A deafening silence on here about this engaging programme. Essential watching for anyone with any kind of interest in the spread of the ubiqitous turbine, whichever side of the fence you're on.

Opinions so far?

The triumphalism of the shifty RES lot (smug is too polite a word) on getting their appeal granted did nothing to endear them to anyone. Their reaction was totally inappropriate and unprofessional.

The trailer hints at the Law Lords' taking RES to task over their arrogance, so next week's episode should be interesting.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00zzwv6

The issue of "ambient" noise from wind farms featured in episode 2 and raised interesting aspects of the pro and con arguments.

Yes, in the programme the measurements of ambient (background) noise were interpreted as being noiser than the predicted noise from a turbine, the base data being subject to a particularly bitter dispute between the guy who originally supported the idea of the wind farm and RES, a dispute which soured relations and which had been especially badly handled by RES and Rachel, their local project manager, but ambient noise is irregular, the noise from a turbine being regular. Listening to Schubert played loud enough to be heard in the garden isn't quite the same as "having" to listen to the constant regular thump of garage music (a misnomer if ever there was one) coming from the open window of a neighbour's teenage son or daughter.

I assume most people on here will know enough about acoustics to know that what an instrument measures isn't the same as what a particular individual hears - or indeed, what different individuals hear of the same noise source.

I remember friends visiting us when we lived down the Corvedale, which was pretty remote back then. We were in a cottage surrounded by fields. We had sheep in one field, cows in another, and one of the neighbouring farmers was combining. Birds were singing their heads off. Sid looked at me and said: "I thought it was supposed to be quiet in the countryside!"

My wife's closest friend is a yoga freak, for whom life is a full-time job. She stayed with us a while back and I couldn't get to sleep no matter how I tried. There was a constant background humming noise that I couldn't identify. I got up to try and track it down and the wife asked what I was doing.

"Trying to find that bloody noise."

'It's Laura!'

"What do you mean, 'It's Laura'?"

'It's her white-noise machine. She needs it to help her get to sleep.'

"Well, it's keeping me a-bloody-wake."

'Sssh. You'll wake her up.'

I ended up sleeping on a sofa in the sitting room.

Laura has never stayed the night since!

I thought the Mike character came over quite well as a representative of the "average person" prepared to allow that there probably is something in the climate change argument. It's interesting to see how attitudes shift by the second episode. I didn't see Mike and his wife as hippies, they certainly didn't live a hippy lifestyle, just a self-sufficient one, and moreover one dependent on the property-owning principle of the capitalist system for their pension, which was just one of the issues that moved them. They could see their property being devalued by the proximity of the turbines, both visually and aurally.

Much of what is emerging from the programme accords with my thinking on the matter of wind FARMS, and nowhere was there mention of the intermittent nature of wind and the need for back-up generation, for which RES would probably advocate biomass which, as a profit-seeking/maximising organisation, would probably be of the dirtier kind, justified by another £300,000 research study with a pre-ordained conclusion based on cherry-picked data - unless they decide to come down off their high-horse and get their act together and start to engage with the great unwashed.

A simple google will elicit the info that pp was granted in 2009, so I'm not spoiling anything here. The documentary is interesting as an illustration of the processes involved, and particularly the individuals involved, so well worth watching.

As previous posts have failed to provoke a reaction I might as well post this little contribution from Rachel Ruffle, the PM on the case, although given the "evidence" of the documentary (even allowing for the editing) what she says here is a tad disingenuous, although hardly surprising given her unquestioning advocacy of wind.

http://www.youtube.com/denbrookwf

Enjoyed watching the documentary although it brought back memories of a campaign I was involved with for 4 years with a water company - taking Party 6 status we had to fight a public inquiry and a 'call in' where we not only had to face the water company but the Environment Agency as well - extremely stressful and they played all sorts of tricks, however an amazing 'education'. We never got funding for a barrister, so we had to do it all ourselves - awful, and so much work.

On the whole I don't mind windfarms but am opposing one being proposed on Bodmin Moor. For me it's a landscape issue - we have so little moorland left in the UK.

I do wonder if the capital was spent on a variety of solar and insulation measures etc the nation would be better off in the long term - but then that is a huge and complex issue.

As for the noise issue - our public inquiry was held at a windfarm (!) and I spent quite a lot of time near them, anxiously puffing fags before having to cross question expert witnesses and/or being cross questioned myself and I can tell you they make a range of sounds when operating, from almost silent to very loud.

