Negative effects of Wind Farms

Archeron

A quick question on wind farms if i may.
I've heard some debate on radio recently which included people commenting on th negative effects of wind farms including bad effects on health, and impact on the rural landscape.

Some people made reference to the noise of these things, as well as sickness brought about by light playing through the rotating blades and reflecting into peoples homes causing, I guess, some sort of motion sickness.

I kind of feel that they are a negative thing on the landscape, but I do believe that if they are as good as some people make them out to be, then its something we could certainly get by, and sure as long as they arent on every inch of landscape, it wouldnt be a big problem.

How do you feel on both the health impact, and the visual impact? Have you ever experienced health issues yourself as a result of wind farms? Sadly, because I feel there are so many nay-sayers in this country who diss everything that could do us some good, I never know whether to put any credence to stories like this.
Any opinions?

dodgyme

They have a very negative impact on Certain birdlife and they produce very little electricity. Aparently the newer ones which are beeing developed are much improved in electricity production. I think personally they are a loada rubbish and most run below capacity. Basically too much effort for too little energy.

endplate

And another thing the wind farms pull electricity from the grid when there is not enough wind to spin the generators fast enough so makes you wonder if they can be sometimes uneconomical

Stark

They also release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere when they're built on peat bogs which they commonly are. In many cases, the amount of CO2 released is greater than the CO2 saved through "green" electricity generation.

Keeks

I don't mind negative comments about green issues. I actually encourage good debate on environmental issues. But the above three comments are no more than "pub talk". If you are going to make statements like the above then please back up the comments.

1. What are the certain types of birds that are affected and how are they affected?

2. All power stations pull energy from the grids when not in use. Windfarms are no different. Do you think ordinary power stations are producing at maximum effieiency 24/7?

3. Any references as to how much C02 released vs energy produced to back up this claim. And how much Co2 is realsed from ordinary Peat power stations?

ednwireland

Keeks wrote:

I don't mind negative comments about green issues. I actually encourage good debate on environmental issues. But the above three comments are no more than "pub talk". If you are going to make statements like the above then please back up the comments.

1. What are the certain types of birds that are affected and how are they affected?

http://www.springerlink.com/content/ru1531651ml20273/
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/04/common_misconce.php
http://www.rspb.org.uk/policy/windfarms/eaglestrike.asp

the last on bothers me cos there is a wind farm near a nesting site for donegals fledgling eagle poulation
although it seems high blade speeds on small blades have more effect which makes you wonder about the uk and there chimmney mounted turbines

Benny-c

dodgyme wrote:

They have a very negative impact on Certain birdlife and they produce very little electricity. Aparently the newer ones which are beeing developed are much improved in electricity production. I think personally they are a loada rubbish and most run below capacity. Basically too much effort for too little energy.

I can't comment on wildlife but I believe that here (IRL) they are 37% effecient which is the highest level of the EU.

Wind farms (IMO) are not the total answer, even the wind lobby agrees but surely we should at least keep developing them as one part of the 'jigsaw' ?

My 2c worth.

John_C

Keeks wrote:

2. All power stations pull energy from the grids when not in use. Windfarms are no different. Do you think ordinary power stations are producing at maximum effieiency 24/7?

I don't get this. Isn't there a difference between not producing at maximum efficiency and pulling energy from the grid?

Sarsfield

John_C wrote:

I don't get this. Isn't there a difference between not producing at maximum efficiency and pulling energy from the grid?

My understanding is that the generators on commercial wind turbines have electromagnets rather than permanent magnets. The electromagnets are powered from the grid. But a working wind turbine should produce considerably more electricity than it consumes. I don't see why a turbine would draw from the grid when the blades weren't turning.

Have a look around this page and the links off it for an explanation.

http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/wtrb/async.htm

John_C

Sarsfield wrote:

My understanding is that the generators on commercial wind turbines have electromagnets rather than permanent magnets. The electromagnets are powered from the grid. But a working wind turbine should produce considerably more electricity than it consumes. I don't see why a turbine would draw from the grid when the blades weren't turning.

