|
Way off topic, but under the tail of that plane is the viewing area for the GGB. One of the most popular tourist sites in the Hew Hess Hay, squillions of people every year go there.
There is only one "piddly" toilet block to service the site, and the queues are often 50 long to get into the ladies. The nearest other loo is 3km away. Good planning, not. |
Originally Posted by jonkster
(Post 9981598)
I did a quick search - it appears all were collisions either with the turbine towers or with associated wind measuring towers.
WindAction | Wind Energy and Aviation Safety, Fatalities https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33...INAL%20Feb.pdf the CAP states: so anecdotal reports and with a wide variety of views about the significance. That document was published in 2006 and is still the only thing the CAA put out about wind turbines (and the UK has a lot of them in a much smaller area than here). Since then the CAA has not updated it. If they were receiving actual incident reports of dangerous wake turbulence, surely they would update it with better recommendations? I am not seeing why having the same rotor dimension as a 747 winspan means it would generate the same wake turbulence. Wake turbulence will vary with amount of lift produced and aspect ratio. The 747 wing generates lift of the order of 450,000 kg. That is way, way beyond what a turbine pumping out a measly 3MW would be generating. A 747 wing has a considerably lower aspect ratio and higher wing loading than a turbine's blades. This aircraft has a longer wingspan than a 747 - would you say it would generate the same wake turbulence as a 747?... Of interest from the link you supplied we have this fatality of a 21,000 hour pilot: "...Track data for the accident flight indicated that the airplane was flying between 300 and 600 feet above ground level (agl) when it encountered a wind farm with several 400-foot-tall wind turbines. The data showed that the airplane made a 90-degree course change, which was followed by a figure-8 turn at varying altitudes between 800 and 1,500 feet agl..." https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/Re...ry&IType=LA%20. . |
Originally Posted by Flying Binghi
(Post 9981637)
Of interest from the link you supplied we have this fatality of a 21,000 hour pilot:
"...Track data for the accident flight indicated that the airplane was flying between 300 and 600 feet above ground level (agl) when it encountered a wind farm with several 400-foot-tall wind turbines. The data showed that the airplane made a 90-degree course change, which was followed by a figure-8 turn at varying altitudes between 800 and 1,500 feet agl..." https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/Re...ry&IType=LA%20. . The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be: The pilot's continued visual flight into an area of known instrument meteorological conditions in an airplane not equipped for instrument flight, and his failure to maintain control of the airplane while maneuvering at low altitude. The conditions at the crash site were listed as "Instrument" with a cloud base between 400-600' AGL and under that vis 1.5 to 2.5 miles in mist (assuming statue miles so varying between ~2500-4000m). Wind speed 6 kts. The towers were 400' AGL. It sure sounds like he was trying to avoid hitting the towers by climbing and lost visual reference - the base was 400-600' and he was tracked doing a lazy eight at between 800 and 1500'. Sounds like a classic loss of control in IMC. Poor bastard. No matter how many hours he had, he was in deep pooh. Really sad but how many times has this happened - VFR aircraft entering cloud and soon after hitting the ground at high speed? :( Which is my point - put 500' towers really near an airfield and you make the site more hazardous in poor vis/bad wx. I still am not convinced turbulence is the major issue (providing you stay a few hundred metres away) but like I said - happy to be shown wrong. Surely if it is an issue it we would have some concrete evidence by now? Most of the aviation studies on it date from more than 10 years ago and even then are vague. The real issue (and where all the "empirical" evidence points - ie actual aircraft loss) seems to be the collision risk. |
Originally Posted by jonkster
(Post 9981765)
That report concludes
