The Green killer: Scores of protected golden eagles dying after colliding with wind turbines.

California's attempts to switch to green energy have inadvertently put the survival of the state’s golden eagles at risk.

Scores of the protected birds have been dying each year after colliding with the blades of about 5,000 wind turbines.

Now the drive for renewable power sources, such as wind and the sun, being promoted by President Obama and state Governor Jerry Brown has raised fears that the number of newborn golden eagles may not be able to keep pace with the number of turbine fatalities.

Concerns growing in Australia following this path as Australia stand to lose thousands of native birds.

the greens enemy of wildlife... it figures.. I read where P.E.T.A is also responsible for killing thousands of animals every year the unwanted kind that is given to them to find homes for... but instead they euthanize them... all in the name of protection of course.

Golden Eagles , not Green Eagles


So The Golden Killer


or are you hard righters obsessing on the Greens political party AGAIN !

Pull down the wind turbines and replace them with coal fired and nuclear power stations.
Bet ya the locals will stop bitching when given a clear choice about what sort of power station they will have next to their houses.

I can only go on the local coal power station . When the filters on , there is nothing much wrong with it .

Before , just at dusk , the 'flilters' used to be turned off . The smoke looked so heavy , you could walk on it . The filters cost money to operate , and it was a Labor government that turned the filters off on dark . >:( >:( :-/

BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Mar 5^th, 2012 at 7:51am:

The Green killer: Scores of protected golden eagles dying after colliding with wind turbines. California's attempts to switch to green energy have inadvertently put the survival of the state’s golden eagles at risk. Scores of the protected birds have been dying each year after colliding with the blades of about 5,000 wind turbines. Now the drive for renewable power sources, such as wind and the sun, being promoted by President Obama and state Governor Jerry Brown has raised fears that the number of newborn golden eagles may not be able to keep pace with the number of turbine fatalities. Concerns growing in Australia following this path as Australia stand to lose thousands of native birds.

Kookaburras are being killed and that, is no laughing matter.

____ wrote on Mar 5^th, 2012 at 8:23am:

Golden Eagles , not Green Eagles So The Golden Killer or are you hard righters obsessing on the Greens political party AGAIN !

Bob Brown, the Greens killer!

Some environmentalist!

wind turbines are known as "bird blenders" for good reason.

BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Mar 5^th, 2012 at 7:51am:

The Green killer: Scores of protected golden eagles dying after colliding with wind turbines. California's attempts to switch to green energy have inadvertently put the survival of the state’s golden eagles at risk. Scores of the protected birds have been dying each year after colliding with the blades of about 5,000 wind turbines. Now the drive for renewable power sources, such as wind and the sun, being promoted by President Obama and state Governor Jerry Brown has raised fears that the number of newborn golden eagles may not be able to keep pace with the number of turbine fatalities. Concerns growing in Australia following this path as Australia stand to lose thousands of native birds.

It's horrific. We have an alleged green person in hear banging on about animal cruelty in Indonesia yet is prepared to see the slaughter of thousands of birds. What a phuking hypocrite.


Quote:

The prominent US wildlife ecologist and ornithologist Albert Manville claims that as many as 440,000 birds are killed by existing wind turbines in the US every year. The numbers are thought to be big because the wind currents most beneficial for producing wind energy also happen to be the ones that billions of birds use to migrate across the US. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/sep/27/wind-power-wildlife-lucy-siegle

440,000 birds killed. That's 440,000 reasons to call greens hypocrite.

Has anyone ever seen dead birds at the base of a wind turbine?

Some real evidence would be nice.

Post pictures or it never happened.

(Mods-we need hard evidence that why i asked for pics)

Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 5^th, 2012 at 1:11pm:

Has anyone ever seen dead birds at the base of a wind turbine? Some real evidence would be nice. Post pictures or it never happened. (Mods-we need hard evidence that why i asked for pics)

Do you need pics?

Think that it couldn't happen?

olde.sault wrote on Mar 5^th, 2012 at 2:37pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 5th, 2012 at 1:11pm: Has anyone ever seen dead birds at the base of a wind turbine? Some real evidence would be nice. Post pictures or it never happened. (Mods-we need hard evidence that why i asked for pics) Do you need pics? Think that it couldn't happen?