Have a look around this page and the links off it for an explanation.

http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/wtrb/async.htm

I haven't checked out your link because I think I'm familiar with the point you're making. You're correct that windmills don't have a permanant magnet but then neither does any other generator. Your link may tell you that an asynchronous generator like on a windmill will draw power from the grid if the blades are spinning at less than 50 cycles (after passing through whatever gearing there is) but I would presume that there's an automatic mechanism for disconnecting the windmill in this event.

I think that this particular claim is a load of baloney myself.

endplate

Sarsfield wrote:

My understanding is that the generators on commercial wind turbines have electromagnets rather than permanent magnets. The electromagnets are powered from the grid. But a working wind turbine should produce considerably more electricity than it consumes. I don't see why a turbine would draw from the grid when the blades weren't turning.

Have a look around this page and the links off it for an explanation.

http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/wtrb/async.htm

Have you ever been inside a a wind turbine tower? I have my mate works for a wind farm company and this particular day was not very windy. The have a electronic planel to monitor it's systems and that needs electricity to run. When the generator starts spinning at over 1500RPM giant relays switch and the wind turbine is supplying to the grid. There is also a hydraulic pump for turning the generator into the wind and for adjusting the pitch of the blades. and that uses a considerable amount of electricity from the grid when there is not a lot of wind about

John_C

endplate wrote:

Have you ever been inside a a wind turbine tower? I have my mate works for a wind farm company and this particular day was not very windy. The have a electronic planel to monitor it's systems and that needs electricity to run. When the generator starts spinning at over 1500RPM giant relays switch and the wind turbine is supplying to the grid. There is also a hydraulic pump for turning the generator into the wind and for adjusting the pitch of the blades. and that uses a considerable amount of electricity from the grid when there is not a lot of wind about

Talking about the power to the electronics and the pump is a trivial complaint. The power they'd use is insignificant when compared to the power generated by the windmill.

MontgomeryClift

On the subject of wind turbines, does anybody know of a reason why a large wind turbine can't be mounted on the top of a new building? You see those mock-ups of tall office buildings that may be built in Dublin, but there's no accompanying message as to how they'll be powered. Would a turbine on the roof not be a good idea? A requirement even?

Dundalk IT can power half the campus with a 26m blade turbine.
http://www.measuresoft.com/ProductsServices/Scada/Case/dkit.htm

endplate

John_C wrote:

Talking about the power to the electronics and the pump is a trivial complaint. The power they'd use is insignificant when compared to the power generated by the windmill.

Yeah the turbines and blades are very light so they don't need much hydraulic power. Maybe you should take a drive up a mountain and see how big they are. We are talking industrial equipment here not little toys

Keeks

endplate wrote:

Yeah the turbines and blades are very light so they don't need much hydraulic power. Maybe you should take a drive up a mountain and see how big they are. We are talking industrial equipment here not little toys

Do you actually know what you are talking about or just **** stirring?

I work in the power gen industry and a few weeks ago had the opportunity to have a good look over one of these wind turbines in detail. All that was controlling the hydraulic system that controlled the movement of the blades was a 7.5kW motor and pump and some control electronics. the control electronics would power use was negligible compared to the motor and pump.

This was a turbine that could produce in excess of 2MW at 15m/s so at about 5m/s would produce about 200-400kW.

So is 7.5kW at lot of energy to use when producing between 200 and 400kW at low wind speeds?

Here is a question for the nah-sayers. How much power does a peat power station or Hydro power station or even a nuclear power plant use up while generating power?

dame

Noise? If you're 350 metres away from the wind farm, then the noise will be negligible.
Health? Light reflecting in people's windows.....are these people serious? Does the television damage their health and do they ever go to clubs? I'm no doctor but I believe there would be very little light reflected and shouldn't bother anyone except maybe an eppileptic. Anyway, when have you seen houses that near a wind farm?
Some people will argue against anything new, just for the sake of it.
Ireland has this fantastic resource of wind and we should exploit that as much as we can. Almost the entire island of Ireland has enough wind to make a wind farm viable, it's not just on the coast. Would the complainers prefer if we were building nuclear power plants or continuing to use up all the fossil fuels on the planet?

Keeks

dame wrote:

Noise? If you're 350 metres away from the wind farm, then the noise will be negligible.
Health? Light reflecting in people's windows.....are these people serious? Does the television damage their health and do they ever go to clubs? I'm no doctor but I believe there would be very little light reflected and shouldn't bother anyone except maybe an eppileptic. Anyway, when have you seen houses that near a wind farm?