He was scud running in a vintage Cessna 140 that he had purchased that very day. It was not IFR equipped (I doubt many C140s would be). Sweet little aeroplane but not much in the performance or equipment stakes. Full fuel and one average size bloke and you would be pushing MTOW. The conditions at the crash site were listed as "Instrument" with a cloud base between 400-600' AGL and under that vis 1.5 to 2.5 miles in mist (assuming statue miles so varying between ~2500-4000m). Wind speed 6 kts. The towers were 400' AGL. It sure sounds like he was trying to avoid hitting the towers by climbing and lost visual reference - the base was 400-600' and he was tracked doing a lazy eight at between 800 and 1500'. Sounds like a classic loss of control in IMC. Poor bastard. No matter how many hours he had, he was in deep pooh. Really sad but how many times has this happened - VFR aircraft entering cloud and soon after hitting the ground at high speed? :( Which is my point - put 500' towers really near an airfield and you make the site more hazardous in poor vis/bad wx. I still am not convinced turbulence is the major issue (providing you stay a few hundred metres away) but like I said - happy to be shown wrong. Surely if it is an issue it we would have some concrete evidence by now? Most of the aviation studies on it date from more than 10 years ago and even then are vague. The real issue (and where all the "empirical" evidence points - ie actual aircraft loss) seems to be the collision risk. A 21,000 hours airline and helicopter pilot and you think it compares to a new chum 200 hour scud runner. Yer don't get to 21,000 hours by being a bold pilot. In 21,000 hours that pilot would have been well exposed to all sorts of wx. One thing he probably had no experience of is turbulence down wind of wind turbines. Re the accident report comments: As there has been next to no real world research done on the subject the accident investigators have no real wind turbine turbulence research to include as a possibility in any accident report. This lack of research is reflected in the UK experience: "...Small planes along with helicopters, gliders, microlights and other hobbyists make up the biggest user group of the UK airspace in terms of low level flying and contribute some £3billion to the economy supporting close to 40,000 jobs. Member organisations admit the fast-growing renewables sector has created some “fairly significant” issues which they have fought hard to resolve. Their main concerns relate to downwind turbulence from the turbine blades plus problems with visibility especially in poor conditions..." https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/60...farms-flourish Of interest: As Warren Buffet said in 2014, ….“…we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them”. Wind Energy is the biggest crony capitalism scam in our lifetime. ...Look at wind turbines for what they are: “Subsidy meters”. http://www.windaction.org/posts/4759...y#.Wined9R_WfB . |
Originally Posted by Ascend Charlie
(Post 9981551)
Those pix are of fog, and fog doesn't generally form in strong winds - the mixing ratio isopleths are not in the right proportion. So, the pic is of a gentle breeze, the wind rotors are turning slowly, and leaving a small disturbance behind, which lifts the fog up a bit. It drifts along with the rest of the fog, and stays like that for a few hundred meters before the fog peters out. It ain't turbulence.
The rotors EXTRACT energy from the air, so the airflow behind the rotor should be slower than the rest of the free airflow. The wind were blowing 25 Knots above that fog. . |
Originally Posted by Flying Binghi
(Post 9982762)
Twenty one thousand hours !
A 21,000 hours airline and helicopter pilot and you think it compares to a new chum 200 hour scud runner. Yer don't get to 21,000 hours by being a bold pilot. In 21,000 hours that pilot would have been well exposed to all sorts of wx. One thing he probably had no experience of is turbulence down wind of wind turbines. WX was OVC 600' with vis below the base under VMC . Sure sounds bold to me. He may have had 21000 hours but that was not the action of a timid pilot. Add to that how many current instrument rated pilots do not have much in the way of current hand flying IF skills? How many engage auto pilot as soon as possible? (either due SOPs or because they prefer to?) I do not believe you will find a C140 with an autopilot. Lucky if the venturi driven AI even functions. He just bought the plane that morning. How much recent time in light aircraft did he have? How much in a 140? A 140 is a sweet little aeroplane but a lower performer even than a 150. I have recently flown in light aircraft with a couple of current LHS airline pilots and had to take over when they got out of shape, thousands of hours doesn't mean bullet proof or current on type. Especially not in marginal conditions. Claiming the accident was obviously due turbulence when he was in the clag (the base 600' and he was tracked between 800 and 1500' when he lost control) in an aircraft not equipped to fly in the clag really seems a long stretch. The wind speed was recorded as 6kts. The turbines would be barely turning. How much turbulence would you be expecting? I don't care how many tens of thousands hours you have - fly a C140 into the clag at low level and you are pushing your luck. If it had been high voltage towers or radio transmission towers that he was avoiding instead of turbines the exact same accident description would not raise an eyebrow. But because it was a wind turbine it suddenly must be turbulence and loss of control in IMC seems unlikely? Really?
