Pagliacci wrote:

Windfarms....the horror....the horror

People who live near wind farms generally do not think that. People who live in the vicinity learns that wind towers are not dangerous.

Global warming and air pollution are real causes of horror.

According to the infrasound expert Geoff Leventhall the vibrations from wind towers are not dangerous at all.

Lysholm wrote:

Pagliacci wrote: Windfarms....the horror....the horror People who live near wind farms generally do not think that. People who live in the vicinity learns that wind towers are not dangerous. Global warming and air pollution are real causes of horror. According to the infrasound expert Geoff Leventhall the vibrations from wind towers are not dangerous at all.

bahhhhhhhhhh Geoff Leventhall is not to be trusted a sneaky sinister character for sure

Ban windfarms they will be the cause of mankinds downfall

Lysholm wrote:

Pagliacci wrote: Windfarms....the horror....the horror People who live near wind farms generally do not think that. People who live in the vicinity learns that wind towers are not dangerous.

Wind farms 'make people sick who live up to a mile away'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/3326712/Wind-farms-make-people-sick-who-live-up-to-a-mile-away.html
Sorry Lysholm... But I'm being a contrarian...for a change.

Longloadr wrote:

Wind farms 'make people sick who live up to a mile away' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/3326712/Wind-farms-make-people-sick-who-live-up-to-a-mile-away.html Sorry Lysholm... But I'm being a contrarian...for a change.

This article was written in 2004. Given how fast the development has gone it is no longer relevant. The wind towers shown on the pic in the article were antiquated then already and they definitely have mechanical gears, which Enercon turbines do not have. Modern turbines sounds and vibrates much less.

As I have already mentioned no one lives anywhere near the Markbygden location anyway.

Pagliacci wrote:

Also the suicide rates among bats living in and around these monstrous abomination windfarms is at critical level because of them

Pags, nothing can be done if bats are suicidal. On a serious note, if we have a problem, that doesn't mean we stop looking for solutions. Bats can be safely kept away from the wind warms [reprinting the link from Lysholm post: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/17/radar-bat-wind-turbine ]. As Lysholm pointed out, bats are not endangered species. Their deaths are a matter of concern. But we have bigger things at stakes than the life of few bats.

FLZapped wrote:

Bats are known to fly as high as 10,000 feet. However, even if the couldn't you're missing the obvious. Why is the hub 100 meters high? Could be so the very long blades do not RUN INTO THE GROUND! Hello. Bats do not use RADAR (RAdio Detection And Ranging).

FL, Could it be because as we go up from the ground, the wind speed increases?
Bats do use something very similar to RADAR and it's called Echolocation. And some have excellent vision even in the night. http://a-s.clayton.edu/burnett/research/how_do_bats_navigate_at_night.htm

FLZapped wrote:

Lysholm wrote: Would you prefer to be dependent on Middle Eastern dicatorships for your energy supply? If you invest in wind power your money will remain in the US economy and create jobs. Haven't you heard the slogan "Buy American - the job you save may be yours"? We have more oil than they do. Wind power no more keeps jobs here than any other competitive industry, that is a non-sequitur.

Not every country has sufficient oil. And it's always better to be self reliant for the energy or any other needs than being dependent on some other country. Sweden has to import all it's oil. It is must for every countries to develop alternate source of energy. Besides, ALL the oils fields are going to get exhausted some day! And that's not a distant future.

FLZapped wrote:

Lysholm wrote: I have heard of research in methods to obscure sunlight to reduce global warming. Maybe it could work and it could be necessary. Even if carbon dioxide emissions started to decrease today the climate would still be remain hot for several decades because it responds slowly to changes. Carbon Dioxide cannot cause the problems you speak of, there is no credible scientific evidence whatsoever that it does. Further have you ever looked at Venus? It is obscured by clouds, yet its temperatures remain extremely high.

Carbon Dioxide IS a Greenhouse gas.

FLZapped wrote:

More evidence that windfarms are not viable: "The study, published in Nature, found a “significant warming trend” of up to 0.72C (1.37F) per decade, particularly at night-time, over wind farms relative to near-by non-wind-farm regions. " http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/9234715/Wind-farms-can-cause-climate-change-finds-new-study.html

Have you ever thought the mechanism by which Wind turbines which doesn't burn anything heat up the local environment? It is explained in the article, "since at night the ground becomes much cooler than the air just a few hundred meters above the surface[which are warmer], and the wind farms generate gentle turbulence near the ground that causes these to mix together, thus the ground doesn't get quite as cool. This same strategy is commonly used by fruit growers (who fly helicopters over the orchards rather than windmills) to combat early morning frosts.”
Also,
However Prof Zhou pointed out the most extreme changes were just at night and the overall changes may be smaller.

Also, it is much smaller than the estimated change caused by other factors such as man made global warming. .

Pagliacci wrote:

bahhhhhhhhhh Geoff Leventhall is not to be trusted a sneaky sinister character for sure Ban windfarms they will be the cause of mankinds downfall

Pags, I would like you to see adopting the Amish way of life. It's much safer for the mankind as whole. Stop using computer and TV and electricity and cars/motorbikes/trains/planes/buses right now

Lysholm wrote:

Longloadr wrote: Wind farms 'make people sick who live up to a mile away' http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/3326712/Wind-farms-make-people-sick-who-live-up-to-a-mile-away.html Sorry Lysholm... But I'm being a contrarian...for a change. This article was written in 2004. Given how fast the development has gone it is no longer relevant. The wind towers shown on the pic in the article were antiquated then already and they definitely have mechanical gears, which Enercon turbines do not have. Modern turbines sounds and vibrates much less. As I have already mentioned no one lives anywhere near the Markbygden location anyway.

