The Great Wind Energy Debate
Have your say on the wind energy debate. You may respond to a comment by clicking 'Reply' for that comment, or you may start a new thread by the 'Add Your Own Comment' at the bottom of the page.
A recent report details a sharp rise in wind operating costs and poor performance. Current O&M (Operations and Maintenance, but I would hope you rrealise that is what the acronym is) costs are two or three times higher than first projected. O&M costs were found to be especially high in the United States, "now the world's largest wind power market." The report says that while close to 80 percent of the world's wind turbines are still under warranty, "this is about to change." R&D is focusing especially on gearbox reliability: "Many gearboxes, designed for a 20-year life, are failing after six to eight years of operation."
Just be warned that you are may be being sold an expensive white elephant. The suppliers of wind turbines are keen to make a fast buck and leave you to pick up the tab in a few year's time.
Check out all the technical details thoroughly and get an independent expert to go over it all with you.
You are, of course, rather fanciful in the suggestion that this would be valid in Norfolk, where we are not blessed with too many mountains and high level reservoirs.
Your suggestion is, of course, unworkable, and I am afraid, typical of the arguments used by those in favour of wind energy.
What you clearly have not realised is that you have admitted that wind energy is tantamount to failure as an independent form of energy in Norfolk.
Wind power does not work - last week, the 2,900 turbines in the UK produced 0.9% of our demand.
During January, it would have been less, as demand was higher.
Firstly, renewable versus conventional CAN NEVER BE AN "EITHER / OR". All renewables (in particular wind) are intermittent. Wind, unlike tidal or even anaerobic digestion, cannot be predicted, and that is what makes it such a bad deal - it isn't so much the intermittency, though, it is more the unpredictability; therefore the national grid cannot take it into account in it's "on demand" availability or requirement.
In answer to another of your points, you are correct that wind energy produced minimal contribution to our energy needs, but the previous Government aspiration that it forms the bulk of the 20% requirement by 2020, (and more thereafter) is, of course, laughable, and energy experts have predicted power cuts by 2015 if we continue down this path. The maths is simple, incidentally.
Finally, if you think wind energy is a modern invention, then I really don't know what to say; the first recorded were in the 9th Century, and in the 19th Century, it was replaced by newer technologies. Also, of course, water mills were preferred wherever possible.
Why don't you put your efforts into supporting calls for more money to be invested in better technology such as tidal, anaerobic digestion, and other qualifying renewables rather than continue support for what is the most outdated and intermittent technology available?
By the way, to find out why we are in this disastrous position, suggest you think back to Kyoto 1997, then the madness of the 2002 White Paper produced to comply with EU Directive, and take it from there - a little research would soon open your eyes, I am sure.
Water reservoirs may not be suitable for many parts of Norfolk, but may well be perfect solutions in many other areas.
Gullibility and "smart" thinking do not cut the mustard- I cannot let your assertions go uncommented.
Once again, Mr. Shurmer has elegantly shown you where the door is because you are, unfortunately, blinkered and deaf.
Work out the hydro-storage necessary to service the UK before you advance silly impracticalities.
I can and have done the calculations.
What you will need is an ocean the size of the Atlantic as your high level reservoir (pumped up by what, each and every time?).
What gas will all the anaerobic decomposition put into the atmosphere?
Best you become attuned to the idea of nuclear power, unless you want to consign your children and future UK generations to lives of poverty and disease by becoming yet another 3rd World country at the behest of earnest stuttering charlatans like Eduardo Miliprattle and that ilk.
Why do you think, throughout time, in whatever economic activity, wind has ALWAYS been replaced?
The National Grid, as every electricity grid in the world, has to work on the equation, second-by-second, of Supply=Demand because you cannot store electricity in the quantities that allow people like you and I to switch on any electrical appliance at any time, anywhere. That is what SECURITY of supply is about.
