# General > General >  Subsidies to the Nuclear Industry.

## Rheghead

The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority has an annual budget of £2.8billion which is stumped up by us, the tax-payers.  

For the last 30 years, the nuclear industry has sold us ~60TWh annually and in 2008 it sold us 47.7TWh according to Energy in Brief 2009.

I calculate that to be a whopping subsidy to the Nuclear industry of 5.9p/kWh and then we have to pay for the electricity on top of that through our electricity bills.

Go compare that to the Renewable Obligation certificate market price for wind energy @4.9p/kWh.

Another myth has been bust that nuclear power is a cheap source of energy.

http://www.nda.gov.uk/aboutus/

----------


## sids

My sums say even nuclear power is more effective than a windmill on a calm day.

----------


## Rheghead

True but then we have ~3GW of spinning fossil fuel reserve generation constantly running making no electricity just in case the nuclear plants trip out in seconds, which they often do.  :Smile:

----------


## Sara Jevo

We'll see just how economic nuclear energy really is if the Coalition is true to its promise of no subsidies, including the waste disposal.

I imagine the industry will be lobbying hard with all sorts of warnings about blackout Britain in a few years unless the Government pours huge sums into it. I hope they tell them to  off.

----------


## Phill

> ....just in case the nuclear plants trip out in seconds, which they often do.


Trip out?

How, in what sense. My understanding is nuclear power is not a flick of the switch thing.

----------


## ducati

> Trip out?
> 
> How, in what sense. My understanding is nuclear power is not a flick of the switch thing.


I know who is tripping out  ::

----------


## Rheghead

> Trip out?
> 
> How, in what sense. My understanding is nuclear power is not a flick of the switch thing.


It is a shortcoming of nuclear power, they can take a long time to start up because of all the safety checks etc and yet they take a few seconds to shutdown suddenly through whatever safety reason that requires them to do so.  They also can't deliver power when it is most needed, they a put into top gear and left there until they are scheduled to shutdown or forced to.

----------


## Colin Manson

Rheghead,

Nice to see you back and I see your arguments haven't changed a bit.  :Wink: 



> Nuclear *Decommissioning* Authority - 
> 
> We are a non-departmental public body, established under the Energy Act 2004. We are responsible for the *decommissioning and clean-up* of the UK's civil public sector nuclear sites.


If you are going to make a comparison between Nuclear and Renewables at least compare like with like.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html

----------


## Rheghead

> Rheghead,
> 
> Nice to see you back and I see your arguments haven't changed a bit. 
> 
> 
> If you are going to make a comparison between Nuclear and Renewables at least compare like with like.
> 
> http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf02.html


I take that is a pro-nuclear industry website?  A like for like isn't possible, I was calculating the total subsidies to each industry and it is obvious that nuclear is expensive but made to appear cheap through smoke and mirrors.  The fossil fuel industry is still cheap because they aren't liable for their waste from cradle to grave.

It was largely published that the Baillie wind farm will cost £80 million to the developers.  It is rated at 52.5MW and is expected to have a load factor of 0.35 and life of 25 years.

Base cost of electricity (before profit) over its lifetime is £80million/(52.5MW X 8760 X 25 X 0.35) = 2p/kWh.  Now if you look at the link you posted then wind is looking very cheap and profitable as it is sold at market prices.

----------


## adi1

To quote the NDA's budget is unfair.That budget as Colin did mention is for the decommissioning of nuclear sites some of which produced power some of which did not eg Aldermaston.

----------


## Rheghead

> To quote the NDA's budget is unfair.That budget as Colin did mention is for the decommissioning of nuclear sites some of which produced power some of which did not eg Aldermaston.


Please explain how Aldermaston's decommissioning costs disproportionately contributes to the NDA's annual budget over the long term.  And do you think the activities of Aldermaston could exist without the activities of the civil nuclear industry?

Two sides of the same coin, lets go nuclear and we get a big boot to kick our enemies in with the deal.  Face/palm?

----------


## adi1

> Please explain how Aldermaston's decommissioning costs disproportionately contributes to the NDA's annual budget over the long term.  And do you think the activities of Aldermaston could exist without the activities of the civil nuclear industry?
> 
> Two sides of the same coin, lets go nuclear and we get a big boot to kick our enemies in with the deal.  Face/palm?


