Wind turbine in a school playground

[Muddypause]

I would be very happy to see my old friends sporting some turbines - if they are part of the solution which will enable more generations to enoy this planet, then it's a "price" worth paying!
I think they are beautiful
[..]
I'm afraid I'm beginning to lose patience with nimbies - get a life! - a little lack of "visual amenity" is a miniscule price to pay for doing something to help save our home - the planet!

I do have major issues with the visual amenity - one or two windmills scattered around is one thing, but a 'farm' of 40 or 50 of them is an entirely different matter - that industrialises the countryside in a way that I consider to be unacceptable. And having no naked hillsides left would be a terrible thing. However, I recognise that is largely only a matter of personal preference.

But there are other issues to consider, too. A countryside full of turbines is being sold to us as the alternative to nuclear power: "A few wind turbines, or a nuclear power station - which would you prefere?". The current push towards nuclear power is actually giving the wind farmers enormous leverage to get their stuff imposed upon us too. But the question is completely fallacious; the real question is "Live sustainably, or live beyond our means - which should we be doing?"

And that brings about the real issue here - the growth of wind farms simply legitamises the growth in our consumption. It props it up. It's OK to consume more and more, because we can just stick up another wind turbine. But what happens then? Are we eventually to see every spare patch of land with a turbine on it to satisfy our continually growing needs? In the end, I really don't think a hillside full of turbines is any solution at all, but part of the problem. That problem is an economy that depends upon the cycle of consumption-production-growth-consumption, which to my simple mind seems ludicrously unsupportable and unsustainable.

When I see an array of turbines churning away in the countryside, I think of the way we are so casually prepared to sacrifie such beauty to satisfy the demands of the city. Why doesn't the city come up with a few solutions of its own?

[Camile]

I more or less agree on that ... an excess of everything is bad !

I think we need to find a balance somewhere ...

They agreed on a wind farm offshore in Ireland:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... dfarm.html

wich to me makes sense because you don't have the visual impact .. and you get the power from the wind !

of course not every country can do that ... but they could set that up on many offshore parts of the west of Ireland .. far far away from the land ... and we could generate an enormous amount of power .. without disturbing the visual aspect ..

because they will always be some downside ... Muddy will say that this will spoil the sea landscape and so on ..

Camile

[Muddypause]

They agreed on a wind farm offshore in Ireland:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... TVwindfarm.

... Muddy will say that this will spoil the sea landscape

No, no - I will say it misses the point.

In fact I had this very conversation with someone just the other day; I said that wind power doesn't do anything to limit our consumption habits, it just goes on enabling them; he said "...but you'd be OK with an offshore windfarm, where you couldn't see it, then?"

It may be better from a visual point of view (if, like me, you don't like the sight of these things), but that doesn't address the underlying issue of it supporting an unsustainable consumption habit that will end up with us destroying eco-systems.

[Martin]

of course wind turbines aren't the only answer, and of course there must be some sensitivity to those living nearby, but they can be a very large part of the answer! 8)
Like you, I have no desire to help prop up a power hungry society - we must help change attitudes, and try to make it just as unacceptable to guzzle power as behaving in other antisocial ways!
Again, I reckon "small is beautiful", and would far sooner see people "generating their own", or joining in small local schemes, rather than shovelling power into a grid with losses that make the water companies look like paragons of virtue! 8)
It's not until you start providing your own power to live that the "penny finally drops" - with me, it was caravanning - to charge my batteries took roughly two hours a day of a petrol generator yammering away - I infinitely prefer doing it with the wind......
Landscape- schmandscape - pish tosh and rhubarb! windmills are rightly seen as beautiful - all they did was help make our bread - turbines can help allow our great , great grandchildren to enjoy the view too!

[Martin]

as a postscript - taking the south downs as an example - they are still covered with overgrown concrete blockhouses, and parts are riddled with tunnels, all from WW2 - do I regret them having done that to preserve civilisation as we knew it? - not a lot! The challenge here is not our "civilisation" but life itself! - Gimme a few turbines any day!

[Muddypause]

Be in no doubt that none of these turbines are there to save the world (nor to make the view more beautiful, if you are of that opinion). They are there solely because it is set to be a nice little earner for the shareholders. That is to say, they are all part of the consumption problem.

