Analysing historical data ?

[adrian5750]

HI Folks
A bit of an odd request - but the fellow at the factory across the road wants to put up a 43m-tall wind turbine about 200m away from our house (in the centre of a beautifully-unspoilt part of rural Ireland) - my neighbours and I are looking for 'ammunition' for the planning objection.

It occurred to me that Cumulus has been busily logging wind speed & direction at this location for some years now - and that it might be possible to 'number-crunch' this data to generate some kind of historical summary.

Any ideas where to start ? I'm reasonably 'with it' with spreadsheets etc...

Thanks in advance
Adrian

[steve]

You can import the logs directly into a spreadsheet (they're in CSV format) and then perform some sort of analysis on them. As to what kind of analysis would be appropriate for this particular purpose, I'm sure others will have much more of an idea than I do.

[adrian5750]

HI Steve
I guess a general trend for prevailing wind direction would be a start.....
'spose the next thing would be an average wind-speed, though I can see that being more difficult...

Do these figures get logged on a daily basis ?

Thanks
Adrian

[steve]

"Total wind run" for each day is logged to dayfile.txt, and that's a representation of the average speed for the day. For other wind-related averages (e.g. bearing) you'd have to take the figures from the 'monthly' log files and do some sort of averaging on them.

[serowe]

Not sure what you are expecting to be able to determine from hostorical data when the thing hasn't been constructed yet! And, even when it is built, you won;t be seeing any adverse effects on wind speed, direction or absence of wind (unless, of course, the thing is 100 metres wide and built of solid material).

You could, of course, object on the grounds that a super rare parrot is likely to fly into the blades of the turbine and wipe that species off the face of the earth (why not, it's been done before with the government agreeing and haltig construction despite everyone from conservationists, universities and the general population all agreeing that this was as likely as one of the blades coming off and landing 100 miles away)

Just object and let them rely on power from nuclear, coal or oil fired stations instead.

NIMBY here at play again?

[adrian5750]

Not sure what you are expecting to be able to determine from hostorical data when the thing hasn't been constructed yet! And, even when it is built, you won;t be seeing any adverse effects on wind speed, direction or absence of wind (unless, of course, the thing is 100 metres wide and built of solid material).

You could, of course, object on the grounds that a super rare parrot is likely to fly into the blades of the turbine and wipe that species off the face of the earth (why not, it's been done before with the government agreeing and haltig construction despite everyone from conservationists, universities and the general population all agreeing that this was as likely as one of the blades coming off and landing 100 miles away)

Just object and let them rely on power from nuclear, coal or oil fired stations instead.

NIMBY here at play again?

Thank you for your reply.
The purpose of the historical analysis is to provide data to confirm the direction of the prevailing wind and the average windspeed. Of course it can't say anything about the future.

The company wanting to construct this turbine has engaged consultants to argue their case - so we need to counter this with data.

Though it's none of your business, it's exactly a case of NIMBY.

This particular 'back yard' is an area of largely unspoilt rural landscape, with views towards distant hills, the sea and outlying islands - and is shared not only by local residents but by thousands of tourists each year. The turbine will be totally inappropriate in this environment, won't generate any significant amount of power, will be subsidised by feed-in tariffs paid for by all electricity consumers, will have a negative effect on the local landscape and local property values, and has the potential to cause health problems for those unfortunate to live close to it.

Adrian

[serowe]

Adrian,

The point I have (tried) to make though is that historical data simply won't be accepted for any argument for a structure not yet built. The only way historical data could be acepted is if you already had similar structures around that *have* already affected the environment.

What will be your baseline? How will you be able to show it will have an effect?

I would be very surprised if any tribunal (or whatever they want to call themselves) that determines argurments for and against will even allow irrelevant data to be presented.

As to the 'effects' of the turbine - seem to be a few straws being grasped there - 'health problems'?? But that's your argument to prove. Like I said - everyone wants alternate and cleaner methods of power generation - until they are placed locally!

[adrian5750]

Hi
Thanks for your reply.
My question was about extracting the historical data from Cumulus
- what I'm going to do with that data is my concern.

I get the impression from your posting history on this forum that you're simply looking for an argument, yet again.
Sorry - but I've got better things to do with my time.

Regards
Adrian

[serowe]

No I am simply saying (from experience with this type of objection to ANY sort of development) that *HISTORICAL* data usually will not even be permitted to be lodged because it has no bearing on something that hasn't been built or constructed yet. If you want to object to something PLANNED to be built you need factual evidence that it will do something - weather data cannot do this for you (and if you calll this arguing, so be it - but these comments come from actions against a quarry site in my area over the past 30 years. Only now can we use PAST data to show the damage it has caused).

Thiknk about what you are trying to do.

[GraemeT]

If I didn't want a wind turbine close by I'd be building a case based on proving that the average speed of the prevailing winds was insufficient for the effective generation of power.
Producing data over a long period of time would go some way towards that end.

I'd like to add that I am in 100% support of any measures which will effectively reduce emissions into the environment.

I don't think there's much mileage to be gained by jumping up and down about aesthetics, rare birds, or whether the quarry-diggers left a bloody big hole in the ground where developers wanted to build houses.

At least there's a swimming-hole in Ferntree Gully now....

For those interested, the quarry in question is at these coordinates: 37deg 53'20.5"S, 145deg 18'09.9"E

[serowe]

You might be right about the winds not being sufficient but, again from experience, it wouldn;t have been proposed if they hadn't already done that research - so I think you could safely say that is one area that won't be won by any objectors.

Graeme - if you've done the trip to Bendigo/Ballarat areas* you will have seen the turbines that 'some' complain about. Yet th bottom line is that those landowners are now benefitting from them by receiving rent because they are on their properties - and they haven't lost much in the way of physical land. And yes - they might not look 'nice' by sticking up on all the hills, but they are a helluva lot better than the alternatives - and that has to, and will be weighed up by those making the decisions. This is why ANY argument against (or for) the proposal needs to be sensible and well thought out without using 'wishful' ideas..

As for the 'swimming pool' - it has managed to lower the water table in ths area since 1984 by over 5 metres - which has meant much drying of surrounding land (it's all clay) as well as the removal of 4 hectares of native bushland - 2.5 of which has been removed in the last 3 years - with the consequent reduction in native wildlife being very noticeable in the area. The local billabong (on the north side of that quarry) now has to be kept alive by an agreement with the quarry owner to pump water into it from his pit - when he remebers! Blind Creek (also on the north) is now very seldom seen with any water in because of the lowering of the water table. WE (ie locals) have been fighting the expansion of this quarry since we moved here in 82 and the expansion of their licence in 83 - so have had a 'little bit' od experience at fighting city hall (although ours - KCC - is still using the excuse 'Sorry, but those documents were destroyed in the fire'....)

* - takle a trip to UnZud and the Palmerston North area sometime and go and walk around the wind turbines there. Unless you are right under them you canot hear them. And statistics there have shown that more birds die each year, in that area, from flying into glass windows than from hitting the blades on the turbines!

[GraemeT]

I rest my case, Your Honour....