Wind turbines and neighborhoods just don’t mix It seems. Would you want one of these to do this when a wind storm comes your way? Wind power has it’s pluses and minuses, just like any energy solution. But like a coal or nuclear power plant. They really shouldn’t be sited next to/within population areas. – Anthony
Wind turbine’s deadly ice shower
From the Peterborough UK Evening Telegraph
Resident Peter Randall, whose son’s house lies a stone’s throw away from the turbine, said: “Somebody is going to get killed. There was huge lumps of ice shooting off and landing everywhere.
“No one wants to leave the house because they are frightened and worried about the ice falling.
Maria Clark, who owns King’s Dyke Karpets, based yards from the turbine, said: “It has been really frightening, the turbine has been stopping and starting all morning. The ice makes such a loud noise when it shatters we thought a bomb had gone off in the yard.
“It scared a customer away. They were in the shop when it landed and said they did not want to risk their car and ran out.”
Last month The Evening Telegraph revealed how residents had lodged complaints with the environmental health department at Fenland District Council due to alleged noise pollution and had demanded the turbine’s removal.
The huge machine, which measures 80 metres at its hub and 125 metres when one of its three blades is vertical, was put up in August.
A spokesperson for Cornwall Light & Power said: “We received a report of an ice shedding incident near our Whittlesey turbine on Saturday morning and immediately made arrangements for it to be switched off.
“The turbine will remain stopped until we have a clear understanding of what happened and any safety concerns have been fully addressed.
“Cornwall Light & Power is a reputable operator with a proven track record of generating clean electricity safely and we will act quickly to resolve this issue.
“In the meantime, any local residents who have concerns can call us directly on 01872 226930.”
MP for Cambridgeshire North East Malcolm Moss said the turbine should remain closed until a new risk assessment could be made, as the problem could also have national implications.
He said: “I had no idea this turbine was going up, it came out of the blue really and I am surprised they put one so close to homes and businesses.
“I assume that a risk assessment was put with the planning application, but if it was not then a full inquiry should be undertaken.”
Whittlesey councillor Ronald Speechley today said he would by lobbying the council to find out what can be done.
He said: “I have received a lot of complaints and the fact that ice has fallen off should be brought to light. This should have been thought of before they put the turbine so close to houses and the road.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’m not a green person, but certainly (IMHO), wind power can supplement our world’s energy needs. If it were the only answer we wouldn’t have a post like this. But, we get enough power from the Sun every day to provide for all of our energy needs. Why not take advantage of that through solar, wave and wind energy collection devices? Of course safety needs are paramount and I have no issue with ensuring that people aren’t endangered by flying ice. Not sure about all the other listed hazards – I’ll have to investigate that further. Change is required at some point since we’re using fossil fuels faster than they are produced by nature. Planning ahead (and taking action) seems prudent since we will need fossil fuels for some things for the forseeable future.
Stephen, before making such a long post please read equally extensively on the skeptical side of the issue. In this way you can more effectively dialoge. Your many statements show a complete ignorance of the counter arguments and it is exhausting to start from scratch on every nuance.
Stephen,
Since you appear to want to help us understand … Please read:
http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/epa/CO2ScienceEPAComments_Full.pdf
and provide point by point refutation. Thank you.
Hailstones as big as golfcarts.
===================
Haven’t we got bigger things to worry about than criticizing wind turbines? I think they’re fantastic.
Smokey: How’s 2008 going to appear on that graph?
I don’t know about the USA but over here the Poznan wine and cheese party has hardly got a mention.
Might it be that the coming ice age / global warming / climate change / climate chaos is now old news and people are beginning to realise that putting food on the table and warmth in the home is more important than a computer generated theory?
Just asking, I don’t want to sound provocative.
Back to the thread topic.
The footprint of the proposed oil drilling operation in the (19,000,000 acre) ANWR is 2,000 acres. It could produce as much as 16,000,000 barrels of oil. In contrast, the Altamont Wind Resource Area is 50,000 acres and produces 580 MW (86 acres/MW).