Noise and light are two things that shouldnt be so flimlsy be discounted. They can have a major bearing on peoples health and well being. Despite what some people thing and say, developers of wind farms, at least the good ones do take these issues into account.

Noise can be a very funny thing to deal with. Although as we get more technical advancein turbine techology sound from wind farms is eery decreasing. But acoustics can be very funny.

I know of an example of this. It was t do with another development other than a wind farm. There was no objection to planning before hand except romne person and as you would have it after contruction of the plant serveral complaint of noise were recieved from this one person. This was put down to nimby-ism. Tests were conducted beside the plant and beside this person residence. All the tests proved that there was no sound problem. Noother person was complaing. And there were people even closer tothe plant than the one complaning.

But the complaints persisted.

To cut a long story short, there was a genuine noise complaint. But it was to do witht the acoutics of the persons house. They had had a large one piece window installed and it was acting like a large amplifer and picking up small vibrations.

As for the light issues.

It is not really a light problem. But more todo with "shadow flicker". On a sunny day if the sun was shining through the turbines blades, it would be really annoying if your house was directly behind it. It wouldeb light someone turn a torch on and off into your face 20 times a minute.

I know of a wind farm in scotland whee this is an issue. There are two turbines near an office building which could cause problems. But these turbines have special sensors installed which determine the suns position and with special software is able to calculate wheather or not it will cause a "shadow flicker" in the offices.

These issues should all be coverd in the wind farm developers Envionmental Impact Statement.

Sponge Bob

dame wrote:

Noise? If you're 350 metres away from the wind farm, then the noise will be negligible.

Yep. Been close to lots of them and they are certainly not noisy.

lostexpectation

arn't these things developed as some sort of tax write off/or over-incentivised investment further undermining the possibility they will put in the right place for the right reason

Keeks

lostexpectation wrote:

arn't these things developed as some sort of tax write off/or over-incentivised investment further undermining the possibility they will put in the right place for the right reason

What makes you say that?

Negative comments like this without any evidence dont do anything for the discussion. Its just more "pub talk".

At the moment each turbine costs approx between €1-3 million depending on size, features and supplier. The rough guide they use is €1million per MegaWatt. This doesn't include the huge cost of site works, Environmental studies, the planning process, grid connections, cable works etc. etc.etc.

There are also sizable running costs, with parts, servicing, manpower etc...

There are easier ways of righting off tax!

lostexpectation

Keeks wrote:

What makes you say that?

Negative comments like this without any evidence dont do anything for the discussion. Its just more "pub talk".

no I'd describe it as bulletin board discussion.

Keeks

Smart arsse!!

If you want to contribute to the discussion, please do. But try to make it construction and not to just make ill-informed comments or smart remarks.

If you want to pass smart or funny remarks then got to the humour board.

piraka

lostexpectation wrote:

arn't these things developed as some sort of tax write off/or over-incentivised investment further undermining the possibility they will put in the right place for the right reason

KEEKS wrote:

Negative comments like this without any evidence dont do anything for the discussion. Its just more "pub talk". .....There are also sizable running costs, with parts, servicing, manpower etc...

Come on Keeks, lostexpectation just posed a question, some people might consider the tax relief as a negative.

Running costs, such as you have described are considered expenses under normal accounting procedures and written off accordingly.

There is a tax relief scheme for wind farms set out in the Finance Act and has been extended to 2012 in the Budget for 2007

piraka

Noise? If you're 350 metres away from the wind farm, then the noise will be negligible.

Terrain, temperature, humidity, wind all affected noise and its transmission.

A lot of Environmental Impact Assesments that I have seen only give a computer generated noise impact assessment. In fact the only way to ensure that there is no noise issue is to carry out a comphehesive noise survey over a period of time ensuring that all conditions described above are covered.

Lets not forget the EU directive on management of enviromental noise as described by a report by the EPA

The purpose of the directive is to protect the quality of our acoustic environment, control and manage environmental noise in built-up areas, in public parks or other acoustically valued soundscapes (Quiet Areas) in an agglomeration and in Quiet Areas in open country.

