Vote expected to halt Wiltshire's wind turbines (From The Wiltshire Gazette and Herald)

Well done to your council for having the care of its residents at heart. A great pity more councils didn't show the backbone to do this. As for the Lib Dems who voted against this provision, you clearly haven't done enough research if you don't know about the harm to health that these industrial machines can bring, I hope the electors remember your lack of consideration whenthe next elections come around

why not put them all on Salisbury plain where they will be away from everyone!

Amazing, isn't it - people will accept without any protest an ugly stand of Electricity Pylons running up across a beautiful bit of countryside (like the one across the face of Roundway Hill - for example!) yet proven green energy gathering by what many of us look upon as these beautiful inventions brings out the Nimby in SO many people!

Pylons are static, windfarms are distracting, but google pylon protests (1,170,000 results) to see what people think.

These “beautiful inventions for green energy gathering” have been proven to be grossly inefficient in terms of electrical supply, - (in 2011, 3600 wind turbines managed just 4.2% of demand ), - do little to cut CO2 …but …are very efficient in generating ££££ for investors (mainly foreign) it’s A SUBSIDY SCAM.
Just like Solar PV – you are paying me 43p for every kW I use (£1843/yr indexed linked for the next 25yrs….tax free, my return on investment = 29%, while ISAs pay ~ 4% !!!) thank you.

Wish I could have a wind turbine on my land - £40,000/yr plus free electric, guaranteed for 20yrs, sod the neighbors & planet, make some tax free cash !!!!

Basic logic fail - the financial incentives brought in by government to encourage the shift to renewables say nothing about the long term effectiveness of wind, solar or other renewable sources of energy.

Once fossil fuel availability begins to decline - and it will, starting with petroleum and gas - our growth-based system will struggle to cope and fuel prices will skyrocket as the oil producers start hoarding to protect their own futures. Setting aside the potential for further conflict this will create, the market will demand a new energy infrastructure based on non-fossil solutions. But - the construction of that shiny new infrastructure requires not just money, but energy, which will be the very commodity in short supply. Will we really be willing to sacrifice additional energy in the short term - effectively steepening the decline - for a long-term energy plan?

We need to make the shift away from dependence on fossil fuels while we have the capacity to do so. That means huge improvements in energy conservation, major investment in renewable sources to bring costs down by economies of scale and further research into other potential sources.

Nuclear power:
Not liked because it is dangerous.
Coal power:
Not liked because it is dirty and uses fossil fuels:
Gas power: Not liked because it is a fossil fuel
Wind Turbines: Not liked because it spoils someone's view out of their kitchen window.

Makes me laugh the people who oppose wind turbines. These people would rather another dirty, filthy, concrete monstrosity in their town, than a petite, elegant and hypnotic wind turbine.

An acquaintance in Scotland recently applied to have three turbines put in his field.
They were 500 meters from the nearest neighbour, right next to a very large open quarry, with trees obstructing their view from the neighbours and the nearest village 5 miles away. The only people who would of seen them was him, the quarry, and the farmer that owned the adjacent fields.
His permission was refused as they would spoil the landscape.
All he wanted was 3phase electric in his garage. the £75k to put the turbines in was cheaper than the £120k the electric board wanted to run a 3 phase cable 4 miles.

Fantastic! Well done to Wiltshire councillors. You may end up being one of the few areas in the UK where the landscape is not dominated by these useless, inefficient, highly subsidised monstrosities. It's not about being a NIMBY as the windies are keen to trot out, nor is it about being pro nuclear. It's simply commonsense. This is industrialisation of the landscape for no good reason other than to try to give some vain form of visual 'evidence' that the Government is in line with Europe, and to fill the pockets of greedy landowners and largely foreign owned energy companies.

Another thing, the safety argument is in my eyes invalid.
If a blade flies off, the first thing it hits it will shatter. There would be minimal mass to continue forward travel to injure anyone. Before it came away, there would be plenty of warning before hand with just the noise. And even if one blade came off, then the chances are that high speed would be the cause. Which suggests that any blade coming adrift would be hit by the other blades as it spins. Most of the mass would be destroyed before anything hit the ground.
And if it was turning slowly, then the blade would land at the feet of the mast.
If the blade did cause death or injury, then casualties would be low. Possibly 1 or 2 people.