Thought you was the expert on the NDA's budget Rheg? But to put it simply you are wrong, 58% of the budget is stomped up by us the tax payer the rest is self financing. Now if you was to argue about the usefulness of the NDA or quote the bonuses they award themselves you may get more attention from people who question government quango's

----------


## Rheghead

> 58% of the budget is stomped up by us the tax payer the rest is self financing.


58% smoke, 42% mirrors?

----------


## adi1

> 58% smoke, 42% mirrors?


Sorry my head is not in Rheg-land I suggest you do a little research before posting threads  :Smile:

----------


## Phill

> It is a shortcoming of nuclear power, they can take a long time to start up because of all the safety checks etc and yet they take a few seconds to shutdown suddenly through whatever safety reason that requires them to do so.  They also can't deliver power when it is most needed, they a put into top gear and left there until they are scheduled to shutdown or forced to.



OK, the start-up process isn't quick, granted. The shutdown (in an emergency) doesn't take a few seconds.
They do not easily adjust power output granted, but they are generally predictable and reliable.
isn't it better to subsidise power your getting on a planned basis rather than pay & compensate the unpredictable suppliers for supplies that are not required?

----------


## Rheghead

> Sorry my head is not in Rheg-land I suggest you do a little research before posting threads


Well you said that 58% came from the tax payer.  How ultimately is the rest of their budget sourced ?  Tax or fuel bills?  Smoke or mirrors made out of smoke?  It is all a subsidy through smoke and mirrors and passed onto the taxpayer, it is not as if NDA produce anything, they are a body to decommission nuclear sites and deal with waste, that in itself doesn't make any money or goods worth selling.   ::  The Government actually sets how much the 'Commercial interests' pay towards the NDA and they then offset that by passing on the costs to the consumer. face/palm

----------


## Rheghead

> OK, the start-up process isn't quick, granted. The shutdown (in an emergency) doesn't take a few seconds.
> They do not easily adjust power output granted, but they are generally predictable and reliable.
> isn't it better to subsidise power your getting on a planned basis rather than pay & compensate the unpredictable suppliers for supplies that are not required?


That is the irony, wind is more predictable than nuclear.  As it is often advertised wind is variable but it is is forecasted _within_ limits of probabilty and times necessary to start up standby generation to compensate.  It is manageable.  Nuclear is different, it is totally unpredictable from a grid management point of view (flick of a switch) and NGT has to be prepared for it at ALL TIMES but with wind they just get the standby to kick in as and when it is needed.

----------


## Tubthumper

> Nuclear is different, it is totally unpredictable from a grid management point of view (flick of a switch) and NGT has to be prepared for it at ALL TIMES but with wind they just get the standby to kick in as and when it is needed.


Can you back that up with reliable data Rheg? As I understand it, the same could be applied to any part of the grid, whether generation source or transmission line. Transients (lightning strike?) can cause trips which NGT has to be prepared for at all times. And with wind (as has been pointed out before) having a fossil station on standby, even if it's not required in milliseconds, isn't terribly carbon-neutral.
Anything we do has a price. I'm coming down on the side with the most impressive machinery. Because I can. And my kids think that too, they want well-paid jobs  and big engines to work on. Not oiling a Danish motor once a week and cutting the grass.
Windpower? Subsidised, no benefit. Nuclear? Subsidised, benefit.

----------


## Phill

> That is the irony, wind is more predictable than nuclear.


 WHAT?????
Based on the forecast that wind will blow somewhere, sometime!!!!

The local meteorological forecasting for Caithness is sh 1 te. Absolute crap at best. 



> As it is often advertised wind is variable but it is is forecasted _within_ limits


 vague finger in the air limits (pun intended)


> of probabilty and times necessary to start up standby generation to compensate.  It is manageable.  Nuclear is different, it is totally unpredictable from a grid management point of view (flick of a switch) and NGT has to be prepared for it at ALL TIMES but with wind they just get the standby to kick in as and when it is needed.


Nonsense. Wind is not reliable. And vaguely manageable.

The grid has to be prepared at all times for the windfarms not to blow.