Of course the government has chosen to ignore the open country in implementing this directive (following a tele conversation with the Dept.) and enacted the rest of the directive. I wonder why.

piraka

piraka wrote:

Terrain, temperature, humidity, wind all affected noise and its transmission.

I forget another very important factor, the height of the turbine hub above ground.

piraka

The following references are to studies on the location of wind farms.

A study by Retexo – RISP GmbH which is engaged in "marketing innovative, viable, new technology to overcome damage to the environment and improve life for today and the future" in Thuringan, Germany concludes:

"Description of location [of wind farms]: The location under consideration should first of all be wind-intensive during the whole year. /.../ Buildings, particularly housing, should not be nearer than 2 km to the wind farm."

A further study in RiverSide County California recommends that

"LU 15.9 Restrict the placement of wind turbines within 2 miles of residential development unless the applicant supplies documentation that the machine(s) will not produce low frequency impulsive noise."

piraka

Stark wrote:

They also release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere when they're built on peat bogs which they commonly are.

Under the Kyoto protocol, bogs can be considered as a carbon sink when calculating a countries CO2 emissions. In Ireland, bogs are not used as a mitigating entity in this calculation. I wonder why?

The majority of wind farms are located in upland areas due to better wind speeds. Unfortunately these areas are predominately bog.

I've read a report that states that if it is a properly managed project, a windfarm would have a carbon payback of 3 years through the loss of the carbon sink , but if not managed correctly, resulting in peat degradation this payback can be up to 20-30 years. The report excluded off site carbon costs. Remember Derrybrien bog slide. I wonder how much CO2 that slide emitted.

piraka

KEEKS wrote:

What are the certain types of birds that are affected and how are they affected?

I was out walking in the mountains one fine day a while back, watching with amazement the flight of the skylarks. They were out defending their territory against all comers. The larks were soaring up to about, I reckon, at least 40-50m.

I since discovered that there was a windfarm planned for that particular site. The first thought was that the larks were f***ed and their home was disappearing. I subsequently found out that the upland area was not the larks natural habitat and that they were forced into these areas due to intensive farming practices.

The larks have now being put on the Red List by Bird Watch Ireland as a bird species under threat.

Off course the EIA did not mention these birds, as the study was done over a period of one week in November. (That is the other fact I noticed in the EIA’s, most fauna and flora studies are carried out in winter, without any baseline. I wonder why?)

………………..and there are the Golden Eagles, who now are expanding their range and looking for new homes. They better move fast before the proliferation of the turbine, the plovers and dunlins many more that suffer habitat loss.

…………………and don’t forget the poor old bats, who can’t even see the turbine blades in the dark. (apparently they “see” the leading edge through their echo-location , but don’t “see” the trailing edge which does the damage)

dame

Wind accounts for less than 2% of the electricity entering the grid. In Germany 56% of their electricity comes from wind and in Denmark 20%. Ireland and Denmark have similar population sizes but Ireland is only at the level of their 1988 wind generation. A Wind Power Density at 50m of Class 3 (above 300W/m2) or above is recommended for wind power generation to be feasible which is basically the entire island of Ireland (including the midlands), so wind turbines could be located anywhere.

I know all about acoustics and how they can travel. Why do the Germans or the Dutch not have a problem with them?

Of course protecting wildlife is important but if we continue to pump the current levels of CO2 into the atmosphere then the birds/bats/people with a bit of light flickering for an hour or two on one or two days a year won't need to be worrying about wind turbines any more....they'll all be facing extinction anyway.


See http://www.awstruewind.com/inner/windmaps/maps/Europe/Ireland_PWR50m_26Nov03.pdf for the wind map of Ireland referred to above. Northern Ireland must be special they've no wind up there at all!

gonk

dame wrote:

In Germany 56% of their electricity comes from wind

Very hard to believe - what is your source for this figure?

Capt'n Midnight

Keeks wrote:

I work in the power gen industry and a few weeks ago had the opportunity to have a good look over one of these wind turbines in detail. All that was controlling the hydraulic system that controlled the movement of the blades was a 7.5kW motor and pump and some control electronics. the control electronics would power use was negligible compared to the motor and pump.