I suggest you look up Chernobyl. Which would you rather? 1 or 2 people dying by a piece of flying blade, or half a million people effected, covering several countries, from a nuclear fall out?

The councils decision to not allow wind turbines flawed.

Love it that we are all being pushed into being more green yet do not want the things on our own door step.If only they could ban solar panals as they are the most unsightly thing going.

quote
"than a petite, elegant and hypnotic wind turbine."

you've obviously never been near one then?

Take a drive up the M4 to Reading, or to Northern France to see what these eyesores look like en masse.

and have you not noticed, no wind no electric?

we have 200years worth of coal under this island at least; and it gives work to men not a subsidy to the already filthy rich

Oh dear. I would be interested to see any evidence-based research that suggested that these minimum distances are required. It's just a ruse created by those who seem, bizarrely, to be fixated against clean energy generation. Phorever (above) has it about right. We all want the lights to come on at the flick of a switch but no-one is prepared to accept the impacts of the facilities that produce the electricity. We've got a nuclear power station being built up the road. If you're worried about the 'visual impact and industrialisation of the countryside' that wind turbines cause, come to Somerset and see what a bunch of nuclear reactors do for the view!!

Giant pylons versus Giant Turbines? I know which I'd rather live next to - unfortunately that's not the debate. Safety is! In which case this prompts two questions: 1) Why is there a policy to build more dangerous roads in West Wiltshire? 2) Why isn't there a policy to support all efforts to maintain energy security?

Giant pylons versus Giant Turbines? I know which I'd rather live next to - unfortunately that's not the debate. Safety is! In which case this prompts two questions: 1) Why is there a policy to build more dangerous roads in West Wiltshire? 2) Why isn't there a policy to support all efforts to maintain energy security?

No wind turbines because it affects the view, but happy to accept hundreds, perhaps thousands of people working underground developing all sorts of lung diseases, to keep the lights on?

Pylons are static but see what happens when a new set of pylons are proposed. Same response as turbines - 'spoils my view'

Want a new reservoir to improve water supply? - forget it.

Just married and want to live near the rest of your family? - forget it.

We can't go on without doing SOMETHING to improve energy security so what should we do?

We can't expect our children and grand children to live at home all the time but we oppose more houses. Its no good saying there are houses in Bolton or Liverpool - the jobs are here, the families are here.

Most people here want to pull up the drawbridge and spend their time wearing a blindfold and with their fingers in their ears so their comfortable existence isn't disturbed.

Just over 2% of this country is actually built on - including paved driveways, roads, buildings in the countryside. Let's provide for future generations properly, not condemn them to poverty.

These amazing inventions should be taken advantage of wherever possible. Inefficiency my left foot, thats just what protesters make up with no evidence. The truth is a few turbines can power hundreds of homes sustainably and once installed are carbon free. I'm a great lover of the beautiful Wiltshire countryside but get over the "they're an eyesore" rubbish and get a grip of reality. They're going to be relied on at some point so make it now!

Well…
According to the Dept of Energy & Climate Change (energy stats 2012), in 2011 the entire stock of 3600+ wind turbines produced only 2.85% onshore & 1.39% offshore of UKs total demand at a load factor of 28%, even sewage gas is better with a load factor of 46.3%!!


Sadly not on their own …..or the lights go out.
Carbon Footprint of wind
Wind power has one of the lowest Carbon Footprints equal to Nuclear at 5kg CO²/MW,
whereas Gas =500 & Coal = 1100, BUT wind is capricious, so the true Carbon Footprint of wind power is much higher.
This is because wind turbines have to be shadowed by a “spinning reserve” (gas-turbines running inefficiently ) to pick up the load when the wind drops, so as the 2 systems are running together you have to count the amalgamated gains/losses together,

Say 500MW of wind =2.5 ton CO²
+ 300MW gas “spinning reserve” = 150 ton CO²
=152.5 ton CO²/500 MW = 0.305 ton CO²
So the true Carbon Footprint of wind is approx 305kg CO²/MW not 5kg CO²/MW

As regards energy security most UK windfarms are owned/operated by foreign investors.

nativedwarf wrote:
These amazing inventions should be taken advantage of wherever possible. Inefficiency my left foot, thats just what protesters make up with no evidence. The truth is a few turbines can power hundreds of homes sustainably and once installed are carbon free. I'm a great lover of the beautiful Wiltshire countryside but get over the "they're an eyesore" rubbish and get a grip of reality. They're going to be relied on at some point so make it now!