----------


## Tubthumper

> 500 wind turbines being simultaneously blown up by CWIF on a windy day.


 ::  Oooohh.

----------


## Rheghead

> WHAT?????
> Based on the forecast that wind will blow somewhere, sometime!!!!
> 
> The local meteorological forecasting for Caithness is sh 1 te. Absolute crap at best. 
>  vague finger in the air limits (pun intended)Nonsense. Wind is not reliable. And vaguely manageable.
> 
> The grid has to be prepared at all times for the windfarms not to blow.


I accept what you say about wind performance is counter intuitive but what I say is true, I thought you might have seen ywindy's almost daily reports on what the BMReports say?  Have you never took notice of what the 24 hour forecast/outurn is going to be and how it mirrors performance, the more we have in the system then the more reliable the forecast.

----------


## Tubthumper

> It stands up to reason, large complicated machinery like nuclear power stations fail from time to time it is a fact of life, and it has to be prepared for at all times but when they do they have a big impact like 500 wind turbines being simultaneously blown up by CWIF on a windy day.  Individual wind turbines are small machines, if one fails then it is of no consequence in the big picture.   All existing wind farms are embedded to the grid, they aren't linked to the grid with a dedicated line so they cannot be isolated by a single lightening strike like when a single big generator fails.


Well, yeah; large complicated machinery like nuclear/ coal/ oil/ gas power stations fail from time to time...
And I thought we'd agreed a while ago that NOT all wind turbines are connected to the 'grid'?? 
And also, if one fails there may be little consequence but if the wind doesn't blow...
Anyway, a blended approach to power generation is needed: Starter for 10: 40% nuke, 30% fossil (coal oil, CCG), 10% hydro (including pumped storage as windpower buffer), 10% wave/ tidal (all in Caithness), 10% wind (but not in my back garden).

----------


## Rheghead

> Well, yeah; large complicated machinery like nuclear/ coal/ oil/ gas power stations fail from time to time...
> And I thought we'd agreed a while ago that NOT all wind turbines are connected to the 'grid'?? 
> And also, if one fails there may be little consequence but if the wind doesn't blow...
> Anyway, a blended approach to power generation is needed: Starter for 10: 40% nuke, 30% fossil (coal oil, CCG), 10% hydro (including pumped storage as windpower buffer), 10% wave/ tidal (all in Caithness), 10% wind (but not in my back garden).


Large/medium turbines must be grid connected, small domestic need not be but the difference is immaterial on demand if they are grid connected or not, the effect is the same.

As I keep saying, standby generation is there to kick in but wind does give capacity credit which reduces the need for the amount of plant margin..

Your blended approach is unsustainable.  Remember my comments about nuclear sustainability?  Double the nuclear, half the uranium reserve life.  I'm not pro-wind or anti-nuke, I'm just pro-arithmetic.

----------


## Tubthumper

> I'm just pro-arithmetic.


You're all wind...



 :Smile:

----------


## Rheghead

> You're all wind...


Thanks, that is just the attitude that put me off posting for 5 months.  Perhaps another 5 months of sabbatical is needed?

----------


## Kenn

they a put into top gear and left 

Are you saying that Clarkson and Hampster have gone nuclear Rheghead?

----------


## Phill

> the more we have in the system then the more reliable the forecast.


No. That is the basis of the wind will blow somewhere, sometime.
Cover the globe with windymills and have them all networked then maybe, just maybe, we could get near a 30% uptime in windpower. Maybe.

Electrical power is a magic, a vast magic. We need it at a flick of a switch when we want it, but there is nothing that can supply this at the demand it is required.
However there is some predictability in the grid, and the grid of other close nations.
This can be managed.

A bit of wind power round the edges fine, but as a long term major resource. No, pie in the sky.

It is just a money making scheme for those who have a bit of land they do not give a fig about, or the wildlife that exists there, or the people that appreciate that land in the proper manor and the tourists that come to view these vast untouched open spaces.  (?)

----------


## Kenn

On a more serious note, just how efficient is wind power in relation to other types?
Factor in the susbsidies and the fact that it only works when there is sufficient wind and I would be very interested in the sum.
I would also ask why did France opt for the nuclear expansion and they now have a direct link to our national grid so that we can draw energy from them?
I appreciate that there is the problem of what we do with spent waste from such plants which has yet to to satisfactorily resolved but with the alternative green sources of energy needing much development, just where do we go in the interim if we are to move away from fossil fuels?

