Wind Farms

[redeyedtreefrog]

Generally speaking, for or against?

[Jester]

All for renewable energy, but what shocking eyesores on our beautiful countryside and coastline :~(

[redeyedtreefrog]

All for renewable energy, but what shocking eyesores on our beautiful countryside and coastline :~(

I think they look pretty, I like coming down Port Dunbar onto Scalesburn and seeing the three big ones turning in the light breeze :D

[Bobinovich]

I originally didn't have a problem with them until I was asked to design a website for one of the local 'anti' groups. It was only then that I learned about the number and scale of those planned for Caithness & Sutherland and the relative ineffectiveness of them when weighed against the natural beauty which would be lost :confused.

[doodles]

I prefer the ones that are slightly out to sea, as they aren't in anyone's back garden.

[ywindythesecond]

Generally speaking, for or against?

Postpone your answer until you have checked this out
www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk (http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk)

78 operational or approved wind turbines in Caithness now, another 278 in the planning system!

[Phill]

My reasons as follows, I am not entering into a debate as this is a poll.

I do not accept that carving up huge chunks of the countryside (not just Caithness) is in anyway environmentally friendly. These are eyesores and pure folly.
I was out the other day in good winds and 6 out of 7 turbines were not turning!!!!
Ooohh, it's too windy they say.

If they must put them somewhere put them on brownfield sites near the towns and cities.

Ooohh, they don't get enough wind there they say.

It is money making propaganda that brainwashes people into believing that these things are "green" and are going to save the planet.

No apologies, but against.

[Whitewater]

I have always been against them. They are only 20% efficient, a few years ago nobody would have dreamed of building a turbine of less than 85% efficiency. Tidal power if developed properly can be the answer, and also Nuclear power, many people have forgotten that nuclear is green as well.

[Lanskee17]

We have these eyesores here in Australia in some of the most beautiful parts of our country which are now ruined and they are sooooo noisey as well....we recently stopped them from being erected in Gippsland Vic.....so vote NO NO NO and NO

[Gronnuck]

I know very little about the technology but why are so many of the things standing idle? :confused If a third of them aren't turning surely by anyone's reckoning that's a 33% failure rate. :~( I also hear that even if they are turning they could be 'free-wheeling' because the wind is too strong.
As I say I don't know enough about them other than many of them don't appear to be doing anything - and why are they all so grey? :eek:

[Stefan]

and why are they all so grey? :eek:

Pink?

No seriously they should be brown, green or something else that makes them look a bit more like they are trying to be part of the landscape.

What hassle do people have to go through to get planning permission for a house out in the sticks these days because the roof colour is not acceptable etc.. should be the same for those turbines. Grey should not be allowed.

[Jonaleth Irenicus]

It is important for government to be seen to be doing the "right thing", whether or not it actually makes any environmental or economic sense.

[Mrs Bucket]

I believe they have an adverse effect on birdlife.

[Stefan]

I believe they have an adverse effect on birdlife.

I don't believe you are right.
Birds avoid wind turbines. I would guess more birds are killed by cars than turbines (any studies anybody?).

[Green_not_greed]

Wind "farms" are the Kings New Clothes for politicians of the early 21st century. They have to be seen to be wearing them!

As for birds, a recent US report states that most of the "avoidance" schemes put in place to keep birds away from turbines have failed. This study was by scientists, wildlife agencies and turbine experts, who studied the problem together and concluded that protective measures put in place in an effort to reduce bird deaths by 50% failed. Deaths in fact soared for three of four bird species studied, said the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area Bird Fatality Study.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=298&articleid=20090921_298_0_Fryasu871005

And its not just collisions that can affect birds. The RSPB recently published a report which is summarised here

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6231580/Wind-farms-cause-decline-in-bird-population---RSPB.html

Environmentally friendly? I don't think so.

And of course there are effects on humans - a species who are almost ignored in terms of wind turbine planning. The effects upon human health from living close to wind turbines is now recognised world-wide and debates rage in almost every country where turbines are being planned. But governments - keen to display their "green" credentials and often led by the wind industry - have so far failed to acknowledge any of the evidence given by medical professionals, saying that is is not proven.

Governments state that there are places for wind turbines as a mix of technologies needed to offset carbon emissions. I would agree - but that place is not close to homes, schools or highways.

[silverfox57]

agree with above post,and would look in to
effects to human health on living close to wind turbines
as have three in my back garden.but they are up to stay.

[spurtle]

Generally speaking, for or against?

Even if they produced up to the "capacity" that is always touted by their promoters (different from actual production by a long way), Caithness is not the palce for them for two damning reasons :
1. Caithness is too far away from the end user, and has about twice the installed capacity of turbines required for the area itself. It is uneconomic to transmit power as far as it needs to go to centres of population because of transmission losses.

2. Most of them are planned on peat ground. Peat is a massive carbon sink, and the construction of one turbine in deep peat negates its benefits entirely.

[badger]

Governments are enthusiastic about windfarms because it makes them look as if they're doing something green without too much effort (although at considerable cost to the consumer and taxpayer). No-one has proved that, taking everything into consideration, they do reduce CO2 emissions, in fact the one proposed for Shetland almost certainly would release more CO2 than it saves (apart from all the damage to wildlife etc.). Those huge concrete bases for a start (concrete - how ungreen is that?), digging up peat which is crazy, creating access roads. They're not efficient. They affect people's health, sometimes to the extent of driving them from their homes. They kill birds and explode bats - bats being very necessary to the ecology. I could go on and on and on .....