(sorry - quotes got left out)

“Inefficiency my left foot, that’s just what protesters make up with no evidence.”
Well…
According to the Dept of Energy & Climate Change (energy stats 2012), in 2011 the entire stock of 3600+ wind turbines produced only 2.85% onshore & 1.39% offshore of UKs total demand at a load factor of 28%, even sewage gas is better with a load factor of 46.3%!!

“The truth is a few turbines can power hundreds of homes sustainably and once installed are carbon free.”
Sadly not on their own …..or the lights go out.
Carbon Footprint of wind
Wind power has one of the lowest Carbon Footprints equal to Nuclear at 5kg CO²/MW,
whereas Gas =500 & Coal = 1100, BUT wind is capricious, so the true Carbon Footprint of wind power is much higher.
This is because wind turbines have to be shadowed by a “spinning reserve” (gas-turbines running inefficiently ) to pick up the load when the wind drops, so as the 2 systems are running together you have to count the amalgamated gains/losses together,

Say 500MW of wind =2.5 ton CO²
+ 300MW gas “spinning reserve” = 150 ton CO²
=152.5 ton CO²/500 MW = 0.305 ton CO²
So the true Carbon Footprint of wind is approx 305kg CO²/MW not 5kg CO²/MW

As regards energy security most UK windfarms are owned/operated by foreign investors.

save energy wrote:

Well…
According to the Dept of Energy & Climate Change (energy stats 2012), in 2011 the entire stock of 3600+ wind turbines produced only 2.85% onshore & 1.39% offshore of UKs total demand at a load factor of 28%, even sewage gas is better with a load factor of 46.3%!!


Sadly not on their own …..or the lights go out.
Carbon Footprint of wind
Wind power has one of the lowest Carbon Footprints equal to Nuclear at 5kg CO²/MW,
whereas Gas =500 & Coal = 1100, BUT wind is capricious, so the true Carbon Footprint of wind power is much higher.
This is because wind turbines have to be shadowed by a “spinning reserve” (gas-turbines running inefficiently ) to pick up the load when the wind drops, so as the 2 systems are running together you have to count the amalgamated gains/losses together,

Say 500MW of wind =2.5 ton CO²
+ 300MW gas “spinning reserve” = 150 ton CO²
=152.5 ton CO²/500 MW = 0.305 ton CO²
So the true Carbon Footprint of wind is approx 305kg CO²/MW not 5kg CO²/MW

As regards energy security most UK windfarms are owned/operated by foreign investors.

"BUT wind is capricious, so the true Carbon Footprint of wind power is much higher. This is because wind turbines have to be shadowed by a “spinning reserve” (gas-turbines running inefficiently ) "
Wrong again.
There are three sites in the UK designed to handle bursts of electricity in a few seconds notice. These sites are powerful enough to give a several thousand killowatt kick to citys hundreds of miles away.
These sites are powered by water.
One I have visited myself is Electric mountain at Dinorwic, North Wales.
There is a reservoir at the top of the mountain. In the event of a power loss, pipes open up and several thousand gallons of water are fed by gravity through some turbines. This site in North Wales has the capacity to send enough electricity into the grid to cover every house turning the kettle on at the same time.
When they are stopped again, guess what powers the turbines to refill the reservoir?

Wind Turbines.

So my friend, Wind Turbines are used as a back up for water power generation.

And back to the pathetic 'Wind turbines are dangerous' argument, Dinorwic's surge pipe is 30 meters in diameter, with a 70 meter drop. With only a chain link fence around it. If you go through the fence, you will die.

