Why wind farms are key to sustainable energy in the 21st century
Until now, I was fairly undecided about wind farm technology and whether it was worthwhile given the large lobby against all wind farm development. This however has all changed since a planning application was submitted to build a wind farm fairly near to my home.
In the past, I largely agreed that wind farms, particularly on-shore ones, were an eye-sore, were unreliable with electricity generating times (i.e. when the wind doesn’t blow, there’s no power being generated) and that they were noisy.
However, an application has been submitted to my local council to build a wind farm at Reeves Hill. I was tempted to go down the typical “not in my back yard” route but instead stepped back and looked at the situation for what it is:
1) Wind farms are not permanent. They last up to about 25 years before they have to be replaced. If they really were an eye-sore, then when the plans were resubmitted in 25 years time, they wouldn’t get through.
2) Every little helps (no I’m not talking about Tesco). Even if the wind turbines don’t generate electricity all of the time, when they are generating power then it’s being fed into the national grid and helping to reduce the load on fossil fueled power stations. When producing energy, the 4 wind turbines could produce enough energy to power up to about 7000 homes in the area.
3) Everyone needs to make sacrifices to prevent devastating climate change. We might not like it, but having wind farms on the horizon may be a necessary sacrifice to make - wind farms are only temporary, climate change is permanent (well certainly more long term than the affect of wind turbines on the landscape).
The anti-wind turbine lobby’s main problem with wind farms is that they are an “eye sore” on the landscape. Who said it is? I think it’s a matter of opinion. I had a look at several photographs that showed what the wind turbines (4 of them) would look like if they were built. In fact, I think they would be an added feature to the landscape, as opposed to something that ruins it. In fact, the hill as it is at the moment looks bare without these wind turbines!
I just hope that these get through the planning stage and we can see them built!
April 6th, 2008 at 5:24 am
Dear Dan
You are misinformed. Your first point is not logical. If planning permission is to be refused in 25 years time on the grounds that the turbines are an eyesore why should they get permission now? Your second point fails to address the issue of gas generators being on spinning back up all the time that wind generators are working. I suggest you do a little more research and refer you to Dr.J.R.Etherington’s paper on the country guardian website. If you google ‘Wind farms the case against’ you will get a mass of information. Another site of interest is The North Texas Wind Resistance Alliance. Although their circumstances are not quite the same as ours there are some good points there.
As far as your third point is concerned…we are all trying to be green but we should not sacrifice our countryside to a system that does not work. There are many other forms of renewable energy and wind farms are little more than ’subsidy factories’.
Nimbyism does not come into the argument. These locations are for all the people, not just you, although fighting to protect them is usually left to the locals. You should not believe that the value of your property and your general quality of life would not be affected by such monstrous visual intrusions.
‘Every little helps’ is a silly expression. Trying to reduce CO2 emissions by wind generation of electricity has been likened to attempting to empty the Atlantic with a teaspoon. If we want to be effective we must think big, and uncomfortable and dull as it may seem, reduction of consumption is by far the most effective, and cost effective, way of reducing emissions. Don’t be ‘greenwashed’ by the wind farming lobby.
Yours
S C Brown
April 8th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
1) I have not been “greenwashed” at all by the “wind farming lobby”. Only say 6 months ago (or 12 months anyway), I was even considering that the current climate change we are seeing was 100% natural and that CO2 was not the cause of climate change anyway. I haven’t been “greenwashed” at all - I’m just enthusiastic about renewable energy, of which wind energy is 1 possibility.
2) Well I don’t think that these wind farms do spoil the look of the countryside (not where these will be placed). As I said, if people in the future do think that these are eye sores then planning permission won’t get through in 25 years time. At the moment, I don’t think these temporary constructions will ruin the look of the countryside.
3) I did not say that wind farms are the only means of moving towards a sustainable future. Of course reduction of energy use comes in, as does other types of renewable energy production including tidal barrages, hydroelectricity and solar power. However, wind farms will contribute to overall energy production even though they don’t run all of the time. Energy demand is greatest in winter when it is dark and cold and this is when it is windiest. Also, if there was a national network of wind farms, then energy would be produced most of the time since even if the wind isn’t blowing in one place, it may be in another. Lets also consider the possibilities of offshore wind farms, which cause even less visual pollution. There has even been a recent proposal that wind could be stored in “bags” underneath the see while the wind was blowing and then retrieved from them when it wasn’t.
