SPIN & SILENCE: ON FAKING OUTCOMES

After dropping the wife off at her sewing course for the day, I decided to visit the blackhouse: we were on Lewis for a week. These ‘black’ places had been read about in Alastair McIntosh’s book, Hell and High Water, causing one to wonder just what these places were, and how they were inhabited: see – https://voussoirs.blogspot.com/2016/12/the-arnol-blackhouse-place-culture.html. The illustrations and the text always left something obscure; something unclear; one needed to be there, inside, to feel the space and place, and to see its fabric. We had driven by late the previous day, the day of arrival, just to see the building, such was one’s intrigue; but the exterior was not enough. How did one inhabit these iconic shelters?

Arrnol blackhouse, Lewis.

After this visit, I decided to drive further south to the Norse mill. The signs led to a small parking area from which one could follow the track into the site of the mill. After turning the engine off, a huffing sound could be heard. Thoughtlessly, the noise was interpreted as being that of a windy day, with the wind gusting fiercely around, and buffeting static objects. On opening the door, the surprise was that it was so still; it was actually a cool day with a very light breeze that freshened up the body; but the gusting sound could still be heard.

Norse mills, Lewis.

Looking around, puzzled, the eyes locked onto a tall, white pylon nearby, and, on being raised, the slowly rotating blades of a lone wind turbine were revealed: the whooshing sounds matched the cyclic movement of the three blades. There were no ifs or buts; this wind turbine was noisy. The sound could be recorded on the camera’s video; it was no phantom whisper. One wondered why it came as a surprise to Shetlanders living near the large Viking wind farm sprawling across Central Mainland, that these machines were noisy: see The Shetland Times, 5 July 2024. Folk were saying that they would have to move away, such was the 24 hour nuisance described as two persistent noises: the swoosh of the blades and the whirr of the turbines.

Why is the fact that wind turbines are a noise nuisance never made clear, when, at the Norse mill on Lewis, it was so self-evident? The report in The Shetland Times tells us that the energy company is managing matters, and is constantly monitoring noise levels that are all within acceptable limits.

There are two matters here: self-regulation and the setting of limits. It has been shown repeatedly in many situations that self-regulation just does not work: the latest example is Boeing. One soon discovers that spin specialists - no pun intended - soon takeover to prove everything - anything - is fine. As for noise limits: one usually discovers that these have been set by the industry to suit its needs; and that the industry has funded research to prove any point it wishes to make: universities have a lot to answer for in their greedy grabbing at funding to promote research and improve reputations.

As an example of industry’s cunning, in Australia, it is reported that those involved in the motorcycle world make sure that they manage the rule making, and the noise limits that are set by regulation. So it is that one sees motor bikes weaving through, in and out of, and around traffic willy-nilly, all in accordance with the law, making deafening sounds that are all within the ‘acceptable limits’ set by the industry. Neither the ad hoc manoeuvring, nor the noise is acceptable to ordinary behaviour and well being, but these are all legal: “So stop complaining!” One is reminded of wind turbines that are promoted as being a few pin pricks on the hills - “You’ll never see them” - when they are disturbingly noisy, and do intrude rudely into the wonder of landscapes; but one is soon told to pull one’s head in; that these matters are just all otherwise because they are legal, established by a rational mind; a position that infers stupidity on the voice of complaint: something irrational. The jumble of meanings and logic creates a debater’s paradise.

We live in an era skilled at PR. We are sold wind farms on the premise that they are a few rotating structures standing fuzzily against the sky, that have very little environmental impact: “It’s all in the mind.” The great irony is that the contractors on Shetland use tiny spinning gizmos coloured like the German flag - red, yellow, and black, as if the birds might remember the worst of WW2 - placed across the grassy fields that the contractors have claimed, to chase away nesting birds. Nesting birds are a nuisance because they will hinder the progress of the construction programme. The obvious question is: if these little spinners can have such an effect on bird behaviour, what might the impact of the giant turbines be on bird life? The question is avoided while the answer is given: “No measurable or significant impact at all,” with supreme confidence that quashes all other opinion into random, irrelevant, personal whims and foolish fantasies: “Can’t you understand this?”

Then there is the reality of the infrastructure required to service and maintain the turbines. Kilometres of roads need to be built to get to the turbines, and kilometres of copper cables need to be installed to convey the power to the transmission lines. Then, once the wind farm is all connected, the power has to be transferred to the major substation, with the general statement sometimes being that underground cables are too expensive, in spite of any possible promise. On Shetland, this has meant kilometres of overland cables joining central Mainland to Lerwick, offering a different cluttered mess of frames and cables to litter the landscape. It is in these areas that one sees the mysterious spinning ‘German flags.’

One is never told the full implications or the impacts of these developments until necessity demands, and then one is challenged with the rude response that tries to make idiots of us all: “What! How did you think the power was going to get there?” and “How did you think these turbines would stand up without huge footings?” “How did you think the turbines would be serviced?” etc. The brazen propositions are designed to shut the critic up. “What! Did you expect turbines to be silent?” “We cannot help it if few birds are silly enough to fly into the blades.”

And so it goes on: the proposition that the turbines should never have gone in, is never entertained. It is all a true muddle that uses spin and psychology to befuddle those who complain about the reality that was experienced at the Norse mills: turbines are noisy and do have an impact on place. The efforts of those in favour are all directed at overcoming this reality, both before and after installation. ‘Fake’ has become a word to fuzz and confuse everything these days, but it does appear to describe the efforts of an industry seemingly hell-bent on telling everyone that there are no problems with turbines other that in the minds of those who believe there are or might be: “You’re the problem.” There’s nothing that cannot be ‘managed.’

One thinks of the Grenfell Tower disaster with the flammable cladding. Years ago, when the cladding product used on this tower – or one similar to it - first came onto the market with stunningly beautiful brochures and a choice of bright new colours, I was told by the firm selling the product that did not support combustion, and with independent tests to prove this, that this new product did burn readily; that one had to be careful about how and where this material was used. If I knew this, then many more did too; yet the product has been used across the world; it was cheaper, and looked the same as the cladding that didn’t have the problem. We now know much more about this ‘more economical’ sheeting, and are finally acting on this knowledge, and discovering just how costly it has proved to be, both in money and lives. It is a shame that the ‘blind eye’ and ‘deaf ear’ was turned to matters for so long.

If this can happen with cladding, then it is easy to see how wind farms and motor bikes can disturb the world without anyone trying to stop the seemingly irresponsible silliness that ignores life, safety, and ordinary well being and its simple delight. What should one do? We might choose to act sensibly only when disaster strikes; but why should one have to wait for these problems to be revealed? We need to learn more from the Grenfell Tower fire.

Lingering behind this turbine experience is not only the current situation of noise and landscape concerns, but there is the future to consider too: what is the real cost of removing these structures and infrastructures once they reach the end of their usefulness? Who will pay for this? Words assure us that everything is fine; that this has been appropriately ‘managed’ – but does this matter involve a problem that has yet to be revealed too; to be attended to later only when the reality hits home?

28 FEB 25

NOTE

Shetland decommissioning

An interesting article in ABC News (Australia) that reports on the unexpected costs of decommissioning wind farms, raises a matter that the Shetland Islands Council (SIC) might find disturbing. One hopes that the enthusiasm for turbines has not blinded the SIC to this reality that, for it, could involve multi-millions of pounds. Has the cost of reinstating McDermid’s ‘naked hills’ ever been accurately calculated?