facebook discussion group, because the proposed new High Speed Rail link route goes right between the proposed windfarm and our village!

Anyone got any Vallium?

HELP!

Paula
x

---

15 Mar 10 - 07:53 AM (#2864388)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: GUEST,Jim Martin

"But what village is going to want to ruin their landscape with these monstrous turbines


Some communities do And it's alternative, Moneypoint coal powered generating station, can be seen from a lot of places in Co Clare. If you think that's less of an eyesore, that's your prerogative, I can tell you though the sulphurish green/yellow cloud that on quiet winter's days sits on the Western horizon until it settles on the Connemara mountains isn't particularly attractive. "

Some communities don't! To get the full story so far on this local project see the Clare County Council planning applications website:

http://www.clarecoco.ie/planning/planning-applications/search-planning-applications/FileRefDetails.aspx?file_number=109&LASiteID

---

15 Mar 10 - 08:01 AM (#2864390)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Stu

I like the wind farm you can see from the beach at Crosby on Merseyside. It seems to echo Gormley's sculpture on the beach, and it's always a thrill to see the size of them when a ship passes in front of them and you can get a sense of their scale. The backdrop of the North Welsh coast and the industrial dockside vista makes the whole spot quite special.

---

07 Aug 14 - 07:32 AM (#3649058)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Jim Martin

An interesting development - the windfarm developers aren't getting it all their own way (thank God)!:

http://irishplanningnews.ie/high-court-quashes-an-bord-pleanala-decision-to-permit-windfarm-in-roscommon/

---

07 Aug 14 - 10:41 AM (#3649098)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Ebbie

How about installing the turbines alongside and above existing highways and other roadways? Could that be made feasible?

---

07 Aug 14 - 07:13 PM (#3649220)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: McGrath of Harlow

I'm puzzled by how hot under the collar some people get at wind turbines. To my mind they seem to look pretty good.

I imagine if they last long enough people will be up in arms trying to defend them from being pulled down.

---

07 Aug 14 - 08:41 PM (#3649232)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Steve Shaw

They get hot under the collar because the turbines are anti-human scale, they are inefficient, they wreck wildlife, they ruin the landscape (a new one near here, visible for miles around, sits atop the pristine landscape and ancient woodland of Dizzard Cliff), and they are an utter con designed to make already-wealthy farmers/landowners even richer (to the tune of £40-50,000 a year per windmill, better than a teacher's wages, all for taking up a few square metres and costing you nothing). You could cover the whole country with these useless abominations and still make far less green energy savings than a decent nationwide plan to conserve energy. But no, we erect these bloody things willy-nilly and just carry on wasting energy, all with that much clearer a conscience.

---

08 Aug 14 - 05:17 AM (#3649310)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Keith A of Hertford

I agree with Steve.

---

08 Aug 14 - 06:36 AM (#3649331)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Musket

There are many around here. I see two arguments; The physical presence, set against the benefits they set out to give, and the economics of them, funding the presence in the first place.

As ever, it is difficult to discuss one aspect without regard to the other. If they are a necessary evil, then so be it, but high pressure days show that they are not the answer to everything.

More conservation of energy is necessary, but doesn't answer the generating it in the first place. We are far more efficient in energy use than ten years ago, and go back thirty years, we were almost as bad as the USA.

Interestingly, the only ones you can see from our village, (though not from my house) are a few miles away but plainly seen. They are in another county, but only just. The town nearest in that county, you can't see them anyway, but those people were consulted. The homes that are nearest and affected are in our county and nobody here was consulted at all. Meanwhile, we got a letter about some fifteen miles away on the basis of being in our county.

It's little things such as that which can skew opinion, rather than the physical need or otherwise.

---

08 Aug 14 - 06:38 AM (#3649332)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Jim Martin

Similar case to the Roscommon one in W. Clare also going to judicial review:

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/residents-group-wins-right-to-judicial-review-of-wind-farm-plan-30491711.html

---

08 Aug 14 - 08:03 AM (#3649347)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Thompson

I read a piece about the health problems - a vast study was done on health problems associated with wind turbines, and it was found that the areas where people suffer ill-health are those in which there's a lot of publicity claiming that health problems will occur. People in areas where problems are not suggested don't get sick.
If I were living somewhere that wind turbines were planned, the first thing I'd do is call a meeting of all the neighbours and see if I could persuade them to decide on a request for free electricity for all those within hearing of the turbines, which is to say probably (being generous) about a half-kilometre around them.