This was a turbine that could produce in excess of 2MW at 15m/s so at about 5m/s would produce about 200-400kW.

what % of the time would it be using the 7.5KW, I suspect the average load would be far far smaller.

dame

Oops....meant to say in parts of Germany!

professore

dame wrote:

Noise? If you're 350 metres away from the wind farm, then the noise will be negligible.
Health? Light reflecting in people's windows.....are these people serious? Does the television damage their health and do they ever go to clubs? I'm no doctor but I believe there would be very little light reflected and shouldn't bother anyone except maybe an eppileptic. Anyway, when have you seen houses that near a wind farm?
Some people will argue against anything new, just for the sake of it.
Ireland has this fantastic resource of wind and we should exploit that as much as we can. Almost the entire island of Ireland has enough wind to make a wind farm viable, it's not just on the coast. Would the complainers prefer if we were building nuclear power plants or continuing to use up all the fossil fuels on the planet?

More on health - lets look at the alternatives.

Oil and petroleum products - Asthma, carcinogens, not to mention millions dead in oil-based wars. CO2
Coal - smog, pollution, CO2, lung diseases for coal miners
Peat - destroying a unique natural resource and habitat, CO2
Gas - CO poisoning, explosive, CO2
Nuclear (fission) - Has it's problems but better than the others above IMHO

If you are a user of any of the above you have no right to criticise windfarms on health grounds.

professore

piraka wrote:

Under the Kyoto protocol, bogs can be considered as a carbon sink when calculating a countries CO2 emissions. In Ireland, bogs are not used as a mitigating entity in this calculation. I wonder why?

The majority of wind farms are located in upland areas due to better wind speeds. Unfortunately these areas are predominately bog.

I've read a report that states that if it is a properly managed project, a windfarm would have a carbon payback of 3 years through the loss of the carbon sink , but if not managed correctly, resulting in peat degradation this payback can be up to 20-30 years. The report excluded off site carbon costs. Remember Derrybrien bog slide. I wonder how much CO2 that slide emitted.

A lot less than cutting the turf and burning it in peat fired power station.

piraka

professore wrote:

A lot less than cutting the turf and burning it in peat fired power station.

I am in agreement with you. The peat power stations were development due to EU requirement on indigenous produced electricity, but the thread is about the negative impacts of wind farms

In fact the public have to support the cost of running the stations through the PSO at the end of the ESB bill.

The irony is that a certain percentage goes to green energy including wind generation.

Correct me if I’m wrong, were the recently built stations designed to burn offal and not peat.

piraka

dame wrote:

I know all about acoustics and how they can travel. Why do the Germans or the Dutch not have a problem with them?

I’m sure they do, it appears that noise is a issue in the UK

http://www.spaldingtoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=829&ArticleID=1941028

http://www.ukna.org.uk/index_files/page0015.htm

Of course protecting wildlife is important but if we continue to pump the current levels of CO2 into the atmosphere then the birds/bats/people with a bit of light flickering for an hour or two on one or two days a year won't need to be worrying about wind turbines any more....they'll all be facing extinction anyway.

Can you please explain how with increased CO2 wildlife faces extinction?

I understand the main threat to wildlife at present, is habitat loss

gonk

piraka wrote:

Can you please explain how with increased CO2 wildlife faces extinction?

I understand the main threat to wildlife at present, is habitat loss

Increased CO2 = climate change = habitat loss.

QED!

piraka

gonk wrote:

Increased CO2 = climate change = habitat loss.

QED!

How is CO2 changing the climate

piraka

gonk wrote:

Increased CO2 = climate change = habitat loss.

QED!

How is CO2 changing the climate

gonk

piraka wrote:

How is CO2 changing the climate

Well, this is a massive topic which is too big to explain in this post, but in essence CO2 in the atmosphere acts as an insulator keeping heat from escaping into space.

To find out more, a pretty good place to begin is the Stern Review on the economics of climate change, published by the UK government last year.

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm

There's a lot to it, but have a look at the introduction and executive summary to start.

piraka

gonk wrote:

Well, this is a massive topic which is too big to explain in this post, but in essence CO2 in the atmosphere acts as an insulator keeping heat from escaping into space.