And as for the 'Wind farms are a blot on the landscape' gang, this hole can be seen from the town in the side of the mountain.

http://goo.gl/maps/3
0Hk
http://www.fhc.co.uk
/dinorwig.htm

Phorever wrote:

save energy wrote:

Well…
According to the Dept of Energy & Climate Change (energy stats 2012), in 2011 the entire stock of 3600+ wind turbines produced only 2.85% onshore & 1.39% offshore of UKs total demand at a load factor of 28%, even sewage gas is better with a load factor of 46.3%!!


Sadly not on their own …..or the lights go out.
Carbon Footprint of wind
Wind power has one of the lowest Carbon Footprints equal to Nuclear at 5kg CO²/MW,
whereas Gas =500 & Coal = 1100, BUT wind is capricious, so the true Carbon Footprint of wind power is much higher.
This is because wind turbines have to be shadowed by a “spinning reserve” (gas-turbines running inefficiently ) to pick up the load when the wind drops, so as the 2 systems are running together you have to count the amalgamated gains/losses together,

Say 500MW of wind =2.5 ton CO²
+ 300MW gas “spinning reserve” = 150 ton CO²
=152.5 ton CO²/500 MW = 0.305 ton CO²
So the true Carbon Footprint of wind is approx 305kg CO²/MW not 5kg CO²/MW

As regards energy security most UK windfarms are owned/operated by foreign investors.

"BUT wind is capricious, so the true Carbon Footprint of wind power is much higher. This is because wind turbines have to be shadowed by a “spinning reserve” (gas-turbines running inefficiently ) "
Wrong again.
There are three sites in the UK designed to handle bursts of electricity in a few seconds notice. These sites are powerful enough to give a several thousand killowatt kick to citys hundreds of miles away.
These sites are powered by water.
One I have visited myself is Electric mountain at Dinorwic, North Wales.
There is a reservoir at the top of the mountain. In the event of a power loss, pipes open up and several thousand gallons of water are fed by gravity through some turbines. This site in North Wales has the capacity to send enough electricity into the grid to cover every house turning the kettle on at the same time.
When they are stopped again, guess what powers the turbines to refill the reservoir?

Wind Turbines.

So my friend, Wind Turbines are used as a back up for water power generation.

And back to the pathetic 'Wind turbines are dangerous' argument, Dinorwic's surge pipe is 30 meters in diameter, with a 70 meter drop. With only a chain link fence around it. If you go through the fence, you will die.

And as for the 'Wind farms are a blot on the landscape' gang, this hole can be seen from the town in the side of the mountain.

http://goo.gl/maps/3

0Hk
http://www.fhc.co.uk

/dinorwig.htm

UK Pumped storage - STOR - Short Term Operating Reserve (the 4 sites take 60-90 secs to start) gives only 2459 MW for 6hrs (4.9% of average peak demand) then they run out of water. Wind often doesn’t produce for days – sometime wks, but you still want electric.
Look here http://www.geog.ox.a
c.uk/~dcurtis/NETA.h
tml

Denmark, the home of wind power, has to give excess wind power to Norway to pump-store …then buy it back at full cost!!! which is why Denmark has not closed any fossil fuel stations & is now building more.

Total madness.

There are some fairly ludicrous claims for wind power here.

Might I suggest that people read what National Grid have to say on how power is generated and supplied before posting - recent 'Seven year statements' are illiminating: http://www.nationalg
rid.com/uk/Electrici
ty/SYS/

Even if we built what DECC forecast to be the worst case onshore wind build (c. 23GW headline capacity, we currently have 4.8GW), National Grid say we would still need 30.5GW of new nuclear, 36GW of new gas and c. 5.5GW of new coal-fired capacity.

Wind is a parallel system that has a proven record of failing to provide any significant amount of power when most needed (winter peak), while producing too much when least needed.

It also grits with Northerners to read about Wiltshire having an attack of the vapours over 3 x 25m turbines (the biggest you have so far managed to build or consent) when huge areas of northern England and Scotland have HUNDREDS of 125m turbines built and consented and hundreds more in planning.

Just have a look at the numbers in Dumfries & Galloway, Ayrshire and Scottish Borders, for example.

SNH do a site footptint map, which is way out of date, but gives you an idea: http://www.snh.gov.u
k/planning-and-devel
opment/renewable-ene
rgy/research-data-an
d-trends/trendsandst
ats/windfarm-footpri
nt-maps/

Or see the maps on this website: www.windbyte.co.uk/

Further to comments about Dinorwic - it was built to buffer local nuclear load not dispersed wind.