I think it would be very shortsighted to rule out the importance of wind energy in contributing towards sustainable energy production in the future.
April 10th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Nimby, or not-in-my-back-yard can be tempting … but ultimately it seems to help individual neighborhoods but hurt a larger community in general.
When I lived in San Francisco, I’d drive over the Altimont Pass from time to time. This was the first wind farm I’d seen in person, about a decade ago, with thousands of tall windmills scattered around the mountaintops. Mind you, these would have been more foothills than mountains if they were closer to the Sierra; not terribly picturesque to start with. The generators themselves are surreal, but not terribly ugly. And it made that part of the drive stand out compared to the rest of the side of the freeway.
I’d be opposed to putting them in the middle of Yellowstone because of the eye-sore factor, but that’s not a good enough reason to prevent them from being anywhere. I think The Lake District would be one of the closer things to a parallel on your side of the pond…?
April 11th, 2008 at 4:57 am
Yes the Lake District would be something similar to Yellowstone really in the natural beauty context - putting them in either place would obviously be a bad idea.
However, I think putting them in some areas like where I live would be a benefit to the area - Mid Wales is hardly “unspoilt” and I think putting up these temporary structures would not have a negative long term effect.
April 12th, 2008 at 9:53 am
Dear Dan
Your reply of April 8th does not address the real issue, which I reiterate, WIND ENERGY IS NOT GREEN.
In your reply to Forrest of the 11th April you fall into the trap of suggesting that since an area (in this case mid Wales) is “hardly unspoilt” it is fine to continue to rape it. This is a specious argument. Mid Wales IS spoiled by hideous and fairly useless turbines, but we should do all we can to protect the qualities that still exist. The wind project that I object to is not in mid Wales but in an area of unspoiled beauty. Incidentally it is very close to the South Shropshire Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Are we to ruin the whole of the UK because some parts of it are already below par?
Again, I stress that the whole debate about climate change and renewable energy is a scientific one. You proudly say that you have made a U turn in the last 12 months. So what! The science has not changed.
In the same paragraph, you as do many others, confuse two issues. Climate change is one issue and how to combat it is another. The Green Lobby is far too quick to preach the doomsday scenario and then use it to justify any crazed potential solution. They all sound marvellous, initially, until someone does a little more research. Think about the much vaunted idea that we could “seed” the seas with iron filings and thereby cure all our climate problems. It was soon exposed as bad science and to be impractical on a cosmic scale. If you had done Dr Etherington the honour of reading his paper you would have discovered that the same is true of wind farms.
I repeat, we are ALL enthusiastic about renewable energy and being green but that does not give licence to any ineffective and financially unsound scheme.
For a picture of what you consider to be acceptable I refer you to http://www.turbineaction.co.uk/mynydd-llansadwrn
Yours
S C Brown
April 12th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Firstly, let me correct the link of yours that you posted. I Google searched and found this page, which I think was what you were trying to link to:
http://www.turbineaction.co.uk/mynydd-llansadwrn.htm
1) Wind turbines ARE NOT permanent landscape features. They can be removed at any time and do not scar the landscape.
2) The simple fact is that wind turbines do produce renewable electricity.
3) Some people might LIKE the look of wind turbines - i.e. they add an extra feature to the landscape.
Sorry but I cannot agree with you on this. The link you posted is blatantly biased - “move your mouse across the photo to see the THREAT”.
Local people will make up their minds on this wind farm. People from the city have long been interfering with country affairs and it is not their place to do so. One of the wind turbines will in fact be given to the community - local people can buy shares in the wind turbine. The wind farm will also contribute a substantial amount of money to the local area which will obviously benefit local residents.
I think the local residents should be given evidence equally from both sides of the fence. The anti-wind farm lobby seem to often shout so loudly that residents don’t even get to hear the other side of the story. Another wind farm proposal further into Mid Wales than where I live has dragged on for years now - even mention the name of the place and people are in uproar about the proposal.