If you are so enamoured of wind, I suggest you erect your OWN wind turbine in your own back garden and permanently relinquish your Mains supply. Donate that supply to your nearest frozen OAP or disabled/cronically ill neighbour.
Then you may start to realise why people like Trevor Shurmer, Dr. Phil Bratby and I are fighting "tooth-and-nail" for a conventional SECURE electricity system that profits EVERYBODY equally.
Certainly not for reasons of selfishness and avarice as displayed by your short-sighted attitudes.
You talk of new technologies. Well, show me one and prove, even in combination, that they can stand up for the already proven technologies and deliver an identical output.
Yes, that means doing the sums and if you cannot do them, please do not use fairy tails as a substitute. Use clear, technically proven facts. Do not get taken for the wind scam fair ride.
Give me wind, wave and tide generated power, the more the better. Build yourself a heap of contaminated slag and sit on it. Soon you will glow so brightly you won't need electricity to see by at night.
Observers and read these points thoroughly and judge for themselves what the pros and cons are.
The thread has run its course only your view because you cannot contribute anything about the ACTUAL TRUE TECHNOLOGY behind wind power stations or turbines.
Try putting up some technical arguments based on real calculations to back your words.
For a start, do you know what DECC publication DUKES2009 tells us?
Do you know who pays for ROCs and the CCL?
Did you know that every 1MW of wind power ACTUALLY contributes to an INCREASE of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of about 0.02 tonnes CO2/MWh? NOT a decrease - look at Denmark and Germany. Why do you think we have so many of their companies now in the UK?
Well there is somewhere to start.
You CANNOT judge the "pros and cons" without understanding the technological picture that the numbers paint because, as you and your frends have so pointedly demonstrated, you believe the government scam, dogma, mantra - call it what you like and don't forget it has made Al Gore a billionaire and Nobel Prize winner. And what for? Along with the politicisd science of the IPCC, to destroy our planet. Carbon dioxide = oxygen.
Warmth means extra crop growth and planet life safety for us.
Wind turbines are no more unsightly than the hundreds of wind pumps that were used to drain the East Anglian marshes years ago. I'll bet there were lots of objection to them in their day. As for the prospect of having a power station powered by coal or gas or another nuclear station in the area, give me turbines every time. When they reach the end of their life or when other power sources are discovered, the land can be returned to its natural state. Something that cannot be said for other forms of power generation. Has anyone tried to clean up an old nuclear station yet? How long does the contamination last, 10,000 years, 20,0000 years?
Wind power makes a lot of sense, when you consider the alternatives.
Any money you get back by investing in any wind scheme is already paid by you in subsidies that we all currently pay in our electricity bills for renewable energy - to the tune of about £1 billion pounds since 2002.
You may be conned by this Government - I am not.
What you say about the intermittent nature of wind might be true if we were living on a tiny island. Have you never heard of the National Grid? Power can be carried around the whole of Europe. When has there ever been a day when it hasn't been windy in at least one part of Britain?
Please don't invest in this scheme - keep paying your energy bills and leave the profits to us investors in greener forms of energy.
That is precisely the point-we do live on a small island and, as Mr. Shurmer informs you, we can be covered totally by an anti-cyclone and that explains why every 1MW of wind generation needs 1MW of conventional generation to be built.
We do know about the National Grid, which was not designed to incorporate multitudes of "green" windmills producing piddle-power, spread disparately about our heritage.
If you wish to learn something about the effect of wind generation on a 'National' grid, then read the UCTE[Union for the Co-ordination of Transmission of Electricity] Report into the 04 November 2006 power black-out on the European 'National Grid'and why it took 3 hours to reinstate electricity supplies to 15,000,000 consumers across Europe. Germany is now in the process of building 24 new conventional power stations because of such catastrophes.
Do you want the same to happen here, just so you, and may like you, can feel 'green'? Or would you prefer a constant source of secure electricity-the immediate choice is ours and it will not be here in 5 years time.
