MSE News: Energy bill discount for those living near wind farms

cepheus

What is the Impact of wind Farms on House Prices

The study set out to examine the impact of wind farm development on
proximate residential property. Because of the limited data available the
findings require a degree of caution. However, there is evidence to suggest
that the ‘threat’ of a wind farm may have a more significant impact that the
actual presence of one. Even this may not translate into lower house prices
if the community are actively involved in the process and enjoy some of the
benefits through lower, or greener, fuel costs.

The study itself may be seen as inconclusive as there was limited linear
relationship between house prices and distance. But, it does suggest that
other variables related to the presence of wind farms, not included in this
particular analysis, may be amongst the main drivers of house price in these
locations.

The general findings were supported by a number of interviews with estate
agents from the area who had not encountered any negativity towards the
wind farms when marketing proximate houses. However, this is only one
study, and as more wind farms are built, more property will become proximate.
Therefore, a cautious approach should be adopted until a larger and more
in-depth study can be undertaken.

7 common questions about wind farms

In the world’s most comprehensive study on the
subject to date, the USA’s Renewable Energy Policy
Project compiled a survey of house values in the
vicinity of wind turbines and compared them to those
with no turbines in the vicinity. They examined 24,300
property transactions from 10 locations within the US
over a period of six years, and concluded that there
was no evidence to suggest that wind turbines sited
within a five mile radius of a property had a negative
impact on value. In fact, property values appeared to
rise above the regional average within the case study
locations, suggesting that wind turbines actually had
a positive effect on value.

silvergirl

I would expect free electricity if I had to put up with these in my sight. But then I think they are dismal. Use less electricity?

magyar

silvergirl wrote: »

I would expect free electricity if I had to put up with these in my sight. But then I think they are dismal. Use less electricity?

Clearly each to their own; I personally think they look lovely. There seems to be a myth that they are causing the industrialisation of the countryside. The reality is the countryside (close up) is often already highly industrialised.

But to get to your point, why would you expect free electricity? Would you expect free train travel if you lived near a station? If Tesco opened a new store would you expect free food?

cepheus

I suggested on another board that I should get a discount due to my low ISP speeds. However, others thought I should pay more due to the greater distance from the exchange, and longer cables. Using this logic perhaps those who live nearer power sources should pay less.

tori.k

It wouldn't bother me to live next to a wind farms we had a solar farm built across our vista just green fields replaced with black would have rather had a dozen windmills and keep the greenery looks like they built a major road it an eyesore.

Andy_WSM

gadgetmind wrote: »

Because the nimbys managed to get the Severn Barrage shelved.

Evidence?

I think you'll find that most people in the area, myself included, are supportive of a Barrage project. Jobs, Tourism etc would all benefit from it. The people that are not supportive are not NIMBY's as they simply don't live anywhere near here - they're organised groups of conservationists who say "think of the birds" - most of us are afraid that thinking of the birds long term will cost our houses to flooding from the sea! The birds will move and while some lose, others will gain from new wetlands being created.

magyar

Andy_WSM wrote: »

Evidence?

I think you'll find that most people in the area, myself included, are supportive of a Barrage project. Jobs, Tourism etc would all benefit from it. The people that are not supportive are not NIMBY's as they simply don't live anywhere near here - they're organised groups of conservationists who say "think of the birds" - most of us are afraid that thinking of the birds long term will cost our houses to flooding from the sea! The birds will move and while some lose, others will gain from new wetlands being created.

That is correct, plus it is economically very unclear what the overall cost would be, and who could pay for it. It's at least £15 billion, which is money that the government would find hard to find.

Andy_WSM

magyar wrote: »

It's at least £15 billion, which is money that the government would find hard to find.

A private consortium had said they would fund, but there is so much opposition from the "NIMBY's" that live miles away that I'm not sure it will happen in my life time! Shame. Could have provided energy, tourism, jobs, better transport links to South Wales. The benefits are as big as the scheme - huge!

magyar

Andy_WSM wrote: »

A private consortium had said they would fund, but there is so much opposition from the "NIMBY's" that live miles away that I'm not sure it will happen in my life time! Shame. Could have provided energy, tourism, jobs, better transport links to South Wales. The benefits are as big as the scheme - huge!

It really wasn't anywhere close to being funded. I know, I work for one of the companies in question!

Don't get me wrong I support it in theory, but it wasn't NIMBYs, it was an overall environmental impact assessment which was the problem.

Andy_WSM

magyar wrote: »

It really wasn't anywhere close to being funded. I know, I work for one of the companies in question!

Don't get me wrong I support it in theory, but it wasn't NIMBYs, it was an overall environmental impact assessment which was the problem.

Shame, the media had us sold on the idea that it just may happen.