Had an interesting chat with a farming neighbour this morning. For the past year or so he's been going through the process of getting PP for a big'ish wind turbine and hopes to get it installed this summer. Yesterday he had a letter from his insurance company telling him they were changing the terms of his liability cover to exclude damage, death or injury caused by a wind power installation.

It seems that the recent spate of blade and turbine failures may have put the wind up at least one insurance company. It made me wonder whether or not people routinely inform their insurers of wind power installations or not, or even whether they need to. Might be something to watch out for if you've got a wind turbine installation.

To be honest, until he mentioned it I'd not given the idea of insurance for wind turbines a thought. I still think it's a bit off for an insurer to act like this when (as far as I know) none of the recent failures has caused any significant damage or injury (apart from to the turbines themselves).

I wonder what the position is for normal householders? I saw something on the news last week about solar panels blowing off house roofs in the gales, and presumably they could do a fair bit of damage, too. I've always assumed that normal household insurance covered liabilities like this, but perhaps I need to check.

Presumably the policy mentioned in the OP was a general risks insurance policy? Some house insurance policies cover you for damage to neighbours property from "any" cause. When they were written the company was thinking of things like roof tiles, falling trees or footballs. I expect someone in the management was reading the sunday papers and suddenly realised the company might be liable for damage caused by the blades coming off turbines. Every now and again the industry wakes up to discover they are liable for something that they hadn't specifically thought about. You might remember some house insurance policies were changed to exclude Y2K problems when that issue appears in the news.

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: CWatters</cite>Presumably the policy mentioned in the OP was a general risks insurance policy? Some house insurance policies cover you for damage to neighbours property from "any" cause. When they were written the company was thinking of things like roof tiles, falling trees or footballs. I expect someone in the management was reading the sunday papers and suddenly realised the company might be liable for damage caused by the blades coming off turbines. Every now and again the industry wakes up to discover they are liable for something that they hadn't specifically thought about. You might remember some house insurance policies were changed to exclude Y2K problems when that issue appears in the news.</blockquote>

I'm guessing that the policy was a standard farm public liability policy, but I'll ask him next time I see him. I think you're right about the insurance company reading the papers and over-reacting!

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: windy lamb</cite>When we installed our Gaia I told our farm insurance company and they covered it on our public liability insurance for an extra £17 for the year - yes 17 pounds. This was for public liability (damage to 3rd parties) only and did not cover damage to us or the farm building if the turbine fell over.
To insure the turbine against loss or damage (to itself), to farm buildings and any subsequent loss of income was £500/yr.
JSH - you are right, you do have to tell your insurance company.</blockquote>

Seem such a cheap addition (the public liability bit) that I wonder why the insurance company didn't do the same to my friend. He hasn't got his up yet, so it may be this was just a standard letter they are sending out to all policyholders.

These farm insurance companies know all about risk since farming is the most dangerous land based occupation. I think they realise that you're much more likely to get your arm ripped off by a PTO than being killed by a turbine falling on you. Anyway, mine asked me some very simple questions= turbine height, distance from property boundary and public highway. Once they knew there were no public footpaths etc near or that it couldn't fall outside of the farm boundary they thought it low risk. Always the possibility of some toe rag getting electrocuted whilst trying to steal the copper wire - hence the £17.

I can't remember any details but I did see a document about the different risk zones radiating from a turbine base (it was quantified into probabilities) and was designed to be used when planning a wind farm. As far as I recall the nearer to the turbine base the less time you should spend there - so at the turbine base you don't build the visitor centre, you build that at least as far away as the max. height of the turbine blade tip = outside the fall zone! Simple really.

Some horses don't like turbines? I know some riders don't, but that's hardly 'closing the route'.

Then you have to multiply it by the fraction of the time that a horse is passing within the designated area, multiplied by the fractional risk of a particular horse has to turbines, then multiply by the fraction of claims that were proved to be caused by the turbine (the really hard part) and then multiply by the fraction of turbines in the country that are within the set distance of a bridleway.

Will end up with a tiny number.

But I suspect that they use Baysian statistics here, which is based on assumptions.

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: windy lamb</cite>Horses are frightened by things that creep up on them - turbines can't do that!</blockquote>

Very true! My ex had a horse that was simply terrified of empty crisp packets blowing around on the ground, but was completely bullet proof out on the road with cars and lorries going past.