I do agree that local schemes and micro generation, where people become responsible for their own power rather than leaving it in the hands of multinational energy companies, would be a much preferable way forward.

[Wombat]

Hear, hear!

[PurpleDragon]

Be in no doubt that none of these turbines are there to save the world (nor to make the view more beautiful, if you are of that opinion). They are there solely because it is set to be a nice little earner for the shareholders. That is to say, they are all part of the consumption problem.

Disagree. Like guns, wind turbines aren't the problem. We are. But we, as a world, aren't gonna change. Not all at once. When places like America will fall if oil production is stopped, and conspicuous consumption is the way to 'prove' prosperity, we aren't gonna see an end to the problem. We have to teach folk (probably our children now) that "use, use, use" is not good, and that going green is the better path. People are bombarded with consumption propaganda from an early age. We are taught that we have to everything, now, and that if we don't 'have' then we are less than those who do.

I wouldn't say that wind farms are there'solely' for the shareholders. There are actually a lot of people who *want* alternative power to work. Humans learned to use different forms of energy, and we are not able to unlearn that, so we will continue to use it, in one form or another, until humans are no more (or the power sources are no more). We want electricity, central heating, cars to travel to distant places. If all those things were taken away from us, we would go back to burning trees in order to keep warm and cook our food. We will always consume the things around us.

I agree that covering the hills with wind farms isn't the answer. I don't have the answer and I don't think anyone else does either. We only have ways that we hope are ways forward, to try and ease the burden on the planet, not only with reducing the use of fossil fuels but also with the problem of disposal of used power sources (nuclear waste leaps to mind).

If someone offered me the choice between a wind farm on the hills opposite my house, or a nuclear power station ... I know which would win without a second thought

This is a very bitty reply. I'm not good at expressing myself, but I hope it isn't so confused that you can't see where I am coming from. And incidentally - I don't like guns either

[Muddypause]

Be in no doubt that none of these turbines are there to save the world (nor to make the view more beautiful, if you are of that opinion). They are there solely because it is set to be a nice little earner for the shareholders. That is to say, they are all part of the consumption problem.

Disagree. Like guns, wind turbines aren't the problem. We are. But we, as a world, aren't gonna change. Not all at once. When places like America will fall if oil production is stopped, and conspicuous consumption is the way to 'prove' prosperity, we aren't gonna see an end to the problem. We have to teach folk (probably our children now) that "use, use, use" is not good, and that going green is the better path. People are bombarded with consumption propaganda from an early age. We are taught that we have to everything, now, and that if we don't 'have' then we are less than those who do.

I don't think we are disagree on much there, actually. That's pretty much in line with what I was saying, too.

I wouldn't say that wind farms are there'solely' for the shareholders. There are actually a lot of people who *want* alternative power to work.

Indeed so. But windfarms are hugely expensive things to install, and will only exist if there is money to be made out of the investment. It's a 'market forces' thing. I am broadly in favour of people doing it for themselves (eg. micro generation), but windfarms are a different thing altogether. The rising price of oil and gas means that windfarms suddenly become a profitable option, and market forces will also mean, inevitably, that nearly all of them will be controlled by the big multinational conglomerate energy companies. That means that, once again, the stuff that we depend upon is not in our own control - it's production, availability, cost, will all be controlled by those market forces again. It won't be a 'need' thing, it will be a 'money' thing.

Humans learned to use different forms of energy, and we are not able to unlearn that, so we will continue to use it, in one form or another, until humans are no more (or the power sources are no more). We want electricity, central heating, cars to travel to distant places. If all those things were taken away from us, we would go back to burning trees in order to keep warm and cook our food. We will always consume the things around us.

All that is needed is that we live within our means - it doesn't mean using no oil or gas, just a level that will not affect the environment more than it can deal with; it means insulating our houses better; it means sending freight by rail; eating locally produced food; it means heating our water by sunlight; rationalising our car use; not getting the latest Argos catalogue...

Really, you know, our ingenuity at coming up with solutions to problems is remarkable. Some people are saying we ought to use this ingenuity to deal with the problems caused by over consumption (which means we can go on over-consuming); I would suggest we use that ingenuity to find ways of not consuming so much in the first place.