----------


## ywindythesecond

> That is the irony, wind is more predictable than nuclear. As it is often advertised wind is variable but it is is forecasted _within_ limits of probabilty and times necessary to start up standby generation to compensate. It is manageable. Nuclear is different, it is totally unpredictable from a grid management point of view (flick of a switch) and NGT has to be prepared for it at ALL TIMES but with wind they just get the standby to kick in as and when it is needed.


Utter ballocks!
Read it again, not utter ballocks. It actually makes sense. Nuclear power can crash any time but you can predict when there will be no wind. So ditch nuclear which is unreliable, and embrace wind which can be predicted  to let you down, just have a plan B.
OK Reggy I'll buy that!!

----------


## Sara Jevo

> Well you said that 58% came from the tax payer.  How ultimately is the rest of their budget sourced ?  Tax or fuel bills?  Smoke or mirrors made out of smoke?  It is all a subsidy through smoke and mirrors and passed onto the taxpayer, it is not as if NDA produce anything, they are a body to decommission nuclear sites and deal with waste, that in itself doesn't make any money or goods worth selling.   The Government actually sets how much the 'Commercial interests' pay towards the NDA and they then offset that by passing on the costs to the consumer. face/palm


How much will it cost to clean up the mess made by the nuclear industry? Approx £72 billion is the latest estimate for the sites owned by the NDA. Aldermaston isn't covered by the NDA, so you should probably add a few more tens of billions if you want to include the military sites.

The NDA (us) owns some antique nuclear power stations and an old reprocessing plant at Sellafield. Keeping those running instead of decommissioning them is where it earns some revenue.

----------


## Scout

I am pleased some one has brought up the issue with power stations and the cost of running these buildings. We have had so much about Wind farms Tidal power and the fact that none of our electricity has come down in price. What do you think if we had more power stations built your bills would come down tomorrow?  Safety issues is a big thing as well shut downs leaks like Dounreay  you read about this in the local paper well that seems to be the only place funny thing it never appears south in any papers I wonder why. What about people who has lived next door to Dounreay did they get paid for the value of property. I have never known industry as Wind farms were they have been asked to pay communities money. It is a good thing not saying that but others should follow  (Power Stations, Coal, Gas)

----------


## theone

Going back to the original post, to compare the current NDA budget with wind power in terms of subsidy is a nonsense.

The majority of the funding at Dounreay, for example, is being spent decommisioning projects that had very little to do with commercial power generation.

Dounreay was experimental. A large proportion of the facilities at Dounreay were in the fuel cycle area, reprocessing fuel. Not power generation.

Most modern commercial nuclear power plants are pressurised water reactors, not fast reactors like DFR/PFR. It would be worth checking out the costs associated with decommisioning these facilities rather than experimental sites before making any comparisons.

----------


## Sara Jevo

There is a price to be paid for every form of electricity generation.

With oil and gas it is carbon, with nuclear it is the waste, with wind it is visual impact etc etc.

None of them is free and none is 100 per cent neutral towards the environment.

It really boils down to the least worst option.

I guess you're opinion will be influenced by which factors are most important to you - the cost of your bill, the environment & climate change, sustainability etc.

I don't pretend to know the answer, other than to conclude that renewables such as wind, tide and wave would be the no-brainer answer if only the technology had developed far enough to guarantee supplies.

----------


## Tubthumper

> Thanks, that is just the attitude that put me off posting for 5 months. Perhaps another 5 months of sabbatical is needed?


If you're that fragile, maybe you're right!
Relax, it was a joke!

----------


## Rheghead

> Going back to the original post, to compare the current NDA budget with wind power in terms of subsidy is a nonsense.
> 
> The majority of the funding at Dounreay, for example, is being spent decommisioning projects that had very little to do with commercial power generation.
> 
> Dounreay was experimental. A large proportion of the facilities at Dounreay were in the fuel cycle area, reprocessing fuel. Not power generation.
> 
> Most modern commercial nuclear power plants are pressurised water reactors, not fast reactors like DFR/PFR. It would be worth checking out the costs associated with decommisioning these facilities rather than experimental sites before making any comparisons.


