Green, ethical, energy issues in the news

ed110220

JKenH wrote: »

They’re fine if you live in a city and don’t live near one. There is an argument they look absolutely spectacular in the distance on top of a hill on barren moorland. Once you get closer to them the aesthetics wear off and the sheer size of them dominates the local landscape. So like everything there are arguments for and against. In the right place, maybe, but not everywhere.

There are practical problems living near them some of which are referred to in an onshore wind farm FAQ document issued by DEAA (I think this was in 2012) excerpts below. There is also much anecdotal evidence of health problems reported by those living close to them

Q9 – Do wind farms affect house prices?
It is entirely understandable that homeowners in the vicinity of a planned wind farm will feel concerned that the value of their property might be affected by the presence of a wind farm, although we have yet to see any compelling evidence that this is indeed the case.
A report published in March 2007 by the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors and Oxford Brookes University found a limited linear relationship between the proximity of wind farms and house prices. It looked at transactions of residential property near wind farms at two locations in Cornwall, and found that while terraced and semi detached houses within a mile of one of the wind farms were of lower value than similar houses at a distance of four miles, other factors influenced the devaluation: the houses were ex-Ministry of Defence properties and less desirable.
More information is available on a Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors: frequently asked questions
Q10 – Aren’t wind farms a nuisance to public health, what with the noise and flicker they produce?
The Government takes these issues seriously. Both noise and shadow flicker impacts are considered within the planning process before any decision is taken whether or not to grant consent to construct a renewable energy project.
Wind turbines make noise, but not as much as some may think. The noise level of a wind farm at a distance of 350m (1150ft) is comparable to the sound of leaves rustling in a general breeze(approx 35-45 dB). A car travelling at 40mph at a distance of 100m (330ft) creates around 55dB.

A recent report on noise carried out by Hayes McKenzie for DECC concluded that good practice guidance is required to clarify and add to the existing planning guidance on wind turbine noise. The Institute of Acoustics[External link] has set up a working group and is taking forward work to develop such guidance.
Shadow flicker is the effect caused when rotating wind turbine blades periodically cast shadows through openings such as windows in neighbouring buildings. There are a range of factors which can impact on the extent and frequency of shadow flicker, including the location of the building relative to the turbine, the weather conditions, especially wind direction and position of the sun, topography and turbine height and blade rotor diameter.
An independent study published by DECC in May 2011 on shadow flicker, Update of UK shadow flicker evidence base, concluded that there have not been extensive issues with shadow flicker in the UK and in the few cases where problems have arisen they have been resolved effectively.



Source: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/48356/5197-onshore-wind-faqs.pdf

Wow, pretty weak sauce: two sites showed limited impacts on house prices which the authors stated could have been due to the houses being cheaper ex-MOD... turbines as loud as leaves rustling... a few cases of flicker that were resolved effectively.


On the other hand multiple government commissioned surveys of attitudes showed a large majority supportive of on-shore wind power, both in urban and rural areas.


I have two main objections to the major anti-wind arguments (and I'm rather familiar with them as both my mum and uncle are virulently anti-wind turbine):-


* Their proponents tend to conflate their personal feelings on the aesthetics of the turbines with objective reality. The anti-wind person feels they are "infernal windmill monstrosities" and mistakes this for them being objectively "monstrous" ie they fail to acknowledge that theirs is merely an opinion and a minority one at that. Others (and a majority) would consider them beautiful, impressive or be indifferent to their aesthetics.


* They fail to balance the aesthetic cost of wind turbines with the economic/natural/humanitarian cost of the alternatives or business as usual. Often the latter costs are implicitly or explicitly denied. How does one balance the aesthetic cost of wind turbines against the loss of the worlds coral reefs, the loss of coastal cities to rising sea levels or people going hungry or losing their homes due to changing weather patterns and increasing natural disasters? Once this is acknowledged, objections on purely subjective aesthetic grounds seem at best frivolous and at worst callous.

pile-o-stone

We have giant wind turbines on the hill behind our house, they look fantastic. I find it to be really relaxing to sit at my desk, watching them slowly rotate when I should be working

Martyn1981

ed110220 wrote: »

Wow, pretty weak sauce: two sites showed limited impacts on house prices which the authors stated could have been due to the houses being cheaper ex-MOD... turbines as loud as leaves rustling... a few cases of flicker that were resolved effectively.


On the other hand multiple government commissioned surveys of attitudes showed a large majority supportive of on-shore wind power, both in urban and rural areas.


I have two main objections to the major anti-wind arguments (and I'm rather familiar with them as both my mum and uncle are virulently anti-wind turbine):-


* Their proponents tend to conflate their personal feelings on the aesthetics of the turbines with objective reality. The anti-wind person feels they are "infernal windmill monstrosities" and mistakes this for them being objectively "monstrous" ie they fail to acknowledge that theirs is merely an opinion and a minority one at that. Others (and a majority) would consider them beautiful, impressive or be indifferent to their aesthetics.


