Home  5  Books  5  GBEzine  5  News  5  HelpDesk  5  Register  5  GreenBuilding.co.uk
Not signed in (Sign In)

Categories



Green Building Bible, Fourth Edition
Green Building Bible, fourth edition (both books)
These two books are the perfect starting place to help you get to grips with one of the most vitally important aspects of our society - our homes and living environment.

PLEASE NOTE: A download link for Volume 1 will be sent to you by email and Volume 2 will be sent to you by post as a book.

Buy individually or both books together. Delivery is free!


powered by Surfing Waves




Vanilla 1.0.3 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to new Forum Visitors
Join the forum now and benefit from discussions with thousands of other green building fans and discounts on Green Building Press publications: Apply now.




    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeJan 28th 2013
     
    On another thread we spoke of how the size of turbines can be measured from a planning perspective.
    Should they be 'sized' by installed capacity, blade swept area or diameter, total height, hub height, annual generation or something else.

    My idea is to use one over the BMI formula but change the mass to rotor diameter.

    1 / ((Pi.d^2) / 4) / Hub Height^2)

    So that will be :
    one over Swept area divided by hub height squared

    So a turbine that has a 60 m diameter with a hub height of 100m would have a visual impact of 3.5

    Same turbine 20m higher would have a visual impact of 5.1

    A 4m diameter with a hub height of 10m would have one of 7.9

    Same turbine 5m higher would be 17.9

    I think that this would take into account smaller turbines generally begin nearer buildings and larger turbines generally being further away (though not exclusively).

    Thoughts anyone?
    •  
      CommentAuthorted
    • CommentTimeJan 28th 2013
     
    The numbers don't make sense to me. :sad:

    Surely you also need to build in the distance between the viewer and the turbine and the effects of topology.

    IME the visual intrusiveness depends much more on the viewpoint and the apparent height of the turbine above surrounding apparent ground level, including for any change in topology. A smaller turbine on the top of an otherwise empty ridge will be more intrusive than a slightly taller turbine further back from the ridge with a background of trees.
    •  
      CommentAuthorted
    • CommentTimeJan 28th 2013
     
    Replace the Low, Moderate, High in this with real numbers - http://www.eon-uk.com/Appendix_E_Additional_Information_-LandV.pdf
    •  
      CommentAuthorted
    • CommentTimeJan 28th 2013
     
    This is what I mean. Viewer A sees a larger impact from a smaller turbine than viewer B, because of the distance and the topography (not topology!).
      VisualImpact.png
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeJan 28th 2013 edited
     
    Ted
    I agree that distance from an object changes the perceived size, but it is very hard to to do this for all locations and all turbines. There has to be a starting point because of the virtually infinite nature of turbine height to rotor diameter.

    So if we take your sketch and use the number 3.5 to the top one (A) and 5.1 to the lower one (B), divide the distance from the turbine by the VI value you get 71 and 78, the larger number being less intrusive. That makes sense to me, though not dividing 1 by the turbine diameter to height ratio may not be necessary but you start to get large number if you don't.

    The idea is to try and quantify the impact, some research would be needed around existing wind farms and individual turbines to gauge peoples reactions to them to see if there is a real relationship between the VI of a turbine or if distance from one is more important.
    • CommentAuthorCWatters
    • CommentTimeJan 30th 2013
     
    Current rules allow noise limits to be set between 35 and 40db. The IOA have added a guide on how to justify using the higher limit in their "“GOOD PRACTICE GUIDE TO THE APPLICATION OF ETSU-R-97 FOR WIND TURBINE NOISE ASSESSMENT”

    The method (or a similar method) could also be used to justify the visual impact on nearby buildings/houses. The result is a score between 3 and 12 where 3 means it's probably not justified to use the higher noise limit.

    See page 30..

    http://www.ioa.org.uk/pdf/ioa-discussion-document-july-2012.pdf
    • CommentAuthorTriassic
    • CommentTimeJan 30th 2013 edited
     
    They look fine to me :wink:

    Intrestingly it is suggested there are 14000 abandoned wind turbines in the US -http://raptorpolitics.org.uk/2012/11/22/14000-abandoned-wind-turbines-being-left-to-rot-in-the-usa/
      tehachapi-wind-turbines.jpg.jpg
    • CommentAuthorCWatters
    • CommentTimeJan 31st 2013 edited
     
    Deleted.
  1.  
    That article sums up USA - I wonder if we wrote to them pointing out that, global warming a) actually exists b) it's going to kill more raptors than wind turbines c) climate change is not a religion.

