Why should we choose a turbine now?
You have heard (see 1 August post) why we don't intend to pick a turbine before we head into a resource consent - but to complete the picture we should also talk about why we would want, or need to.
In many ways it would make my life a whole lot easier - keeping our options open means visiting a whole lot of environmental assessments a number of times and trying to work out the worst case, which is what we will need to present to a hearings panel.
One of the hardest assessments we are faced with is visual where it seems there is no clear view on what ‘looks’ better – more smaller turbines, or less larger turbines.
We will present a range of options for all our visual simulations of the windfarm. We will show big turbines (R90, or 90m rotor) small turbines (R33 – Windflow turbines) and something in between (R60).
We believe that the biggest visual change to think about is the change from 'no windfarm' to 'windfarm' and that, once that change is accepted, the size and number of the turbines won’t be a significant issue.
I was pleased to see some support for this in the recent environment court decision on the Makara Windfarm. Here the judge said that ……. “This significant visual effect will be apparent even with fewer turbines and would not be significantly aggravated by a greater number of turbines.”
We are very interested in hearing your opinions on this. Is number of turbines more of a consideration than size of turbines, or vice versa?
We have been running an unofficial poll whenever we have shown our photo simulations to date. So far, opinion is running fairly even between preference for large or small turbines.
Post your comment
Comments
-
Hi Andrew,
You didn't tell me you already had the blog under way! Good to hear what you're up to, up there on my skyline. And thanks for the link...
CheersPosted by Gareth, 13/08/2007 4:52pm (3 years ago)
-
Nice work Andrew/Todd - and ditto Gareth (I assume Renowden's) comments
Welcome to the blogoshpere!Posted by Ben Kepes, 14/08/2007 2:34pm (3 years ago)
-
And for what it's worth I'm in the fewer but bigger camp. And not just becuase that would increase the chances of my Vesta's engineer buddy coming to visit!
Posted by Ben Kepes, 14/08/2007 2:39pm (3 years ago)
-
Thanks Gareth, Thanks Ben
I thought I'd get a wee bit of practice in before we announced our arrival in the blogworld.
It looks like Gareth gets the chocalate fish (or chocalate windmill - if I can find one) for being our first commenter. I was beginning to feel lonely out here.Posted by Andrew Hurley, 15/08/2007 12:44pm (3 years ago)
-
Thanks for coming up on Friday Andrew. I am just wondering if, "Mt Cass Wind Farm" is the official name or MainPower had plans for something more imaginative. Not being derogatory but if the residents are going to make the most of marketing the Waipara Valley and it's products a name that sparks the imagination could do wonders.
Posted by Julian Ball, 08/09/2007 5:53pm (3 years ago)
-
I prefer the smaller Windflow turbines, there smaller 2 blade design would less visible and also they are New Zealand made.
Posted by Lindsay Russell, 08/09/2007 8:45pm (3 years ago)
-
Hi Julian
We did a bit of thinking about the name a year ago which resulted in us deciding to 'call it what it is' - which to our way of thinking was the Mt Cass Wind Farm, since the ridge is known as the Mt Cass ridge.
I don't think this is cast in stone (or concrete) yet and we could be open to creative ideas.
I have to admit to being of the school of thought that Thomas Cass has got quite enough of Canterbury's geography named in his honour for one pioneer surveyor.Posted by Andrew Hurley, 10/09/2007 9:23pm (3 years ago)
-
Hi Lindsay
Thanks for your "vote" backing the Windflow turbine. The two points you make will certainly play a part in our assessment of the options.
For anyone who doesn't know about Windflow you can find more info at www.windflow.co.nz.
(Sorry I tried to link Windflow and Thos Cass esq. but failed on both counts - cut and paste and google may help)Posted by Andrew Hurley, 10/09/2007 9:26pm (3 years ago)
blog