Since originally posting here I have had cause to revise my thinking.
However, and this will be my last word as you clearly have no wish to understand, there was an anti-cyclone for days (remember the recent snow and windless conditions?) over the whole of Britain when energy was needed most, and wind would not have produced - there is no argument, it is a fact.
You also seem to be mixing up the National Grid with a potential (future) European grid - there is not one currently.
Power cannot be carried to the UK other than the 2 gigawatt link from France carrying nuclear power to supplement us. There is talk of a more expanded European grid, but that will not happen for many years if at all.
We shall soon be demonstrating the real investment opportunity that wind power - at the local level - can be!
Historically, wind, as a source of power was replaced by something more useful whenever possible or as the technology advanced. One reason is because of the unpredictability and intermittency of the wind. But the more important reason was because of what is known in physics as energy density, i.e. how much useable energy there is in a given volume of substance. Nothing (literally) has a lower energy density than air. Hence the move from windmills to water power to fossil power to nuclear power. Each succeeding technology is several orders of magnitude better than the preceding one. Because of wind's exceedingly low energy density, wind turbines have to be enormous to produce a paltry few MW of power; and they only produce it on the odd occasions when a healthy wind is blowing.
As has been mentioned by others, because of the intermittency problem, over 90% back-up is required and the use of conventional power plant as backup leads to inefficient operation of such plant, with increased emissions. Hence increased running costs on top of expensive wind turbines and the expensive backup plant. No wonder the subsidies for wind power are huge and why our electricity bills inexorably rise as more wind turbines are constructed. And the more wind power that is attached to the grid, the more instability it adds to the electricity system and the more likely we are to experience power failures and brown-outs or even black-outs. Every pound invested in intermittent and unpredictable wind power is a pound that is not available to be invested in essential firm capacity, as provided by conventional power stations.
I could describe at length the dangers to health and life from wind turbines. Suffice it to say that modern wind turbines are the largest unprotected rotating machines in the world and they operate in a very harsh environment, being subject to enormous stresses. Hence the regular occurrence of tower collapse and blade disintegration. My advice (based on many years experience of risks and hazards) is to ensure that you and your family and friends keep well away from wind turbines.
Of course the whole reason for renewable energy is based on the seriously flawed science that goes by the name of man-made global warming (now called climate change). There is no scientific evidence for man-made global warming and the recently leaked emails from the CRU at the University of East Anglia reveal how the whole scientific scam has been concocted. No independent physicist who has looked at the theory and evidence is in any doubt that increased carbon dioxide cannot cause global warming. Our planet's atmospheric energy transport is dominated by the effect of water vapour (after all over 70% of the planet is covered by water and the latent heat is enormous), not by a trace gas like carbon dioxide with its inability to hold onto excess energy. How the world' media and politicians have been conned by a handful of fraudulent 'climate scientists' beggars belief - except that a lot of people are very gullible, especially when they are scientifically illiterate and can see a profit in it. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, it is essential for all plant and animal life, and the more of it in the atmosphere, the better.
There is going to be a diversity of scientific opinion on this subject, and it is a shame when respectable scientists' reputations are dragged through the gutter press and hung out to dry by people with fixed agendas.
The overwhelming consensus amongst the scientific community is that high CO2 levels (and yes, they are extremely high right now) present a considerable danger to climate stability. It's a large planet, but human consumption (and emission) on the present scale is simply unsustainable and reckless. That isn't scientific fact, it's scientific consensus. Anybody is perfectly entitled to disagree.
Science works by falsifiable hypotheses, not by opinions and consensus.
The thoughts of Dr Bratby with regard to climate change are not supported by the government or the vast majority of worldwide scientific opinion. This fact casts doubt on the validity of his promulgations concerning the usefulness of wind power.
To reassure Sally Jones about the unfortunate damage done to the turbine at Fakenham High School - the turbine fell during installation when the area was cordoned off. Raising and lowering a Proven turbine is always a potential time of risk and the children were kept well away.