It would cost billions to build today, adding to the already huge costs that wind has brought to the grid and balancing mechanism.

This decision is madness. How could a turbine blade possibly be blown 1 km away? Ironically, only if the storms caused by climate change became unthinkably violent. Even if you don't believe in man-made global warming, you have to accept that fossil fuels will run out one day fairly soon, and what will we do then? Renewable energy is our only hope for preserving a comfortable way of life for our grandchildren. Get real, Wiltshire Council!

jasper.

You are quite right re. blade throw - there ARE plenty of examples of blades being thrown for hundreds of metres from 100m plus turbines, but non, I think, for 1 km.

However, low frequency noise is a problem with many turbine arrays at over 1km so larger turbines should not be built closer than 1.5-2km from housing

No, fossil fuels will NOT run out fairly soon - there are huge reserves of coal and even larger reserves of gas in various forms.

Which is lucky because large scale wind is totally dependent on gas and will certainly save very little. This is because gas-fuelled power stations will be cycled to follow wind load.

Other countries with large scale wind capacity (without large hydro) have experienced precisely this problem. And hardly any reduction in CO2 emissions die to cycling coal- or gas-fired power stations to follow wind load.

As previously noted, please check the figures on National Grid's 'Seven year statement, 2011', which states that even if we built ALL possible onshore wind power stations (23GW) we would still need 30.5GW of NEW nuclear and 36GW of NEW gas-fuelled capacity. See:
http://www.nationalg
rid.com/uk/Electrici
ty/SYS/

As Professor Sir David King, former Government Chief Scientific Advisor 2002-2007 and repentant former wind enthusiast notes: "We can’t rely too heavily on wind because it always requires a gas-fired turbine to be able to be switched on to provide alternative energy," ('Green setback for UK as British power supplied by renewable sources falls, The Guardian. 28 June, 2010).

And I thought that this article was about safety. Not much discussion of that issue so far. Perhaps because there is no empirical evidence to suggest that these buffer zones are required or even desirable.

Mike Rigby.

There are a number of papers on blade throw, with formulae on likely blade throw distances if you can be bothered reading them. Just google 'wind turbine blade throw'. These can certainly be for hundreds of metres for large turbines. You will find numerous examples in the press, some linked from this site: http://www.windbyte.
co.uk/safety.html

A Caithness group tracks accident data: http://www.caithness
windfarms.co.uk/page
4.htm

The noise issue is definitely key to requiring separation distances, and yes, there IS a wealth of empirical evidence on turbine noise.

This is why more and more countries and/or states are requiring 2km setbacks from large turbines.

For a simple introduction on the issue from a professional industrial acoustician see:
http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?feature=pla
yer_embedded&v=co8y4
hduXjQ

For info on low frequency noise from large turbines see recent Danish government commissioned, peer-reviewed paper by Professor Møller of Aarhus University:
http://asadl.org/jas
a/resource/1/jasman/
v129/i6/p3727_s1?isA
uthorized=no:

The medical issues are increasingly well documented, see paper and bibliography in: 'Sleep disturbance and wind turbine noise', June 2009. Dr Christopher Hanning, BSc, MB, BS, MRCS, LRCP, FRCA, MD, Honorary Consultant in Sleep Disorders Medicine to the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust -
http://www.algonquin
adventures.com/waywa
rdwind/docs/Hanning-
sleep-disturbance-wi
nd-turbine-noise.pdf


There are dozens of peer-reviewed papers on turbine noise, fewer epidemiological and clinical papers. Just take the trouble to look, rather than sticking your head in the sand.

Nlys wrote:
Mike Rigby.

There are a number of papers on blade throw, with formulae on likely blade throw distances if you can be bothered reading them. Just google 'wind turbine blade throw'. These can certainly be for hundreds of metres for large turbines. You will find numerous examples in the press, some linked from this site: http://www.windbyte.

co.uk/safety.html

A Caithness group tracks accident data: http://www.caithness

windfarms.co.uk/page

4.htm

The noise issue is definitely key to requiring separation distances, and yes, there IS a wealth of empirical evidence on turbine noise.

