Pro wind farms. Let's be "for" something for a change!
Government seriously considering u-turn on wind; wind companies' investment on hold due to uncertainty; well-funded anti-campaigns. Is the viability of life on earth more important than a view?
I agree with you about wind turbines but it's not an alternative to wind turbines that is sought, it's an alternative to our current methods of powering the nation but with less CO2 emissions.
Expert witnesses are now giving evidence on sleep disturbance from wind turbines iat Public Inquiries on wind turbine proposals.
Have you actually read the report itself from your link below?
It is not in itself "a study of wind turbines and health"; it is "a study of the studies on wind turbines and health".
I'm really not sure why you posted this link; the report (downloadable on the RHS) is far from reassuring and is actually quite damning in terms of wind turbines and health.
"'Since the most commonly reported complaint by people living near turbines is sleep disruption, the Panel provides a robust review of the relationship between noise, vibration, annoyance as well as sleep disturbance from noises and the potential impacts of the resulting sleep deprivation."
"This study is somewhat limited by its size—much smaller than the Swedish or Dutch studies described above—but nonetheless suggests relevant potential health impacts of living near wind turbines.
"Given the effects of sleep deprivation on health and well-being, including problems with mood and cognition, it is possible that cognitive and mood complaints and other medical or psychological issues associated with sleep loss can stem from living in immediate proximity to wind turbines, if the turbines disrupt sleep."
"In summary, sleep is a complex biological state, important for health and well-being across a wide range of physiologic functions. To date, no study has adequately examined the influence of wind turbines and their effects on sleep."
"Without this physiologic, objective information, the effects of wind turbines on sleep might be over- or underestimated."
"Therefore, the Panel concludes that there is limited evidence suggesting an association between noise from wind turbines and sleep disruption and that further study would quantify precise sound levels from wind turbines that disrupt sleep."
I usually ignore postings from people who hide behind anonymity, but it is worth pointing out that the irritating James Delingpole is hardly an authority on wind power! As for Pierpont and her infamous wind turbine syndrome, I think you'll find this of interest: http://www.mass.gov/dep/public/press/0112wind.htm
There are alternatives to wind.
Wind farms aren't clean or green. here's some information for you about the detrimental effects that wind farms have on the environment, wildlife and health.
So basically if we don't crank up nuclear/and/or gas/coal power stations and continue to "rely" on wind energy, we are stuffed!
I too read Herbert's link and just felt depressed by it - I guess we will have to wait and see what happens in Germany but, despite tthe UK having huge problems in many ways, I am glad I don't live and pay taxes in Germany! I read they are already annoying their neighbours by unbalancing their grids and, of course, they are building filthy coal stations.If Denmark can't close one single power station how can Germany do this and it all negates why they are using wind energy allegedly - to cut carbon emissions and to cut their dependency on fossil fuels. For some reason, the production of power has been handed over to the "green" element instead of people who are properly qualified to know what they are doing. I fear in this country until people wake up and are directly affected by this insanity (ie we have power cuts) things are just going to go on and our government won't face up to the problem it is creating. Or, of course, people start losing their jobs which is already happening in the North. One company closed a few weeks ago and quoted the green taxes put them out of business.
Herbert has left us it would seem - he is a "pro-winder" (know this from an earlier post) so trying to answer your questions was probably just too much for him!
Apologies, the word need wasn't intended to be at the end of my last post, please ignore it.
You have now got this right - to date, wind turbines have not replaced any conventional power stations or resulted in fewer being built than if we did not any wind turbines.
What's important in the UK, is that as we close our power stations, we need to replace them and wind turbines aren't replacements.
The second report from Hugh Sharman explains exactly this; it is worth reading.
Seems Herb's had enough. I've had a read of the article he's linked to;
'Stephan Reimelt, chief executive officer of General Electric Co. (GE)’s energy unit in the country, said in an interview. “The country has a political and societal consensus to drop nuclear power but lacks a clear technological solution.”
“If Germany succeeds, it could be a role model for economies all over the world,” said Claudia Kemfert, DIW’s senior energy expert. “If it fails, it will be a disaster for Germany’s politicians, society and economy"
Hi Chloe and Jessie – I'm well aware of REF and Hugh Sharman, but I'm getting bored with this discussion. Feel free to keep the going, but I have better things to do. I'll leave you with this food for thought: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-19/germany-s-270-billion-renewables-shift-biggest-since-war.html
The number of 32,000 turbines originates from former DECC secretary of state, Chris Huhne's (currently charged on perverting the course of justice) statement as the number required in order to meet our EU commitment for reducing our CO2 emissions and achieving 20% of electricity from renewables by 2020.