I agree that covering the hills with wind farms isn't the answer. I don't have the answer and I don't think anyone else does either. We only have ways that we hope are ways forward, to try and ease the burden on the planet, not only with reducing the use of fossil fuels but also with the problem of disposal of used power sources (nuclear waste leaps to mind).

I climbed up Ivinghoe Beacon in Buckinghamshire a few days ago - one of the highest points on the Chiltern Hills, it affords a remarkable view of, I reckon, getting on for 40 miles. Spectacular, awe inspiring... all that stuff. Now, imagine if that was filled with machinery that was, by its nature, prominant, tall, clearly visible, and continually rotating - an industrialised landscape for as far as the eye could see. And for why? So that we can go on 'growing' the economy; so that we can continue to consume more than we need; so that we can find ever more expensive ways of being no happier than we were 50 years ago.

If someone offered me the choice between a wind farm on the hills opposite my house, or a nuclear power station ... I know which would win without a second thought

Ahhhhhhh, no, you fell into that trap I tried to warn you about. You are not really being given that choice at all; no such question is being asked of us. The fact is, that the way things are going at the moment, there will be a wind farm near you soon, and a nuclear power station.

[Martin]

I take Muddy's points entirely - we are actually in agreement about most of what we'd both like to see, but differ on the aesthetic virtues of the things.
Pragmatism must raise it's ugly head - I'm doing all I can to help encourage people to "generate their own", but we are now faced with some stark choices on a national scale - do we go nuke or not? - I'm firmly "anti", and would like to see wind power used far more, as an "instead of" nukes, rather than running alongside - allied to a hefty downturn in consumption!
I want to change the system too, but the way it's structured, apart from the few pioneers who "do it themselves", most people are grid-dependant, and the only bodies with big money to put into big schemes are the big companies, and government if it could get off it's arse!
The only thing that's going to "dent" that are communities getting together to generate their own power, and people "doing it at home" -more power to their collective elbows!

[PurpleDragon]

But windfarms are hugely expensive things to install, and will only exist if there is money to be made out of the investment.

Most energy producing installations are hugely expensive. Big business isn't in it for us - they are in it for the shareholders. However, have you ever heard of the Boyndie Windfarm Co-operative? Yes, they are selling shares, but I think this is the direction I would like to see us moving towards. To have the locals involved in such a way, instead of some fat-cat in a suit in London somewhere, is surely progress?

It's a 'market forces' thing. I am broadly in favour of people doing it for themselves (eg. micro generation), but windfarms are a different thing altogether. The rising price of oil and gas means that windfarms suddenly become a profitable option, and market forces will also mean, inevitably, that nearly all of them will be controlled by the big multinational conglomerate energy companies.

We're together on this. It is the congomerates that are destroying our world, and we have to fight them somehow. But if they want to feed their money into building eco-friendly power stations of some sort, rather than the other options, then I'm happy with that.

That means that, once again, the stuff that we depend upon is not in our own control - it's production, availability, cost, will all be controlled by those market forces again. It won't be a 'need' thing, it will be a 'money' thing.

I agree. Do you have a solution to this, coz I don't?

All that is needed is that we live within our means - it doesn't mean using no oil or gas, just a level that will not affect the environment more than it can deal with; it means insulating our houses better; it means sending freight by rail; eating locally produced food; it means heating our water by sunlight; rationalising our car use; not getting the latest Argos catalogue...

We need to get this message across. I feel we are making progress in this area. I notice more and more people 'being green' but my DH insists that that is because I know more people like that, mix more with them than with the consumerists, and that colours my perception. He thinks we are still 'fringe' and that it will take some massive occurence to change things.

Really, you know, our ingenuity at coming up with solutions to problems is remarkable. Some people are saying we ought to use this ingenuity to deal with the problems caused by over consumption (which means we can go on over-consuming); I would suggest we use that ingenuity to find ways of not consuming so much in the first place.

We, as a family, are trying to do this, in our own small way. I don't know if the swing has gone too far in the other direction to go back to a non-consumption way of life. Well, non non-consumption but lower.

I climbed up Ivinghoe Beacon in Buckinghamshire a few days ago - one of the highest points on the Chiltern Hills, it affords a remarkable view of, I reckon, getting on for 40 miles. Spectacular, awe inspiring... all that stuff.