* They fail to balance the aesthetic cost of wind turbines with the economic/natural/humanitarian cost of the alternatives or business as usual. Often the latter costs are implicitly or explicitly denied. How does one balance the aesthetic cost of wind turbines against the loss of the worlds coral reefs, the loss of coastal cities to rising sea levels or people going hungry or losing their homes due to changing weather patterns and increasing natural disasters? Once this is acknowledged, objections on purely subjective aesthetic grounds seem at best frivolous and at worst callous.

I've always objected to the statement that they 'spoil the view', at worse they negatively change the view, for that person, or in my case, positively change the view, but you'd have to be pretty damn close to one before it spoilt (blocked) the view.

Does anyone remember the short docu series 'wind farm wars'. There was something said many times that made me think - they kept referring to the WT's as 'industrializing the countryside'. Covering several square miles with WT's (about 12 I think).

Now, obviously I don't think a few of anything dotted around industrialize the whole area, but then something struck me - The valley in question was beautiful, no doubt about it, and a perfect example of English patchwork quilt farming. But the more I looked and thought, I realised that 0% of what I was looking at was natural, it was all farming fields, hedge rows/fences/walls for containment, some buildings and access roads.

If farming is an industry, then effectively 100% of the ground layout was a direct result, and a necessity to industry.

I suspect the real problem here is change, people fear change, and even fight against it. If someone looked at a local meadow and suggested digging a big hole and filling it with water, or covering it with a mound of earth, or rock, folk would object, and so would other communities with lakes, hills and mountains if someone suggested leveling them for a meadow.


Anyways, back to reality, and to repeat the 26 quarterly reports on public attitudes again, the ones that reflect opinions but appear to be denied as fake news by some folk on here (who don't value opinions ...........!) the support for on-shore wind which started of massive, has only grown over the 6+yrs, whilst the opposition to, which started of small, has only gotten smaller ..... happened as the visual and economic costs of wind farms impacted us for real.

It seems reality, and some peoples 'opinions of reality' might not match exactly.

Roll on, and roll out RE.

JKenH

ed110220 wrote: »

Wow, pretty weak sauce: two sites showed limited impacts on house prices which the authors stated could have been due to the houses being cheaper ex-MOD... turbines as loud as leaves rustling... a few cases of flicker that were resolved effectively.


On the other hand multiple government commissioned surveys of attitudes showed a large majority supportive of on-shore wind power, both in urban and rural areas.


I have two main objections to the major anti-wind arguments (and I'm rather familiar with them as both my mum and uncle are virulently anti-wind turbine):-


* Their proponents tend to conflate their personal feelings on the aesthetics of the turbines with objective reality. The anti-wind person feels they are "infernal windmill monstrosities" and mistakes this for them being objectively "monstrous" ie they fail to acknowledge that theirs is merely an opinion and a minority one at that. Others (and a majority) would consider them beautiful, impressive or be indifferent to their aesthetics.


* They fail to balance the aesthetic cost of wind turbines with the economic/natural/humanitarian cost of the alternatives or business as usual. Often the latter costs are implicitly or explicitly denied. How does one balance the aesthetic cost of wind turbines against the loss of the worlds coral reefs, the loss of coastal cities to rising sea levels or people going hungry or losing their homes due to changing weather patterns and increasing natural disasters? Once this is acknowledged, objections on purely subjective aesthetic grounds seem at best frivolous and at worst callous.

I note that you posted that after I had responded to solarchaser on this same topic. I couldn’t help be amused by your view that if your mum, uncle and I object to onshore wind farms the natural upshot of that will be flooding of coastal cities like London and New York. Meanwhile if we all keep using our ICE cars until the government makes it financially attractive to switch to EVs presumably everything will be fine.

I think we should end this fanciful discussion here as this is just a waste of time and forum space.

pile-o-stone

https://www.treehugger.com/energy-efficiency/transportation-now-biggest-source-us-co2-emissions.html

Dave_Fowler

I was walking with the dogs in the Poolsbrook Country Park - near Stavely, Derbyshire - right next to a single large wind turbine and was thinking how quiet and peaceful the scene was when all of a sudden there was a loud creaking noise. It nearly scared the life out of me as I thought the WT was going to fail and perhaps fall apart. However, it was the mechanism for turning the head of the WT to adjust for a change in the wind direction. A spot of WD40 needed?

Dave F

Hexane

pile-o-stone wrote: »

November 27, 2017

'For the purposes of this thread the "news" needs to be within the last two weeks' please.

pile-o-stone

Hexane wrote: »

'For the purposes of this thread the "news" needs to be within the last two weeks' please.

Just trying my best to drown out the arguments and get the thread back on topic.

Exiled_Tyke

Hexane wrote: »

'For the purposes of this thread the "news" needs to be within the last two weeks' please.

This is unfair. The article was used in the context of the already established discussion

AND - more importantly

The two week rule was imposed on us in a (somewhat vain) attempt to stop the trolls. We didn't ask for the rule. And there was no way the posting of this article was trolling. It may be on the wrong side of the rule as written but is in keeping with the spirit of this discussion board.

Hexane

Exiled_Tyke wrote: »

This is unfair. The article was used in the context of the already established discussion.

No, the ongoing discussion(s) were not about the relative emissions impacts of transport versus electric power generation at all. (Interesting point though it may be.)