Candlemaker ,
I like your new turbine, how's it performing?
We had to put a post and rail fence around the base of our turbine because the cows thought it a great scratching post! They didn't think it scary either - simply walked into the field, looked up, then trotted over to rub their bums. I'd finished the new fence within the next hour or so - I did think they wouldn't approach it for at lease a day or so, giving my time to put the fence up, but they weren't bothered at all.
I think we humans project our fears and disliked onto our pets!

Candlemaker
Did I mention we have an electric fence wire round the top of the post and rail - as you say "horse scratching on a very costly control box" not the best of situations.
Anyway, your production seems quite good even for the windy Nov and Dec - If you can average those numbers over the winter months that's got to be good. Help keep those candles coming!

Tell the BHS that horses like turbines!

Lets' get this straight, some horses don't mind turbines, especially ones who are stabled alongside the things which then gives them time to acclimatise.

ANY experienced horse rider will tell you that horses are unpredictable, 20 HGVs can thunder past without so much as a twitch of an ear, but 20 yards up the road a slight whisper of a breeze can lift a sweet paper and you can find yourself pitched across the road.

The BWEA is totally dishonest in its attitude to horses and their riders, but then they do determine attitudes amongst the pro-onshire-wind lobbyists who are inclined as a group not to allow the facts to get in the way of a good prejudice, especially one that gives them an excuse to start shouting "Nimby" at anyone who disagrees with them.

The BWEA constantly pull up the Delabole experience as "evidence" that turbines don't disturb horses, and there are other examples they cite. They're obviously not going to present evidence that challenges their position and will determinedly shout down all evidence that runs contrary to their personal view.

God knows what it is with the pro-onshore-wind lobby that prevents them from even seeing empirical evidence, let alone giving it any consideration whatsoever.

From the BWEA:

"Horses are frightened by a variety of natural features, but according to the British Horse Society, there is no conclusive evidence that horses are frightened by wind farms, nor is the society opposed to wind farms.”

From the BHS survey:

"People who encountered no problems stated they were riding horses who were accustomed to the turbines or riding very steady older horses. They also acknowledged that they could understand how other peoples horses may be upset by the presence of a turbine and are aware of incidents occurring."

They go on with reports of horses refusing to pass, riders being thrown and horses so distressed they couldn't be ridden for days, horses bolting; over half the members of Haworth and Oxenhope (West Yorkshire) riding club reported experiencing problems, this being over 100 incidents.

Consider this Appeal Decision by a planning inspector:

“One of the two main issues concerned the effect the appeal proposal would have on highway safety, by virtue of its effect on horses… The British Horse Society’s evidence is that shadows of the moving blades of wind turbines, and the sight of the moving blades, alarm horses, causing disconcerting and unpredictable behaviour by the horse… I have no reason to doubt any of these submissions (by the wind farm developer) but the weight of the evidence leads me to the view that passing horses are likely on occasion to be alarmed by the sight or shadow of moving wind turbines… The appellant points out that vehicles are common on the local roads, that vehicles can be more disturbing than wind turbines are to horses and says that, in his view, horses used on the roads should be sufficiently resilient to cope with such hazards. But horses are sometimes disturbed by passing traffic and it seems to me that to add one hazard to another cannot be other than harmful.” The appeal by the developer was dismissed.

Give us a "standard" horse and we'll see what we can do.

Advisory setback distances are often ignored for reasons that defy common sense.

We're back to fighting our own corners. Where onshire wind is concerned it will always come down to that. It's a war, and the first victim of war is always the truth.

Yes, you should have seen my aunt on a skittish dressage horse: she could probably ride one through a busy combined wind + snake farm with no more than a stern word and a kick in the ribs or five...

Rgds

Damon

Joiner I can see that this aspect of wind turbines is contentious, and agree wherever possible turbines should be well away from roads, bridle paths and the like. However any rider before they ride out on a road should be competent and confident enough to ride that particular horse be it young and skittish or an old school master in any given situation. I know this sounds harsh but we have all probably seen a horse and rider on a road where the rider looks barely in control if that combination pass any scary object then the horse is likely to spook. This could hardly be blamed on a turbine, more on rider ability. I guess the biggest problem for riders is vehicles passing way to fast or way to slow and where you site a turbine isn't going to change that!