---

08 Aug 14 - 10:21 AM (#3649379)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Musket

A paper in The British Medical Journal questioned the health links on the basis of nimby.

It is easier to get permission in areas of high deprivation than affluent areas, especially rural deprivation. These are areas of high health inequality and co morbidity anyway.

Sadly, when scare claims are used, the actual issues get lost as it is easy to dismiss concerns if the ones put forward are flawed.

---

08 Aug 14 - 01:43 PM (#3649429)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Don Firth

A fellow I worked with back in the early Eighties lived in the south end of Seattle. He was unhappy with the size of his electric bills, so he put up a wind turbine in his back yard. It was nowhere near as large as the ones you see standing around in open fields with their rotors turning in a stately, dignified fashion, but it did the job.

He soon discovered that his electric meter was running backwards. This meant that he was putting electricity back into the grid—and that Seattle City Light owed him money!

City Light came to his house, looked the turbine over, and had a wall-eyed fit! There was nothing they could do, but they called in the Federal Aviation Administration. Randy's house was near the north end of the Seattle-Tacoma International airport and under the landing approach. Hazard to incoming aircraft, City Light claimed. The FAA took a look and said that any airliner on its landing approach that would come close to hitting the turbine was in deep trouble already. There were telephone poles in the neighborhood that were taller than Randy's wind turbine. No problem.

So City Light tried to incite his neighbors, telling them that the turbine was "unsightly!" Many of them dropped by to look at it, and started asking Randy questions about it. The result was that many of them installed similar wind turbines of their own!

No sweat!

Now, every two months Seattle City Light has to cut all of them checks for the surplus electricity they put back into the grid!

(Snicker snicker!!)

Don Firth

P. S. It occurs to me that given the slow and stately way the wind turbines' rotors turn, any bird dumb and slow enough to get smacked by one is not long for this world anyway. And the flights of migratory birds I've seen flying overhead are far, far above the reach of the rotors.

P. P. S. I'd rather see a field full of wind turbines than a forest of smoke stacks.

---

09 Aug 14 - 12:45 PM (#3649651)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: GUEST,dick greenhaus

Inefficient? Efficiency is the useful energy produced divided by the
energy required to produce it. By definition a wind turbine has an infinitely high efficiency, Words do matter.

---

09 Aug 14 - 04:38 PM (#3649700)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Steve Shaw

By definition a wind turbine has an infinitely high efficiency

By what definition? Kindly expand... :-)

---

10 Aug 14 - 04:30 AM (#3649766)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Musket

I suppose you could say infinitely less than 100%

:-)

---

13 Aug 14 - 07:40 AM (#3650629)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Jim Martin

W. Clare judicial review case:

http://windawareclare.weebly.com/

---

13 Aug 14 - 01:48 PM (#3650735)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: dick greenhaus

With a gasoline generator, you expend 100 units of (chemical) energy to obtain (maybe) 30 units of electrical energy. Efficiency=30%.
With a wind generator, you expend zero energy(actually you use wind energy, but you don't pay for that) to get your 100 units of electrical energy. Efficiency = 100/0 (infinity)

Efficiency is one of those words that has lost most of its meaning, but is widely employed.

---

14 Aug 14 - 04:34 AM (#3650889)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Teribus

Wind Farms consist of:

- Roads that have to be made to accommodate special transporters for heavy and long loads. This includes existing public highways as well as new roads cut into the countryside to provide access to the sites where the turbine towers and turbines will be erected

- Extensive HVAC or HVDC cabling that connects the turbines of the wind farm to the Substation that feeds the supply into the grid.

- Foundations for the towers (Normally constructed using concrete and steel) involves cement, site machinery and extensive transport

- Mining of natural resources and transport of the same involved in the fabrication, manufacture and transport of the turbine towers, turbines, blades and cabling.