Originally Posted by Flying Binghi
(Post 9982762)
...
As Warren Buffet said in 2014, ….“…we get a tax credit if we build a lot of wind farms. That’s the only reason to build them”. Wind Energy is the biggest crony capitalism scam in our lifetime. ...Look at wind turbines for what they are: “Subsidy meters”. [/COLOR] Which is fine, we all have our pet peeves and biases but if that is the case here, there is not much point discussing this as you have already made up your mind for reasons other than analysis of the evidence. |
Originally Posted by jonkster
(Post 9983104)
He obtained 3 seperate forecasts prior to departure each indicating IFR conditions and still launched in a vintage aircraft he only bought that day.
WX was OVC 600' with vis below the base under VMC . Sure sounds bold to me. He may have had 21000 hours but that was not the action of a timid pilot. Add to that how many current instrument rated pilots do not have much in the way of current hand flying IF skills? How many engage auto pilot as soon as possible? (either due SOPs or because they prefer to?) I do not believe you will find a C140 with an autopilot. Lucky if the venturi driven AI even functions. He just bought the plane that morning. How much recent time in light aircraft did he have? How much in a 140? A 140 is a sweet little aeroplane but a lower performer even than a 150. I have recently flown in light aircraft with a couple of current LHS airline pilots and had to take over when they got out of shape, thousands of hours doesn't mean bullet proof or current on type. Especially not in marginal conditions. Claiming the accident was obviously due turbulence when he was in the clag (the base 600' and he was tracked between 800 and 1500' when he lost control) in an aircraft not equipped to fly in the clag really seems a long stretch. The wind speed was recorded as 6kts. The turbines would be barely turning. How much turbulence would you be expecting? I don't care how many tens of thousands hours you have - fly a C140 into the clag at low level and you are pushing your luck. If it had been high voltage towers or radio transmission towers that he was avoiding instead of turbines the exact same accident description would not raise an eyebrow. But because it was a wind turbine it suddenly must be turbulence and loss of control in IMC seems unlikely? Really? You obviously have a set against wind turbines which is fine, everyone is entitled to an opinion. That makes me suspect though you will chose to post and argue anything that paints them in a bad light rather than look at the evidence in a dispassionate way. Which is fine, we all have our pet peeves and biases but if that is the case here, there is not much point discussing this as you have already made up your mind for reasons other than analysis of the evidence. https://www.wunderground.com/history...ic=&reqdb.wmo= . |
You're just proving jonkster's point. The pilot flew VFR in IMC and lost control. The rest is just you trying to stretch the facts to fit your preconceptions.
|
Read the report https://www.aopa.org/asf/ntsb/narrat...20080222X00232
The aircraft was not fitted with an AI or DI. It did have a venturi powered T&B. Forecast was a 70% chance icing at 2000' amsl. Terrain along the track was around 2000' amsl. He was unfamiliar with the aircraft having just purchased it that morning (and which for what it is worth had done 2.6 hours since last annual and that had expired ). He had received 3 weather briefings that morning, all indicating IFR conditions along his route. He departed anyway in an aircraft he had just purchased, that had barely flown in 12 months, that had no AI or DI, had a venturi powered T&B, in forecast icing conditions with vis below VMC in mist and rain, a cloud base forecast to be 600' AGL, for a long, multistage cross country flight to make a family get together later that day. He ended up in cloud and soon after impacted the ground. Poor bastard but I don't care how many hours he had - that to me is really bad judgement and was an accident all set up to happen. Do you really believe the most likely cause of that accident is unexpected turbulence from a wind farm? Sorry smells like a textbook loss of control in IMC accident to me. |
Originally Posted by le Pingouin
(Post 9983306)
You're just proving jonkster's point. The pilot flew VFR in IMC and lost control. The rest is just you trying to stretch the facts to fit your preconceptions.
