wind turbines

[shazza]

Large Industrial Turbines coming to France,
Have a voice...tell us what you think....complete our 2 minute online survey. and join us if you wish to help our campaign.
(Open to all home owners or visitors to Aquitaine,Limousin,and Poitou Charentes and immediate vicinity.)
www.iwac.fr
IWAC - Industrial Wind Turbines Awareness Campaign - YOUR OPINION MATTERS
SMARTSURVEY.CO.UK
please share with all your friends and complete the survey your voice matters.thank you

[kevsboredagain]

I think they are rather impressive and would much rather see them spinning that smoke rising out of some chimney or a potentially lethal nuclear power station. Most are placed in rather bleak windy places.

If you care about the sustainability of your environment then you have to make sacrifices sometimes and can't always place the burden on someone else.

I read the website. Lots of points against wind power but no alternative solutions. I had no idea they could effect your health
Do they suck the air from your lungs if they spin too fast?

[FelicityA]

I think they are rather impressive and would much rather see them spinning that smoke rising out of some chimney or a potentially lethal nuclear power station. Most are placed in rather bleak windy places.

If you care about the sustainability of your environment then you have to make sacrifices sometimes and can't always place the burden on someone else.

I read the website. Lots of points against wind power but no alternative solutions. I had no idea they could effect your health
Do they suck the air from your lungs if they spin too fast?

It is all to do with infrasound and the effect it has on people. Not enough study has been done to prove or disprove. But it has had a documented disastrous affect on birds in some areas, according to the RSPB website.

[kevsboredagain]

It is all to do with infrasound and the affect it has on people. Not enough study has been done to prove or disprove. But it has had a documented disastrous affect on birds in some areas, according to the RSPB website.

My mouse clicks might be harmful too. Not enough studies have been able to prove or disprove it.

[shazza]

(My mouse clicks might be harmful too. Not enough studies have been able to prove or disprove it.)

this is the type of crass response made by somebody who is in no danger,of losing a potentially high percentage of their business,for a policy that will not and cannot solve our power needs.

[kevsboredagain]

(My mouse clicks might be harmful too. Not enough studies have been able to prove or disprove it.)

this is the type of crass response made by somebody who is in no danger,of losing a potentially high percentage of their business,for a policy that will not and cannot solve our power needs.

Sorry but when I see another moan campaign about a new development of whatever kind, it does not win my sympathy when presented in such a fashion. Not one single argument is made for an alternative and the site only talks about the negative aspects, many of which are merely speculation. Noise pollution? We'd better ban all motor vehicles then.

Every road, every new rail link, every new airport, every building and in fact nearly every new development these days has a group of people complaining and opposing it but mostly without any viable alternatives.

I would be fairly happy to have one located near me although I've never in my life seen any so close to residents that it would cause a big impact. My parents live fairly close to some.

I did some research and it seems to show that most tourists are in fact in favour of wind energy in places where they will visit and it could in fact increase business.

http://www.anglesey.gov.uk/Journals/201 ... ourism.pdf

I'm all for a balanced argument on anything but how about hearing both sides?

[FelicityA]

I did some research and it seems to show that most tourists are in fact in favour of wind energy in places where they will visit and it could in fact increase business.

http://www.anglesey.gov.uk/Journals/201 ... ourism.pdf

That's really surprising. ...'it could in fact increase business'. So they come to stay near the wind farms particularly because they are there? I haven't waded through it all. Which page is it on, please, Kev?

[AndrewH]

Maybe this is a more balanced view (from Tourism Intelligence Network):-

"Wind turbines as tourist attractions?

For some people, wind turbines are symbols of sustainable development and valued for producing clean energy. Perhaps this attitude can give wind turbines some recognition for being part of modern heritage. Windmills, the predecessors of modern wind turbines, were also contested when introduced to the European landscape around the 12th century. In countries like Holland, windmills today are a visual part of the nation’s heritage and in Québec, many are also tourist attractions, notably on Île Perrot and Île aux Coudres.

However, wind turbines are unlikely to be a major tourism draw in their own right, especially since they are now increasingly part of the cultivated landscape in many countries. In some cases, they diversify the attraction base of a destination, like Cap Chat in the Gaspé Peninsula, where a visitor centre showcases the highest vertical-axis wind turbine in the world. Similar interpretation centres worldwide offer guided tours; in Denmark, for example, there are boat tours to see the offshore wind farms at Middelgrunden near Copenhagen. Preferences and attitudes towards modern wind farms are likely to evolve over time as people get accustomed to their presence, but it is unlikely that they will appeal to everyone in the future."

[kevsboredagain]

That's really surprising. ...'it could in fact increase business'. So they come to stay near the wind farms particularly because they are there? I haven't waded through it all. Which page is it on, please, Kev?

It's all spread out throughout that article. eg. "Some studies report a positive interest by tourists in visiting windfarms and some have developed visitor centres which have been well attended."

It mentioned several times than a minority disliked them but a majority approved of them. The minority is fairly sizable though.

Obviously there would be pros and cons to any development like that. If they built one in your back garden or then clearly there would be a negative impact and you'd have every right to campaign against it. On the other hand if they locate some turbines on a windy, remote hill, 20km from the nearest residence, then I don't see an issue with that.

To simply oppose any development in a region just out of principle seems rather short sighted and selfish. You have to remember that such developments have only come about as the result of equally determined campaigners for clean, renewable energy. If you believe that are better solutions then by all means let people know and promote them. Just complaining solves nothing and hinders progress.