I think that you should be extremely careful of what you believe is a 'rant' and by whom, and what is a 'perfect example of propaganda' to be imported into the Unitywind website.
For your information and other contributors, I would respectfully suggest that you should look at the witnesses invited to give evidence for House of Lord's and Common's Select Committee Reports on Environment Audits and/or Renewable Energy and you will find Dr. Phillip Bratby amongst them. Thus, contrary to the accusation of your fit of indignation, he was offering you professional, experienced, specialised, scientific, engineering and technical advice on which he has been cross-examined quite astutely.
If you had the knowledge that he and I (C.Eng.)carry from life-long successful careers in deeply technological environments, you would listen very carefully to what we have to say because we do not want to see the planet destroyed on the basis of world-wide political whim and scam and that means wind turbine technology.
I endorse entirely what Dr. Bratby and Trevor Sturmer have entered and would, again respectfully, suggest that you investigate the Darmstadt Manifesto, Heidelberg treaty, Oregon Petition and Manhattan treaty/petition for starters. Then follow it up with open letters to Ban-Ki-Moon and the PM of Canada (National Post). Then if that has not quenched your thirst for knowledge of the truth, look at the SPPI website, Lord Monckton of Brenchley specifically.
I shall be interested to see your assessments and considerations.
Congratulations on maintaining an open debate.
It is very telling if you cannot accept criticism!
As a scientist, I am sceptical of what I am told, particularly by governments and their agents. Should we not question it when Tony Blair says we must go to war in Iraq because of WMD; or Gordon Brown when he tells us he has stopped boom and bust? Or government-funded scientists who tell us there is man-made global warming without providing any evidence to support their thesis?
Please could you tell me who constitutes this vast majority of scientists worldwide? Has there been a poll taken? I know the government and BBC refer to those scientists funded to work on man-made global warming. But I know there are thousands of INDEPENDENT scientists, such as me, who don't believe in man-made global warming because the theory does not support it and neither does the evidence.
It is true that the British Isles has a good wind resource, and it is equally true that for many days, when we needed the power most, i.e. in the recent very cold snap, the wind did not blow - there was an anti-cyclone over most of Europe.
Wind turbines would have created nothing, and that can easily be illustrated by checking the average wind speeds for December and early January.
To compare 18th Century windmills, which were not the preferred source of energy - water mills were - ignores the modern day requirement for a predictable and constant source of energy. The "on demand" energy availability is what counts, and wind has a virtually "nil" on demand figure. Paragraph 230 of The House of Lords investigation in 2008, "The Economics of Renewable Energy" stated "Thus wind generation needs to be viewed largely as additional capacity to that which will need to be provided, in any event, by more reliable means".
That is why the Government is being so remiss in their aspiration for more wind energy.
The mathematics are simple. Our grid availability is currently 76 gigawatts. Our maximum demand is about 60 gigawatts. By 2015, due to EEC requirements, about 30 gigawatts will have to be phased out of our system by power station closures. Assuming wind (as the Gov't says) will make up to 30% of our future energy supply, they are clearly saying they favour wind energy - then we run the risk of a shortfall of at least 15 gigawatts of power at peak demand. This is not imagination, it is reality.
You say we would be stupid not to use such a benign and free source of energy - it is anything but free.
I say that we are being stupid rushing down the wind energy route, as the money being thrust into subsidies for political reasons could be better spent elsewhere.
Wind IS only profitable because it is subsidised - that is well known and a fundamental of the game.
Even the Government to some extent now realise the error of it's ways, and is urgently (some would say they are panicking) ploughing forward with new gas and coal stations.
In costs, you ignore the relative intrinsic value of the power produced. Regrettably, the Government was stupid enough not to band ROC's to intrinsic merit, so wind energy becomes an attractive proposition to investors and landowners, to the detriment of potentially more stable forms of renewable energy.
