The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
The pushback comes in the form of efficient propaganda that has given inland wind a dirty name among even a large swathe of ecologically-minded people. Among people I know for their ecological opinions and lifestyle AND opposition to nuclear, the mention of wind brings out even violent opposition: it's big industry, it's big money, it's capitalists sucking up big subsidies, it's ugly, it's noisy, it's bad for your health.
I'm working with a local group on the energy transition, hoping to get a mix of renewables in local production (we can use sun, wind, and water ie river flow), and first we have to counter this. When opponents (more NIMBYist) organize meetings, along comes some front org for nukes and provides anti-renewables talking points.
Meanwhile, when Ségolène Royale's Energy Transition law (that supports slow nuclear phaseout and increase in renewables) is discussed in the Senate, a PS senator puts up (and gets voted with no trouble) an amendment fixing the distance for inland windmills at at least 1000 metres from any dwelling. This rules out getting on for 85% of France, and makes local windfarm projects impossible. OK, the Senate doesn't have the last word, but the support for nukes, as much among PS as UMP, is evident.
From the senator's speech: "I've been under a windmill, the noise is infernal." "In England the distance from any dwelling is 1,500 metres, in the US 2,000 metres."
Anyone got any up-to-date information on the latter two?
1,500 metres has been called for (particularly by opponents) in certain cases, but it is not a rule.
Scottish planning policy says: "A separation distance of up to 2km between areas of search and the edge of cities, towns and villages is recommended"
but that is a recommendation that doesn't concern individual dwellings.
They received planning permission, and were built - in an official Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, no less, with plenty of weather to keep them running.
But they don't seem to last. Small-scale wind doesn't give as much of a return as passive solar or rooftop PVs.
There are quite a few houses with PVs now. And some large PV schemes.
But they don't always last, either.
I'm baffled why anyone would want to dismantle a giant PV farm when they didn't even notice it being built.
It's not as if it spoiled their view, or changed the value of their property, or it makes a noise, or lights up in the dark, or gangs of rogue PV panels go stalking the landscape at full moon forcing people to vote Green at gunpoint.
There was a public consultation in the village hall before the farm was built. I very much doubt that Wilts Council failed to hammer the usual notices to the usual telegraph poles, or that this was the evil work of a single rogue planning officer.
Basically this is being attacked on a technicality. It's possible the appeal will succeed, but I guess that depends in part on what happens at the next election.
I don't believe that there is a specific set-off for wind turbines from residences, though folks in our neighborhood used to talk about 1.5 - 2 tower height distances (analogous to how we talk about buffers for various activities in the forest). The reality, though, is that the wind turbines around here are developed in groups and sited on farmland (usually) where structures are distant - but farming activities often come closer than 1 tower height. paul spencer
I can't really speak for other types of renewables, but for wind power at least, fossil power and nuclear power are much, much worse on each and every one of those points.
Ugly? I can't speak for anyone else, but to me a field of modern wind turbines is actually kind of attractive in a statuesque, foresty kind of way, and I've never in my life seen an "nice" looking coal burner or nuke.
Noisy? I've walked around under a set of large wind turbines. Yeah, they make some noise. The whine of the gear boxes is not pleasant. Over time it can get on your nerves. I've also spent time in and around a number of different fossil-powered plants, from gas and coal fired steam turbines, to combined-cycle units, to quick-start gas turbines. Trust me, the noise of a wind turbine is not even in the same league.
And bad for your health? Puhleaze... Now where are we going and what's with the handbasket?
My impression is that the French disinformation has mixed up feet and metres. 2,000 feet = 600 metres. That distance isn't even a rule in the US, but it is sometimes used. And, as the NASA knows (but in this case the shoe would be on the other foot), screwing up between feet and metres is an easy mistake to make...
There are lot's of places (mostly in Texas) with zero zoning or even permit requirements. You can just put anything you want wherever you want. In this cases, you only have to comply with federal laws, like the endangered species act.
Other places have extremely strict rules with crazy setbacks of 1 mile or more. In those cases, there generally aren't any wind turbines in operation. Those big setbacks effectively serve as a ban on utility scale turbines. You can see the in various counties in New York, Washington, and Wisconsin. (AND Bayern!) They are generally the result of an active anti-wind community that holds political sway with the county council (OR the local Seehofer.) The objective rationale for such rules are typically infra-sound and "wind turbine syndrome".
Most reasonable locations have setbacks of 1 or maybe 1.1 times fall-down height (Unplanned Rapid Disassembly Event) from roads and power lines and something like 1000 feet or maybe a bit more (1/4 mile is common) to either a non-participating property line or a residence (property line being moe restrictive). Sound ordinances are all over the board, but range from 35dBA to 45dBA, either measured at a residence or at a property line. Badly written ordinances have requirements for infra-sound.
There are often rules related to shadow flicker, and also to wake shadow. Shadow flicker is usually defined by hour/year that a residence has flicker. It can range from about 3 hours to about 30 hours. Wind shadow is usually ignored. Riverside county in CA has what I consider to be one of the better zoning laws, especially regarding wakes (downwind loss of energy). They require a 10 (I think- maybe it's only 5) Rotor Diameter separation from a non-participating land owner in the downwind direction.
In most cases serious restrictions have zero to do with citizen protection and much to do with utility protection. "Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin
He did mention "some German länder" where setback is at 1,500 metres. As far as I've been able to see, that's indeed Bayern. Do you know of any others?
I'll let Mothers Against Turbines explain it best:
Fighting Big Wind
I understand there's been positive buildout in Hesse and Baden Würtemberg, so they can't have such restrictive restrictions. In NRW, the coal lobby has put in place some minor restrictions, but they have no wind anyway. The rest of 'Schland? Wind is saving the poor lands asses.
But your Senator is simply very wrong about amurka; with some small exceptions in "densely" populated rural areas. And remember, some restrictions are to prevent upwind projects from stealing too much wind from downwind projects/landowners.
Along with Elvis, rational discussion about energy has long left the building. "Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin
Well, one time during very high winds some Frieslanders were able to sneak in and attack the coffee shop undetected. "Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin
French senator found dead in apparent suicide ahead of 'Chinese weddings' trial - France - RFI
Jean Germain, the former mayor of Tours and current Socialist party senator for Indre-et-Loire, was found dead Tuesday after failing to appear in court in a corruption case related to a Chinese wedding package offered in his city, police have confirmed to the AFP news agency.
the statement is pure BS on several levels. it relies on the fact that no one will ever check the details. who in france will seek out the answer for the US? no one, because as noted, there is none.
as i note in my new book on this phenomena, it is the power of the statement--as in the "big lie" not whether it is true or not.
so while randy and i and others like us run around trying to pin down the truth, they throw out another lie, thus keeping us running around in circles. who was it said, a lie travels around the world while the truth is still trying to put its pants on.
paul gipe Paul Gipe
The problem being, as you rightly say, that they get out there first and we are playing catch-up.
by gmoke - Nov 28
by gmoke - Nov 12 7 comments
by Oui - Nov 304 comments
by Oui - Nov 2837 comments
by Oui - Nov 278 comments
by Oui - Nov 2511 comments
by Oui - Nov 24
by Oui - Nov 221 comment
by Oui - Nov 22
by Oui - Nov 2119 comments
by Oui - Nov 1615 comments
by Oui - Nov 154 comments
by Oui - Nov 1319 comments
by Oui - Nov 1224 comments
by gmoke - Nov 127 comments
by Oui - Nov 1114 comments
by Oui - Nov 10
by Oui - Nov 928 comments
by Oui - Nov 8
by Oui - Nov 73 comments
by Oui - Nov 633 comments