This is a potential conspiracy theory you should be all over old.salt.

olde.sault wrote on Mar 5^th, 2012 at 2:37pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 5th, 2012 at 1:11pm: Has anyone ever seen dead birds at the base of a wind turbine? Some real evidence would be nice. Post pictures or it never happened. (Mods-we need hard evidence that why i asked for pics) Do you need pics? Think that it couldn't happen?

I counted 6 dead birds on the road yesterday yet nobody is calling for us to go back to the horse and buggy.
Cars kill lots of birds yet nobody calls for cars to be banned.

I think a bird or 2 could get killed by windturbines yet why are there no photos of piles of dead birds at the base of a wind turbine?

The tip speed is the limiting factor for a propellor if it goes supersonic it does not work,tip speeds have to be well below supersonic which is around 344 m/s.
A large diameter turbine will have to spin much slower than a small one.

The leading edge is a parabola it is not sharp or it would lose efficiency.

When we look at the data from a 1 MW turbine they rate  it between 8-26 revolutions per minute the tip speed is the limiting factor.

Data source 1 MW turbine-http://www.winwind.com/offering/1-mw/#detailed-data

A 3MW Turbine spins at 5-18 revolutions per minute.

I feel i will be waiting forever for someone to post a pic of a pile of dead birds right under a wind turbine.

It is a fairly well known problem. It is only the extent of it that is disputed.

freediver wrote on Mar 5^th, 2012 at 6:50pm:

It is a fairly well known problem. It is only the extent of it that is disputed.

I have seen 3MW turbines in action they would be flat out at 16 rpm.

At night it might be difficult for some birds yet bats are about the only things we see in the city.

There are reports of bats flying into parked F117 stealth fighters at night and killing themselves.
That sort of thing increases a pilots confidence in the stealth ability of that aircraft.

Quote:

I have seen 3MW turbines in action they would be flat out at 16 rpm.

Do you realise what speed that means at the blade tip?

freediver wrote on Mar 5^th, 2012 at 7:16pm:

Quote: I have seen 3MW turbines in action they would be flat out at 16 rpm. Do you realise what speed that means at the blade tip?

Do you want me to do some maths?

Pick a blade-
90m diameter
100
103
109

The tip has the highest velocity not the whole blade, you could always paint the tip in bright colours to piss the locals off even more. :)

http://truecostofchevron.com/

http://truecostofchevron.com/assets/images/ads/ad2011-endangered-species.jpg

http://truecostofchevron.com/assets/images/ads/ad2011-endangering-life.jpg

In the US pesticides alone kill 72 million birds annually. Birds killed by wind farms make up a very small percentage of the birds killed by human activity. Obviously a poorly placed wind farm may have an impact on a specific endangered species, but this would be the exception, hardly the rule.

Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 5^th, 2012 at 7:34pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 5th, 2012 at 7:16pm: Quote: I have seen 3MW turbines in action they would be flat out at 16 rpm. Do you realise what speed that means at the blade tip? Do you want me to do some maths? Pick a blade- 90m diameter 100 103 109 The tip has the highest velocity not the whole blade, you could always paint the tip in bright colours to piss the locals off even more. :)

Yes please, you do the math. You came up with the RPM so you can give the diameter also.

The RPM figure came from the technical data from the manufacturer of the turbines which i linked in a previous post, i did make a typo with that.

I will go with the 90m diameter because this is Australia which has much higher average windspeed compared to Europe.

pi x 90m = 282.7 m circumference

282.7 x 16 rpm = 4523.9m/min

4523/60 = 75.4 m/s for tip speed at max rpm.

Since it was rated at 5-16 rpm we should do minimum speed.

5rpm = 1rpm every 12 seconds.

282.7/12= 23.5 m/s

Therefore going by manufacturers data the 3MW turbine will have a tip speed of between 23.5 m/s - 75.4 m/s depending on windspeed when operating.

Its a long way short of supersonic tip speeds,did anyone think this would happen with something driven by the kinetic energy of air?

If the turbine does reach 73 rpm (tipspeed approaching supersonic) dig out a video camera and stand clear.

Windpower is the cheapest way to produce electricity.

Power can be generated by burning coal/gas or nuclear.
They boil water to make the steam that drives turbines with this method.

This power is then sent by high voltage power lines from power stations to the sub stations where is is stepped down to 240v for distribution.
By using higher voltage from the power station it reduces the current which is the limiting factor of the wires.
These wires get hot so air cooling is preferable as the undeground high voltage power lines cost about 1 million dollars per KM,they are liquid cooled with pumps circulating coolant.