I repeat that wind energy is a scam and can never make a significant contribution to our total need. The public of many countries is being hoodwinked by Governments keen to show they have green credentials, and I would urge those currently favouring wind energy as a contribution, to research the subject in depth, as I have done.
Before, and in the early days of, having what I will admit to being a vested interest, I was neutral, and probably erring towards wind energy, but research soon led me down a different path.
I agree that tidal and photovoltaic can be used and are far better potential options, though like almost all renewables, they are intermittent - however, at least more predictable.
Perhaps your supporters do not realise we cannot store electricity, and the grid needs a predictable supply to enable balancing out - that is where wind is such a disaster.
I fully agree that the wind technology can be used now, and if it were not for the fact that the "on demand" capacity is nil, then we would be able to make a decision as to it's cost.
I hope I have explained why it is a disastrous decision to do as you suggest, and erect large numbers of turbines.
To suggest, after spending billions of our country's finances and then suggest that if people really do not like them, they could be replaced by other renewable systems once these have been developed is nothing short of bizarre.
You say I obviously support nuclear power. That is actually incorrect, but I do recognise that this Government has, due to it's inactivity after Kyoto and also producing it's White Paper in 2002, left no option.
There are two books I would highly recommend to any wind energy supporters. One is by the Government's new energy adviser, Professor David J MacKay, entitled "Sustainable Energy without the Hot Air"; the other is by Dr. John Etherington entitled "The Wind Energy Scam". Both explain the inadequacies of a policy looking solely at renewable energy. Our Government is now considering at least 40% nuclear energy as the backbone of our energy supply. Whether you consider that justified or not, it is a fact that we need a stable supply, and renewables, and wind in particular, is counter to that.
The job of the planners is to judge what is in the best interest of the country without undue detriment to local people. No project can be 100% good for everybody or every creature.
Looking at America just now I am amazed that many American people are being swayed by arguments from the right that healthcare for all is 'taking away freedom of choice'.
Propaganda i.e. intentional mis-information is a powerful tool and in a democracy it can lead to incorrect decisions.
Over the next year there will inevitably be much propaganda aired on this site. Priority should be given to the voices of local people. I urge UnityWind to ask for location details from contributors and filter out any non-locals.
Responsible contributors to the debate will not be making extreme claims.
Those quoting new scientific findings on this site should verify the independence and credibility of researchers - eg 'Smoking is good for you', 'Global warming has nothing to do with burning fossil fuels' etc. Unless of course they are intent on mis-information!
People anxious about the possible effects that a turbine may have should be reassured by the limits that the planners can stipulate as part of a planning approval. Primarily this should be a limit to noise. This is a community project and if members of the community are experiencing harmful noise then offending turbine/s should be shutdown.
Turbine rotation can also be stopped at times to help with any flicker problems.
Ultra-sound devices can be fitted to turbines to help deter bats. Sadly, birds will face an extra hazard thankfully not nearly so threatening as that posed by the motor car.
What it boils down to is that somehow the world needs cooling down and we should all be supporting the known techniques for helping with that. This is the most difficult task that humanity faces and should not be opposed for what, in the fullness of time, will seem minor reasons. Supporters of the project can feel good that they are helping future generations and there are financial benefits for individuals and the community too.
However in August 2008 research at the Unversity of Calgary identified the cause of the problem - barotrauma. In plain english, the drop in air pressure caused by the spinning turbine blades, causes the bats' lungs to explode and they drown in their own blood. It has been likened to the bends (Decompression Sickness) in human divers. Details at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=KRqu4WiLQfk&feature=related
There are so many reasons why large turbines should not be allowed on land, and nearly as many as to why turbines as a concept are an extremely poor option in terms of a contributor to our energy needs.