. |
Originally Posted by jonkster
(Post 9983330)
Read the report https://www.aopa.org/asf/ntsb/narrat...20080222X00232
The aircraft was not fitted with an AI or DI. It did have a venturi powered T&B. Forecast was a 70% chance icing at 2000' amsl. Terrain along the track was around 2000' amsl. He was unfamiliar with the aircraft having just purchased it that morning (and which for what it is worth had done 2.6 hours since last annual and that had expired ). He had received 3 weather briefings that morning, all indicating IFR conditions along his route. He departed anyway in an aircraft he had just purchased, that had barely flown in 12 months, that had no AI or DI, had a venturi powered T&B, in forecast icing conditions with vis below VMC in mist and rain, a cloud base forecast to be 600' AGL, for a long, multistage cross country flight to make a family get together later that day. He ended up in cloud and soon after impacted the ground. Poor bastard but I don't care how many hours he had - that to me is really bad judgement and was an accident all set up to happen. Do you really believe the most likely cause of that accident is unexpected turbulence from a wind farm? Sorry smells like a textbook loss of control in IMC accident to me. What we have seen demonstrated from the fog clearance photos posted earlier in this thread is the way wind tower turbulence splays out and affects the air above and below the actual tower rotor disc area i.e., cleared the fog. The effects are also mentioned in the research done in relation to the 'fog photos'. I would put that as evidenced by the fog photos that there is a high possibility of the wind turbine rotor turbulence 'lifting' the cloud base down wind of the turbine. Thus allowing a pilot to do figure 8 orbits whilst reprogramming a GPS. I would suggest that if a pilot were forced onto a basic T+B they would be more likely to fly away on a direct heading after doing the initial visual wind tower clearing 90º turn rather then doing figure 8's on the T+B. The problem with the down wind of wind tower reference is the report places the accident roughly upwind of the nearest towers. Except, (using the GPS lat/long provided) there is a further larger number of wind turbines just roughly north and west of the accident site. . |
Binghi,
I know quite a few people prone to flogging dead horses but you are definitely the most persistent and the best.:}:}:} |
Originally Posted by rutan around
(Post 9983753)
Binghi,
I know quite a few people prone to flogging dead horses but you are definitely the most persistent and the best.:}:}:} Meanwhile, Germany persists... "...To illustrate how far along the road to disaster Germany’s once impeccably stable grid has come, the online hessenschau.de here reports that for the second time in a just few days the central city of Wiesbaden has seen its power black out. It writes: On Saturday evening in parts of Wiesbaden the power went out for 2 hours. It is the second power outage within just a few days. Over the past years the German state of Hesse has been plagued by power outages, Hessen public television reported... as it pondered why Hesse has become so prone to blackouts. HR cites the Bundesnetzagentur (Federal Grid Agency), which says there are over 172,000 power outages annually, which is some 470 daily, and that last winter multiple power plants had to be switched simultaneously because “the German grid was on the brink of collapse.”... Germany?s National Power Grid Mess?Country Seeing Whopping 172,000 Power Outages Annually! . |
|
.............:ugh:
|
If you lot can't debunk what i post, just say so..;) I doubt you know much on the subject so i don't expect much...:)
Further reading of the wind industry research literature shows a high wind tower turbine failure rate for turbines located in the centre of tower groups (Wind farms). The reason given is the turbulence from upwind towers. Also, if two towers are aligned with the wind they can increase the turbulence loading on a third tower downwind. . |
Originally Posted by Flying Binghi
(Post 9984025)
If you lot can't debunk what i post, just say so..;) I doubt you know much on the subject so i don't expect much...:)
Further reading of the wind industry research literature shows a high wind tower turbine failure rate for turbines located in the centre of tower groups (Wind farms). The reason given is the turbulence from upwind towers. Also, if two towers are aligned with the wind they can increase the turbulence loading on a third tower downwind. . |
Once again the Pprune resident nutter @Flying Binghi has cited a whacko website run but someone who wears tinfoil hats as a reputable source.
