Why are wind turbines always white

Cookie_Monster

As the title states, why are they not built in other colours too?

One of the frequent objections to wind farms is their visual impact on the landscape, which is understandable since white stands out clearly from miles away.

Would one way of lessening this be to paint them more appropriate "natural" colour to blend in better, i.e. light blue or turquoise to blend better with sea/sky? Local to me there is a house that backs onto the bay and it is painted blue/ aquamarine type colour and the greatly lessens the impact it has on the backdrop of the sea view. Or alternatively turn them into "art" painting them random colours or multiple colours/designs?

I understand safety concerns for shipping and aircraft need to be taken into account as such white is a good colour for this to make them easier to see, but in this case could large wind farms not have only their perimeter turbines in white and the rest camouflaged/decorated?

Any thoughts?

nomadic

Birds being able to see them would be another factor i'd say. White being the least visually intrusive colour.

Cookie_Monster

nomadic wrote: »

White being the least visually intrusive colour.

I'd think the opposite, white is a very intrusive colour, particularly for on shore farms where there would be little white in the natural landscape

nomadic

Sure but you need the colour to stand out. White being the most acceptable of available colours.

Alun

Rather oddly, during WW2, they used to paint fighter aircraft they used for reconnaissance purposes PINK so as not to stand out too much in the sky. They reached this rather odd conclusion by experiment apparently, and painting them white, grey or blue didn't achieve the same effect.

Cookie_Monster

Alun wrote: »

Rather oddly, during WW2, they used to paint fighter aircraft they used for reconnaissance purposes PINK so as not to stand out too much in the sky. They reached this rather odd conclusion by experiment apparently, and painting them white, grey or blue didn't achieve the same effect.

Even in your post the pink blends in very well:)

cat&mouse

To do with the Clowds & Sun. When it'suny (well irish sun iif?) you can't see the turbines. Try it when the sun comes out , you won't see the turbines, as if they were green they would stand out . Seriously, not joking

amcalester

Alun wrote: »

Rather oddly, during WW2, they used to paint fighter aircraft they used for reconnaissance purposes PINK so as not to stand out too much in the sky. They reached this rather odd conclusion by experiment apparently, and painting them white, grey or blue didn't achieve the same effect.

Been watching QI by any chance?

Macha

Actually , they paint the bottom of them green to blend in with the grass. As my lecturer put it - like putting lipstick on a pig. This is a photo of a turbine in the Arklow Bank

I don't see any problem with them being white - I think they're nice to look at. Failte Ireland did a survey of tourists and they consider them a sign of a developed, sustainable country.

fatherbuzcagney

Five new wind turbines just sprang up out of the ground about a mile from where i live in south kilkenny with the bottoms painted green, it looks like they grew there. They look beautiful and cant wait to see them in action. Much rather be looking at them than ugly grey pylons everywhere. I taught it was the rotating blades that were a danger to birds rather than the white/green towers?

Macha

fatherbuzcagney wrote: »

I taught it was the rotating blades that were a danger to birds rather than the white/green towers?

It's a common myth that wind turbines are dangerous to birds on any significant scale (as compared to all that habitat loss, pollution and er...hunting?)

slagger

taconnol wrote: »

Actually , they paint the bottom of them green to blend in with the grass. As my lecturer put it - like putting lipstick on a pig. This is a photo of a turbine in the Arklow Bank

I don't see any problem with them being white - I think they're nice to look at. Failte Ireland did a survey of tourists and they consider them a sign of a developed, sustainable country.

Do you have a link to that survey?

White is an intrusive colour. Airtricity's Kings mountain wind generating plant in Sligo can be seen from Killala in Co. Mayo a distance of about 20km

Macha

I don't. I was at a presentation by the head of the Environmental department in Failte Ireland.

They have reseach data on their website, but I'm not sure if it's up yet as it was quite recently.

slagger

taconnol wrote: »

It's a common myth that wind turbines are dangerous to birds on any significant scale (as compared to all that habitat loss, pollution and er...hunting?)

A singe mortality of an endangered species can have quite a significant effect on a population.

Don’t for get the bats

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14593

That is disingenuous to the hunters. The majority of them (especially local gun clubs) in my opinion are far more committed environmentalists than the desk jockey environmental scientist who considers a three-day study of a 100 hectares of upland in the middle of winter sufficient to complete a report for the Flora and fauna section of an Environmental Impact Assessment for a wind generating station.

Macha

Sorry slagger, but you're flogging a dead horse. No expert worth their salt is banging on about bird mortalities and wind turbines. And I can tell right now, no matter what I post, you're not going to change your mind.