LARGE OPEN FIELDS ARE LIKE DESERTS WITH NO NAVIGATION POINTS, THEY WOULD IN FACT GET LOSSED,AND NOT GET BACK TO THERE ROOSTS AND DIE,
AS FOR THE VVVD YOU LOT NEED TO FIND OUT WERE WE ARE PUTTING THE TURBINES IN CONTEXT WITH NORTH WALSHAM AS THE SUN DOES NOT GO ROUND IN THE SKY AT 360% AND THE SAME CAN BE SAID FOR THE STALHAM SITE,
PLEASE TAKE A TRIP TO THE SOMERTON TURBINES (something those against never say)IF YOU DARE ,ITS THE BEST WAY TO SEE WHAT NONSENSE PEOPLE ARE TALKING,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=sbCs7ZQDKoM&feature=related
But the main physical risk from turbines is ice forming on the blades overnight and then flying off in the morning breeze. Once again take a look at the following link if you do not believe me:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7763900.stm
To reassure Sally Jones about the unfortunate damage done to the turbine at Fakenham High School - the turbine fell during installation when the area was cordoned off. Raising and lowering a Proven turbine is always a potential time of risk and the children were kept well away.
http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/ Even the turbines at Swaffham have to switched off when the sun is low in the sky because of the health effects on local children, caused by flicker.
It is easy to relay what you have read or heard in the popular press. Whilst you're googling "dangers of wind turbines" you might also want to check out "moon landing hoax" or "michael Jackson Alien" all interesting reading.
Fact is that these things can and will generate an amount of electricity from a renewable and zero impact fuel. Yes they will cause an amount of pollution whilst being created, transported & installed. They may have some impact on the surrounding habitat, but you must put this into context with the impact that the alternatives (ie fossil fuel / nuclear powered generatrion) create.
At least give it a chance
ML
If people think that renewable energy can ever replace conventional power (given our existing energy needs) then they do not understand the fundamental problem.
Wind energy is both unpredictable and intermittent, and needs to be backed up by 100% conventional energy.
The maths are simple:
Our existing National Grid supply is 76 GW.
Our maximum demand currently runs at 60GW, but will rise (by the way, something that seems to be ignored - we are thinking that more electric cars may be the way forward- what do electric cars need)?.
By 2015, some 30GW of electricity is to be forced out of our system due to dirty power stations, those coming to the end of their lives etc. That leaves in the region of 45GW.
Now, if we take the Green's and Lib Dem view of no nuclear, a further 20% of our supply will be forced out also. Assuming they do actually come back to reality and accept the existing and planned nuclear, let's say the 45GW is available.
As I write this, there is hardly a breath of wind outside.
So, where exactly is the minimum 15 plus GW of electricity going to come from if, as it most likely does in the winter, coincide with our peak demand?
Don't be taken in by the "wind blows somewhere" routine, or the "European Grid" nonsense, as Europe is looking to be increasingly dependent upon wind energy, and the anti-cyclones can and do extend across all of Western Europe.
A respected renewable energy expert whose maths is better than mine has advised that to generate the sort of level of wind energy being talked about, we would require something like 44 GW of installed wind capacity. That aspiration is simply outrageous!
You claim it is only profitable because it is subsidised. The other view on a subsidy is that coal, gas and oil electricity production should be charged for their contribution to global warming. Their means of production creates huge costs for society. This is called an external cost. It should be charged. The subsidy to renewables goes some way to make up for these external costs that have not been charged.
You are right in that wind power is intermittent and unpredictable in any one place, but it is a fact, not %u2018nonsense%u2019 as you claim, that in Britain the wind is nearly always blowing somewhere. Your claim that wind would have to be backed up by 100% conventional production is inaccurate. The grid is very sophisticated and can cope with variations in supply, so as long as there are many turbines in many different locations, wind can make a significant contribution to our total need.