[petitbois]

spending too much time on fb - looking for the 'like' button, but well said kev...... we are in the throes of another industrial revolution - the world & how we live in it is changing rapidly, some things are bad (this week, health advisors concluded the number 1 cause of diabetes & obesity is the internet & mobile technology) others are hopeful for the future - renewable energy being a step in the right direction. None of these technologies are going to be scrapped, however if wind turbine technology does not work, then they will be easy to remove...personally I favour the French idea of solar panels on all rooves of new car parks & buildings etc.

[CSE]

The "green industry" is a big conn.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... m-peat-bog
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/art ... nwash.html
Besides the free energy, the non green facts which have to be taken into consideration and never are, are:
The cables as these are situated so way away from the centres of population.
The manufacture of the steel.
The layers special paint that has to be use to protect the pylons from rusting.
Transportation to site.
The damage to the environment, killing of birds, destruction of habitat etc. The pylons cannot be grouped very close together, thus taking up huge chunks of land.
The non use when the wind either does not blow or blows too hard. Where do we obtain energy from then?
Cannot cope with any peaks or toughs in demand.
The above means that these need some sort of back up. So why not make a bigger back up which works all of the time?
The amount of time the turbines have for down time, for maintenance.

There are more points which the greenies like to leave out of the points they make when advocating wind farms.

[kevsboredagain]

The "green industry" is a big conn.

Again. A big list of negative points and not a single suggestion for an alternative solution. No one says they are THE solution for alternative energy but it's a step in the right direction and only economics will drive society away from fossil fuels. As they slowly run out they will become more expensive, making wind, solar and any other solutions more attractive propositions. There is no perfect solution and all have pros and cons. However if everybody just moans about all the negative aspects, nothing will ever change and we'll be stuck in the dark ages.

I wanted to heat my water in Spain by solar when my gas boiler packed up at the end of last season. I was fairly disappointed to find I could buy a new gas boiler every 3 years for the cost of solar, which itself only had a 10 year life. The economics made no sense to change.

BTW when you add up birds killed by cats and hitting windows, wind turbines account for less than 1% of deaths. Even the negative aspects have to be considered in context.

[Moliere]

Let's face it - the world is really just waiting for nuclear fusion. One day (probably not-too-distant) it'll be developed and power will be endlessly available, then with real-temperature superconductors we'll have a cheap plentiful supply of energy everywhere.
It'll come, just not yet, and in the meantime we do the best we can.

Moliere

[Ecosse]

I think you're right to question any seemingly emotionally charged (and negative) campaign, Kev - I do too as I am, by nature, a sceptic of anything I read and haven't researched.

However, in the case of windfarms, I, too feel they are a huge con. Being an environmentalist (relevant degree followed by 20 years working for The National Trust for Scotland, Scottish Natural Heritage, The Cairngorms National Park Authority and latterly the Forestry Commission), you'd think I would be pro wind power. I am certainly pro renewables, but sadly my original thoughts that 'surely wind power is good' have been slowly eroded over the years.

As pointed out by Casaantoestevo, a huge amount of energy is expended in creating wind farms... arguably more than can ever be regained during their operational lifetime. This isn't the full story though - to install the farms, sections of blanket peat bog need to be dug up and/or drained, releasing their fixed carbon into the atmosphere and reducing the remaining bog's ability to fix carbon (and our humble peat bogs fix more carbon per metre squared than the Amazon rainforests do), which also adds to this carbon inbalance.

Windfarms are also hugely profitable to landowners - they get a massive subsidy from the government for allowing one to be built on their land... a yearly one that lasts decades. I sat, horrified in a meeting in the Forestry Commission just before I left, where we were informed that the FC were going to allow farms to be built on their land (officially government owned, but quasi separate... it's complicated but basically the FC is required by the government to do as much as possible to wash its face) because FC would receive a large subsidy. However, as there had been what was described as a 'catastrophic turbine failure' (it fell down when a strong eddy hit it) on an experimental site where they tried to combine forestry with turbines, the forest in the area proposed for the new windfarm would be felled to prevent the forest affecting the windflow.

So basically, the Forestry Commission, a significant part of whose remit was to play its part in mitigating the effects of climate change by creating large, carbon fixing forests*, decided to let finances take precedence over the climate and voted to cut down forests. Not one of the high heid yins in that meeting could provide any figures other than financial ones for the move.

In answer to the alternatives? There isn't a simple solution. To replace our reliance on fossil fuels, we will have to use a number of means. I don't know the pros and cons for tidal, but the tides work all the time, so that's one possibility for countries bordering the sea. Hydro-electric is very effective in a number of countries. I hope solar technology continues to advance, because in many countries that are too dry for hydro, lack of sun is not an issue, and of course, in the interim, there's the (albeit not renewable, or without its issues) nuclear.

*While it's true that in a commercial forest, trees are cut and removed, and if they go to the firewood or paper industry, that fixed carbon gets released, a large percentage of the carbon is in the brash (branches, needles/leaves) left on site, which, in time, gets fixed into the soil.

[CSE]

gitemontjoly, well put.
We still need to look for alternatives. The more we use electric powered cars, ironically the more we need secure generation power.
Sightly off topic but these cars are also sold as being green. But electric has to be generated, some battery trays have to be taken back to Japan for recycling.

Yours openly sceptical on both on green issues and global warning news.