The first wind turbine in our commune. Eyesore, beautiful, progress or ineffecient...What do you think?
If anybody is interested in the numbers for these things here are some relating to a one generator community project on a Scottish Island. These figures are specific to this project & generator which runs almost 100% of the time.
Cost of installation £1.7 million. Income generated approx. £400,000 pa of which nearly all is used to repay loan. Anticipated time to repay loan + interest, about 7-8 years (my guess) after which nearly all income available for community projects.
Do the community like it? NO, They love it!!!!
I covered that elsewhere, basically adding to the problem isn't an answer. It's hard enough trying to halt or reduce the damage that is already being done in so many other ways.
Most people will have no idea how many species are on the edge in France having completely disappeared from vast areas of the French countryside.
Jobs to do right now, back later.
Chris
I know that you're an "animal" person, Chris, but even people who follow Jianism can't help but uncover animals in their everyday life. Bet you drive a car, eh? What about the insects on your windscreen, or the odd bird, mammal etc. that, over the years, you've probably, sadly killed? There's no way one can make omelets without breaking eggs!
Yes Mike, it is an important point out of history. Looking at the industrial revolution we do see that at first coal and more recently gas and oil have been the main fuels, water having been at the starting point and neglected since. I wonder how often people wonder why industrial settings such as factories and foundries are often also referred to as 'mills' (steel mills and all the rest). It is simply that the whole of industrialisation began on river banks using water for power. Iron and early steel smelting used water power for the bellows to get the charcoal to smelting temperatures, for instance. Wind power was also used, to a lesser extent though.
Now energy sourcing is badly back tracking what went before, for tidal barriers, wind farms, fracking and all the updates of old technologies are being preferred over other forms of sourcing. All have weaknesses, but also strengths. Wind harnessing is not the best one for many reasons. It is not simply a question of the aesthetics but effectiveness. When I was involved in 'complaining' about one, it did not affect me personally - I could not see it from my house, nor hear or feel it. People at the end of our village could see it and people closer could hear and feel it. If the technology was more effective that could be a reasonable sacrifice to make, but given the amount of time the thing stood idle when there was too little air power for the blades, well it opens up the whole question. Add to it the additional power lines and pylons, plant and usually access road and then add aesthetics, wild life and any other negative qualities and we simply see an incomplete debate before us.
Yes Chris, I agree that we need better wind generators. But I like the idea of making use of energy that is already there, whether in wind, tide, geothermal or sunlight. The availability of cheap coal and oil has meant that other sources of power have been overlooked for almost two centuries. So there is a lot of catching-up to be done and the alternatives are still in their infancy.
Meanwhile, we all carry on as if there is no tomorrow. We cannot do without our own personal transport, holiday flights, patio heaters, Christmas lights and the rest. But we like to pretend that someone else is to blame - not our fault!
As for factory farming, I think that is an important enough subject to need a thread of its own.......
I justify neither, one has been part of the replacement of the other which does not make either good.
You would have to make a big leap from the smog of the 1950's and its causes to any argument for wind farms.
The crazy thing is that there are wind generators that are less obtrusive and wildlife friendly - trouble is they cost more so the cheap option rules, (rather like pork from Brittany raised in disgusting conditions).
Chris
In Southern California, near where I grew up we have an actual wind farm--but it's just in the middle of the empty desert, far from houses. I never thought of it as an eyesore, but have visited them before and if you stand right under them, they do make a creepy noise. Since it's been in place and functioning since the 80's at least, I suppose that it must serve some purpose--ie, provide energy. . .
That said, in our neighborhood in France, we've got high-tension power lines scheduled to go up. They will be 700 meters from our house luckily for us behind our view--but only 100 meters from some existing homes farther up. There was no way to block them--or has been no way so far. I think power lines, which seem to be impossible to stop, are much more of an eyesore and more unhealthy for locals--although I honestly don't know how efficient wind energy is. . . and I suppose they require power lines as well, unless you intend to use the energy only on site.