This is why more and more countries and/or states are requiring 2km setbacks from large turbines.

For a simple introduction on the issue from a professional industrial acoustician see:
http://www.youtube.c

om/watch?feature=pla

yer_embedded&v=c
o8y4
hduXjQ

For info on low frequency noise from large turbines see recent Danish government commissioned, peer-reviewed paper by Professor Møller of Aarhus University:
http://asadl.org/jas

a/resource/1/jasman/

v129/i6/p3727_s1?isA

uthorized=no:

The medical issues are increasingly well documented, see paper and bibliography in: 'Sleep disturbance and wind turbine noise', June 2009. Dr Christopher Hanning, BSc, MB, BS, MRCS, LRCP, FRCA, MD, Honorary Consultant in Sleep Disorders Medicine to the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust -
http://www.algonquin

adventures.com/waywa

rdwind/docs/Hanning-

sleep-disturbance-wi

nd-turbine-noise.pdf



There are dozens of peer-reviewed papers on turbine noise, fewer epidemiological and clinical papers. Just take the trouble to look, rather than sticking your head in the sand.

Nlys, what a strange thing to get so worked up about. I merely wondered, as an interested observer, whether there was any empirical evidence for 1 and 2km buffer zones through blade throw. You seem to accept that there is not (perhaps a few hundred metres will do) and yet 'my head is in the sand'. Why so aggressive? I think it is clear that there is no safety justification for these buffer zones from a blade throw perspective. It's a red herring. If there was a serious issue here, it would be the subject of national policy prescription, not left to the Wiltshire NIMBYs to lead on :-)

One of the complaints about wind turbines seems to be the feeling (often unjustified) that large developers will be raking in money at the expense of local communities but the perverse decision of Wiltshire's councillors will mean that even well supported community projects which will be of great benefit to the local community as well as helping towards energy security and reducing climate changing emissions will find it almost impossible to get off the ground. Is this really what Wiltshire Councillors want?

Mike Rigby.

I answered your question.

Blade throw IS an issue because the only required separation distance in England and Wales from major roads, railways etc. is in terms of 'topple distance'.

As I have already mentioned, there are many instances of blades being thrown for hundreds of metres.

Turbines now being built have blades that are commonly 45-50m long and weighing 7-12 tonnes.

In terms of housing, blade throw is less of a concern than the effects of low frequency noise on health. This is because most turbine arrays fail the ETSU-R-97 noise model (unless the developers have made a particularly good job of fiddling the figures!) up to c. 500-700m.

But. as previously outlined there are problems with turbine noise and health effects at many turbine arrays that supposedly meet current noise guidleines. Fullabrook is just one recent example:
http://www.thisisnor
thdevon.co.uk/story-
13873940-detail/stor
y.html

This is why more civilised countries have introduced buffer zones for large turbines.

It is somewhat ironic that the then DTI recommended a 450m separation zone from wind turbines when they were 30-50m high in the 1990s. Now we are building turbines that are 125m plus there in no recommended seperation distance.

Anyone with any knowledge of acoustics and environmental health thinks this state of affairs is illogical and unsupportable.

There ya go again, Nlys. Unable to advance a convincing case based on any sort of empirical evidence regarding blade throw, you attempt to reframe the debate, focussing on noise, which is of course, nothing to do with this article. As I say, red herring :-)

Mary Q wrote:
One of the complaints about wind turbines seems to be the feeling (often unjustified) that large developers will be raking in money at the expense of local communities but the perverse decision of Wiltshire's councillors will mean that even well supported community projects which will be of great benefit to the local community as well as helping towards energy security and reducing climate changing emissions will find it almost impossible to get off the ground. Is this really what Wiltshire Councillors want?

Mary Q wrote:

1. “One of the complaints about wind turbines seems to be the feeling (often unjustified) that large developers will be raking in money at the expense of local communities”

I’ve invested in solar PV,…so YOU pay me £2100/yr index linked & Guaranteed for 25yrs, (thank you!!) my break-even point = 4.6yrs, return on capital = 30% ( find an ISA that pays that !!!) It’s a scam.