The reputable websites say the opposite, people can Google it for themselves. Data show that Germany's grid is one of the world's most reliable @Flying Binghi you are both deluded and a shallow fraud. |
Originally Posted by Cloudee
(Post 9984207)
Mate, you've been shot down so many times I think you should now be known simply as Binghi.
Originally Posted by Cloudee
(Post 9984207)
Facts and common sense don't seem to get through to him! FB seems to favour quantity over quality when it comes to his posts.
Re the Horns Rev 1 photos we get this comment from research referencing the photos: "...Analysis of the images and of the meteorological conditions at the time revealed that the atmosphere was convective and that the wakes were captured by the re-condensation of fog. This process was triggered by the lifting and cooling of warm super-saturated air from the lower part of the rotor area by the swirling motion of the air in the wakes themselves. The wind speed was low, only marginally above the cut-in speed of the wind turbines..." So that were Horns Rev 1. What about the Horns Rev 2 fog photos which i were commenting on. The research claims wind speeds were up to 13 metres a second. Which is a bit over 25 knots. Read it for yourself: http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/10/3/317/pdf-vor Cloudee, i have already linked to that research paper in this thread. If you believe the research to be factual or not is up to you..:hmm: . |
Wind farm
The proposed 12 turbines at Cobden are arranged to the north and north west of the only runway 36/18 (sealed and lit), the closest, nearly due north in company with three others, is 1.4 nm. These monstrous structures are at near enough 800ft (600ft AGL) into the circuit area. No one in their right mind would have them so close to the only public airport between Colac and Warrnambool if there was the slightest consideration of a community and taxpayer funded airport facility. CASA typically couldn’t barely care less because though planned for Code 1 registration Cobden won’t get that before the Planning Minister decides. If these turbines go ahead that will finish the airport for the fire-fighting service, night flying and more than likely the air ambulance also. Flying school use? Send your students there? How bad this might prove to be in the circuit area with a nor-wester blowing 30 kt we don’t know; but I’ll bet it won’t be benign. Take off and turn onto crosswind you will undoubtedly run the gauntlet at less than 1 nm distance below the towers. With liability issues the Council might have to close the airport.
Some comment here about the desirability of wind farms in general. What is apparent whether you like them or not is the near total lack of procedures to safeguard the property rights of the surrounding land owners, mostly farmers. Victoria’s rules say no problem if you are more than 1 km. Is there any law preventing tower site manipulation which could devalue nearby properties? Seems to me that big land grab money temptations might be the big sleeper in this debate in an evolving industry building ever larger turbines. |
The Local community and about 35-40 planes turned out on Saturday 16th December out of concern for the future of the Cobden airport. The National Wind Farm Commissioner made a surprise visit. His attendance made him aware of the hill just to the north of the strip, upon which the Turbine hazards are proposed to be built. He said words to the affect,"it is something google earth does not show you," after observing the rising ground. The concerns of locals were heard by shadow minister for aviation, Gordon Rich-Phillips and member for Polwarth, Richard Riordan.
https://image.ibb.co/gjgyjm/75_E9943...E9_AD9_DA3.jpg |
Good picture...good message image,too !
|
...and as Australia sacrifices its economy to the greeny gods and wind fairies over 62 sensible countries will be increasing the total world coal fired power plants by over 40%...