Your attempt to portray hunters as more environmentally committed than "desk jockey" environmentalists (as if no one can get an academic or professional qualification in environmental
studies...) is weak.

Whatever about the intrusiveness of white turbines, I personally think that the effects of climate change and the offset pollution from burning fossil fuels would be just a little bit more intrusive.

slagger

taconnol wrote: »

I don't. I was at a presentation by the head of the Environmental department in Failte Ireland.

They have reseach data on their website, but I'm not sure if it's up yet as it was quite recently.

That's interesting as I was in conservation with the enviromental section of Failte Ireland and they told me that they were concerned about the proliferation of wind farms on the west coast Ireland

Macha

slagger wrote: »

That's interesting as I was in conservation with the enviromental section of Failte Ireland and they told me that they were concerned about the proliferation of wind farms on the west coast Ireland

What do you mean you were "in conservation" - do you mean conversation? and when?

The whole point of the research was not to base important decisions on hunches, guesses, opinions or gut instincts but to base them on real data. And the result was that tourists do not mind wind turbines, in fact they like them.

Talk to Paddy Mathews and he'll tell you about it.

slagger

taconnol wrote: »

Sorry slagger, but you're flogging a dead horse. No expert worth their salt is banging on about bird mortalities and wind turbines. And I can tell right now, no matter what I post, you're not going to change your mind.

http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/objection_tcm9-152290.pdf

taconnol wrote:

Your attempt to portray hunters as more environmentally committed than "desk jockey" environmentalists (as if no one can get an academic or professional qualification in environmental
studies...) is weak.

Have you ever talked to members of local gun clubs on the work that they complete (without funding and on their own time)?

Whatever about the intrusiveness of white turbines, I personally think that the effects of climate change and the offset pollution from burning fossil fuels would be just a little bit more intrusive.

The evidence is pointing to limited co2 mitigation by wind power generating stations. Is it worth destroying upland environments for these stations?

slagger

taconnol wrote: »

What do you mean you were "in conservation" - do you mean conversation? and when?

The whole point of the research was not to base important decisions on hunches, guesses, opinions or gut instincts but to base them on real data. And the result was that tourists do not mind wind turbines, in fact they like them.

Yes I mean converstion. Last September 2008. Where's the evidence that tourist do not mind wind turbines

Cookie_Monster

taconnol wrote: »

Actually , they paint the bottom of them green to blend in with the grass. As my lecturer put it - like putting lipstick on a pig. This is a photo of a turbine in the Arklow Bank

I don't see any problem with them being white - I think they're nice to look at. Failte Ireland did a survey of tourists and they consider them a sign of a developed, sustainable country.

Good pic - thanks.

I have no problem really with them being white. I just think it would be novel/different if they painted some different colours in certain locations. A single red/yellow (for example) turbine amongst a load of white ones would look quite good IMO. Lend an artsy look to the whole farm.

slagger

A quick search found the following:

The future of Irish tourism is inextricably linked to the quality of the environment. Our scenic landscapes, coastline, rivers and lakes,and cultural heritage are the bedrock upon which Irish tourism has been built. The economic viability and competitiveness of the Irish tourism industry can only be sustained if the quality of these resources is maintained. Now, more than ever, Ireland’s tourism industry relies on strong and appropriate environmental policies.

http://www.failteireland.ie/getdoc/90fe82c6-fd23-497e-885b-72e8f37bf91f/Failte-Ireland-s-Environmental-Action-Plan-200-(1)

http://www.dcenr.gov.ie/NR/rdonlyres/54C78A1E-4E96-4E28-A77A-3226220DF2FC/27125/FailteIreland.pdf

Alun

amcalester wrote: »

Been watching QI by any chance?

YEP! I've been rumbled

ChocolateSauce

Racism?

Macha

slagger wrote: »

http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/objection_tcm9-152290.pdf

If you note, most of that document are claims of what will happen in the future, not what has happened in the past. ie, it is speculation.

