“The Salisbury Review — Autumn 2014

Web: www.salisburyreview.com

Wind Turbines: Even Worse Than We Feared
Russell Lewis
Most of the criticism of wind turbines until now has, with every justification, been directed at their economic folly and spectacular inefficiency. They only work when the wind blows above 7 mph; in a good year they typically operate at a quarter of their stated capacity, and they shut down when the wind blows too hard – typically in excess of 50 mph. And for the vast tracts of land they take up, they also have a low power density, producing only 1.2 watts per square metre – compared with 53 watts per square metre for a gas power station. In a small country like Britain, what a criminal waste of space!

What then is the point of building them?

The answer is that their installation is entirely subsidy- and penalty-driven. Power-producers are required by law to produce a growing percentage of their output from renewables or pay someone else to do so. Some may shrug their shoulders and accept the official explanation that this is the price we pay for preventing future global warming, through the reduction of carbon emissions. This is based on the mistaken assumption that intermittent renewables are a better way to reduce CO2 than gas or nuclear power. But as the penetration of intermittent renewables rises, the only way they can be accommodated for backup when the blades are not turning requires an unseen armada of mobile and dirty diesel generators to quickly match power demand, whose emissions make a joke of the professed aim of CO2 reduction.

The good news is that the tide is turning. The Prime Minister – or someone close to him – made a famous outburst about ‘green crap’ and seems finally to have realized that people don’t like ballooning fuel bills. Some also have the most powerful of reasons for hating them in terms of pounds, shillings and pence. There is mounting evidence that the proximity of wind turbines threatens the value of your property. Not long ago, a study by the London School of Economics showed that the value of homes close to wind farms could be slashed by 11 per cent.

There may be even more extreme consequences. There have been cases in America where an individual possessing a home near a wind farm found that it was unsellable. All this is without even considering the report that claims that only one in ten wind farm fires are reported. The real number has been about 1500, including one in North Ayrshire in 2011 in which a 300 foot turbine was burnt out. In general, the report says, these fires tend to be ‘catastrophic’ – ie the end of the turbine and a total loss to the taxpayer and the investor.

There are other very good reasons why people don’t fancy having a wind turbine near their home.

Scientific studies have shown that wind farm noise harms sleep and health, causing headaches, anxiety and stress. Apparently it is not what you can hear that does the damage, but what you can’t. Known as the infrasound, or low frequency noise, is what does the physiological damage.

This is perhaps the main factor in the rise of anti-wind energy groups of which there are now 400 in Europe. They are well represented even in Denmark – often considered the Mecca of wind energy enthusiasts. The consensus among the opponents of wind turbines is that they should be located at least two kilometres from any residence. No such requirements however exist in the UK.

Wind turbines are not merely damaging to humans paradoxically for environmentalists, they are lethal to wildlife. According to the research group SEO/Birdlife in Spain alone, these avian death traps kill 18 million birds and bats every year. Of course it’s not that easy to measure, because to use the jargon, you can’t account for ‘scavenger removal’ – and offshore at sea, well, pick a number.

The unfortunate thing is that birds, particularly rare-ish soaring birds like eagles, disorientated by the artificial change in air currents from wind turbines, or migrating flocks blindly following each other and a magnetic field, are very prone to get the chop.

In America there has always been official concern about protecting rare and valuable species of birds like the bald eagle. The Obama administration, which has been active in prosecuting oil, gas and other businesses for harming protected bird species, has turned a blind eye to the deaths of the same creatures caused by wind turbines.
It’s a tragedy then that the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds is far too committed to policies aimed at protecting the planet against global warming at the end of the century to make a fuss about the appalling massacre of birds by wind turbines in the present day. The situation is even worse for bats, for which there is much protective legislation to conserve them as they breed very slowly. That is why the finding that German turbines slay three million bats a year is particularly worrying for nature lovers. For bats, their final moments are different to birds and this type of death is known as barotrauma. They are attracted to turbines as they think they look like tall trees from which to attract a mate. But on approach, the dramatic change in air pressure near the turbine blades gives them the bends and may cause their lungs to explode.

As if all that wasn’t bad enough, wind turbines are not only dangerous but ugly and ever more of a blot on the landscape. The latest extra-large version is as
tall as the London Eye!

Studies show that they are driving tourists away from the loveliest parts of our countryside. Over two-thirds of those surveyed were put off visiting Scotland by wind farms. The Scottish Nationalists have particular reason to be worried because it is their announced intention to produce 100 per cent of Scotland’s electricity from wind power. The trouble with this policy – apart from its economic insanity – is that, since the wind farms are generally at a long distance from their market in the urban areas, their pernicious growth must mean swathes of the countryside being populated with pylons, making the landscape even more unappealing to visitors and odious to the locals.

One might expect that all landowners would heartily welcome the boon offered them by the hugely subsidised wind farms. However The Duke of Northumberland, the biggest landowner in England, who owns 100,000 acres, has no time for wind farms and refuses to have a single wind turbine on his domain. The Crown Estate also has large acreages suitable for wind farms, but Prince Philip has expressed strong opposition to them. He told a wind farm developer that wind farms were absolutely useless, completely reliant on subsidy and an absolute disgrace. ‘You don’t believe in fairy stories do you?’ he asked Mr Wilmar of Infinergy, who expressed surprise at the Prince’s very frank views.

I really can’t think of anyone I’m happier to have trumping my detestation of these evil, misbegotten and inhuman machines.

Russell Lewis was a journalist on the Daily Mail. Picture: whirlopedia.com:wind-turbine-accidents.htm
———————————————————————————————–