To find out more, a pretty good place to begin is the Stern Review on the economics of climate change, published by the UK government last year.

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm

There's a lot to it, but have a look at the introduction and executive summary to start.

I have read the Stern report, but for every Stern report there is an opposite
as presented in World Economics

Still does not answer my question.

gonk

piraka wrote:

Still does not answer my question.

Yes it does, but I think it's clear from your response that you are only interested in answers which concur with what you already have in mind.

The overwhelming scientific consensus is that climate change is real and that it is to a very large extent human-caused. There are alternative views, as you point out, but the trouble is if we wait until we have 100% certainty it will be too late to take any remedial steps.

I'll leave it at that and just agree to differ with you.

piraka

gonk wrote:

Yes it does, but I think it's clear from your response that you are only interested in answers which concur with what you already have in mind.

The overwhelming scientific consensus is that climate change is real and that it is to a very large extent human-caused. There are alternative views, as you point out, but the trouble is if we wait until we have 100% certainty it will be too late to take any remedial steps.

I'll leave it at that and just agree to differ with you.

It doesn't, as the reference you have given me is related to the economics of climate change based on climate models that have being presented in the IPCC.

Also in the IPCC there is a graph, which sets out how much we don't know about the climate.

Here is a snippet reference to key weather phenomena that affects our little island, in it the authors describe the following:

The North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) has a profound effect on winter climate variability around the Atlantic basin. Strengthening of the NAO in recent decades has altered surface climate in these regions at a rate far in excess of global mean warming. However, only weak NAO trends are reproduced in climate simulations of the 20th Century, even with prescribed climate forcings and historical seasurface conditions. Here we show that the unexplained strengthening of the NAO can be fully simulated in a climate model by imposing observed trends in the lower stratosphere.

Here is another paper relating to solar forcing of the climate

Abstract
We have shown in earlier studies the size of the changes in the lower
stratosphere which can be attributed to the 11-year sunspot cycle (SSC).
We showed further that in order to detect the solar signal it is necessary
to group the data according to the phase of the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation
(QBO). Although this is valid throughout the year it was always obvious
that the effect of the SSC and the QBO on the stratosphere was largest
during the northern winters (January/February).
Here we extend our first study (Labitzke 1987) by using additional data.
Instead of 30 years of data, we now have 65 years. Results for the entire
data set fully confirm the early findings and suggest a signicant effect of
the SSC on the strength of the stratospheric polar vortex and mean meriodional circulation

From what I read there is lot of modelling of climate with no hard evidence that CO2 is causing climate change. It is a greenhouse gas as are others such as CFC's, N2O and CH4 so it can contribute to global warming, but there are other natural oscillations that are causing warming as well.

Of course the wind energy companies toss around global warming and climate change with gay abandonment to further their cause.

I do believe that global community needs to reduce emissions in order to preserve the planet for future generations, but I don't believe all I read.

Take for example Eco Eye on RTE last week on climate change, how many atmospheric scientists or climatologists presented on that program.

piraka

gonk wrote:

Increased CO2 = climate change = habitat loss.

QED!

Ok I'll rephrase the question. There have been eras of elevated CO2 comparable and greater to what we are experiencing now. How many extinctions in the past, due to climate change, were related to elevated CO2.

dame

Piraka, where would you prefer to get your electricity from? You sound like an "alright as long as it's not in my backyard" type. If we're not to put up wind turbines would you prefer if we built a few nuclear power stations around the country? Or if we built a few dams and flooded a few valleys? Or if we stripped every last square metre of bog in the country?

Or we could just stop producing electricity in this country at all and buy it in from abroad (at enormous cost) and to hell with climate/habitat effects wherever it's coming from? Maybe we should check where you go on holidays before we make that decision....what countries/continents would you like to see used? Failing that you'd better stop arguing and plug out your computer...the electricity has to come from somewhere so we'd better try and find a renewable source. It just so happens that wind is the most readily available and easily harnessable of the renewable energy sources available in this country. If we're not to use it then what are we to use?

Everything we do has an impact. Where do you live? Is your house on or near that hillside you talked about walking on? Did a tree/some grass get disturbed to build it? Did you worry then about the habitat you were impacting on?

