Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Windy Wyoming
Thanked 36 Times in 35 Posts
Rep Power: 8
I'd love to know where this cottager got that figure, or even the notion that values would drop. Hasn't been the pattern in Europe. Look, visual impact is a big deal with wind turbines. The best return comes from large units in large groupings, and the need for clean air means they tend to occupy high ground. They can't hunker in a sandpit like a coal-fired power plant.
There are iconic places where they are not visually appropriate in large numbers: the Blue Ridge Skyline, Boothbay, Cape Hattaras, the Teton Ridge. There are other places where they might disrupt wildlife: Altamont Pass is the chief disaster there: a thousand small latticework towers in a narrow slot that happens to be the chief migratory bird flyway in the US. Some birds have large nesting colonies near seashores; turbine siting should pay heed to that. And it may be wise to research what effect the installations or operation might have on marine mammals, cetaceans, or fish. Law of unintended consequences applies to wind power, too.
(As an aside, most bird strikes are on the tower, not the blades. Vertical axis turbines actually have a higher solidity than propeller types and should be more, not less, dangerous to birds. If VAWTs existed in numbers. If they worked. Which they don't.)
I've camoflagued my turbine a bit, turning a white and yellow nacelle dappled blue and grey; it vanishes against the background now. Dark blades are harder to see than white ones, and a little light patterning could break up the mass of the tower. Even the oil industry here has begun painting its tanks and pumpjacks to blend in with the dirt. It really makes a difference! Would
painting turbines a color other than Glaring White really increase the danger to boats, birds, or airplanes? Softening visual impact would vastly increase public acceptance of wind power.
Albin Ballad 30, Fionn