Wind turbines

[Icey]

Travelling to the back of beyond on Monday, I noticed the first of 3 blots on the horizon - namely large wind turbines happily operational. A little further on, I realised that 5 behemoths'd risen into view, with a 6th on the opposite side of the road.

All well and good if these things provide power within the locality, but I can't honestly say that I've heard of anyone paying less for their electricity because of them, and frankly, I find them ugly.

Today, a friend was lamenting the fact that a 300ft monstrosity's been erected opposite her house, ruining what was once a peaceful view of pretty crop fields, but it appears that the thing was only active for one day, before something went wrong with it.

The problem still hasn't been rectified, and nearby residents're now even MORE irate that this unwanted blemish on the landscape's just standing there as a redundant eyesore.

Surely these turbines could be sited away from villages, or made smaller, to be hidden by trees? 300ft's twice the size of their local church, and presides over the skyline like a hideous deformity.

Does anyone else have these things close to them, and what's your opinion of them?

[yogi]

There is nothing like that close, yet. But, i live in the city and there isn't a lot of room for giant turbines. Not too far outside the city are entire farms of wind turbines. I do not think these behemoths are intended to replace any of the infrastructure already in existence. They do help keep down the cost of expanding to meet growing needs. In that sense they do affect the cost of generating electricity. My understanding is that if you owned one personally, any excess power you generate could be sold to the power company, and you would get a credit on your bill accordingly. I think you are on a pay as you go system so that this type credit might not apply over there.

Ugly? Well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I understand that you people go through a lot of trouble to hide cell phone towers as well. Both the cell towers and wind turbines are part of essential utilities you could not do without. Something ugly across the way is a small price to pay for the luxury of assuring that utility will always be available.

[tomsk]

I find then relaxing,
their movement hypnotizing, I suppose because you don't see them in the City...
The Countryside is glorious..

[Icey]

Sorry, I disagree.

The particularly huge wind turbine mentioned above doesn't help residents at all. It's to feed power to a farm. The local people don't benefit from its presence.

All this talk about selling excess electricity back to the National Grid from those with private turbines (not many folk) and those who've installed solar panels, is soon to be expelled. The amount paid back to the owners is, according to a worried industry, going to drop hugely very soon, and people'll be receiving literally a few pennies per unit that'll make their investments negligible.

In areas where off-shore turbines've been installed, domestic electricity supplies haven't noticeably dropped in price, and they're all going to rise again as from around December time anyway, but, if recipients could actually see a good saving, then of course there'd be room for these things, providing they were created to blend in with the surrounding areas instead of looming horribly into view. The value of houses've dropped where these things are. People complain of shadow flicker, a quiet but irritating hum and have concerns about wildlife, and despite many hundreds of objections in each area, the things've still gone up.

You're right about phone masts over here Yogi. The smaller "cells" which look like tall lamp posts aren't liked either, but worse, are the large masts which rise up unexpectedly. No one's proved that they're dangerous, but it's funny how none are erected near to schools. So yes, we do try and hide them, and what you can't see doesn't bother you so much.

I could quite easily do without my mobile phone, but admit that many people couldn't. I think we're all being led into a state of complacency and acceptance, but that doesn't mean that these wonderful things are good for our health and well being.

[tomsk]

I like 'em
So there!

[Icey]

I assure you that you might think differently if you had one situated just a few hundred yards from you.

The houses in my friend's area cost in excess of £500,000 which's at least half of what they'd cost in London. Five are up for sale and the prices've had to drop. It's not fair on the sellers and prospective buyers're being put off. With living in the city, sort of thing, you don't have to look at these things constantly, so they'd be a novelty for you, but imagine having your once-beautiful and rural views being obliterated by these massive things.

[yogi]

The sad fact of life is that everything is growing, and that is particularly true for demands on energy sources. When a complaint is made that the costs of utilities have not gone down as a direct result of these wind turbines, the arguments are often misstated. It may be true that the current cost is the same, or even increasing. But the purpose of building new electric power sources is to meet an increased demand, not to lower operating coasts that can be passed on to customers. The only way this would become obvious is if no new power generators would be allowed to be constructed. I can guarantee that you would not have all the electric you need or that your bill for current service would increase dramatically. I can sympathize with those people who feel their view of the countryside has been marred by wind turbine towers. Considering the alternatives (maybe a nuclear power generator hidden in the bushes somewhere?) there is little to complain about.