I would consider this to be a more impartial, authoritave review of the issues:
http://www.sei.ie/uploadedfiles/RenewableEnergy/AssessmentMethodologyBirdsIreland.pdf

A quote from the section dealing with collisions:

Overall it is clear that birds are generally able to avoid collisions and do not simply blindly fly into wind turbines. Collision rates typically in range of only 1 in 1,000-10,000 bird flights through wind farm, even in studies such as Zeebrugge where relatively high numbers of collisions have been reported. In some cases they are considerably lower, such as at the offshore wind farm at Utgrunden, where over 500,000 eider flights through the wind farm study area have been observed without a single collision being seen (Petterson and Stalin 2003). Studies using radar tracking have helped to provide further information on birds’ general ability to avoid collisions. Dirksen et al. (1998), for example, showed that Pochard Aythya ferina and Tufted Duck Aythya fuligula flew regularly through a wind farm in the Netherlands at night under moonlight but flew around the turbines at greater distance from them when dark and foggy.

slagger wrote: »

Have you ever talked to members of local gun clubs on the work that they complete (without funding and on their own time)?

No. I'm not the one setting up the "race" between hunters and environmentalists. I think hunting is a very environmentally friendly activity and is certainly a better way of getting food than buying it in Tesco's. There have been issues with some hunters, such as those who want licences for deer in Kerry but I like to think they're in the minority.

slagger wrote: »

The evidence is pointing to limited co2 mitigation by wind power generating stations. Is it worth destroying upland environments for these stations?

Do you have stats to back that up?
Explain how wind turbines "destroy" upland environments.

slagger wrote: »

Yes I mean converstion. Last September 2008. Where's the evidence that tourist do not mind wind turbines

Well the research was completed in mid-October. I have already stated that it doesn't appear to be available on their website yet. You're more than welcome to ring up, ask to speak to Paddy Matthews and he'll tell you all about it. I don't see what else I can do.

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

I have no problem really with them being white. I just think it would be novel/different if they painted some different colours in certain locations. A single red/yellow (for example) turbine amongst a load of white ones would look quite good IMO. Lend an artsy look to the whole farm.

I'd quite like that too but can you imagine the reaction from the locals??

slagger wrote: »

A quick search found the following:

http://www.failteireland.ie/getdoc/90fe82c6-fd23-497e-885b-72e8f37bf91f/Failte-Ireland-s-Environmental-Action-Plan-200-(1)

http://www.dcenr.gov.ie/NR/rdonlyres/54C78A1E-4E96-4E28-A77A-3226220DF2FC/27125/FailteIreland.pdf

The first document dates back to 2007 or earlier so won't have benefited from the new research.

And as you can guess, nor did the second document, which dates back to 2006. Paddy himself expressed surprise about the results of the survey, saying that Failte Ireland would have to rethink some of their stances but that that was the point of carrying out the research

Oh wait...what's this..??

http://www.failteireland.ie/getdoc/33ee5fd0-394a-4a91-a153-77d9b728be29/Wind-Farm-P-D-F

Capt'n Midnight

slagger wrote: »

The evidence is pointing to limited co2 mitigation by wind power generating stations. Is it worth destroying upland environments for these stations?

Wasn't there a claim that the ESB wind farms took 3 months to break even on carbon

Cookie_Monster

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Wasn't there a claim that the ESB wind farms took 3 months to break even on carbon

IIRC it talked about in other thread on here somewhere and was around that figure too.

Cow Moolester

slagger wrote: »

Yes I mean converstion. Last September 2008. Where's the evidence that tourist do not mind wind turbines

http://www.bwea.com/media/news/tourism.html

Not specifically about Ireland but it still applies here.

Nine out of ten tourists visiting some of Scotland's top beauty spots say the presence of wind farms makes no difference to the enjoyment of their holiday, and twice as many people would return to an area because of the presence of a wind farm than would stay away, according to a poll carried out by MORI Scotland.

slagger

Cow Moolester wrote: »

http://www.bwea.com/media/news/tourism.html

Not specifically about Ireland but it still applies here.

British wind energy association not entirely impartial.

http://www.swap.org.uk/index.asp?pageid=86547

slagger

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Wasn't there a claim that the ESB wind farms took 3 months to break even on carbon

Are you referring to the payback on the development?

No problem with that as there is a well written report that refers to 3 to six months carbon payback on development. Can't find the link, but its not what I am referring too.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/229725/0062213.pdf

(not the specfic report. It is another report by the scottish gov. just can't find in my files!!)

slagger

tannacol haven't forgotten about you will reply to your posts later

Matt Simis

slagger wrote: »

tannacol haven't forgotten about you will reply to your posts later

You (and Oldtree) realise there is an EDIT function right?

slagger

I would consider this to be a more impartial, authoritave review of the issues:
http://www.sei.ie/uploadedfiles/RenewableEnergy/AssessmentMethodologyBirdsIreland.pdf

Considering the mission statement of SEI one cannot call them impartial!!