So do we build more power stations or look at other alternatives?
Nuclear is expensive,dangerous and outdated,you cannot turn a nuclear power plant down they run full stick 24 hours a day until the fuel rods need replacing.
Burning gas would be preferable to coal,turn a tap and you slow the power plant down.

I think we should make more use of wind turbines and solar.

Solar panels on the roofs of houses/factories/etc is a great idea because it produces power without having to build new power stations or sub stations,the consumer benefits with cheaper power bills and they can sell what they dont use back to the power companies.

Solar is now less than $1 per watt yet it is still more expensive than windpower.

Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 5^th, 2012 at 7:13pm:

[quote author=71657272737E617265170 link=1330897876/13#13 date=1330937444] There are reports of bats flying into parked F117 stealth fighters at night and killing themselves. That sort of thing increases a pilots confidence in the stealth ability of that aircraft.

Jeez, I hope you posted this in jest; use a smiley face or something if you want 'stupid' statements to be taken as sarcastic.

BigOl64 wrote on Mar 6^th, 2012 at 2:00pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Mar 5th, 2012 at 7:13pm: [quote author=71657272737E617265170 link=1330897876/13#13 date=1330937444] There are reports of bats flying into parked F117 stealth fighters at night and killing themselves. That sort of thing increases a pilots confidence in the stealth ability of that aircraft. Jeez, I hope you posted this in jest; use a smiley face or something if you want 'stupid' statements to be taken as sarcastic.

It has happened there are bodies of dead bats to prove it.

The bats have a type of sonar system that cannot detect the F117.

freediver wrote on Mar 5^th, 2012 at 7:16pm:

Quote: I have seen 3MW turbines in action they would be flat out at 16 rpm. Do you realise what speed that means at the blade tip?

How fast do wind turbines spin?



Between 207 kph and 305 kph






We just timed the four turbines in Atlantic City, NJ. The tip of the blade will of course spin faster than the base since it has further to travel, so that is what we will calculate.

Guesstimating that the blade is 120 ft. in length, we need to find the circumference of the circle described by the spinning blade tip. The formula for the circumference is 2¶r or two times the radius of the circle (which is the diameter) * pi (about 3.1415). So 2*120ft.=240ft. for the diameter. 240*3.1415=753.96ft for the circumference.

Since the blade travels that distance in 4 seconds, the ft/sec traveled is (753.96/4=188.49ft/sec). To get that speed in miles/hour multiply (188.49 ft/s * 0.681818182).

So the blade tip is traveling at about 128.5 mph!


Which is a little bit slow... They typically (company statement) rotate between 15 and 20 rpm so: 60s/m / 15 rev/m = 4 s/rev and likewise 20 rpm corresponds to 3 s/rev.
Measuring the blades laying flat on the ground in a construction yard in Google Earth results in an approximate length of 126 ft to 128.6 ft. HOWEVER, you also have to account for the hub that these are attached to. Measuring this is a bit more difficult as I couldn't find one where the perspective was perfect so I got between 3 and 4 feet for the radius of the hub. This results in an overall radius of between 129 ft and 132.6 ft. c=2*pi*r gives 810.53 ft to 833.15 ft. Dividing by the time to travel this distance (3-4s) gives 202.63 ft/s to 277.72 ft/s. Multiply this answer by 3600s/hr / 5280 ft/mi. to get it into mph.


Which gives a range of 138.16 mph to 189.35 mph for the blade tip. Which seems very, very fast when you stand directly under it with it swinging at your face!



Quote:

Side note: Some people complain about noise from them. Honestly I couldn't hear anything over the howling of the wind.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_fast_do_wind_turbines_spin

It is NOT unusual for climate change deniers, the coal industry - and anti-renewable energy lobby groups - to come up with something new to justify their stance, when all else is debunked

I had one "bozo" - from the "Landscape Guardians" - tell me that wind turbines caused CANCER !

( ... the MOST worrying part was - I think he BELIEVED it)i

Baron do you not believe your own calculations? These things are enourmous, so obviously the tip is going to travel at well above bird chopping speed.

freediver wrote on Mar 6^th, 2012 at 6:44pm:

Baron do you not believe your own calculations? These things are enourmous, so obviously the tip is going to travel at well above bird chopping speed.