Given the choice, I'd prefer the windmills. . .but knowing how things work, we wouldn't have the choice, we'd probably end up with both and no say about it!
I remember arriving to live in London in the spring of 1956, the smog and choking air were no fun. I share your concern for future generations.
When I was young, I lived in Greater London. Every house burned coal. Most of the heat went up the chimneys, together with massively polluting by-products. At worst, the smog could be so bad that visibility could be down to a few feet and driving became impossible. Everything was filthy.
Later, I lived in Wales. Forget the 50 miles radius, North Wales was polluted by the Chernobyl incident. You can't see it, smell it or taste it, but it's still filth. The ban on sale of sheep meat from polluted farms has only just been lifted after 26 years.
At the age of 76, I no longer have to worry about the future for myself, but I would like my grandchildren to inherit a cleaner world than the one I had to live in.
I think they are stunning.
Those designs of wind turbines are old, inefficient and barely capable of producing electricity unless the wind is just right or they either don't work or can't work and have to be switched off for safety.
Far better designs have been proven to work across a much larger range of wind conditions but by the time slow to react government departments have made their choice and then once made they keep buying the same crap until a few years later when a department head changes and a new spec is ordered which we all pay for again!
Similar fiasco with street lights in our borough in the UK. No sooner had new daylight sensing heads been fitted to replace the old timer versions, then the whole lamp posts were removed and replaced with new lamp posts and non yellow lamps and some kind of wireless link I believe to switch them on and off. More money wasted.............
Errrr, the subsidies aren't going they are just going to be handled differently. I was at a conference last week with José Bové and your chap from Brittany, René Louail about this very subject the PAC. The small farmers have never really benefited sadly.
What is the Parc you refer to and is hedge removal actually not allowed within its confines? That would be unusual.
As for the production units if they are the industrial crap that Brittany is so famous for then that has to be good news.
Chris
I only used the telephoto so that you could see the chateau more clearly in the trees. The turbine really does tower above it. As I said earlier, it is on a hill behind the chateau. It’s awesome to look at. We drove home from the same direction today and now there are two turbines behind the chateau. Even more of a wow factor.
Unfortunately for the chateau owner, I don’t think it’s his field.
The RSPB are in the UK and have their own agendas make no mistake about that and are also under public pressure.
Germany are intensifying their studies due to the numbers of Rapace being struck which is now a cause for concern. France simply doesn't look - surprise, surprise.
As I said, the LPO et al, (the other bird assos and wildlife assos) feel obliged to give muted vocal support due to the global obsession with carbon footprint blah, blah. whilst being deeply unhappy behind closed doors.
Of course having done your research you will also know that carbon emissions aren't actually set to reduce and carbon in the atmosphere is at record levels, but hey, let's all have big three cheers for the WTO and another trillion in growth.
Green tosh to make money and for who? Not for wildlife or birds that's for sure.
Chris
Oh right, I just made it all up to wind you lot up, spurious indeed, I am no expert but I have done my research including on papers writtenby the RSPB and birdlife international there has been lots of mistakes made in the past in siting turbines and now the industry is working with environmentalists to better site turbines to reduce bird deaths, the RSPB now only object to about 10% of applications and have even proposed (2012) to site a turbine at their Befordshire headquarters.
Then there are polytunnels.... saw a French farmer grubbing up hedges in our Parc Naturel this very afternoon- bet he hasn't got permission- if he even needs it. One of the reasons the farms round here in central Brittany are not very viable is that the fields are all very small and the landholdings are fragmented after years of the Napoleonic code. Now that subsidies are going the whole of the agricultural future of Brittany is under threat. About four major production units are closing with a loss of several thousand jobs including people in our village. Stuff from Eastern Europe is cheaper.
Most independent studies of windfarms bolster Chris’s arguments. Anyone who’s interested in all sides of the story can do an online search for many of these. While objecting to windmills on aesthetic grounds alone is understandable, many of us have further reasons for objecting,as well.