"...The new plants would expand the world's coal-fired power capacity by 43 per cent..." Chinese companies to build 700 coal plants in and outside China | MINING.com Perhaps Cobden needs a sign at their front gate commenting on the shear stupidity of the taxpayer funded 'subsidy powered wind turbines'..:hmm: . |
A great money spinner
Victoria has 1488 operating wind turbines over 1 MW
Here The Government claim:"Victoria currently has approximately 949MW of operating wind power generation." But as the data demonstrates below, very rarely is that potential ever realised. How many wind farms would be required to even make inroads to the total energy required in Victoria alone. We are being conned. There are 1488 Turbines in Victoria producing only 33 MW of power today (Monday 18th @ 1335 Hours) and the Andrews Government would prefer a Hazardous Wind Farm over an airport that serves a community. Go Figure. With the current technology we would require 6271 Wind Turbines to provide 50% of the total energy generated in Victoria last Wednesday 13th December @ 1245. This is at the Governments estimated 949 MW of capacity, however, we rarely see it. That means increased number of hazardous turbines. TUESDAY 12 DECEMBER There does not appear to be very much wind power generation today. https://image.ibb.co/d5DWpm/IMG_1333.jpg WEDNESDAY 13 DECEMBER This was a hot day for us, around the mid 30's. From lunchtime, the wind generation reduced steadily throughout the day. https://image.ibb.co/bKOaFR/Wed13_1245.jpg https://image.ibb.co/fguFFR/Wed13_2045.jpg THURSDAY 14 DECEMBER https://image.ibb.co/bRqY26/thurs14_0755.jpg https://image.ibb.co/myb6N6/Thurs14_1635.jpg SUNDAY 17 DECEMBER https://image.ibb.co/jGk0h6/SUn17_1135.jpg MONDAY 18 DECEMBER https://image.ibb.co/j7Gj9m/Mon18_0520.jpg https://image.ibb.co/hZut26/Mon18_1335.png |
If the issue is the aerodrome, then it has my interest and support. I can see a loss of safety due the size and proximity of the towers making them a navigation hazard that threatens operations at the aerodrome.
If issue is renewable energy policy and politics... I am stepping outside for a beer. That is just me though. |
Could someone from Cobden go on a flight using a Go Pro to show us from takeoff to landing how it looks from the cockpit and how it will effect flying . A voiceover pointing out exactly where the turbines will be would be helpful.
It's a bit hard to tell what's going on from 2,000 km away.:{ |
Originally Posted by rutan around
(Post 9994574)
Could someone from Cobden go on a flight using a Go Pro to show us from takeoff to landing how it looks from the cockpit and how it will effect flying . A voiceover pointing out exactly where the turbines will be would be helpful.
It's a bit hard to tell what's going on from 2,000 km away.:{ I do appreciate though that basic research is beyond some so they need spoon feeding..:hmm: . |
Originally Posted by jonkster
(Post 9994551)
If the issue is the aerodrome, then it has my interest and support. I can see a loss of safety due the size and proximity of the towers making them a navigation hazard that threatens operations at the aerodrome.
If issue is renewable energy policy and politics... I am stepping outside for a beer. That is just me though. The only reason the ding-bat wind generators are being installed is "renewable energy policy and politics"... it is the entire background to the issue..:hmm: . |
I like wind farms and an confident they will become and increasingly important slice of the power generation pie.
Hopefully this wind farm will successfully co-exist with the Cobden airfield. I get the impression that climate-skeptic nutters are trying to twist this issue to further their delusions. The government should allocate more resources to speed the move move to renewable energy as a source of power generation. |
Originally Posted by Flying Binghi
(Post 9994590)
Good idea. Go hide in the booze.
|
I do appreciate though that basic research is beyond some so they need spoon feeding..:hmm: I've always found it more challenging judging exactly where to put down so you get to point x before a herd of startled camels could get to it at their best speed and still have enough room past point x to stop or avoid the second mob of camels happily grazing on the edge of the runway.:eek: |
The government should allocate more resources to speed the move move to renewable energy as a source of power generation. |
In my view wind turbines should not be installed onshore at all.
They are a heavy pollutant of the sound and visual landscape. In addition to the turbulence noted here the noise they generate is highly irritating and unfortunately the proponents often choose locations that are otherwise particularly peaceful and/or beautiful - to which people are attracted for these reasons, most certainly NOT to listen to whump whump whump all bloody day :mad: I understand that the UK have ceased subsidies for these things, and that there is a general thought they should now be located offshore (thus keeping them away from any land-based airfields!). If they must be used then this is the place for them, or directly in the middle of those cities for whom they supposedly provide a benefit... FP. |
I don't believe they ever pay off the energy that goes into mining and smelting the materials, construction, transport to site then erection and maintenance. Then they wear out after 20 years. Useless, taxpayer-subsidised monstrosities just to placate the virtue-signallers.