Industrial wind turbines are a much more lucrative scam, costing us £billions, the only investments better than wind, are the sex & illegal drugs industry’s.

2. “helping towards energy security and reducing climate changing emissions”

Please explain how wind can do this, given that they have an intermittent output so more gas turbines are required to run inefficiently (thus producing more CO2). . Nb Large amount of Grid & Government data available to substantiate this.

At least my Solar PV system doesn’t affect my neighbors (except their pockets) & is small enough not to cause problems for the grid.

Mike Rigby.

If you recall my first post, I said if you are capable of googling 'blade throw' (which is obviously beyond your research skills) - you will find several references to academic papers on the subject.

Such as: Health & Safety Laboratory, 'Numerical Modelling of Wind Turbine Blade Throw' (Report Number ESS/2006/27):
http://windfarmactio
n.files.wordpress.co
m/2011/08/numerical-
modelling-of-wind-tu
rbine-blade-throw-hs
l-report-19-april-20
07_.pdf

Note that the fomulae used in this 2006 paper would have to be applied to much larger turbines today.

'Watch this video to see the catastrophic failure of one small Danish turbine (it was one of 3 that experienced a catastrophic failure in Denmark and Sweden within 2 weeks).

http://youtu.be/-YJu
FvjtM0s

I can give you a fairly long list of UK blade failures and turbine collapses if you want (the one we know about) they are seldom reported to EHO's or anybody else unless somebody is injured.

Do you really think that noise has nothing to do with environmental health? Talk to an EHO!

Mary Q wrote:
One of the complaints about wind turbines seems to be the feeling (often unjustified) that large developers will be raking in money at the expense of local communities but the perverse decision of Wiltshire's councillors will mean that even well supported community projects which will be of great benefit to the local community as well as helping towards energy security and reducing climate changing emissions will find it almost impossible to get off the ground. Is this really what Wiltshire Councillors want?

Mary Q - You are incorrect on both counts.
Firstly, Wiltshire Council's decision allows both for the development of small scale micro generation sites and for the final decision on whether planning distances should be applied to wind turbines to be made by local communities on a case by case basis. This is in keeping with Wiltshire Councils strong belief in local decisions being made by local people.

Secondly, developers ARE raking it in. The investors are here to make money. You'll also note the off-shore aspect which might get you thinking about their tax arrangements. Here are the details of the
REG Windpower investors taken from their website. REG Windpower currently has offices in Bath and Truro, and is a subsidiary of the Jersey based, AIM-listed Renewable Energy Generation Limited*, a company worth over £50m (2011), and in turn owned by
Utilico Investments 22.20% (a Bermuda-based investment company)
Henderson Global Investments 14.32%
Artemis Investment Management 12.51%
CG Asset Management 9.76%
RWC Partners 7.01%
Aviva Investors 5.35%
Rathbones 4.37%

Nlys wrote:
Mike Rigby.

If you recall my first post, I said if you are capable of googling 'blade throw' (which is obviously beyond your research skills) - you will find several references to academic papers on the subject.

Such as: Health & Safety Laboratory, 'Numerical Modelling of Wind Turbine Blade Throw' (Report Number ESS/2006/27):
http://windfarmactio

n.files.wordpress.co

m/2011/08/numerical-

modelling-of-wind-tu

rbine-blade-throw-hs

l-report-19-april-20

07_.pdf

Note that the fomulae used in this 2006 paper would have to be applied to much larger turbines today.

'Watch this video to see the catastrophic failure of one small Danish turbine (it was one of 3 that experienced a catastrophic failure in Denmark and Sweden within 2 weeks).

http://youtu.be/-YJu

FvjtM0s

I can give you a fairly long list of UK blade failures and turbine collapses if you want (the one we know about) they are seldom reported to EHO's or anybody else unless somebody is injured.

Do you really think that noise has nothing to do with environmental health? Talk to an EHO!

Nlys, It is not up to me to go and research YOUR case, is it? I merely ask you to justify these huge buffer zones from a blade throw perspective. Thank you for now advancing some evidence although this doesn't support the distances proposed by WCC. And of course noise has to do with environmental health. However, it has nothing to do with this Council decision or this article. Red herring!