The American Wind Energy Opposition website reports that the GE 1.5-MW turbine requires at least 48 acres per tower in a single line perpendicular to the wind (32 acres/MW) or 123 acres per tower in an array (82 acres/MW). The Vestas V90 1.8-MW turbine, with a 90-m rotor, requires 78-200 acres per tower (43-111 acres/MW).
Acre for acre, wind farms are one of the most wasteful and destructive uses of land there is. Deadly to avians. Vegetation taller than 3 feet must be controlled (with herbicides). No crop farming (too dangerous). And as the post demonstrates, no housing either, for the same reason. Near total single-industrial-use of the environment on a vast scale. Not the “green” solution by any means.
Re Stephen 12/2/8 16:53
You wrote “Just pause for a second and think, if you had a horse race and every major betting agency was saying, put your money on that horse, would you do it (just keep it simplistic)?” I hope you know more about climate science than you do about horse racing. Google Big Brown and 2008 Belmont Stakes. Favorites win about 30% of the time at the race track, put another way they lose 70% of the time. Not exactly the best way to prove your point. So that is not a good analogy for you to use.
More to the point, literally every ‘fact’ you talk about is debatable and there are different opinions. And what does any of this have to do with the unintended consequences of wind farms??
For a good laugh, check out the forecast for tonight in Frostproof, Florida (this is a time-sensitive post that won’t make sense after the night of Dec 1/2.
http://forecast.weather.gov/MapClick.php?CityName=Frostproof&state=FL&site=TBW&textField1=27.7461&textField2=-81.5313&e=0
From Heliogenic Climate Change
December 2, 2008
“It seems a bit odd”
“The objective of the [Kyoto] Accord is to reduce the impact of observed increases in global temperatures using 1990 as the reference year for a target.
If we take the average global temperature in 1990 as a “zero reference”, the average temperature for 2002 can be seen to be about 0.35°C, and the average temperature for the last 12 months is back down to about 0.05°C.
The best fit linear trend since 2002 is about 0.025°C/year of cooling, and at this rate we will have met the Kyoto target of 1990 temperature in just two years without having done anything! …
If the Kyoto target of 1990 global temperature will be met in just two years in spite of the continued increase in CO2 emissions, doesn’t it seem a bit odd that the world leaders are willing to sacrifice the global economy to reduce CO2 emissions as though CO2 emissions reductions, and not global temperature stabilization, was the objective of the Kyoto Protocol?” Norm Kalmanovitch, email to Benny Peiser, CCNet
Exactly, Norm. Kyoto is designed to throttle industry, not temperature.
http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2008/12/it-seems-bit-odd.html
Smokey (20:12:51) :
Stephen:
Go back to school.
Smokey, he probably still is in school. This is the product of current school indoctrination (education).
Stephen (16:53:20)
“But in the last century, the planet’s temperature has risen unusually fast.’
By who’s account? Hansen? the hockey stick, Mann?
‘
‘an increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, trapping more of the sun’s radiated energy as heat; intensifying the natural Greenhouse Effect’
The 2.5 amplificiation number/climate sensitivity which leads to a positive feedback heat trapping clouds is STILL an assumption that lives only in computer climate models.
‘Finally, Coral. Although coral reefs have been around for millions of years, the reefs are formed of the corals themselves, which have life estimates of only a few thousand years. Therefore, as climate has gone through its cycle, coral have been able to evolve to deal with changes in temperature. But now, however, it appears, the climate is changing too rapidly for them to evolve:’
I wonder how the coral and the ice caps survived the Holocene climate optimun or Roman warm period?
And the beat go on………..
@Stephen Fisher (16:53:20) :
If it turns out that you don’t actually have any physical evidence, and want to refer to Climate Models.
Please provide the number of consecutive years of global cooling that the Climate models predict?
Please also check temperature data for this century and compare with Climate model predictions.
Regarding massive wind farm installations, has any reader heard of serious investigation into the alteration of weather patterns?
The law of unintended consequences would seem to imply that, with suitably large wind farms removing energy [ultimately solar] from the atmosphere, the leeward weather patterns may be significantly impacted – and not necessarily for the better.
Present wind farm installations are probably not sufficient to cause anything significant, but is there any literature on this?
Never heard it on the UK national news. Did any one else? If not no surprise there then.
