dbd33

The Bruce nuclear plant isn't obvious from land, even after you go through the gates it's miles before any buildings look frightening. It's more obvious from a boat but still not as ugly as all that old iron piled up in fields, it casts no shadows, makes no appreciable noise and it generates actual power; not tiny amounts of power profitable when there's a tax break but actual power that runs lights and clothes washers and whatnot.

Granted nuclear power stations have their drawbacks; they're not safe, they require cables strung on poles from the location to the centres of population, they require that there be a greedy and stupid ethnic population willing to accept the dumping of waste on their lands, but they localise the ugliness. Wind farms require polluting much if the landscape in order to generate enough power to work the machines to build some more.

A dreadful fad, tattoos for the countryside.

iaink

If that happens the blight will be on a rather larger area than just the immediate surroundings anyway.

Im curious about all the resistance to wind generation. If the alternative is between that and going back to the dark ages, more CO2 pollution or a thousand years of nuclear waste management the down side seems negligible.

Some more economical way of doing solar seems best, but given that wind technology is available we should be using it. The technology has to start somewhere.

Criticising wind generators as being not the most efficient generation method is a little like looking at a model T and wondering why anyone would build a road more than 20 miles long. Its what it leads to as the technology advances that is important. Take electric racing motorcycles, they were introduced to the isle of Man TT a few years ago and were widely derided as a joke, heavy and slow. Take a look how the average lap speed has advanced since then

iaink

Do you also believe that the evidence of human impact on climate change is a result of scientific fraud on a huge scale like that idiot Dellingpole? Sometimes its a good idea to question the source and motivation behind information on the net.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...limate-scienc/

dbd33

It's not complicated, the towers are ugly when they're operating and even more so when they fall out of use and are left to corrode. Farm land is dug up and concreted to install them, a loss that will last beyond the short life of the machines. They don't displace nuclear reactors and hydroelectric dams. In short, they're a bit of an environmental disaster, one that can't be justified by a reduction in other environmental harms.

And the blip-blip-blipping of the shadows is, at the least, irritating.

iaink

Have you driven north of Toronto recently? I think there may be a larger problem than windfarms that is converting some of Canadas most fertile agricultural land to concrete!

Piff Poff

The health problems surrounding the implementation of wind farms has been widely documented for years, not just Canada but there was talk about it in the UK 15 years ago, that I'm aware of and the rest of europe seems to be scaling down the idea of wind power and there's reports in Australia that are easily found on the net too. I personally would like to see every new build building equipped with solar panels as standard, with cheaper options for converting at least some power in existing buildings.

With solar there is no whum whum whum, no vibrations and no shadows blinking and no reported health effects.

iaink

I hate to fall back on real science done by real scientists, so its quicker to cut and paste from wikipedia...(my bold bits)

The British Acoustics Bulletin published the 10th independent review of the evidence on wind farms causing annoyance and ill health in people. And for the 10th time it has emphasised that "annoyance has far more to do with social and psychological factors in those complaining than any direct effect from sound or inaudible infrasound emanating from wind turbines".[105] Two factors repeatedly came up. "The first is being able to see wind turbines, which increases annoyance particularly in those who dislike or fear them. The second factor is whether people derive income from hosting turbines, which miraculously appears to be a highly effective antidote to feelings of annoyance and symptoms".[105]

A 2009 expert panel review, sponsored by the Canadian Wind Energy Association and American Wind Energy Association, delved into the possible adverse health effects of those living close to wind turbines. Their 85-page report concluded that wind turbines do not directly make people ill.[11][12] The study did allow that some people could experience stress or irritation caused by the swishing sounds wind turbines produce. "A small minority of those exposed report annoyance and stress associated with noise perception..." [however] "Annoyance is not a disease." The study group pointed out that similar irritations are produced by local and highway vehicles, as well as from industrial operations and aircraft.[11]

Eighteen research reviews about wind turbines and health, published since 2003, all showed that there was very little evidence that wind turbines were harmful in any direct way.[106] Simon Chapman, professor of public health at Sydney University, said that if wind farms did genuinely make people ill there would by now be a large body of medical literature that would preclude putting them near populated areas. But this is not the case.

Sickness being attributed to wind turbines is more likely to be caused by people getting alarmed at the health warnings circulated by activists.

(Me again)
Noise is actually a sign of inefficiency, its wasted energy. Modern turbines are far quieter than older ones as designs have improved. Its kind of like how the 2014 IoM TTz lap record is 117mph, compared to a measly 87mph in first race back in 2009. Unless you implement new technology, there is nothing to drive progress.

dbd33

I'd be interested to see a picture of one of these wind turbine powered motorcycles. It must be like being on a carousel horse with a big pole by your shoulder.

Shard

Do you Ontarians actually call them "windmills"? I have friends there that do (no irony). I suppose it's as accurate a name as "wind turbine", but that sounds more modern to me.

As long as there were no noise or flicker, I would have no problem living near a wind farm. Would quite enjoy it actually.

dbd33

I call them windmills, yes. Most of the related signage says "Stop The Wind Turbines" or "Heath Before Wind Farms".

How can there be no noise or flicker? As longs as there are blades there's noise and, so long as there's sun there's flicker. Maybe it's ok for deaf people, at night.

Shard

Flicker would depend on the direction of the sun; noise, the distance. There can't be much housing directly on the footprint of a wind turbine/farm.

iaink

This is an older one, the current winners are from Mugen, Hondas defacto racing division.

Power to charge the batteries is theoretically from zero emissions sources, solar, wind etc. In practice at least some came from a gas generator hidden out back out of sight, at the end of a long extension cord!

At least they were aware that it looked bad...

Almost Canadian

Kudos to Cedric

iaink

As unlikely a hero as ever there was.

dbd33

Sure there is. If you rent out your back garden for a turbine, the shadows pass over the house for half the daylight hours. It used to be that there'd only be one set of blades casting a shadow on a house but now that they're packing in more and more towers the shadow from multiple blades flick on each house.

What I don't know is how much control the landowner cedes. My guess is that, having signed up for one tower, you've lost all rights and the ruthless capitalist wind companies can then jam in as many machines as will fit. I can't imagine that people knowingly signed up to be surrounded, I expect they thought they'd get one structure in a back field a hundred yards from the house.