Actually, I'm not sure what good they do - probably none. Tidal energy makes far more sense.

[Scout]

agree with above post,and would look in to
effects to human health on living close to wind turbines
as have three in my back garden.but they are up to stay.


What is everyone on about Human health. We all live near Dounreay :D I think they are part of green energy in which we will see tidal power as well. I am for all green energy. remember the Electric poles they are all over our countryside. We have got used to them. I can remember people moaning about Mobile Masts - now we use mobiles a lot, we have accepted them.

[Phoebus_Apollo]

I think the "anti" wind farm peeps are over reacting - I mean these things can be dismantled after they have served their purpose.

It seems that too many people are blinded by the science that the "anti" lobby throws about the place - keep building them I say.

[Green_not_greed]

agree with above post,and would look in to
effects to human health on living close to wind turbines
as have three in my back garden.but they are up to stay.

Silverfox57

FYI there is a bunch of stuff available on the internet

One of the most recent press articles - a typical story - can be found at

http://www.freep.com/article/20090927/NEWS05/909270587/?imw=Y

A doctors perspective can be found at

http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/?cat=4

and other links to reports by medical professionals here

http://www.savewesternny.org/health.html

[badger]

I think the "anti" wind farm peeps are over reacting - I mean these things can be dismantled after they have served their purpose.

It seems that too many people are blinded by the science that the "anti" lobby throws about the place - keep building them I say.

They only dismantle the tower and blades, the huge concrete bases can be left leaching heaven knows what chemicals into the soil.

[silverfox57]

Silverfox57

FYI there is a bunch of stuff available on the internet

One of the most recent press articles - a typical story - can be found at

http://www.freep.com/article/20090927/NEWS05/909270587/?imw=Y

A doctors perspective can be found at

http://www.windturbinesyndrome.com/?cat=4

and other links to reports by medical professionals here

http://www.savewesternny.org/health.html




thanks for the links makes very interstering reading,

[olivia]

I don't believe you are right.
Birds avoid wind turbines. I would guess more birds are killed by cars than turbines (any studies anybody?).

Apologies in advance, but if you want evidence that birds are killed by wind turbines look at this site -

http://cid-08ab0bbd2d5db954.skydrive.live.com/browse.aspx/BIRDKILLS%20-%20MATANZAS

In my opinion the photos speak for themselves.

[Jester]

As a word of warning for the future :-

I was driving into Los Angeles from the North, and was stunned to see a whole valley of nothing but wind turbines. It must have stretched for a number of miles, and had several thousand of the awful things.

Not so long ago, I am sure it would have been a beautiful area, like we have around here.

Like so many things, you have to watch out for the thin end of the wedge!

[Gronnuck]

Apologies in advance, but if you want evidence that birds are killed by wind turbines look at this site -

http://cid-08ab0bbd2d5db954.skydrive.live.com/browse.aspx/BIRDKILLS%20-%20MATANZAS

In my opinion the photos speak for themselves.

That's it I'm definately against wind turbines - not only do they not work they kill wildlife [disgust].

[Stack Rock]

Apologies in advance, but if you want evidence that birds are killed by wind turbines look at this site -

http://cid-08ab0bbd2d5db954.skydrive.live.com/browse.aspx/BIRDKILLS%20-%20MATANZAS

In my opinion the photos speak for themselves.


I think we should put this in perspective, as Stefan said only a minute porpotion are killed by windfarms compared by traffic kill.

[olivia]

I think we should put this in perspective, as Stefan said only a minute porpotion are killed by windfarms compared by traffic kill.

I wasn't comparing the numbers between road kill and wind turbines. I do appreciate that birds are killed by vehicles and many, many more by cats. That isn't the point. What is important is that all developers try to say that birds will avoid wind turbines and that their particular development will not have any significant effect on the avian population. This is blatantly not the case and the myth that birds are not killed should be dispelled immediately.

[Matthew]

I voted 'for' because I like how they are trying to use renewable energy, but I would rather they chose solar or hydro. Renewable is better than no renewable I think.

[redeyedtreefrog]

I have always been against them. They are only 20% efficient, a few years ago nobody would have dreamed of building a turbine of less than 85% efficiency. Tidal power if developed properly can be the answer, and also Nuclear power, many people have forgotten that nuclear is green as well.

They're not 20% efficient, they have a 30% load capacity. Check out Robert Lewellyn's CarPool with Dale someone; it was good information.

My reasons as follows, I am not entering into a debate as this is a poll.



It was supposed to be a debate :(

Apologies in advance, but if you want evidence that birds are killed by wind turbines look at this site -

http://cid-08ab0bbd2d5db954.skydrive.live.com/browse.aspx/BIRDKILLS%20-%20MATANZAS

In my opinion the photos speak for themselves.

How many are not killed by wind turbines, compared to, say passenger jets?


Good information can be found on Robert Llewellyn's CarPool, its on youtube or in llewtube.com. I cant post links because its got one or two swearies in it :D. His most recent is about wind power, and he interviewas a guy who really knows what he's talking about. It has some great info.

[Mad1man]

We continue to use up fossil fuels and we don't have a perfect replacement solution yet. Maybe the windfarms will offset the fossil usage enough to let us develop systems of tidal or wave or ??? some other technological marvel to let our future generations survive. Can't decide whether I'm a fully for or a fully against, despite having read all of the blurbs for both sides.