Did you wave at my Mum when you were up there? She stays in Prestwood, by Great Missenden. Lovely place

Now, imagine if that was filled with machinery that was, by its nature, prominant, tall, clearly visible, and continually rotating - an industrialised landscape for as far as the eye could see.

But i find them beautiful, so I can't give an unbiased opinion on this. We are pleased to be able to see half a dozen of them from our spare room window, and Boyndie Windfarm isn't far from here. We love them. We want one

And for why? So that we can go on 'growing' the economy; so that we can continue to consume more than we need; so that we can find ever more expensive ways of being no happier than we were 50 years ago.

And when the oil runs out or becomes too expensive for us to use anymore? I am panicking because I use oil heating in my house, already owe my oil supplier a vast amount of money, and currently can't afford a different energy source. I have three small children and they need to be warm and clean. If I could afford to chuck in a wind turbine in my garden, I would be there like a shot, as would one of my neighbours (I only actually have two, and haven't discussed them with the other one). The thought of utilising the gales that blow thru my garden in the winter, instead of using a polluting and expensive fossil fuel, is very appealing. One day, we aren't gonna have the fossil fuels. Perhaps not in my lifetime, or my children's, but there has to be some replacement for it.

Ahhhhhhh, no, you fell into that trap I tried to warn you about. You are not really being given that choice at all; no such question is being asked of us. The fact is, that the way things are going at the moment, there will be a wind farm near you soon, and a nuclear power station.

That is my fear. You are right - we aren't being given the choice, but if the windfarms can be used, and people can come round to thinking green instead of nuclear, then perhaps we can actually save this planet and I will have great-grandchildren.

[PurpleDragon]

I take Muddy's points entirely - we are actually in agreement about most of what we'd both like to see, but differ on the aesthetic virtues of the things.
Pragmatism must raise it's ugly head - I'm doing all I can to help encourage people to "generate their own", but we are now faced with some stark choices on a national scale - do we go nuke or not? - I'm firmly "anti", and would like to see wind power used far more, as an "instead of" nukes, rather than running alongside - allied to a hefty downturn in consumption!
I want to change the system too, but the way it's structured, apart from the few pioneers who "do it themselves", most people are grid-dependant, and the only bodies with big money to put into big schemes are the big companies, and government if it could get off it's arse!
The only thing that's going to "dent" that are communities getting together to generate their own power, and people "doing it at home" -more power to their collective elbows!

I wish I could have said all that. I'm rather long winded, and take my time to make a point. I should have read this before I answered Muddy's post, and it would have saved everyone some reading time

[wulf]

It does sound like the school may be going for a rather oversized turbine when other options might be better. From my recall of school design, most of the more modern ones have large areas of flat roofing, so I wonder if they wouldn't find a roof mounted tower to be a very pragamatic solution that takes up no ground space but produces a worthwhile return?

I have very little sympathy with the Not-In-My-Back-Yard crowd through; if they're so concerned about the aesthetics of the area, why don't they start by knocking their own ugly little houses down?

I hope the school will find some way forward (even if it proves to be, gasp!, a learning experience) - not just with experiments in electricity generation but also developing a range of other measures that reduce the environmental impact of their site.

Wulf

[Martin]

please, read my lips - ROOF MOUNTED TURBINES WILL NOT GIVE A SATISFACTORY RESULT....................
They will a) not work satisfactorily in the turbulent conditions, and
b) will cause noise to travel into the structure, and
c)will cause major structural damage!
If you doubt my words, read Hugh Pigott's - http://www.scoraigwind.com/

[PurpleDragon]

It does sound like the school may be going for a rather oversized turbine when other options might be better. Wulf

Yeah, I thought that. Mind you, I didn't know that you could get smaller ones than the great big windfarm type that you see about the place. We were qanting one, and were quite shocked at the price of them, and knew there was no way we could ever afford to go that route. Then, I saw a link on INEBG and discovered there are actually several different options. I wonder if the school are aware of the options?

Our local school spent an inordinate amount of fund-raised money for some items of play equipment, and then found out that they had paid hundreds for something from 'someone they knew' whenthey could have sourced the same product online for about £50. No research - hapens all the time.