And, of course, always overlooked in the debate...

http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2011/05/21/300-miles-of-pylons-to-blight-countryside-as-energy-bosses-link-new-wind-farms-and-nuclear-power-stations-to-the-grid/

Personally, I accept the inevitability of the spread of wind farms. The silence of the pro-camp I'm perhaps reading too much into, but can't help the feeling that they know that whatever objections are raised, and however justified, they're just going to be ridden rough-shod over because every loophole will be shifted across onto an even bigger playing field, one of a size too big for the small and insignificant fry to cover effectively. They'll just throw lots of taxpayer's money at it, although once the feeding frenzy starts in earnest (and the sheer scale of RES's operation indicates that's not far off) then private investment will fuel the monster's onward rush, the immediately-affected minority shouted down in the clamour of the distant-from-site majority in the communities scrabbling for a slice of the financial sweeteners.

What price a green and becoming unpleasant land?

The lost voice of that documentary, Mike's, said it all really, when he spoke about the need to REDUCE energy use and insulate, not blight the country with the means to maintain current levels of consumption with a scheme that makes millionaires of a few landowners for an intermittent energy resource that takes resources away from more sensible energy policies - the ones generally promoted and practiced on here.

They increased the height of the Den Brook turbines by 20 metres during the course of the planning process.

That Hotel, thread bare carpets, badly painted windows and a cat in the kitchen by the looks of it. I think there are other reasons why they maybe going out of business.
Shame I did not know about it earlier. If anyone knows of a planned windfarm that is going to decimate peoples property prices could they let me know. I am looking for a nice rural property. Now have I told you all about the nuclear power station that will be 5 miles from St Ives, should get the whole town for a fiver, including parking places. What a nonsense.

Posted By: SteamyTea If anyone knows of a planned windfarm that is going to decimate peoples property prices could they let me know.

There are several very nice houses in my village. It's a conservation area and several are thatched cottages. Estate agents say nobody will touch any of the houses until the planning application for a wind farm is determined so you have at least a year to get your offer in. There have been virtually no viewings since plans were anounced.

Most houses are more than 700m away from the nearest turbine but I can't guarantee they won't get any shadow flicker. At the consultation meeting the developer told some residents to expect 30 hours a year (eg about 40 mins every day in the summer).

The turbine spacing is likely to be on the close side so we might see some enhanced AM noise but at the moment it's very quiet.

It's a great place for animals. There is a riding school but it's not clear if they will still be able to use the bridleways. They are worried about the shadows spooking the horses. Not good for novice riders. Apparently it's not so much a problem when they are running. It's when they start suddenly without warning.

We also get a lot of Red Kites. They were released in the area some years ago as part of the re-introduction program. You can see them soaring over the proposed site of the wind farm most days. They even circled the blimp that was flown to indicate the turbine height (419ft).

An American lady was going to move her business to the area but changed her mind when she heard about plans for the wind farms so hope you don't need a job?

I'm with ST, and I'm not sure I'd want new neighbours apparently so ignorant and selfish, probably stuck-up townies, so good riddance. Where do they think ****ing electricity comes from then, unicorn farts? Since when were coal-fired power stations a better idea or prettier for the people near them? What about only letting people buy who have and promise to maintain an energy consumption per capita below the UK average so that we can put up fewer turbines?

My aunt has a farm in southern England. People moved next to it, as a working farm, towards the end of the '60s and complained loudly that there were animals and noise. I'm not sure if they've clued up yet.

Rgds

Damon

I thought the programme was interesting. It is weird to see how much (some) people don't like the look of them. The hotel owner being a good example. The idea that your house becomes worth much less when near turbines seems odd to me, as it rather depends on the idea that no-else likes turbines either. It may be true at the moment, but I don't think that attitude will last once everyone gets used to them. I guess we have 20 yrs of data from Denmark to find out if this is actually true or not. There presumably is such a thing as 'too close' or at least 'annoyingly close'. Not sure it's any worse than major road noise, which isn't nice, but enormous numbers of people live with it.

RES refusing to hand over monitoring data did seem to be pretty unreasonable. Didn't endear them to me. An honest assessment of the data should be the objective. You can't assess data you haven't got.

Another notable point was that the planning criteria do not seem to include actual output, merely installed capacity, which does seem pretty daft. Not clear whether that includes some nominal (and uncheckable without data) capacity factor or not. Apparently not, which is clearly nonsense.

Cwatters, presumably the proposed community scheme was pre-empted by the commercial one? Not sure what could be done about that. Community ownership is clearly a good thing, but ultimately development is pretty much a 'whoever gets the moneyu together first' thing, unless we were to change planning law in favour of co-op arrangements.