I just think that local people should be equally educated about the benefits and drawbacks of such a proposal. And I think that city folk should be left out of this - after all, the people of the countryside rarely get any say on what happens in a city.
Finally, I think any visitors seeing this should be told that the picture on the webpage linked to is not what the proposed wind farm at Reeves hill might look like. The place pictured is in Carmarthenshire, not Radnorshire/Powys.
Dan
April 15th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Dear Dan
Firstly, let me apologise if the link was slightly inaccurate. You seem to have found it though so no harm done. I don’t think I deserve the rather petulant ticking off if that is what it was?!
In answer to your point 1. Why do you bang on about the impermanence of wind turbines? They are granted permission for 25 years which is a long time and presumably since you are in favour of them, you would like to see them there for ever. The can be removed but will that happen? Who will pay to take them down? Texas is having a problem removing rusting hulks left after the Enron scandal. I suppose there is a risk too that some maniacal Quango will grant them listed building status. Whether they scar the landscape visually is a matter of opinion and clearly we do not agree on this. However, they do scar the landscape physically what with their concrete footings and service tracks. See Portugal.
Your point 2. Of course they produce renewable energy when they are working, but yet again, you have failed to mention back up requirements. Overall they are not green.
Your point 3. Who needs extra features? The point about landscape is that it should not have man made features. Nature requires no embellishments. When “embellished” by man landscape becomes the built environment and ceases to be that which I, and many others, seek to preserve.
The link posted is not biased. It is an anti wind farm site and quite obviously does not have much to say in favour of wind farms. If you think that any opinion which does not coincide with yours is just bias you have a lot to learn about democracy and life in general. You go on to say, in an even more undemocratic way, “people from the city have long been interfering”. Who are you to decide on what is an individual’s sphere of influence? Am I not allowed an opinion on Tibet because I live in England? Was I wrong to be anti-apartheid because I am European? Should we have left Hitler in peace because he was across the water? Are, say dentists, not allowed to appreciate art because they have been trained in another discipline? This smacks of Stalinist totalitarianism. The “Thought Police” headed up by Dan Price! The reason people from the city “interfere”, as you put it, is because they value the countryside as a variant to city life. Countryside has special qualities. It is where our wildlife lives, where we farm and where people go to escape the built environment. It is not a commodity to be exploited by the latest fashion. As I have said before, it belongs to us all and not just you.
You say that local residents should be given evidence from both sides and that the antis shout too loudly. I think you are patronising local residents. They are quite capable of getting both sides of the argument for themselves. They have been at it since about 1992, (when the first application was made for this site) which, since you describe yourself as a teenager, may be longer than you have been alive. The interesting thing is that the objections that defeated previous applications for this site were exactly the same as now – industrialisation of landscape, they don’t work, too much distortion from subsidies, noise, house values etc etc. If the applications failed then they should fail now if planning laws are applied FAIRLY. I specifically mean planning laws as they are the only relevant laws when considering a planning application but I am not so naive as to think that politics will not enter into it. We shall see if Hereford County Council has the guts to stick to its own Development Plan. Have you read it?
I suspect, from your wording, (and this may be unfair) that when you say locals should get both sides of the argument what you really mean is that they should only listen to you. You seem to dislike being opposed. As far as country dwellers not having a say in city matters… that is entirely up to you. There is a statutory planning procedure and you, Dan Price, can have your say in any planning application anywhere in the UK. You must read up on the system before you pronounce on it. The right to object is extended to all. Thank your lucky stars you have this freedom which is more or less unavailable anywhere else in the world!
Of course the paradox of all this “local debate” is that in fact this issue will probably not be decided locally. There is huge pressure from Europe and London and that pressure, and the unfairness of it, is what causes we antis to shout so loudly. We have to shout to be heard at all.
I was not trying to “con” you by sending you a site in Carmarthenshire. Since the site is called Mynydd-Llansadwrn and not Reeves Hill, I would have thought that you could have worked that out for yourself. Your inference that I was sinisterly attempting to mislead you is a touchy overreaction.