Since his resignation there have been different number of turbines bandied about so am not clear on how many we "require" to meet our target in this way (of course there are other ways to meet this target). So I apologise for the confusion - this is not a point I have even considered to be honest ie if we increase our wind farms to the amount allegedly required we would need even more conventional power stations to cover the intermittency. As we seem to be decreasing investment in gas, coal, nuclear etc this is indeed very worrying. Have I got this right or am I confused?!
I notice you have written "It is as Chloe says (in the real world) what do you want? A nuclear,coal, gas etc station on its own or one station along with the 32,000 turbines we will need to meet our targets?"
This is not what I said and it is not correct.
I was comparing like output for like output over a year i.e. to get the same amount of output as a conventional (nuclear, coal, gas or oil) medium sized power station, we would need 2,000 x 2MW wind turbines (they're each about 300 feet high). The problem is though that the 2,000 wind turbines won't generate electricity in line with demand and there may be times when they will generate almost nothing so we need the conventional power station.
If you are talking about having 32,000 wind turbines each of 2MW, we would still need 16 conventional (nuclear, coal, gas or oil) medium sized power stations to provide electricity for the times the wind blows too much, too little or not at all.
To be clear, these "16 conventional power stations" OR "these 16 conventional power stations and 32,000 wind turbines" would provide less than a quarter of the electricity generators that we actually need.
Thank you for stating your case Herbert. What is the result of Denmark, Germany and Scotland having seen the light?
Denmark's advantage over the UK is its neighbours, Norway and Sweden who have large hydro facilities. To balance its grid, Denmark sells any excess supply to its neighbours who can store it if they can't use it.
Here are two ICE Telford Gold Medal winning papers that explain this matter:
Hugh Sharman, “Why Wind Power works for Denmark”, Civil Engineering, 158, May 2005, 66-72. http://www.ref.org.uk/images/PDFs/sharman.ice.pt1.pdf.
Hugh Sharman, “Why UK Wind power should not exceed 10GW”, Civil Engineering, 158, Nov 2005, 161-169. http://www.ref.org.uk/images/PDFs/sharman.ice.pt2.pdf
That link is all just pie in the sky fantasy at huge and unsustainable cost.
And you still can't answer why Denmark hasn't closed one single conventional power station or why Germany is having to build coal-fired stations.
The EIA is an Environmental Impact Assessment which all wind farm companies HAVE to produce with their planning application therefore it is a fact not a claim.
You keep saying that it is obvious that renewables are the only intelligent and sensible way forward. There are plenty of intelligent people out here who don't agree or are we just thick really?
Chloe – my case is quite clear: In terms of energy supply, it is blatantly obvious that renewables are the only intelligent and sensible way forward, and countries such as Denmark, Germany and Scotland have seen the light, while England is still at the 'faffing stage'.
I'm afraid I didn't really understand your request re. Denmark's advantage over the UK, sorry.
You write (to Jessie) "No doubt you'll find something to criticise in this pertinent article too, won't you? http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/energy-futurist/why-baseload-power-is-doomed/445" and "you obviously didn't read the article on baseload and renewables penetration I just sent."
You obviously didn't read the pertinent comments written about this blog:
It would support discussion if you stated your case and supported it with evidence rather than simply linking to yet another blog or article.
I look forward to your response to my request re Denmark's advantage over the UK.
Thank you, Chloe Pink
Jessie – you obviously didn't read the article on baseload and renewables penetration I just sent. Don't know what you mean about planning fact.
That is not a claim about EIA - it is a planning fact.
Herbert my claim that renewables have a place off grid is backed up by all the evidence given before and in the Press that on mass renewables need back up. So what you are saying basically is that when we have competely covered the whole of the UK with either wind farms, solar, hydro, managed forests to use for biomass, etc etc (leaving no room for people or for food production) we won't need any back up from conventional power stations? But you failed to answer the question way back about why Denmark (with its drastically reduced population from the UK) hasn't managed to close one single conventional power station despite all its wind turbines? Furthermore, you do not seem to acknowledge that Germany with all its renewable visions is still building filthy coal stations?
It is as Chloe says (in the real world) what do you want? A nuclear,coal, gas etc station on its own or one station along with the 32,000 turbines we will need to meet our targets? (probably more if we don't build nuclear up)
Jessie – notwithstanding your repeated claim that "renewables have a place but only locally and not on a mass scale", for which you have provided no evidence whatsoever, I would suggest (if I haven't done so already) that renewables are the only intelligent and sensible way forward. No doubt you'll find something to criticise in this pertinent article too, won't you? http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/energy-futurist/why-baseload-power-is-doomed/445
As for your claim that the requirement to submit EIAs proves that wind turbines harm the environment, no-one in their right mind would suggest that wind turbines have no impact on the natural environment whatsoever. However, the environmental impacts of most renewable energy technologies (including wind, of course) are considerably less than conventional energy systems. Thorough EIAs ensure that any impacts are reduced to an absolute minimum.