Posted By: wookeyI thought the programme was interesting. It is weird to see how much (some) people don't like the look of them. The hotel owner being a good example. The idea that your house becomes worth much less when near turbines seems odd to me, as it rather depends on the idea that no-else likes turbines either. It may be true at the moment, but I don't think that attitude will last once everyone gets used to them. I guess we have 20 yrs of data from Denmark to find out if this is actually true or not. There presumably is such a thing as 'too close' or at least 'annoyingly close'. Not sure it's any worse than major road noise, which isn't nice, but enormous numbers of people live with it.

One reason they are built near roads is because ETSU-R-97 allows them to produce more noise than the existing background (eg more than the road). But it's not just the volume that's the issue it's the nature of the noise. Noisy wind farms (not all are) are described as like a train approacking that never arrives.

RES refusing to hand over monitoring data did seem to be pretty unreasonable. Didn't endear them to me. An honest assessment of the data should be the objective. You can't assess data you haven't got.

Perhaps that's why?

Another notable point was that the planning criteria do not seem to include actual output, merely installed capacity, which does seem pretty daft. Not clear whether that includes some nominal (and uncheckable without data) capacity factor or not. Apparently not, which is clearly nonsense.

Here is an example.. In a recent planning application (Wolley Hill in Hunts) they propose installing Four 2.3MW turbines. So the installed capacity I make around 80,592 MWH a year. In the planning application para 1.1.4..

http://applications.huntsdc.gov.uk/dc%20files/2010_PDF/Fileroom/1001741FUL/DOCUMENT_4.pdf

they claim they will deliver 24,750 MHW which is a load factor of 24750/80592 = 30.7%

This is central england about as far from the sea as you can get. A nearby wind farm has been operating at 19-25%.
Nobody can challenge the claimed figures because planning guidance instructs the planners to take the figures from the developer on trust.

Cwatters' reference to the US study needs to be considered. It is a balanced review and should inform the debate.

"The key messages of this report can be boiled down to four themes.

• First, it is clear that many people, in all parts of the country, have been dramatically impacted
by the noise of wind farms near their homes. To dismiss all these people as cranks, or as
hyper-sensitive social outliers, does a disservice to constructive public discourse, and shortcircuits
our opportunities to learn from their experiences as we continue to develop new wind
farms.

• Second, it is also clear that wind farm noise is truly not that bothersome to most people who
hear it or live near it, and that the vast majority of wind farms never generate any substantial
ongoing noise issues. Concerns that dominate public discourse and activist web sites can seem
to accentuate the hardest to quantify issues (such as direct health effects, especially of lowfrequency
noise), while magnifying the extent of problems as communities consider new wind
developments.

• Third, the nature of the sounds made by wind turbines make it especially difficult to rely on
reassuring “noise limits” as proposed by states, counties, or townships. Several factors
contribute to this dilemma. Noise propagation varies greatly with changing wind and
atmospheric conditions; there are many different ways to average noise recordings, some of
which can lead to noise levels much higher than local officials may think they are allowing; the
pulsing nature of turbine noise is inherently more attention-grabbing and more easily disruptive
than road or industrial noises; and finally, there is much we have yet to learn about the factors
that create the most troublesome turbine noises, including pulses and low-frequency sound.

• And fourth, and perhaps most important yet least appreciated: we are facing some social
choices that may be difficult to make. While broad-brush studies report no simple cause-effect
between wind farm noise and various measures of impact (health, annoyance, property values),
it is also clear that a minority of those nearby do often experience dramatic, negative impacts.
How many such affected neighbors are we willing to accept? 5%? 20%? We can no longer
pretend this more affected minority doesn’t exist; it’s time to choose how much to adapt wind
farm planning — or operations — in response to these impacts."

................


Perhaps someone should send RES a copy!

IMHO, hardly, unless it is well below expected norms due to some other perverse incentive, since it is in the developer's interests to get the highest capacity factor possible (equipment costs are fixed, but returns are in proportion to output).

Rgds

Damon

Posted By: DamonHDIMHO, hardly, unless it is well below expected norms due to some other perverse incentive, since it is in the developer's interests to get the highest capacity factor possible (equipment costs are fixed, but returns are in proportion to output).

Rgds

Damon

No, what matters to the developer is the return on investment. It's currently too expensive to lay new power lines across third party land so first priority is not how windy is it but is there a grid connection nearby.

My experience is planning officers have no interest in commercial viablity or power capability stating this responsibility is with developer. With combustion powerplants I understand to gain planning approval the developer must confirm the plant is capable of providing CHP but reality is this is later considered to be impractical due to cost implications.