John Sargent left “Strictly Come Dancing” ages ago so come on BBC, say something!
Whoops, my candle has just blown out in the breeze from the wind turbine.
I would like to hear what our visiting SunMaster has to say about this:
(They did not quite say “Not Global Warming” ~ but “Not The Greenhouse Effect” is creeping up on it…)
“According to a study in Geographical Research, the droughts are related to the solar magnetic phases and not the greenhouse effect.”
Sun’s Magnetic Field May Impact Weather And Climate: Sun Cycle Can Predict Rainfall Fluctuations
ScienceDaily
There have been reports of Wind Turbines shedding ice in the UK for over 20 years. Cars on high roads with their wind screens damaged animals hurt. Through all this the Pro-Turbine lobby have denied it ever happened and as a result planners have been kept in ignorance.
Now they are getting into an inescapable position of undeniable evidence what will they do. Blame freak weather events, (AGW) that’s what.
In Germany, the land of the wind mills and solar farms, the metal workers got angry with the EU climate policies and went to Brussels to protest.
Is this the start of substantial opposition against governmental lunacy?
We could use more of this
December 2, 2008
Stop messing with our livelihood!
“More than 10,000 metal workers, most from Germany, protested in Brussels Tuesday over EU plans to tackle climate change, which they fear will hit their industry.
The protesters — 11,300 according to police, 12,000 according to organisers, some wearing their hard hats and work clothes — demonstrated around EU buildings in Brussels.
One group held a coffin aloft as a symbol of their industry’s possible future.” “Over 10,000 metal workers protest EU climate plans”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081202/sc_afp/eumetalindustryenvironmentclimateprotest
In Poznan Polish miners clashed with Greenpeace protesters.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LO147615.htm
And the weather in Poznan, light snow and temps slightly above zero degrees.
Who knows the “Gore effect” will descend upon Poznan before the UN Climate Conference ends December 12.
Germany this morning is hit by a snow front that brings up to 47 cm of snow today from the “Ruhrgebiet” up to Bayern. So, with a little luck…!
I’ m eager to see the GISS temps for November….
Pete said “Forgot about Tide Energy, but that’s sort of Solar also, just gravity solar”
Actually I would class that under lunar.
Reverting back to the Killer turbines that stalk the earth I hardly doubt they will be turned into a Hammer film starring Doug McLure. They’ve got more chance of being killed by the electricity the turbine produces in their own home. I’d love to see the statistics for that 😉 Bet I know which would prove to be safer … inside or outside…
Regards
Andy
Just 3 miles from the ice shedding wind turbine, is a Bronze Age excavation called Flag Fen, where humans who lived then, would have seen great changes in climate and environment. http://www.flagfen.com/
What would our ancestors have done about blocks of ice falling from the sky? Probably have invented an Ice Sky god to worship. 3000 years ago, that would have been a logical explanation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_Fen
I’ve been the a number of times and one of the more curious facts about Flag Fen is that although it was forgotten for some 3000 years, its ritual aspects were not lost in the memories of later peoples who inhabited the area. Flag Fen is at the meeting point of the three Dioceses of Peterborough, Ely and Lincoln, in the Province of Canterbury, as can be seen at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Dioceses_of_the_CofE.png
Now, that is bizarre! Archbishops deciding to divide the land 1500 years ago, using myths and legends about holy places. Or, maybe not.
Regards,
Perry
Alan the Brit
Amongst the important news articles – “X factor, Strictly Come Dancing, Jungle….. – Monday nights 10 o’clock BBC news had the customary environmental propaganda broadcast. You might have seen it, it was after the anti-coal article!
(For everyone outside of UK, the BBC broadcasts an environmental message nearly every night along followed by a weather broadcast which often explains that temperatures are well above/below average for the time of year. The BBC never misses an opportunity. And it is all our fault!!)
We, yes you and me, are buying wood burning stoves.
The presenter was sat next to a wood burning stove and had a wee glass of red wine in his hand. Looked very Christmasy.
He explained “That trees consume CO2 when they grow and the burning of wood is environmentally friendly.” Clearly a form of good man made CO2.
The presenter explained that we do not need to spend extra to keep warm all need to do is burn more wood.