    As to the intrusiveness of turbines you would have to be able to factor in human perspective i.e. off shore in whitstable there are a considerable number but I will always be glad to see them rather than dungeness, whereas many others will hate the turbines and not consider dungeness a problem.
    •  
      CommentAuthorjoe90
    • CommentTimeSep 24th 2013
     
    I have just discovered that an application for a wind turbine of 30m to hub and 15m radius blade has been lodged with the local planers and its only 550metres away and smack in line with my proposed bedroom window (which will be downwind to the prevailing SW winds) to capture the setting sun over virgin countryside!!!! I know turbines are green (in some peoples mind) but I am worried about the impact and any information would be gratefuly recieved. I have read some stories about people unable to live close to turbines but science cannot confirm why.
    • CommentAuthorjms452
    • CommentTimeSep 24th 2013
     
    When they were planned near us the horror stories touted were not far off claiming that it would end the world!

    I like seeing for myself so the family and I went to Swaffham and spent a few hours pottering about and having a picnic under their 100m turbine and then climbed up it.

    http://www.greenbritaincentre.co.uk/what-s-here/windmill-tours

    I was a lot more chilled out after that to the point of supporting the application.

    John
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeSep 24th 2013 edited
     
    I went up the Swaffham one, was a good view.

    They shoudl do that on a lot more and charge for it.
    • CommentAuthorjms452
    • CommentTimeSep 24th 2013
     
    Posted By: SteamyTeaThey shoudl do that on a lot more and charge for it


    They do charge, although it was a small enough amount that I can't remember how much.
  2.  
    how about the Visual intrusion of Office blocks, Flats, power stations, chimneys, schools, hospitals . mars bar factories ? Do we get to have a say on these also ? If so, then it seems my local population weren't to worried
    about it.
    • CommentAuthorCWatters
    • CommentTimeSep 24th 2013 edited
     
    ;;Posted By: joe90I have just discovered that an application for a wind turbine of 30m to hub and 15m radius blade has been lodged with the local planers and its only 550metres away and smack in line with my proposed bedroom window (which will be downwind to the prevailing SW winds) to capture the setting sun over virgin countryside!!!! I know turbines are green (in some peoples mind) but I am worried about the impact and any information would be gratefuly recieved. I have read some stories about people unable to live close to turbines but science cannot confirm why.
    ;

    The official view is that shadow flicker isn't an issue if you are more than 10 diameters away which is 300m in your case. I think they are also allowed to expose you to 30 hours a year but might have that wrong. I would press for a planning condition requiring the turbine to be turned off when the shadow falls on your property. You probably won't get it though.

    I've not heard of many/any health issues from small turbines. My feeling is that if there is an issue its only with large turbines. If there is a link my money would be on repetitive air pressure waves causing a motion sickness like effect.

    The greatest impact is likely to be on the value of your house but that's not a valid planning issue so the planners cannot take that into account. The ASA have ruled that wind energy companies cannot claim there won't be an effect on house prices AND that action groups cannot claim there will be an effect on house prices.
    •  
      CommentAuthorjoe90
    • CommentTimeSep 24th 2013
     
    Is 30m to the hub and 30 m blade diameter small?
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeSep 24th 2013
     
    Tiny
    •  
      CommentAuthorted
    • CommentTimeSep 25th 2013
     
    145m to blade tip and 93m rotor diameter is the 'going rate' around here. Off-shore they will be larger.
  3.  
    Offshore you will soon be seeing (few years) 160 mtr dia rotors. 7 to 10 meg turbines are on the horizon. Dont panic though, you will not see them onshore in the UK. So yes, 30 mtrs is a baby.
    •  
      CommentAuthorjoe90
    • CommentTimeSep 25th 2013
     
    Whew !, thanks guys, I would still rather not have it in line with my (planned) bedroom window, but then again I guess you cannot object on the basis that I plan to build something next year?
    • CommentAuthorCWatters
    • CommentTimeSep 26th 2013
     
    If you already have planning permission then yes you can.
    • CommentAuthorjms452
    • CommentTimeSep 26th 2013
     
    45m tall is fairly tall on most scales (except wind turbines where it is a little baby).