Our Mission

Our mission is to promote and assist the development of sustainable energy in Ireland
advancing the development and competitive deployment of renewable sources of energy and combined heat and power

That SEI report is dated from 2003!!

The paper’s to which the report refers too are from 1992 to 2002.
We are now in 2009, having larger wind turbines in greater concentrations. Wind generating power plants were fewer in number the timeframe of the report you have referenced.

http://www.wildlifejournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.21932F2007-032"
http://www.windwatch.org/documents/wpcontent/uploads/barrios_japplecol_04.pdf

Do you have stats to back that up?

http://www.eirgrid.com/EirgridPortal/uploads/Publications/GAR%202009-2015.pdf

Section 2.3(b) page 15 read on
2.3(b) Wind – a variable energy source
The inherently variable nature of wind power makes it necessary to analyse its adequacy impact differently from that of other generation units. The contribution of wind power to generation adequacy is referred to as the capacity credit of wind. This capacity credit has been determined by subtracting a forecast of wind’s half hourly generated output from the customer electricity demand curve. The use of this lower demand curve, (net of wind output), results in an improved adequacy position. The amount of conventional plant which leaves the system with the same improvement in adequacy as the net load curve is taken to be the capacity credit of wind.
Capacity credit of wind is limited
Figure 2-2 Capacity credit of wind generation.

Analysis based on 2006 wind data established that this capacity credit is reasonably significant at low levels of wind penetration, but the benefit tends towards saturationas wind penetration levels increase
Figure 4-7 Average capacity factor for installed wind capacity.
Furthermore the contribution of WPG towards generation adequacy, (i.e. Capacity Credit of WPG), as a percentage of installed capacity has inevitably declined as the installed WPG has grown. In fact, while installed WPG capacity has increased by 36% per annum percentage of installed WPG capacity), has fallen from 34 to 23 %, (see Figure 4-8). As outlined in Section 2.3(b), this is due to the inherent inability of WPG to behave as a number of fully independent power plants.

Explain how wind turbines "destroy" upland environments.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19125591.600-the-hidden-cost-of-wind-turbines.html
http://friendsoftheirishenvironment.net/?do=friendswork&action=view&id=711
http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0703/derrybrien.html"]http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0703/derrybrien.html
http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2009/01/25/story38931.asp
http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2009/01/25/story38931.asp

Oh wait...what's this..??
http://www.failteireland.ie/getdoc/33ee5fd0-394a-4a91-a153-77d9b728be29/Wind-Farm-P-D-F

From the findings

Looking across all sites , the numbers claiming a positive impact on the landscape due to the wind farms are greater than those claiming a negative impact, in all cases. However, there is definitely a greater sensitivity with regard to wind farms potentially sited in perceived more beautiful landscapes, identified as Coastal, Mountain or Farmland.

I wonder what the attitude will be when the tourists come back to find 10 wind turbines every couple of kilometres in the above identified sensitive areas?

Cabaal

fatherbuzcagney wrote: »

Five new wind turbines just sprang up out of the ground about a mile from where i live in south kilkenny with the bottoms painted green, it looks like they grew there. They look beautiful and cant wait to see them in action. Much rather be looking at them than ugly grey pylons everywhere. I taught it was the rotating blades that were a danger to birds rather than the white/green towers?

Where in Kilkenny are they?

Macha

slagger wrote: »

Considering the mission statement of SEI one cannot call them impartial!!

Unless you provide concrete proof of any bias, this insinuation is pointless.

slagger wrote: »

That SEI report is dated from 2003!!

The paper’s to which the report refers too are from 1992 to 2002.
We are now in 2009, having larger wind turbines in greater concentrations. Wind generating power plants were fewer in number the timeframe of the report you have referenced.

And? It is hardly surprising that there are more windfarms now than in 2003. It doesn't detract from the findings of the report.

This is ironic because the initial sources you provided were older than mine.

slagger wrote: »

http://www.wildlifejournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.21932F2007-032"
http://www.windwatch.org/documents/wpcontent/uploads/barrios_japplecol_04.pdf

I love it. SEI is biased but you're perfectly happy quoting wildlife organisations and wind farm sceptics?

slagger wrote: »

http://www.eirgrid.com/EirgridPortal/uploads/Publications/GAR%202009-2015.pdf

Thankyou for linking to an 80 page document and not bother to quote the relevant section :rolleyes:

slagger wrote: »

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19125591.600-the-hidden-cost-of-wind-turbines.html
http://friendsoftheirishenvironment.net/?do=friendswork&action=view&id=711
http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0703/derrybrien.html"]http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0703/derrybrien.html
http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2009/01/25/story38931.asp
http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2009/01/25/story38931.asp

This is just getting lazy. You want to be read through all your links? Why don't you make your argument and use your links as sources.

slagger wrote: »

I wonder what the attitude will be when the tourists come back to find 10 wind turbines every couple of kilometres in the above identified sensitive areas?