Perhaps you should look into the facts instead of making assertions?

----------


## theone

> Perhaps you should look into the facts instead of making assertions?


Would you care to elaborate?

----------


## Rheghead

> Would you care to elaborate?


you asserted or implied that the costs of decommissioning Dounreay was unrelated to Energy production and its cost disproportionated distorts the annual budget of the NDA so my calculation should be invalid.

I wonder if that is true?

Tell us Dounreay's annual budget for decommissioning and then let's compare with NDA's annual budget and we may be in business.

You also asserted that most of the reactors were pressured water reactors, they may be in the future but I think, no I know you are way wrong for historic ones.

----------


## Rheghead

> On a more serious note, just how efficient is wind power in relation to other types?


There is an energy efficiency but it is not considered a serious issue as we are not paying for the fuel, there may be a case for improving aerodynamic design of blades which will increase the land power density and so will cut down the number of turbines but I believe designs are approaching maximum efficiency.





> Factor in the susbsidies and the fact that it only works when there is sufficient wind and I would be very interested in the sum.


The case of comparing wind with Nuclear is a good one, not in terms of putting the other down or up but putting things into perspective.  Both cannot meet the variable diurnal demand of the UK.  And as I've shown, the subsidies are comparable if not greater with nuclear than wind.  Site commissioning costs seem comparative over the lifecycle of either turbine and nuclear power station based on advertised plant costs.




> I would also ask why did France opt for the nuclear expansion and they now have a direct link to our national grid so that we can draw energy from them?


Not sure on the first part of your question, I'm guessing a colonial source of uranium was available to the French but I'd like to correct a misconception that most people have about the cross channel link.  It is not used for bulk energy supply to the UK because we somehow have a poorer energy policy.  It is used for grid balancing.  France and the UK take turns in supplying ~2GW of excess power to the other, then if there is a shortfall in that 2GW oversupply and the flow of power pops the other way then that is paid at a premium by whichever country has the shortfall.




> I appreciate that there is the problem of what we do with spent waste from such plants which has yet to to satisfactorily resolved but with the alternative green sources of energy needing much development, just where do we go in the interim if we are to move away from fossil fuels?


I think the interim should include nuclear but not at the expense of renewables.  Eventually we'll have to go renewable in the future when nuclear and fossil fuels runout, that is just common sense so do we do it after we wreck the planet or before it gets wrecked?

----------


## Kenn

Thank you for answering some of my points, I really should look closer into these matters.
I am quite happy that we have a mix of power supply means and feel that we should endeavour to become self sufficent in generating power but just do not see that happening in the near future as no one seems able to agree on the best way forward.

----------


## bekisman

Not all roses in Danmark:

Denmark generates the equivalent of about 19% of its electricity demand with wind turbines, but wind power contributes far less than 19% of the Nations electricity demand. The claim that Denmark derives about 20% of its electricity from wind overstates matters. Being highly intermittent, wind power has recently (2006) met as little as 5% of Denmarks annual electricity consumption with an average over the last five years of 9.7%.
The cost of Denmarks wind capacity to Danish consumers is exacerbated by its inability to use so much surplus electricity. The surplus will increase in 2013 when 800 MW of new offshore capacity is commissioned, increasing Denmarks wind production by 2.7 TWh per year. Nearly all the additional wind power will be exported and this will further depress prices; nearly all the subsidies paid by Danish consumers will also be exported without achieving any significant fossil fuel use nor any CO2 reduction. Achieving own-consumption of all its wind power is technically impossible in the short term and will remain entirely hypothetical until electricity consumption rises and new technical and demand-side solutions have been developed and implemented. In most cases, these have yet even to be invented, let alone proven and costed.
Notwithstanding its many disadvantages wind powers one striking advantage is that, like nuclear, its marginal costs of operation are very small once the capital has been paid. However, unlike nuclear, many ten to fifteen year-old turbines are past their useful life. By contrast, most conventional rotating power plants can enjoy a working life of 40 to 60 years, as evidenced by most power plants in Europe today. This puts into question the strategic, economic and environmental benefits of a power plant that may have to be scrapped, replaced and resubsidized every ten to fifteen years.

