Grimshader turbines
As I was heading that way, I stopped off at the three turbines at Grimshader earlier this morning.
It was a wild, wild morning, with the rivers bursting their banks and the wind blowing intermittently fiercely.
Two of the three turbines were turning slowly, elegantly, in the teeth of a gale.
Standing just below the bases, at the gate closing the site, I could hear a faint whoosh as the wind blew across the blades and they cut the air. Mostly, however, it was drowned out by the wind noise. After a couple of minutes I could take the cold and rain no more, and climbed back into the car.
Despite having read the literature, studied the studies and had the discussions, nothing beats the actual real-life experience of hearing the real-life noise - or lack thereof.
I can strongly recommend that everyone stand at the foot of the turbines and hear the noise for themselves, and compare it to the wild claims and scaremongering we heard from some objectors.
It was a wild, wild morning, with the rivers bursting their banks and the wind blowing intermittently fiercely.
Two of the three turbines were turning slowly, elegantly, in the teeth of a gale.
Standing just below the bases, at the gate closing the site, I could hear a faint whoosh as the wind blew across the blades and they cut the air. Mostly, however, it was drowned out by the wind noise. After a couple of minutes I could take the cold and rain no more, and climbed back into the car.
Despite having read the literature, studied the studies and had the discussions, nothing beats the actual real-life experience of hearing the real-life noise - or lack thereof.
I can strongly recommend that everyone stand at the foot of the turbines and hear the noise for themselves, and compare it to the wild claims and scaremongering we heard from some objectors.
7 comments:
Nice, but no cigar.
I've stood near turbines on an ordinary day--ie, when they are actually generating electricity--and the noise is greater than that of the breeze.
You stood under a turbine which was feathered (no turbine produces electricity in a gale, which nicely illustrates some of their many limitations), and in conditions in which--of course--wind noise was far higher than the turbines.
So: a noisy gale, in which the turbine is barely moving--and producing zero electricity--is thereby a 'blow' against those who complain about turbine noise.
If this is a benchmark of your dishonesty, it's no wonder so many islanders hate you.....
Anon 5:31
This disgusting comment says so much about the NIMBY's and their behaviour towards anyone who takes a different view....
and so much about Angus for letting it through.
Looks like the intellectual pygmies in the SNP are still out to push their discredited line. And get you for being open and taking a decision they don't like.
actually in my opinion he is more likely a NIAIIHTBRIT (Not In Any Island I Happen To Be Resident In Today) than a NIMBY - But NIMBY sums him up, and a lot more catchy!
While not in agreement with all of anon 5:31's comment, I agree with the basic point made: that assessing turbine noise on a blustery day is senseless, advantageous to you perhaps, with your obvious bias towards the wind factories, but a professional noise assessor would surely find your post amusing.
The impact of just these 3 turbines on the surrounding landscape, bad though that is, is as nothing compared to the blighted landscape on the grand scale that Lewis would become if the LWP, etc. wind factories got the go ahead.
The comments I've heard made on the Grimshader turbines have been, shall we say, less than favourable in a ration of about 80/20. I don't think you've quite got the whole story on what people feel about them.
The Grimshader trio was obviously intended to be an indicator of how unobtrusive, 'graceful'(!!) and efficient this form of power genertaion is, and it has backfired spectacularly, noise or no noise. In any case, noise is the least of most people's worries when it comes to the larger 'developments'. Didn't you know that?
There's an "interesting" article in last week's Economist about wind farms. I don't profess to be an expert (got my sixth year studies Physics, though, so I am not completely ignorant either), but here's a quick summary.
In the 1800s a debate was held as to whether the world should use AC or DC electricty. Edison supported DC, because it was more efficient at being transported over long distances. Westinghouse supported AC, because it was easier to transmit. In the end, Westinghouse won and AC is used worldwide (except the NYC subway!).
However, AC loses more power through 'earthing' than DC, which is why cables carrying electricity over great distances have to be high above the ground. The more power generated, the higher above ground the cables should be.
Has anyone calculated how high the cables linking the proposed wind farms to the electricity cable should be for effiecient electricity transmission? Might these cables / pylons be more of a blot on our landscape than the turbines themselves?
(There may be alternatives - for example, the article mentioned a proposed Europe-wide DC network, centred in the North Sea.)
Please credit me with some intelligence!
It was an intermittent gale, ranging from flat calm to high speeds in a few seconds, therefore I heard both extremes of wind noise.
It was an entirely personal visit on which I reported my findings, not a scientific expedition armed with decibel meters. I have no idea if the blade noise was within the prescribed limits set by planning permission. All I know is that it seemed very quiet to me.
That is why I encouraged others to go and see the turbines, and I intend to return on a calmer day to see if there is, or is not, more noise when the winds are lower.
Post a Comment