There are lots of sources of noise. Do you drive through the countryside or do you cycle everywhere? Do you use a lawnmower or do you go out with a sycthe? Do you ever think about anything like that or does wind simply concern you because there is a proposal to build a wind farm near you?

piraka

Dame,
……………………….and the title of the thread is, wait for it, Negative effects of Wind Farms!!!!!!!!!!

What have I posted…………………negative effects of Wind farms.

You have not presented a compelling argument against the negative effects of wind farms. You can at least disprove what I’ve posted with less of the ad hominem.

Believe nothing just because a so-called wise person said it. Believe nothing just because a belief is generally held. Believe nothing just because it is said in ancient books. Believe nothing just because it is said to be of divine origin. Believe nothing just because someone else believes it. Believe only what you yourself test and judge to be true - Buddha

dame

piraka wrote:

Dame,
……………………….and the title of the thread is, wait for it, Negative effects of Wind Farms!!!!!!!!!!

What have I posted…………………negative effects of Wind farms.

You have not presented a compelling argument against the negative effects of wind farms. You can at least disprove what I’ve posted with less of the ad hominem.

Well piraka, for every thread title there will be those who agree with it and those who don't. Your situation is relevant as you want electricity but you don't seem to want it generated on your own doorstep and are not interested in the most feasible renewable energy source available for Ireland. Pointing that out to you may be arguing ad hominem but you simply attack every other valid point made (using things you've found on the internet).

I'd like to recommend two books; an Open University book called "Renewable Energy", edited by Godfrey Boyle and "The Energy Age" by Kyriakides. Both are very recent publications and are very informative on all sorts of energy sources, their pros and their cons. There are many more books on the subject out there but these are two particularly good ones that I have actually read.

Overwhelmingly, engineers and those who study power generation are of the opinion that the benefits of wind power far outweigh the negative effects. You may have noticed that the internet is a good source of information on all sorts of topics but it cannot be depended on for reliable facts or proof of anything, hence the reason why it is not cited in quality technical journals.

Keeks

piraka and dame if you want to talk about anything else but the "Negative effects of Wind Farms" then please start another topic.

Any other off-topic discussions on this thread will be deleted

As to Capt'n Midnight question, I think the hydraulic pump runs 24/7. Probably for safety reasons. Will check it out and get back to you.

Even so if it was going 24/7 @7.5kW it is a small price to pay for producing 2MW

311

Theres something that I thought might happen with the use of too many windfarms ,forgive me if I seem bananas.
It's obvious to me that bad weather is the planets way of fixing itself.
So all the bad weather and hurricanes are the pressures that exist because of the planet heating up.
So putting loads of windfarms up all over the place ,takes power out of this cycle and slows weather patterns down .
If this did happen ,would it not add to the problem?

JosephQ

I live not far from a wind farm in Scotland Eaglesham Moor. The people who complained about it at the planning stages were only interested in what would in cost them in value of thier house. They tried to use all sort of arguements such as the effects on bird life ect. I intended to build a house soon in Donegal I call it the wind capital of the world and intend to put up a wind turbine for my own use and go off grid if everybody did this it would reduce CO2 emmissions and reliabilty on having to build more power stations of any kind. Also should companies who build new build offices and factories be obliged to either build a wind turbine/s to off set thier use of electricty. It would also reduce thier costs in the long run

dame

JosephQ wrote:

I live not far from a wind farm in Scotland Eaglesham Moor. The people who complained about it at the planning stages were only interested in what would in cost them in value of thier house. They tried to use all sort of arguements such as the effects on bird life ect. I intended to build a house soon in Donegal I call it the wind capital of the world and intend to put up a wind turbine for my own use and go off grid if everybody did this it would reduce CO2 emmissions and reliabilty on having to build more power stations of any kind. Also should companies who build new build offices and factories be obliged to either build a wind turbine/s to off set thier use of electricty. It would also reduce thier costs in the long run

Excellent idea JosephQ. The planning stage is the best time to consider all these aspects and plan for energy efficiency. Look into passive houses or zero-energy houses. There all sorts of things that could be incorporated to make a house more "green". There are houses in Colorado (very cold climate, snow), that actually take all of their heat from solar gains. Best of luck with your new house. I hope you have many happy years here in Ireland.