I don't say that Wind Turbines cannot be improved anymore. Moreover, there are many problems which we are aware of while designing and implementing. So no considerations are made while designing and implementing some projects. Technology development is a continuous process, and it is imperative that we follow the continuous development path. Right now, wind farms should be placed away from human population and migratory bird routes, and places like Markbygden makes an ideal location.

There are very little complaints about noise disturbance from wind farms in the UK. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file40570.pdf

Deneb-A2Ia wrote:

[ Bats do use something very similar to RADAR and it's called Echolocation. And some have excellent vision even in the night. http://a-s.clayton.edu/burnett/research/how_do_bats_navigate_at_night.htm

You missed the point entirely, Lysholm holds himself out as being some sort of scientific authority, yet continually makes such simple errors.

Echolocation is the equivalent to SONAR - it is NOT similar to RADAR.

Deneb-A2Ia wrote:

Not every country has sufficient oil. And it's always better to be self reliant for the energy or any other needs than being dependent on some other country. Sweden has to import all it's oil. It is must for every countries to develop alternate source of energy. Besides, ALL the oils fields are going to get exhausted some day! And that's not a distant future.

This has been claimed for the last 50 years.

Deneb-A2Ia wrote:

FLZapped wrote: Lysholm wrote: I have heard of research in methods to obscure sunlight to reduce global warming. Maybe it could work and it could be necessary. Even if carbon dioxide emissions started to decrease today the climate would still be remain hot for several decades because it responds slowly to changes. Carbon Dioxide cannot cause the problems you speak of, there is no credible scientific evidence whatsoever that it does. Further have you ever looked at Venus? It is obscured by clouds, yet its temperatures remain extremely high. Carbon Dioxide IS a Greenhouse gas.

Based on what credible research. And do tell how it can possibly make the claimed influence at the current concentrations which are around 400 PPM. Explain how in the past it has been as high as 7,000 PPM and yet there was no runaway heating.

Deneb-A2Ia wrote:

FLZapped wrote: More evidence that windfarms are not viable: "The study, published in Nature, found a “significant warming trend” of up to 0.72C (1.37F) per decade, particularly at night-time, over wind farms relative to near-by non-wind-farm regions. " http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/9234715/Wind-farms-can-cause-climate-change-finds-new-study.html Have you ever thought the mechanism by which Wind turbines which doesn't burn anything heat up the local environment? It is explained in the article, "since at night the ground becomes much cooler than the air just a few hundred meters above the surface[which are warmer], and the wind farms generate gentle turbulence near the ground that causes these to mix together, thus the ground doesn't get quite as cool. This same strategy is commonly used by fruit growers (who fly helicopters over the orchards rather than windmills) to combat early morning frosts.” Also, However Prof Zhou pointed out the most extreme changes were just at night and the overall changes may be smaller. Also, it is much smaller than the estimated change caused by other factors such as man made global warming. .

While you ignore that there IS a measurable negative effect, regardless the reason.

FLZapped wrote:

You missed the point entirely, Lysholm holds himself out as being some sort of scientific authority, yet continually makes such simple errors.

I have never claimed to be an authority and especially not in bat physiology. I am just an idealistic environmentalist and a renewable energy proponent. The vast majority of my compatriots as well as most Europeans share my stance. http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/btenvironmentra/707.php

The mistake I made about bats has nothing to do with wind turbines anyway.

FLZapped wrote:

This has been claimed for the last 50 years.

There may have been incorrect reports before that the oil is about to run out but eventually it will happen. New oil takes millions of years to be formed. The worldwide oil production has decreased since 2005. Oil price has been dramatically increasing in recent years http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_price_increases_since_2003

Sweden has no indigenous oil or gas resources anyway so the only way we could become independent in energy is with renewable energy. There have been surveys for gas in the Siljan region but no economical quantities have been found.

Furthermore two thirds of the world's oil resources are located in the Middle East. Norway and UK can't supply all of Europe with oil. The free world is dependent on importing oil from Middle Eastern dictatorships. I hoisted the Star Spangled Banner on my balcony on the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. America is importing oil from Usama bin Laden's home country.

You might think that wind power is uneconomical but it isn't: http://www.cleanedge.com/sites/default/files/CETrends2012_Final_Web.pdf?attachment=true Fossil fuel industries recieve far more subsidies globally.

FLZapped wrote:

And do tell how it can possibly make the claimed influence at the current concentrations which are around 400 PPM. Explain how in the past it has been as high as 7,000 PPM and yet there was no runaway heating.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm

There is empirical evidence to support that CO2 traps heat, like spectrograms from satellites. When did the concentration reach 7000 ppm and what is the source that it has happened?

FLZapped wrote:

While you ignore that there IS a measurable negative effect, regardless the reason.

As I have already mentioned the warming caused by wind farms is a very local phenomenon with no impact on the global average.