All of the above create a "carbon emission footprint" for your wind farm so the following statements made by dick greenhaus are complete and utter crap if a proper environmental audit were made for each wind farm:

"With a wind generator, you expend zero energy(actually you use wind energy, but you don't pay for that) to get your 100 units of electrical energy. Efficiency = 100/0 (infinity)"

AND

"Efficiency is the useful energy produced divided by the
energy required to produce it. By definition a wind turbine has an infinitely high efficiency"

In the course of its design life a single 3MW wind turbine will supply clean energy to the equivalent of some 6,000 to 7,000 tons of carbon emissions.

The carbon emission cost of installing that turbine and putting it into service amounts to somewhere between 26,000 and 41,000 tons of carbon emissions

The turbine will never produce enough energy to wipe the slate clean.

100% efficiency will never, ever be achieved the best so far has been 87% and more normally the rate is 23%. If you have wind farms you must also have sufficient alternative generating capacity on line ready to immediately clutch in and that has to be kept running CONSTANTLY.

Wind farms - thoroughly bad idea.

---

14 Aug 14 - 11:35 AM (#3650965)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: GUEST,Guest

Try living where there is only mains electric (provided by diesel engine) for approx 8 hours a day on average, and where there is electric (by windmill) if it's windy enough the rest of the time.This will quickly change your mind about wind power. Fanciful scenario? No, I lived for six years where this IS the situation. Not in the third world, either!

---

14 Aug 14 - 02:14 PM (#3650994)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Don Firth

There were those who, back in the 1930s, shrieked that building the Grand Coulee Dam (and other dams) was "a thoroughly bad idea." But the government went ahead with it anyway. It put thousands of out-of-work victims of the "Great Depression" back to work. One of the end results was that the dam provided flood control on the Columbia River, and was able to divert water for irrigation, turning what was, essentially, prairie, into productive farm land.

It also provided inexpensive hydro-electric power to the entire Pacific Northwest, making major industry possible in population centers such as Seattle, Tacoma, Everett, Spokane, and a whole run of smaller towns and municipalities in the Pacific Northwest.

Yes, it was expensive to build (CLICK) and the surrounding area was pretty messy for a few years, but since it went on line back in the Thirties, it's been continuing to crank out the multi-megawatts, providing power for industry (creating jobs) and making Joe Citizen's electric bills one helluva lot cheaper than they would have been without the dam.

And as the song says,

"Your power is turning out darkness to dawn,
"Roll on, Columbia, Roll on…."

"A thoroughly bad idea….?"

I think not.

Don Firth

---

14 Aug 14 - 02:52 PM (#3650999)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Don Firth

Here's another "thoroughly bad idea."

CLICK.

There are powerful ocean currents, such as the Gulf Stream, all over the world. There a several companies working on variations of this idea.

AND I have another idea, well worked out with an engineer friend of mine, for turning areas of desert wasteland into power stations—at minimal investment and cost. Once installed, like the Energizer bunny, they just keep going and going and going….

Don Firth

---

14 Aug 14 - 03:59 PM (#3651025)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Rumncoke

On our journey to visit our son and family we pass a huge field of solar panels - they can just be glimpsed behind the gate, but the hedge hides them from the road.

I think it is China which is turning out ever cheaper solar panels - from what I have heard, all they need is dusting off regularly...

---

15 Aug 14 - 02:03 AM (#3651123)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Teribus

Where exactly have I stated that either Hydro-Electric power; Solar energy; OR Tidal or Wave powered energy is a "Thoroughly bad idea" Don?

If you cannot refute the argument I put forward as to what a Carbon Emission Audit would turn out on a Wind Farm then please do not put words into my mouth and then take me to task on them. My stance on Onshore Wind Farms does NOT, repeat NOT translate into any "across-the-board" antipathy towards renewable energy - Clear enough for you Mr Firth??

---

15 Aug 14 - 05:22 AM (#3651161)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Musket

Wind farms are an excellent secondary power source. They cannot however be primary, as a high pressure day wipes them out... Offshore make more sense to me where possible, but there you go.

The efficiency is another issue. The carbon footprint of manufacturing and installation mean a rather long time before they pay back their carbon footprint, allied to ongoing maintenance and possible service life.

It was said above that efficiency is a wide ranging term. In energy calculations it remains less than 100% at all times regardless as the cost of wind is still a cost, mathematically speaking. If you look at it otherwise then everything is fully efficient as you can dig backwards till you reach the energy of the sun anyway.

