Following the visit by the representatives of West Coast Energy there seem to be a lot of rumours flying around. Those I have heard include a ‘sweetener’ of £3,000 to the village, a second farmer seriously considering building a wind-farm and cheaper electricity for the area if the wind-farm is built. Does anyone know the truth of these rumours? If so could phone me on 241477.
A very successful PR campaign has been waged (mainly by those making money from wind power) to the extent that the public feels almost ‘anti-social’ if they oppose this ‘green’ wind power. To do so they imply is to aggravate or condone the problems associated with carbon dioxide emissions and global warming. When one considers how profitable wind-farms can be this attitude is not surprising. The truth is far from this. Our current national production of electricity is about 300,000 million units/year of which nuclear power provides about a third. Currently there are 853 wind turbines generating 800 million units/year – one quarter of one percent of our demand. It is frightening to consider how many wind turbines would be necessary to make a real impact on our power production and what the countryside would look like then. Due to the unpredictability of the wind, this electricity production is also unpredictable and unreliable. To avoid power cuts there would always be a need for alternative types of generator. The most optimistic forecast by the wind-power bloc is that it will produce 4.4% of our requirements by 2010. Since consumption of electricity is rising currently by 2.4% a year, wind power is clearly not a solution. A reduction in consumption by everyone would reap considerably greater rewards and other sources of ‘green energy’ such as wave power, which being off-shore and submerged does not cause the visual damage associated with wind-farms. Wave power is, of course, more consistent and reliable.
Much play is made by the wind-power lobby that no person has ever been killed by turbines. This, I believe, is mainly due to their isolation and lack of personnel operating them, but they have had their fair share of accidents. Being the highest structure for some considerable distance makes them very prone to lightning strikes, wind damage, and even icing of the rotors (throwing chunks of ice a considerable distance). Locally, Delabole was struck by lightning, damaging some of its rotors in its early days and a wind-farm at St. Clether (near Launceston) of 26 turbines commissioned in 1993 was closed down in Spring 2000 due to metal fatigue in its towers. The proposal for Bradworthy (I now find that the turbines will be larger than I originally believed, at a total height of 75 metres they will dwarf any of those currently installed in Cornwall) is far too close to dwellings and a road.
How many people living on the west side of the village realise how clearly they will be able to see these wind turbines (just look for the anemometer mast and double the height to realise how tall the turbines will be and remember there will be at least three of them) and presumably hear the noise. The problem of noise is always dismissed by the company making the application. I can only quote from the residents of Marton, Ireleth and Askram (on the edge of the Lake District) who feel so strongly about their experiences with an adjacent wind-farm that they have created their own web-site on the horrors of living near a wind-farm.
“Standing 1,000 metres downwind of the turbines is enough for most people to realise that they would not like to live within this distance of a turbine. The sound is invasive enough to penetrate the walls and double glazing of a house of modern construction and still be clearly audible inside. In our area there are houses that are a lot closer than this to the turbines, a few hundred metres in some cases. For these properties the wind direction is immaterial and the noise is constant, and during summer nights it is not possible for the occupants to sleep with the window open due to the noise. Those of us who are unfortunate enough to be closest to the turbines are experiencing a barrage of background noise pollution that is actually making some of those worst affected physically ill.”
Another probable ‘bonus’ would be TV interference. Turbines cause a ‘reception shadow’ of up to 10km when they stand between a TV transmitter and dwellings with TV aerials pointing through the wind turbines towards the transmitter. Viewers in such locations will have their signal scattered, causing loss of detail, loss of colour or buzz on sound. In addition viewers situated to the side of turbines may experience periodic reflections from the blades giving rise to ‘ghosting’ and flicker as they rotate.
I personally feel we must do everything we can to stop this wind-farm becoming a reality. Our biggest problem will be apathy; the ‘Oh, it won’t be that bad’ attitude. Unfortunately I believe it will be that bad and once the application has been passed there will be nothing we can do about it.
When I was relief milking my employer used to say that my strength was my lack of farming knowledge. As I did not have my own ideas, I was quite happy to do the job the way he told me, his way. Now I am not relief milking I can claim total ignorance of all matters agricultural.
In my ignorance, it is pleasing to see in recent months at least three local farmers fighting back against the slump in agriculture. One has successfully increased production, another is fulfilling a local need by accommodating a mobile phone antenna and a third is proposing to tap the locally available wind to generate electricity.
Of course wind and water mills are nothing new to the countryside but I understand that, should the proposal proceed, these structures would have a major impact environmentally. Of course the interests of those immediately effected must be protected within the statutory planning process.
A positive objection to wind farming is that currently it is more economical and reliable to generate electricity by burning fossil fuels. Oil is, of course, a finite resource so, in due course, the economics will change. Recent "action" by the road haulage industry and, er, farmers showed us how politically vulnerable we are to a total dependence on oil.
Should the proposed site ultimately prove to be unsuitable, perhaps the developers would consider my property (?). My neighbour would not object to the noise and my house has no resale value as my wife tells me that no one but us would be mad enough to live in it.
A wind turbine is 75 metres high, that is 254 feet, sited on top of one of the highest land areas. A 25 storey office block would not get planning permission, and yet 3 wind turbines will be just as dominating.
Cheap electricity? No, the government is heavily subsidising these projects, with a levy on electricity prices paid for by us.
Is the green power worth the killing of large numbers of migrating birds? English Nature has objected to wind-farms as a potential hazard and noise disturbance on habitat and breeding sites.
When the wind-farm is being built, verges will be bulldozed, hedges uprooted, roads widened up to six feet with hardcore, which will totally destroy wild life. Other sites have remained in this state for over a year – imagine when it rains!
Consider the earth-movers transporting the material extracted from the 3 holes that will be needed for the base, each the equivalent in volume of a 25 metre swimming pool. Then all the lorries filled with hardcore and cement to fill it in, plus there’s still the mast and blade sections to transport.
The contamination will destroy the Tamar Lake fish stocks and the noise will make peaceful fishing and bird watching impossible. 84 beats a minute at 1½ km away as the crow flys! Difficult to sleep within ¾ mile, plus a west wind! Very few in Bradworthy will not be affected, and could lose financially, apart from the land owner and the company. I live 660 feet from the proposed site.