Yes i do

The tip speed in KPH , 23.5x3.6=84,6Kph, 75.4x3.6=271 kph
The larger ones spin a bit slower than what Buzz posted.

It would be fairly quick for any bird that got hit, at least with 16rpm max speed they could still see the blades.

You could employ FLIR to pick up the heat of an approaching bird and then have basic electronic controls to activate the hydraulic disc brake to slow or stop the turbines all done automatically,the technology is there.

I think this whole bird thing is fear mongering from the oil and coal industry.

Windpower is the cheapest source of electricity  of course the coal lobby will come up with nonsense to discredit windpower.

Still waiting for pics with heaps of dead birds at the base of a wind turbine.

More disgusting waste of Australian taxpayers' fund by the profligate Labor "govt" not to mention the noise of these contraptions which causes health problems for anyone unlucky enough to be living within 2km of these monstrosities.

Billions blown away on wind power, says British study
by: David Crowe, National affairs editor From:The Australian March 09, 2012 12:00AM 20

GOVERNMENTS are squandering billions of dollars on "uneconomic" wind farms, according to a landmark study that undermines the case for Labor's huge renewable energy subsidies.

Investment in wind turbines will fail to cut enough greenhouse gas emissions to justify their cost, economists warned yesterday after a detailed British analysis released this week.

The conclusions challenge a cornerstone of Labor's climate change policy as the federal government pours taxpayer funds into wind projects using direct subsidies, a planned $10 billion investment fund and renewable energy targets.

In a finding with direct relevance to Australia, the study by University of Edinburgh economics professor Gordon Hughes warns that using wind turbines to cut emissions costs 10 times the price of a gas-fired power station.

"Wind power is an extraordinarily expensive and inefficient way of reducing CO2 emissions when compared with the option of investing in efficient and flexible gas combined-cycle plans," he concludes.

Professor Hughes, a commissioner on Britain's Infrastructure Planning Commission and a former World Bank senior adviser, conducted his study for the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which is chaired by former Conservative chancellor Nigel Lawson.

The British study warns of the rising cost to consumers of wind power subsidies on the grounds that governments could achieve the same environmental benefits by other means at much lower cost.

Comparing a pound stg. 13 billion ($19bn) outlay on a combined-cycle gas plant against a pound stg. 120bn outlay on wind farms, Professor Hughes found the renewable energy option was too expensive by any standard.

Wind power would cut emissions at an average cost of pound stg. 270 a tonne, he estimated, but meeting Britain's greenhouse targets in this way would cost about pound stg. 78bn a year or 4.4 per cent of the nation's GDP.

Professor Hughes also warned that greenhouse gas emissions might be higher using wind turbines because the energy supply could be intermittent and would need back-up systems powered by fossil fuels.

"Any reduction in CO2 emissions due to additional wind generation will certainly be much lower than the headline figures quoted by lobbyists for renewable energy," Professor Hughes writes.

"Without some fundamental technical change, onshore wind power is going to remain uneconomic, especially if external costs are taken into account."

Frontier Economics managing director Danny Price said Australian policies to favour wind farms, such as the mandatory renewable energy target and direct subsidies, would be judged a "gigantic waste of money" in retrospect. "The real problem is they've put in place a scheme for renewables where the only real option is wind," he said. "But it is just so incredibly costly it's not funny."

Policies should favour a wider array of renewable projects instead, he said.

Anthony Owen of the International Energy Policy Institute in Adelaide said the British findings translated to Australian conditions, with the central conclusions not only being the high cost of wind power but also the fact that it was not zero-emission technology, despite common belief.

"The high capital cost of wind makes it particularly unattractive to private power generation companies in the absence of government subsidies," Professor Owen told The Australian.

"Gas-fired power generation is very flexible and relatively cheap in terms of capital costs.

"In the form of combined cycle gas turbine technology, it is also a much lower emitter of greenhouse gases - roughly 40 per cent of equivalent coal, in operation."

Professor Owen said Australia's wind resources had different characteristics to those in Britain, complicating comparison, but in principle the results carried over.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/billions-blown-away-on-wind-power-says-british-study/story-fn59niix-1226294168155

Comments on this story

Charles of Adelaide Posted at 10:17 AM Today
And gas-fired power stations do not junk, desecrate large areas of the landscape as wind farms do. Wind farms: the scandal of the century.