---

15 Aug 14 - 05:50 AM (#3651167)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Jim Martin

Don - the issue of employment with the dam construction is a bit of a 'red herring' so far as windfarms are concerned - there is minimal employment (as far as I can gather) in the construction phase & even less afterwards with maintenance!

---

15 Aug 14 - 02:31 PM (#3651269)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Don Firth

Teribus, I am not "putting words in your mouth." I am pointing out that, be it wind farms, power dams, solar panels, or ocean current turbines, there are ALWAYS those who, for reasons best known to themselves, oppose them as a "thoroughly bad idea."

But once they're up and running, and prove their worth, the argument dies, refuted by reality.

I'm sure Ogg gave Grmph a lot of static when Grmph invented the wheel. "What's it good for? No. It's a thoroughly bad idea!"

"Telegraph!?? What do we need a telegraph for? We have lots of messenger boys!" [Actual historical quote.]

-----

And Jim, I was pointing out that the Grand Coulee Dam provided employment at a time when it was sorely needed, right in the middle of the Great Depression. As to the maintenance of the wind farms, between those who complain that they require too much maintenance and those who complain that because of their low maintenance requirements they don't provide enough employment, I'll let you guys duke it out.

Don Firth

---

16 Aug 14 - 03:11 AM (#3651360)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: BobL

So much smoke, so little fire...

How does the carbon budget of a wind turbine and its associated infrastructure compare with the alternatives? Does it take into account the fossil-fueled capacity that can be shut down as surplus?

BTW, the calm-weather backup for a wind turbine is a wind turbine in another part of the country. It's always windy somewhere.

---

16 Aug 14 - 04:40 AM (#3651370)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Musket

Aye, but if the nearest wind farm is 800 miles away, the volts drop alone makes it clear that it can only be secondary on our national grid. Local power is another matter. I have 10KW of solar panels on a building out the back, and as well as selling to the grid, I store power in batteries and occasionally empty them via an inverter back into the house.

The cost of set up was high, as are wind farms on another scale, and the object of the exercise was being green, not making money. That said, the tariff they buy at is unsustainable really, people with solar panels get paid huge amounts.

But like wind farms, my solar panels are either secondary power onto the grid, or local power for me. (Tropical fish and freezers get a nice power cut back up.)

But there's no high efficiency in my calculations. Just a contribution to less fossil fuel long term. And as an ex miner, that's saying something....

---

16 Aug 14 - 05:21 AM (#3651375)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: GUEST,achmelvich

they look ok, they don't kill birds much (i always check when walking by them) donald trump doesn't like them and at least on a small scale can be very beneficial- sound good to me. we have to use our natural renewables find ways of doing more efficiently. there shouldn't really be any argument, can't we just get on with it?

---

17 Aug 14 - 03:37 AM (#3651522)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: BobL

Excellent answers. The only reason I haven't got solar panels myself is that I calculated the area available would just about provide enough power to run my computers...

---

31 Aug 14 - 09:46 PM (#3655702)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Jim Martin

"It will ruin everything we've worked for and completely devalue our property"!

"The wind-farm project in Tipperary has created animosity in the community between those who will benefit financially from the wind farm and those who wont"!

That says it all, really!

https://scontent-a-fra.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/t1.0-9/10647103_620925894689093_7772818874430364441_n.jpg

---

01 Sep 14 - 12:32 AM (#3655716)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Rob Naylor

BobL: BTW, the calm-weather backup for a wind turbine is a wind turbine in another part of the country. It's always windy somewhere.

Not true. In 2011 and 2012 there were 2 periods, in the middle of winter, of 10 days and 8 days respectively, when the pressure systems had a flat calm over the whole country with virtually no wind-generated power being produced.

---

01 Sep 14 - 03:14 AM (#3655739)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Teribus

" once they're up and running, and prove their worth, the argument dies, refuted by reality." - Don Firth

Prove their worth?? - No they don't, the best they can hand back from the 26,000 to 41,000 tons in carbon emissions it took to construct, install and commission them is 6,000 to 8,000 tons in pay-back in terms of "clean energy" - That by the way Don is the reality.