[Kellemora]

FWIW: To date, there has not been an efficient wind turbine manufactured.
Without government subsidies to make them appear efficient, no company could make money from them.
And, until the killing of birds, especially large birds such as eagles and the like is prevented, and the maintenance of the devices reduced considerably. They simply are not feasible as alternative energy sources yet.

We already have hundreds of hydroelectric dams, bought and paid for, sitting idle.
If the generator technology has improved enough constructing a wind turbine is now viable, then using that same technology to make use of the continuous water flowing over the dam would make a whole lot more sense.

[Icey]

Good points Yogi, but the maddening thing about these turbines going up, is that local residents are "consulted" before they're erected. It means nothing of course, because objections're by-passed, but they're given the opportunity to hold discussion meetings in the presence of local Councillors, land owners and representitives of the companies who're building these things.
Objections're "taken into consideration", but mean nothing. Those who want the turbines, try to make their plans sound of benefit and they do their best to allay fears, but at the end of the day, they go ahead anyway, so the meetings're merely a formality.
Round here, we've had conservation groups, local residents (all in unison) and health & safety officers all trying to point out valid reasons for not having these builds, and even MORE irritating, is that there was the underlying promise of cheaper electricity to come! Who did they think they were kidding? It hasn't materialised, and won't.
Gary's idea's the best. I can't for the life of me see how hydro electric power wouldn't be of use - AND cheaper - but that's the whole crux of the matter.
We're riddled with waterways, lakes and rivers, and surrounded by the sea, and yet it's considered "too expensive" to implement. Forgive me, but I can't see how the figures add up to prove that, plus it'd look a hundred times more attractive.

[yogi]

I sympathize with the fellow who has the TVA in his back yard.

However, hydroelectric is not the answer to more or cheaper power. Take the Colorado River as an example of why damming up rivers is not always the best approach. The linked article points out that this great river flowed 1500 miles for 6 million years. Today there is no water downstream and reservoirs are drying up. The reason for all this is because people upstream dammed up the river for their own purposes. Also, global warming will decrease the flow by 20% over the next four decades and cause even more people downstream to be without water. Those upstream soon will not have enough to operate their hydroelectric generators at capacity. Given the way politics operates and the phobias held by environmentalists, 40 years is not enough time to come up with an alternative to the once mighty Colorado River drying up. Maybe it's different down in Tennessee, but I doubt it.

DRYING UP: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-n ... -61427169/

[Icey]

Interesting.

Different sort of thing over here though, because the UK's so wet. It's rare that water supplies dry up, although on odd occasions, reservoir and river levels've dropped enough to warrant hosepipe bans, but there's never been a shortage of it that couldn't provide hydroelectric power, and especially as we're an island. I feel sorry for anyone whose water supply dries up though. Must be terrible.

[Kellemora]

I do agree with you up to a point Yogi.
As areas become populated, more water is taken from the rivers, which is the major cause of reduced flow downstream.
Most dam construction did not restrict the flow of the river by more than 10%, until the reservoir was brought up to one third pool.
We have two types of dams to consider, those designed for flood control, and those designed for producing electric.
Flood control dams were never filled to more than one third pool or they would be useless for flood control.
Neverless, nearly every dam built for flood control purposes has been converted to recreational use and maintained at near full pool.
Hydroelectric dams must spill water through the generators to make electricity. During seasons of low waterfall, they often run the water levels down dangerously low. Where does this water go? Downstream.
Once a reservoir is full, 100% of the input is going over the dam, and headed downstream.
In most cases, a dam is not allowed to hold back more than 10% of the natural flow of a river. If that river flow is decreasing, they must adjust so the output valves are still allowing the proper amount of water to pass through.
Even if it mean their own area may end up short of water! It's part of TVA's guidelines to protect downstream reserves.

I guess you didn't hear, Global Warming is and always was a HOAX...