Green Sense Posted at 10:16 AM Today
This has been obvious to anyone with a little common sense for years. It just isn't politically correct, and so dissenting views have largely been silenced.

Kate of Brisbane Posted at 10:15 AM Today
Well Bob Brown, I think you should start living in the real world, the world of reality and stop dreaming of a world as you see it through rose coloured glasses. It wouldn't matter what you thought except that you hold the balance of power in Canberra and so influence policy with your kooky ideas.

That's not the only thing that's bad about wind turbines. They need precious rare metals Neodium which is mined in China in the most appalling environmental conditions with a huge toxic lake claiming hundreds of lives in the search for these metals which run CLEAN ENERGY. Really the whole thing is a bloody joke.

red baron wrote on Mar 10^th, 2012 at 12:36pm:

That's not the only thing that's bad about wind turbines. They need precious rare metals Neodium which is mined in China in the most appalling environmental conditions with a huge toxic lake claiming hundreds of lives in the search for these metals which run CLEAN ENERGY. Really the whole thing is a bloody joke.

What is Neodium that sounds like psuedoscience to me?

All this fear mongering over costs well lets look at California USA where windpower has been in use for many years.

Comparative costs of California central station electricity generation technologies.
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2007publications/CEC-200-2007-011/CEC-200-2007-011-SD.PDF

Baron Von Rort - the least you could do is Google rare earth mining China and loook up Neodium.

Or is that a bit hard for you?

red baron wrote on Mar 11^th, 2012 at 2:01pm:

Baron Von Rort - the least you could do is Google rare earth mining China and loook up Neodium. Or is that a bit hard for you?

You may have more luck if you use its correct name baron - neodymium. According to Wikipedia, it is mostly mined in China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neodymium

However they also say that it is no more rare than copper, cobalt and nickel. If that's the case then increased use would see more demand and so the increased likelihood of new mines opening up. That'd allow the sourcing the stuff from somewhere other than China.

Sounds like another argument for increased wind power to me.

Thanks for the correction Gist, at least you know what it is.
However you did not comment on the environmental disgrace taking place n China to mine these essential bits for your precious wind farms which produce bugger all in energy compared to coal or gas, incidentally but does do a lot of harm to the environment. Killing of wildlife, who wants one next door to them?

So much energy goes into the building  of a wind turbine that it is highly unlikely that the power generated in its lifetime would ever repay the pure logistics and mining that goes into its sum parts.

red baron wrote on Mar 11^th, 2012 at 3:04pm:

So much energy goes into the building  of a wind turbine that it is highly unlikely that the power generated in its lifetime would ever repay the pure logistics and mining that goes into its sum parts.

Building a tower is straightforwrd not much energy or cost.

The blades are composite ,a bit like a surfboard,carved out of foam then covered with quality fiberglass so not much energy used or cost there.

The generator part can vary due to design it is still fairly cheap just think of it as a larger version of the alternator in your car.

Nothing you have come up with is changeing my mind.

Windpower has no ongoing fuel costs , hydro electric is the only thing that can compete with that, solar is more expensive than wind power yet it also has no ongoing fuel costs.

You dont need a team of engineers to run a wind turbine,in fact you will hardly ever see anyone working on a windturbine.
A power station that  burns coal-gas or even nuclear has to boil the water to make the steam that drives the turbines so probably best to have a team working at all times for safety.

So what about water usage-
windpower - Zip zilch none
Gas/Coal/Nuclear - Heaps, they have to boil water to make steam to drive turbines.

All i see is fear  mongering and nothing of any substance with critics of windpower.

Baron von Rot...they produce f..k all energy for the huge tracts of land they need. They are bloody useless!

I read a report recently where4 a major American energy company tried out the wind turbines.

They used 200 acres for them Next door was a Gas plant occupying 5 acres. It produced 95% more energy than the 200 freaking acres of wind farms.