Waste of time, effort and resources - much better alternatives.

---

01 Sep 14 - 03:47 AM (#3655746)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Don Firth

Aw, wotthehell! Let's just dump the idea of wind farms, solar panels, huge turbines capturing the power of ocean currents, etc. and do as China does: coal fired power plants!

Cough Wheeze!! Scroll down. And keep scrolling down. Lots of pictures.

Don Firth

---

01 Sep 14 - 04:10 AM (#3655753)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Teribus

Thought that the subject of this thread was Onshore Windfarms?

The Kyoto deal that GWB rejected has proven to be a complete and utter waste of time for exactly the reasons that GWB said it would be.

Carbon emissions should be addressed by embracing new technology (In this category Wind Turbines have proved to have been grossly inefficient and unreliable - taking worse figures - you put 41,000 tons in to get 6,000 back -it will never break even let alone go into profit in terms of carbon emissions)

The agreements must include and tie-in the major polluters, namely China and India (Can't quite work out how the second largest economy on the planet can claim to be a third world emerging economy and demand exemptions)

Targets totally unrealistic.

---

01 Sep 14 - 07:04 AM (#3655775)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Jack Blandiver

and do as China does: coal fired power plants!

There are worse and better things in China, such as the Three Gorges Dam, which at 22,500 megawatts is the largest of any single power plant in the world despite being the environmental / human catastrophe it has caused. That aid, I'm still convinced Hydro is the best option, it just has to be approached in a less centralised fashion. Fir example, there are hundreds of dams in the UK not generating any power - all that focussed 100% renewable energy going to waste along with all our sunshine and badly insulated homes.

For this idiocy, what is left of our countryside is being ruined by hideous wind farms.

---

01 Sep 14 - 07:29 AM (#3655780)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Jack Blandiver

Damn (Ha!) the lack of editing here!

---

01 Sep 14 - 02:24 PM (#3655891)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Keef

I've done a bit of tilting at windmills myself.
But that's another story.

I'm not a Luddite, I'm not in the pay of BIG OIL or the fossil fuel industry.
I'm a Greenie, I'm all for protecting our planet and not shitting in our own nest.
It's a proven fact that C02 levels have been rising since the start of the industrial revolution and that the rise is on an exponential upswing.

There might be some room for argument that the link between this and global warming is a complicated equation and not 100% proven but it would be sensible to reduce our use of fossil fuels to avoid the strong possibility of runaway global warming.

HOWEVER....
The claims of Green Energy Purveyors should be subject to rigorous analysis .... in order to make money from investors and taxpayers some of them have been known to be economical with the truth.

Wind power SOUNDS like a good idea.
It should be possible to discuss the downside of them and have a rational debate about the cost/benefit without being yelled at :)

---

01 Sep 14 - 02:59 PM (#3655899)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: mg

I think part of the problem is that engineers are trained to squeeze the most energy out of them sl theh design tem huge. You can get a lot ofenergy out of smaller ones, household ones. Can put them on logged over land, toxic waste sktes etc. Do not need blades..have other designs. Anything is preferable to a war over oil or sending more people to coal mines. Plus we need to burn garbage and sewage for energy in very clean plants..what is happening underground with all those chicken bones and baby diapers and litter boxes..epidemics just waiting to happen.

---

01 Sep 14 - 03:16 PM (#3655910)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Ebbie

I've not heard any discussion of a proposal/plan to harness the energy produced by the feet tramping through large airports.

As for the lack of wind-produced energy during calm days, isn't stored energy available then?

---

01 Sep 14 - 03:28 PM (#3655916)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Keef

Stored Energy is the missing link.
The only reliable and economic method is pumped hydro.
Sadly there are few places left that have the vertical rise and water availability to be harnessed.

I'm off grid myself and use lead acid batteries which come with their own set of problems.
Nothing better has yet come on the market but there are many "leading developers" who assure is that with just a little bit more money and just a few more years their lovely new energy storage technology will be ready.
Naturally they will need enough money to provide them with a Porsche and a yacht plus a mansion or two while they work very hard to save our small blue planet.

---

02 Sep 14 - 12:14 PM (#3656144)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Ringer

"In the course of its design life a single 3MW wind turbine will supply clean energy to the equivalent of some 6,000 to 7,000 tons of carbon emissions.