This is probably my last blog on your site purely because I cannot afford the time. You may feel, if I disappear, that I have given up, but I can assure you that if you do feel that way you would be wrong. I have enjoyed stating my case and will continue to protest. I am impressed by your knowledge and perseverance but forgive me if I now patronise you by saying you have the impatience of youth and the adolescent view that “if only the world would listen to me everything would be sorted”. You are quite clearly educated and intelligent but you should be aware that as you acquire knowledge and wisdom you will come to realise that things are never simple. You will come to realise that the more you know, the more you know you don’t know! To quote Mark Twain “when I was sixteen my father was an idiot. By the time I was twenty-one it was amazing what he had learnt!”
Finally, please read Christopher Hitchins “Letters To a Young Contrarian” ISBN 1-903985-06-04 which you can get from your local library although you may have to order it.
Yours
S C Brown
April 15th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
First of all, I’m writing this at approaching 1am so I might make several grammatical errors or not make too much sense, but I’ll attempt to reply while my brain is still awake (sort of).
Thank you for your continued comments on my blog - it is a shame that I might not receive a reply to this particular comment, but thanks for your previous replies.
I can certainly see where you are coming from with your opinion and I can understand why this development concerns you.
The major change since the 1992 development (I was actually alive then, although quite young) is the technological advancements that have been made with the efficiency of wind turbines. Wind power has become more efficient in the past 20 years so some people would argue that this increased output would now make the wind farm viable if it wasn’t 20 years ago.
I must admit that my opinion has changed slightly on wind farms following this debate here - I know that the purpose of a debate is to see look at a situation from a different perspective and speaking to someone who is a critic of wind farms has certainly given me the chance to re-evaluate my beliefs and change my perspective.
One thing that I do believe should be implemented is smaller wind turbines that would make a far smaller impact on the landscape - wind turbines that stand at perhaps twice or thrice the height of a normal house. Such constructions would not be too much taller than a large tree but would surely provide a viable quantity of electricity for a small neighbourhood.
I can certainly understand what you are saying about the need to have backup power running when the wind turbines are not producing electricity - from my recollection, wind turbines on average are only in use about 30% of the time. This is my Dad’s main criticism of wind technology, as he is much more in favour of hydroelectricity (which brings its own problems).
Offshore wind farming is one alternative. I still believe that if the wind farms were spaced out evenly across the country, then there would almost always be a number of wind farms outputting energy - if the wind wasn’t blowing in one place, it still might be in another area of the country. I still believe that all forms of renewable electricity generation should be pursued if we are to have a sustainable future.
In regards to city folk interfering with people in the countryside - it tends to be one of those things that you grumble about if you are actually there and can see the effects that the politicians in Westminster are having on the farmers and other inhabitants of the countryside. Some rural policies that the government insists on are quite ridiculous - for example the “Set-aside” programme that allows land to be wasted, when the world is in the midst of a food crisis. Other examples are incompetence over bluetongue, a set of EU policies that are prejudiced against British farmers and the fox hunting ban widely opposed by the people affected by the changes (residents of the countryside).
On certain issues, I believe it’s best to agree to disagree.
Dan
April 16th, 2008 at 8:17 am
Dear Dan
O.K. i will respond. I am more than delighted that you may have moderated your views. Listen to your father about hyrdro. I am involved in a hydro scheme and would like to see many more built. If your father and you are interested go to Torrs Hydro New Mills (THNM) h2oPE.
Since you mention set aside perhaps you will agree that in general subsidies mess up markets and for that reason I am profoundly anti the HEAVY subsidising of wind farms. They add several hundred pounds to the average electrity bill without the payee knowing! However one good and unforseen outcome of set aside was the lift it gave to birds etc. I hope that its abandonment will not have too much affect on bird pops. See The Archers.
Yours
S.C.Brown
June 15th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
[...] so we have no intrest to fixing it. Its countries like Indonesia and Pakistan and Bolivia all the libral environmentals are threatning so those places should worry about it or ignore the nutjobs and they should leave us [...]