If you had your way...all there would be would be wind farms  from arsehole to breakfast..Like I said they are inefficient and bloody well useless...a freaking fad and an expensive one at that.

olde.sault wrote on Mar 5^th, 2012 at 10:31am:

BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Mar 5th, 2012 at 7:51am: The Green killer: Scores of protected golden eagles dying after colliding with wind turbines. California's attempts to switch to green energy have inadvertently put the survival of the state’s golden eagles at risk. Scores of the protected birds have been dying each year after colliding with the blades of about 5,000 wind turbines. Now the drive for renewable power sources, such as wind and the sun, being promoted by President Obama and state Governor Jerry Brown has raised fears that the number of newborn golden eagles may not be able to keep pace with the number of turbine fatalities. Concerns growing in Australia following this path as Australia stand to lose thousands of native birds. Kookaburras are being killed and that, is no laughing matter.

Kookaburras are NON-migratory
Kookaburras spend their lives in an area no bigger than a few hectares in size - where they were born
Kookaburras fly NO higher than tree-tops - keeping close to the ground and their food source

red baron wrote on Mar 12^th, 2012 at 3:18pm:

Baron von Rot...they produce f..k all energy for the huge tracts of land they need. They are bloody useless! I read a report recently where4 a major American energy company tried out the wind turbines. They used 200 acres for them Next door was a Gas plant occupying 5 acres. It produced 95% more energy than the 200 freaking acres of wind farms. If you had your way...all there would be would be wind farms  from arsehole to breakfast..Like I said they are inefficient and bloody well useless...a freaking fad and an expensive one at that.

You do talk out your arse.  What exactly does having a wind turbine stop you doing with the land.  You can still farm it, you can still drill for oil, etc.

Your comment that wind turbines cost more to make than they generate just shows how stupid you are. They recover costs very, very quickly.

Doctor Jolly I would comment on your comment however I am having trouble seeing through the hot air that is being driven my way.

Incidentally would you have a wind turbine next door to you? Didn't think so!

Somebody else's back yard huh but not yours.

red baron wrote on Mar 12^th, 2012 at 4:00pm:

Doctor Jolly I would comment on your comment however I am having trouble seeing through the hot air that is being driven my way. Incidentally would you have a wind turbine next door to you? Didn't think so! Somebody else's back yard huh but not yours.

I would rather have a wind turbine in my backyard than a nuclear plant, or coal mine/power-station/belt.

In fact, if I lived in a suitably windy place I would install my own wind turbine.

But thats beside the point. Australia has millions of acres of unused land. You could line the entire west coast with wind turbines (avoiding the odd town) before  you'd have to worry about putting it in anyones backyard.

No Kookaburra has ever been killed by wind turbine in Australia.

Fact.

red baron wrote on Mar 12^th, 2012 at 3:18pm:

Baron von Rot...they produce f..k all energy for the huge tracts of land they need. They are bloody useless! I read a report recently where4 a major American energy company tried out the wind turbines. They used 200 acres for them Next door was a Gas plant occupying 5 acres. It produced 95% more energy than the 200 freaking acres of wind farms. If you had your way...all there would be would be wind farms  from arsehole to breakfast..Like I said they are inefficient and bloody well useless...a freaking fad and an expensive one at that.

Have you got a cite for this report or did you pluck it from your ass?

I would have no problem paying for one these and sticking it in my backyard.-
http://www.edenpower.com.au/wind-energy/skystream-37/

We could use this website to check windspeed they even record 24 hour graphs just change it to your local area.
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/nsw/sydney/sydney

I reckon they are jacking up the cost of windpower somewhere, are they including the purchase price of the land in their costs?

red baron wrote on Mar 12^th, 2012 at 4:00pm:

Doctor Jolly I would comment on your comment however I am having trouble seeing through the hot air that is being driven my way. Incidentally would you have a wind turbine next door to you? Didn't think so! Somebody else's back yard huh but not yours.

Our new neighbours - twin turbines move in next door
24 March, 2011 2:39PM

Dianne and George Watson have been sitting and watching excitedly as piece by piece two wind turbines are built on their doorstep. The second turbine of Hepburn Wind, Australia's first community wind farm, is near completion at Leonards Hill near Daylesford.

While wind farms have divided communities - with complaints about ill-health effects, noise and their appearance - Dianne and George are excited at the prospect of turbines generating power from a paddock next to their property.

"We've experienced the whole project going up and just seeing the parts coming up the driveway and everything, it was just unbelievable."

George says he's been living there since 1985 and it's the best thing that he's seen happen in Leonards Hill. He says the Japan crisis has only reinforced his view that he'd rather live next to two wind towers than a nuclear power plant.


http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2011/03/23/3171848.htm