Deforestation is not a problem with the BBC, cutting down trees and setting them on fire is environmentally friendly.
Those interested in the reasons why wind power are a silly idea for power supply to an electricity grid may want to read the Annual Prestigious Lecture I had the honour of being asked to provide in 2006.
It can be read in full at
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/courtney_2006_lecture.pdf
Its Section 14 (pp 12-19) provides a basic assessment of all available and potential ‘renewables’ and its abstract says:
The UK Energy White Paper was published by the UK’s Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) in May 2003. It proposed the objective of a contribution to reduction of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by use of ‘renewables’ mostly in the form of windfarms (i.e. local assemblies of wind turbines) to provide 20% of UK electricity supply. This objective was endorsed by the UK’s Energy Review that was published by the DTI on 11 July 2006. However, this paper suggests the use of windfarms cannot make significant contribution to reducing the emissions and suggests the construction of tidal coffer dams instead. Windfarms for power generation provide intermittent power so they merely displace thermal power stations onto standby mode or to operate at reduced efficiency while the thermal power stations wait for the wind to change. They make no significant reduction to pollution because thermal power stations continue to use their fuel and to produce their emissions while operating in standby mode or with reduced efficiency that can increase their emissions at low output. And this need for continuously operating backup means that windfarms can only provide negligible useful electricity to electricity grid supply systems. But the large scale use of windfarms requires upgrading of an electricity grid, more complex grid management, and operation of additional thermal power stations to protect against power cuts in time of supply failure. These effects increase the cost of electricity supplied by the grid in addition to the capital, maintenance and operating costs of the windfarms themselves. And the windfarms cause significant environmental damage. Tidal coffer dams would not have these problems and could provide continuous and controllable power supply at similar cost to off-shore windfarms.
Richard
Stephen,
I have never seen anyone take so many words to say things that have already been disproven many times.
Claim: The warming of the last century is unusual. Answer. Not by a long shot.
Claim: A majority of scientists agree that warming is primarily caused by humans. Answer. Not by a long shot.
Claim: Records show that temperature correlates with CO2. True. Temperature rises ALWAYS preceded CO2 increases.
Arctic melting is unprecedented: Only true if your history books only go back two or three decades. Notes from arctic explorers indicate that the Arctic has been this free of ice numerous times in the past. Currently the amount of ice in the Arctic is well above the 30 year average.
Got tired of reading BS, so I stopped at this point.
Anthony, don’t you have any size limits on posts?
REPLY: No size limit that I am aware of in WordPress. While verbose and off topic, it was politely framed. The purpose of this blog is to enlighten, educate, and debate, it seems the primary mission has been fulfilled here. – Anthony
>> Never heard it on the UK national news. Did any one else? If not no surprise there then.
Funny, the same thought occurred to me. It is quite a remarkable story but I didn’t hear or see anything about it in the national news. I read the Daily Telegraph, which is strongly pro-AGW, and not a mention of it. To be fair, they did print a report about how the Arctic ice had rebounded, but in general they print the pro-AGW stuff with never a hint that there is another point of view.
It is quite ironic that these money-wasting, pointless monstrosities are multiplying almost out of control in order to stop the world getting warmer, when all the signs are that the world is starting to get colder. If these idiots really want the world to be colder then perhaps they should be more careful what they wish for. History repeatedly shows that mankind prospers when the world gets warmer, and that people starve and civilisations fall when the world gets colder.
There was another perfect irony recently. On the day that Parliament voted on the Climate Change Bill, there was snow on the ground just outside. This was the first October snow in London for seventy years.
We are now told that the AGW delusion will push up gas and electricity prices in Britain by 25% Let’s hope that sanity prevails eventually, though it may take years. It may also require a colder world, though I suspect that true believers like Gore and Hansen will never admit they were wrong.
There is hope. As the Observer opinion poll showed, most Britons don’t believe in this nonsense. A more recent poll showed the same in the USA.
I’m beginning to think that strong AGW is the biggest scientific fraud in history. Trouble is, unlike the Piltdown Hoax, this fraud threatens the future prosperity and freedom of the world. These ridiculous windmills are a very obvious result of this fraud.
Chris