What do you mean - Planning nonsense! I can't decide if I am more irritated by the sight of yet another turbine blot on the Cornish landscape or the thought that yet another farmer is getting yet another subsidy from the state (or at least state-permitted, and consumer-paid)

In Denmark, where wind turbines have been in use for many years, they ease the sight of the things by making them community-owned. You live there, you buy shares in the turbine and at least you benefit directly from having them in your backyard. Here, we consumers directly over-subsidise them and have to look at them as well. Not impressed with this way of doing it at all!

Posted By: SteveZ
In Denmark, where wind turbines have been in use for many years, they ease the sight of the things by making them community-owned. You live there, you buy shares in the turbine and at least you benefit directly from having them in your backyard. Here, we consumers directly over-subsidise them and have to look at them as well. Not impressed with this way of doing it at all!

We do community schemes here too, there's some down in Cornwall. Even some of the corporate-owned wind farms like the one at Delabole give the locals cheap electricity.

The Planning Authority can make up any policy they like but it may not be lawful - you'll have to challenge that in the courts/appeals process.
I've talked to plenty of farmers who have been told by my neighbouring county that turbines over 25m hub height will be refused, step the other site of the road an you can go any height all things considered.
There never has been any consistency.

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: candlemaker</cite>By the way driving out of the county (Cornwall) last week there were some monster sized bits of turbine being trucked down the A30 anybody know where they were headed?</blockquote>No.

Why would giving people that can see a turbine cheaper electricity, a share of the payout or whatever make a turbine look any different? They are what they are.

One of the problems we have with wind turbines is that we are so reluctant to have a few very large turbines that we have a an inefficient scattering of them, most of which are tiny in turbine terms.
I personally think that we should be going for fewer but larger turbines, 100 m really is not that high, laid on the ground some people can run that distance in under 10 seconds. To put them into perspective have a look at this about chimney height:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_chimneys_in_the_world
100 metres is not tall.

As for the payment, that has come about as we do not charge for the environmental damage that is done by coal mining and fossil fuel burning. I say get rid of all subsidies and put a pollution/nuisance tax on, you can even apply that to a wind turbine/solar farm easily enough.

This weeks comic has a bit on the very subject:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21729000.200-wind-power-delivers-too-much-to-ignore.html
If you don't have a subscription you can always go read it for free at the local supermarket

Playing Devil's Advocate here.

Posted By: CWattersThe site overlooks a Valley known locally as the Valley of the Spires and the local plan says views of local church spires should be respected.

Why? Is it just because there are some monuments to an imaginary friend.

Posted By: CWattersIt's in central England, and area not exactly known for high wind speeds.

What is the mean speed and the distribution?

Posted By: CWattersThe RSPB requested 2 turbines be moved (which they have refused to do).

This looks like the thing that will shoot them down.

The RSPB have an admirably pragmatic approach to wind - accept it tackles a wider issue and generally not object but when they do object (in a minority of cases) they do so rather robustly. They seem like the closest thing we have to an objective arbiter - everyone else just regurgitates their existing prejudices (either way).

Dave, what's happening with that one? When is the CCC decision due?

Windy

I could have gone down the 11kw route but my on farm electric requirement is 30kw and at average windspeed of 6.5 m/s a 250kw turbine is required. Part of the problem seems to be the classification of turbines by peak power rather than average wind speed power.

Ed

Classification by hub height and blade length is pretty meaningless. The particular turbine I am looking at can have a hub height of anywhere between 25 mtrs and 45 mtrs with a blade length of 15 mtrs. Obviously given the choice based purely on output it makes far more sense to have a hub height of 45 mtrs rather than 25 mtrs. What you then end up with is a maximum height limit resulting in either small turbines on high masts or large turbines on low masts neither of which are efficient or cost effective.

Posted By: Ed Daviesbe better to use some function (not just the sum, but I don't know quite what) of hub height and bade length, rather

Could use the apparent area that is obscures from set distances for your function. Perspective is a wonderful thing.

Or how about for every wind turbine built an ugly building or structure is pulled down, that would be fun

As I said , I'm all for sensible development.If your business has a high electric usage then a bigger turbine can be justified. I have a problem with speculative turbine developments where on site electricity requirement is nil, landowner lives away, neighbours live under it, etc, etc and where the only motive is "easy" profit. Sure one doesn't have to justify to Planning any energy requirement or renewable energy need but you should need to justify it to your conscience.
Ted, the one near me ? = Planners are waiting for a proper noise survey - not that they'll get that as the sound level meter used did not have a suitable wind shield only the normal one good for less than 3.5 m/s. I've seen some data and their lowest background readings are 38dB(A) whereas I have plenty of data showing 25-30 db(A) L90. Some fun is expected!

Posted By: windy lambTed, the one near me ? = Planners are waiting for a proper noise survey - not that they'll get that as the sound level meter used did not have a suitable wind shield only the normal one good for less than 3.5 m/s. I've seen some data and their lowest background readings are 38dB(A) whereas I have plenty of data showing 25-30 db(A) L90. Some fun is expected!

Do you know which acoustics company they've used or was it an in-house effort?

I am all for small wind turbines they work when in the winter the light is not enough to run the solar panels and that is when we use our electric. Ban these then what is left we all end up glow in the dark from water that has been used to cool a reactor. Take a leaf out the army book and paint the turbine to blend in to the area, if we used more small turbines then they would not be the eye sore the huge one's are. The cost of a turbine is lower than the panel's to produce the same KVA. You can have a vertical axis turbine if you don't like the horizontal one.

Posted By: jms452

Posted By: CWattersThe RSPB requested 2 turbines be moved (which they have refused to do).

This looks like the thing that will shoot them down.

The RSPB have an admirably pragmatic approach to wind - accept it tackles a wider issue and generally not object but when they do object (in a minority of cases) they do so rather robustly. They seem like the closest thing we have to an objective arbiter - everyone else just regurgitates their existing prejudices (either way).

They haven't objected to the whole development which is perhaps why the applicant has ignored them.

Small turbines are a real problem around our village. To date within a 2 mile radius we have 3 x 5kw 4 x 10kw and 2 x 20kw. The whole lot added together does not generate half as much as one of my proposed 250 kw turbines and the village is now looking cluttered with turbines. It would have been far more sensible to have a community scheme but I was overruled by the parish council who seem to have there own agenda.