The carbon emission cost of installing that turbine and putting it into service amounts to somewhere between 26,000 and 41,000 tons of carbon emissions" (Teribus, 14 Aug14 - 04:34 AM)

You don't cite a source for your figures, Teribus, so I don't know where you got them from, but they didn't sound correct to me, so I performed my own calculation (an energy balance rather than a CO2 balance):

This site indicates that the energy "used" in setting up a 3MW turbine is 4.3GWh including "the energy used during the manufacturing, operation, transport, dismantling/disposal and transmission," so it sounds comparable to your baseline. Assuming it has a 20% power-factor (effectively producing 0.6MW = 3MW x 20% continuously) then it has produced its own "cost" in energy in 4.3GW / 0.6MW hours, or approximately 10 months.

After 10 months, it's all payback!

My figures do not include any energy consumed by the backup generators which, I admit, must be kept continually spinning.

---

02 Sep 14 - 12:49 PM (#3656156)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: pdq

"cost in enery consumption"

"cost in money"

"cost in carbon emissions"



not the same as one another

---

02 Sep 14 - 05:25 PM (#3656245)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: mg

other things to consider...cost of coal mining, cost to breathing coal dust, oil fumes, health of workers. Accidents from high wind towers..should be lower I think. Cost of a war in mideast..we are dangerously close. cost of supporting some people in Africa, etc. when with some energy they produce they could be self-supporting. IMproved agriculture. Improved maternal care with something as simple as lights in delivery rooms. Diverting money now spent on energy to agriculture, health, education. Using up of things that are waste products now..old cars, refrigerator, computers..could be put to good use in third world. Give them the materials and electronics and they will come up with stuff. Ecological effects of clean vs. dirty energy. FInancial effects of transporting your energy vs. producing it on the spot. Massed vs. distributed energy.

Why do we need water falls? They pump the water uphill with pumps when there is excess energy and let it fall when time is right. mg

---

03 Sep 14 - 06:27 AM (#3656406)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Teribus

Ah Ringer, perhaps you do not comprehend as well as you think you do

Look again very carefully at your 4.3GW that only covers the turbine's manufacture, the turbine's operation, the turbine's transport, the turbine's dismantling/disposal and turbine's transmission. And please note we are only taking their word for it those items do not appear in any breakdown.

Nothing whatsoever about the tower the turbine stands on, nor the construction of the roads, nor the building of the foundations.

Any idea the electrical power required in producing one tonne of steel, or one tonne of cement? How about the electrical power required to grind one tonne of rock to one tonne of hardcore?

My figures come from a study by the University of North Wales on the efficiency of windfarms

---

03 Sep 14 - 02:02 PM (#3656590)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: KB in Iowa

Nothing whatsoever about the tower the turbine stands on, nor the construction of the roads, nor the building of the foundations.

The roads could certainly be used again and I expect the platform could as well. Even the tower could potentially be used again when the time comes to replace the parts that have used up their functional life. The 26,000 to 41,000 tons in carbon emissions it took to construct would not need to be expended over and over, some of that would be at most a periodic cost.

---

04 Sep 14 - 02:52 AM (#3656790)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Teribus

Very true KB but they should have been included as part of the the deficit side of the equation - True?

---

05 Sep 14 - 11:52 AM (#3657371)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: KB in Iowa

Very true KB but they should have been included as part of the the deficit side of the equation - True?

I am not sure exactly what you mean here.
I do not dispute your premise, wind turbines do have what could be considered hidden costs and those need to be considered when discussing whether or not they are a net plus.
I did not see a link to where you got the 26,000-41000 cost vs 6,000-8,000 benefit. I am wondering if these numbers treat the turbines like disposable razors, use it once then toss it and start the entire process again from the beginning.

---

05 Sep 14 - 12:30 PM (#3657395)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Ringer

"My figures come from a study by the University of North Wales on the efficiency of windfarms "

Can you provide a cite, Teribus? I'm no advocate of windmills, but I do like scientific rigour.

---

18 Sep 14 - 11:39 AM (#3661527)
Subject: RE: BS: Onshore windfarms
From: Ringer

I guess you can't then.

---