|
I don't believe they ever pay off the energy that goes into mining and smelting the materials, construction, transport to site then erection and maintenance. Then they wear out after 20 years. Useless, taxpayer-subsidised monstrosities just to placate the virtue-signallers. |
Please stop shouting, now there's a nice chap.
|
Please stop shouting, now there's a nice chap. If you don't believe the science then at least use common sense. If wind turbines use more power in their manufacture than they ever produce why don't those cunning shysters you make out the turbine industry to be, just buy power from the grid and on sell it at a profit and cut out all the stuffing around building turbines To keep my temperature down at least quote your sources and the date when it was first published . In this fast evolving field of renewable energy even 6 months can make a substantial difference. Also don't bother quoting Lord Monckton or Jo Nova because I won't bother to read them. There are plenty of people properly qualified that can present the true picture. Mark Diesendorf, formerly Professor of Environmental Science at the University of Technology, Sydney and a principal research scientist with CSIRO has summarised some of the benefits of onshore wind farms as follows.[73] A wind farm, when installed on agricultural land, has one of the lowest environmental impacts of all energy sources:
|
Originally Posted by rutan around
(Post 9997259)
To keep my temperature down at least quote your sources and the date when it was first published .....
There are plenty of people properly qualified that can present the true picture. ......
https://stopthesethings.com/2014/12/...turbine-noise/ Wind farm neighbours have greater risk of health problems: Australian study | Wind Concerns Ontario Information | Waubra Foundation Personally I don't need the research, I know just how polluting and noisy these things are, and how expensive it is to pursue a court case to deal with them. There is no free lunch, and the real cost to the environment of wind turbines is all too often overlooked. The statement 'almost silent and rotate so slowly' demonstrates that the writer has utterly no understanding of the wider industry and the issues, nor even of simple maths. There are many commercial turbines that rotate quite quickly. For those that don't the blades are often quite long and so the rotor tip speed, just as in an aeroplane propellor can be quite significant, the outcome of this of course is aerodynamic noise pollution. While in the case of aeroplanes this noise can be temporarily annoying to some it is generally a passing thing, but with wind turbines (aka noise generators) it can go on for days without end. The end effect of this, along with the visual pollution, can be quite significant and severely detrimental to local's quality of life and environment. FP. |
Blowing hot air: Are wind farms really bad for your health?
Quote: "But these symptoms do not occur in people who haven’t been told that wind farms are harmful. And in an experiment in which participants were led to believe that wind-farm sounds are beneficial to health, they actually reported positive symptoms." It's important to search for credible peer-reviewed material, not websites run by people wearing tinfoil hats. Remember also, it's the same people complain about the health effects or wind farms that complain about the health effect of airports Residents struggling with Moorabbin Airport noise as training pilots make 726 flights a day. "Moorabbin Airport Residents' Association president Peta Millard told Leader that she doesn't bother going to bed before 10pm each night because the noise is constant up until that time" |
"But these symptoms do not occur in people who haven’t been told that wind farms are harmful. And in an experiment in which participants were led to believe that wind-farm sounds are beneficial to health, they actually reported positive symptoms." It's important to search for credible peer-reviewed material, not websites run by people wearing tinfoil hats. As for 'tinfoil hats', I don't believe that belittling people or their views in this way particularly assists knowledge and understanding. The latter is something to be sought - after all we'd like people to understand our view wouldn't we, rather than just call us 'wannabe Biggles' or something? If you look at some of the detail I earlier included it will lead you to much research and empirical evidence. I don't see the need on this aviation site to cite the hundreds of articles, scientific papers, and real people I've been involved with over these noise generators but I do assure you that there is plenty of evidence (and personal experience) of the affect on health due directly to them Remember also, it's the same people complain about the health effects or wind farms that complain about the health effect of airports Residents struggling with Moorabbin Airport noise as training pilots make 726 flights a day. "Moorabbin Airport Residents' Association president Peta Millard told Leader that she doesn't bother going to bed before 10pm each night because the noise is constant up until that time" Attempts to dismiss people by lumping them into the 'professional whingers' category also doesn't promote understanding, nor does it assist in achieving resolution. FP. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 14:22. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.