I do not know of anyone who is suggesting that wind power is all we need. Again, in the British Isles we should be able to use tidal power effectively, as well as solar. The advantage of wind is just that the technology has been developed to a state where it can be used now. We are told that power shortages will occur within the next 10 %u2013 20 years. Large numbers of turbines could be put up in that timescale. If people really do not like them, they could be replaced by other renewable systems once these have been developed. Wind turbines have a life of about 25 years, so they can be a temporary measure.
My preference would be for as many communities to put up their own turbines and profit from them. This would help the grid, by having disparate production sites. Turbines on land are far simpler and less costly from the engineering point of view, use less concrete and are closer to the grid so less electricity is lost in transit. In these ways land turbines are more efficient, although the wind is more constant at sea.
You obviously support nuclear power. I do not. From a lifetime of campaigning against nuclear weapons, I am very aware of the danger of radioactive material. I think all the evidence of nuclear proliferation to other countries, past nuclear accidents, the success of terrorist actions, the government%u2019s inability to handle even arguably simpler matters such as the economy, national data bases, etc, etc, show that people are not wise enough to deal with such dangerous materials. Nobody is, not even our government or the big businesses who wish to gain from it.
It strikes me as ironic that many people still seem to think those who campaigned against nuclear weapons were out of touch with reality, whereas the situation in the world today shows that the policies they supported would have made the world safer. It was governments who thought they could hang on to the weapons themselves and control the situation who have been proved wrong.
You seem concerned with the economics of supply. Nuclear power has required and will require much large subsidies from the taxpayer than anything suggested for renewables. Also building nuclear power stations takes unimaginable amounts of concrete - a heavy carbon polluter %u2013 and this will be happening just when we should be cutting our carbon footprint. Lastly, I think it grossly irresponsible to choose a policy for the sake of our own electricity needs which will leave our children, grandchildren and further generations with the unsolved problem and the dangers of storing such material.
We should do our best to cut our use and to produce electricity in the safest way possible, neither threatening global warming nor radioactive pollution. There is so much expertise, knowledge and enthusiasm, to solve this crisis, it should be given a chance.
none of the profits are directly used to benefit the community
it was built at huge cost to the public
long term problems with health, safety and waste disposal have not been adequately addressed.
Wind turbines in North Walsham are big but of a suitable scale to contribute energy to the town at the same time as generating income. The Environmental impact assessment will investigate some of the effects highlighted but I would also mention an early public meeting of Unity Wind demonstrated that local residents are well informed and broadly supportive of the turbines.
Many birds get killed by glass windows (& cars)should we campaign to have them bricked up ?
do a google search on the dangers of cars or any thing else and you will get loads of useless info.
Do talk to the RSPB to get their view,
and those who live in swaffham as a high percentage support their windturbine, even more now its been working a few years.
I would suggest people do not stand in a field and look into the sun for too long its not good for your health.
With regard to flicker from turbine blades it is possible to program them to stop if at some time of the day / year this causes a problem to a nearby resident.
The subsonic noise problem is sometimes reported downwind of a windfarm probably exacerbated by turbines rotating at the same speed locked to the grid.
There are turbines which contiually change thier speed to make most efficient use of the power in the wind. These turbines do not have gearboxes either and so are less likely to cause annoyance on two fronts.
I hope that UnityWind can use this sort of turbine in the North Walsham project.
| Please fill in your comments below: | |||||||||
Offer Your Support
Invest in Unity Wind today! You can do this for as little as £1Comments
View Other People's Comments,and Have Your Say
News
Education
- Industrial & Provident Societies
- Wind Farm Construction
- Wind Turbines
- Renewable Energy
- Carbon Offsets
- Fossil Fuels
- Nuclear Energy
- A Short History of Community Wind Farms in Britain
Sites of Special Interest:
- BWEA
- Yes2Wind
- EcoTech Centre
- EWEA
- WindPowerWorks
- The Energy Mix
- R-Wind Projects
- Solar Wheel
- Energy4All
Find UnityWind On:
Debate
Join the Wind Energy Debate,but be polite please