    As its a single 'small' one if you'd rather not see it I'd imagine that you could hide it fairly effectively behind a single carefully positioned conifer.
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeSep 27th 2013 edited
     
    Posted By: jamesingramhow about the Visual intrusion of Office blocks, Flats, power stations, chimneys, schools, hospitals . mars bar factories ?
    How about widened roads, hard pavement/kerbs, replacing rural roads with grass verges, wild hedges replaced by fences, trees gone, permanent orange glare from street lights, so whole populations never see the stars, or silky darkness, afraid of it - these have destroyed humane environments universally, without consent from or protest by anyone, let alone Mail/Express readers. Not to mention the traffic growth on said roads, so whole populations never hear silence, fill it with muzak. Such things are regarded as inevitable, unstoppable - if not actively approved of as beneficial 'progress' (i.e. cars for the whole household - luvvly!). Beside all that, stately turbines are a pleasure! So it's only a small shift that would classify turbines similarly as beneficial 'progress'.
    •  
      CommentAuthorjoe90
    • CommentTimeSep 27th 2013
     
    Posted By: fostertom
    Posted By: jamesingramhow about the Visual intrusion of Office blocks, Flats, power stations, chimneys, schools, hospitals . mars bar factories ?
    How about widened roads, hard pavement/kerbs, replacing rural roads with grass verges, wild hedges replaced by fences, trees gone, permanent orange glare from street lights, so whole populations never see the stars, or silky darkness, afraid of it - these have destroyed humane environments universally, without consent from or protest by anyone, let alone Mail/Express readers. Not to mention the traffic growth on said roads, so whole populations never hear silence, fill it with muzak. Such things are regarded as inevitable, unstoppable - if not actively approved of as beneficial 'progress' (i.e. cars for the whole household - luvvly!). Beside all that, stately turbines are a pleasure! So it's only a small shift that would classify turbines similarly as beneficial 'progress'.



    Thats exacty why I am moving from the city to a very rural location with no light polution, green hedges minimal traffic, clean air and a wonderfull view over green fields. My brother worked in the elctrical generation industry and he says the figures for turbines dont add up and he pointed out that they use electricity to get them up to speed, I never new that before. Around the place we plan to live there are PV farms which locals objected to but in fairness most cannot be seen unless you are in a plane!! and they dont stick up beyond the horizon. In fact when I first saw one from a distance I thought it was a farmer using black PVC to warm the ground.
    • CommentAuthorskyewright
    • CommentTimeSep 27th 2013 edited
     
    Posted By: fostertomSo it's only a small shift that would classify turbines similarly as beneficial 'progress'.

    I'm sure I recall coming across some people referring to them as "wind flowers" in an attempt to have them seen in a different light...
    •  
      CommentAuthorSteamyTea
    • CommentTimeSep 27th 2013 edited
     
    Odd thing, I drive though the 'unspoilt Cornish countryside' and I see derelict farm buildings, pylons, telegraph poles, water towers, damaged walls etc.
    I also walk along the coast path, where I see derelict buildings, pylons, telegraph poles, water towers, damaged walls, beach cafes, car parks, commercial fishing ports, wooden benches.
    Nothing is really natural down here on our fantastically fertile Grade 4 agricultural land.

    As the seasons pass I see crops that should not be here, animals that should not be here, occasionally families that definitely should not be here, caravans that should not be anywhere.
    What I don't see very often is investment in the future. You can't count the World Heritage site at Pool as they have failed to match fund the EU for some new industrial units (about half the price of the Cornish MPs expenses I think), so they are probably going to build some more very small houses (what a surprise).

    Joe
    Think you will find that all large scale electrical generation has a certain amount of energy needs. Even my favourite of natural gas needs a lot of processing before it is fit to burn.
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeSep 27th 2013
     
    EROEI - Energy Return on Energy Invested - heading rapidly downward, worldwide.
    • CommentAuthorjms452
    • CommentTimeSep 27th 2013
     
    Posted By: fostertomEROEI - Energy Return on Energy Invested - heading rapidly downward, worldwide


    Except for renewables where it is gradually increasing :bigsmile:
    • CommentAuthormarktime
    • CommentTimeSep 27th 2013
     
    Riffing off Reagan's "Win one for the Gipper", when you see a wind turbine why not say, "There's another win for my grandchild". (or in my case, "one for my great-grandson, Eli").

    :bigsmile::bigsmile::bigsmile:
    •  
      CommentAuthorfostertom
    • CommentTimeSep 27th 2013 edited
     
    Posted By: jms452Except for renewables where it is gradually increasing
    That's prob true and gd news, but it needs to be, starting from a low baseline, so that still, as renewables replace fossil (or rather, dilute them in the mix), they drastically lower worldwide EROEI ('old' fossil still gives highish EROEI, tho much less than historically).

    In that sense, renewables are the problem with EROEI, not the solution - tho there's no better alternative.

    It's a convergence, to an eventual far lower worldwide EROEI than what industrial/western society is founded upon and requires. i.e. down from EROEI of 200-300 in the heyday, to EROEI perhaps 6-8 - better than medieval but about same as hunter/gatherers apparently.
   
The Ecobuilding Buzz
Site Map    |   Home    |   View Cart    |   Pressroom   |   Business   |   Links   
Logout    

© Green Building Press