Stupid comment and ridiculous scaremongering. Try sticking to the facts - you might hold onto a shred of credibility as someone interested in debating rather than just shouting down the other person.

There is no doubt that the position of windfarms has to be carefully considered. But the idea that tourists and Irish people don't like them is just plain wrong.

fatherbuzcagney

tullagher, if you are going from waterford to new ross you can see them from main road

slagger

Taconnol. Thats an incredible ignorant post. Truth hurts. It shows how much you really know about the wind power generation in Ireland, nada.

Cookie_Monster

slagger wrote: »

Taconnol. Thats an incredible ignorant post. Truth hurts. It shows how much you really know about the wind power generation in Ireland, nada.

Take it elsewhere will ya, this is a partially serious debate over the colour not the fundamental principles of wind power:rolleyes:

slagger

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Take it elsewhere will ya, this is a partially serious debate over the colour not the fundamental principles of wind power:rolleyes:

Yeah your right it is a very deep, serious and meaningful discussion on colour of turbines

I've never gotten why people have such a problem with white turbines. I actually think they look quite good and can actually give the area a look of being modern and green.


Then again there's always some wanker with too much time on their hands to not be complaining about some sort of minor issue. I mean, so what if the sea is black and the sky is brown....****.

Cookie_Monster

slagger wrote: »

Yeah your right it is a very deep, serious and meaningful discussion on colour of turbines

Yes, yes it is:D

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

I've never gotten why people have such a problem with white turbines. I actually think they look quite good and can actually give the area a look of being modern and green.

Then again there's always some wanker with too much time on their hands to not be complaining about some sort of minor issue. I mean, so what if the sea is black and the sky is brown....****.

I've no problem with them just wondering why they are always white. It just seems a bit odd as nearly every other mass produced item/machine comes in various colours.

Dayglow Green FTW:pac:

maniac101

OP, if you get up close to them, you'll see that, more often than not, they're light grey rather than white. Light grey is considered to be the least visually intrusive colour for the Irish environment, according to the IWEA.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Wasn't there a claim that the ESB wind farms took 3 months to break even on carbon

All CO2 calculations carried out by wind farm developers ignore the high concentration of CO2 in peat bogs and omit the release of CO2 resulting from clearing of peat for site works from their calculations. If they included peat in their calculations, the CO2 payback period would be a large multiple of the above figure. In national statistics, the CO2 emissions associated with energy generated from wind are taken to be zero! From a technical view, this is obviously incorrect, although there are some valid non-technical arguments why the zero figure is used.

maniac101

taconnol wrote: »

I would consider this to be a more impartial, authoritave review of the issues:
http://www.sei.ie/uploadedfiles/RenewableEnergy/AssessmentMethodologyBirdsIreland.pdf

The report contains no Irish data whatsoever. Although it's an SEI publication, it was compiled by individuals in the UK and uses data from the UK and the rest of the world. This report inadvertantly highlights the absence of meaningful impartial reseach on the impact of onshore turbines on fauna and on the environment in general in Ireland.

The report doesn't mention that there are fewer than 130 pairs of hen harriers in the south of Ireland, compared to over 300 in 1970, and that their dwindling habitat is now shared with current and proposed wind farm developments. Instead, the report refers to some birds that are not native to this island and are rarely or never seen here.

What the report does give is a meaningful assessment procedure for inclusion in Environmental Impact Assessments. However, the proposed procedure is largely ignored by developers in their Environmental Impact Statements and by councils in their assessment procedures, leaving it to private individuals (whom some here might label "cranks") to appeal planning permission rulings to An Bord Pleanala.

taconnol wrote: »

It's a common myth that wind turbines are dangerous to birds on any significant scale (as compared to all that habitat loss, pollution and er...hunting?)

This is truely a straw man. It's not as if it's a choice between wind turbines and hunting. By that logic, you could compare the number of people who die on the country's roads with the number of people who die from cancer, for instance, and thereby dismiss road safety as insignificant.

Cookie_Monster

maniac101 wrote: »

All CO2 calculations carried out by wind farm developers ignore the high concentration of CO2 in peat bogs and omit the release of CO2 resulting from clearing of peat for site works from their calculations..

Even from all those off shore ones?:D