http://www.gresshasissues.com/2010/03/danish-wind-power-bust/#axzz0rbv3kWNN

----------


## Tubthumper

Beks, this is Denmark we're talking about. It's kind of in their interests to have lots of windpower.
Re nuclear stations; your point about paying off construction costs seems good except for the issues of decommissioning and waste management. It seems to me that Dounreay is a case in point - how come it's taking so long and costing so much to pull down? Bearing in mind it didn't really create anything much. Hubby tells me the end date is something like 2030 now! 
Which is fine from the jobs & income for Caithness pov, but a bit off if we're arguing pro nuclear on cost grounds.
By the way Rheg, you were a bit dismissive of my suggested blend of power. I did say starter for 10...

----------


## ducati

> Beks, this is Denmark we're talking about. It's kind of in their interests to have lots of windpower.
> Re nuclear stations; your point about paying off construction costs seems good except for the issues of decommissioning and waste management. It seems to me that Dounreay is a case in point - how come it's taking so long and costing so much to pull down? Bearing in mind it didn't really create anything much. Hubby tells me the end date is something like 2030 now! 
> Which is fine from the jobs & income for Caithness pov, but a bit off if we're arguing pro nuclear on cost grounds.
> By the way Rheg, you were a bit dismissive of my suggested blend of power. I did say starter for 10...


Couple of positives: The Danes, while getting dubious benefits from using wind power, are making a mint as the leading European manufacturer and exporter of the kit.

Likewise, Britain are leading the way in Nuclear Decomissioning. Much of it as a result of work done at Dounreay  :Grin:

----------


## Tubthumper

> Likewise, Britain are leading the way in Nuclear Decomissioning. Much of it as a result of work done at Dounreay


 Glad to see we're good at something, even if it is only knocking things down. But I heard it was the Americans that were running the Dounreay work now - did I hear wrong??

----------


## ywindythesecond

The NDA does what it says in the title- it decommissions. It has no remit in the generation of power. It may cost a lot but it is not a subsidy for future power generation. It is the cost of having had a reliable energy supply for the last 30 - 50 years or so.

Money spent on the NDA is for decommissioning historical plant which paved the way for modern plant which will cost a fraction to decommission compared to old experimental projects, and don't you think that the decommissioning costs will be well and truly embedded in any permission to build anyway?

Nobody is offering to subsidise new nuclear powered generation but major companies are queuing up to build and operate them.

----------


## Rheghead

> It is just a money making scheme for those who have a bit of land they do not give a fig about, or the wildlife that exists there, or the people that appreciate that land in the proper manor and the tourists that come to view these vast untouched open spaces.  (?)


There is a lot of jealousy or reverse-class snobbery which sort of runs through the anti-wind brigade.  It is typical of Caithness (I'm not saying you are from Caithness) that we don't like to see people who try to make a success of themselves.  I've seen many talk happily of another's downfall.  That is why Caithness seems to fail to play to her strengths, opposite to Orkney where they celebrate progress.  It is not an insult, rather an observation.

My own opinion is that I couldn't give two hoots if someone makes a success of himself, good luck to them and if they are providing employment and making the world a better place to live in then good luck to them.  I don't care if they are motivated by greed because I know 90% of those who object  would do exactly the same if roles were reversed.  To say otherwise is denial.

----------


## Tubthumper

> There is a lot of jealousy or reverse-class snobbery which sort of runs through the anti-wind brigade.  It is typical of Caithness ...


That's a good point, but I'd say it was typical of Scotland, or even the UK in general.
It must have some root in history - Calvinism? I don't know what it is but I know I suffer from it at times.
But there are genuine gripes that run deeper than mere snobbery/ jealousy.

----------


## Rheghead

> Money spent on the NDA is for decommissioning historical plant which paved the way for modern plant which will cost a fraction to decommission compared to old experimental projects, and don't you think that the decommissioning costs will be well and truly embedded in any permission to build anyway?


Yes I do but there are no guarantees that decommissioning in the future will be anymore cost effective or cheaper.  On balance, as health and environmental issues become more influential in how companies operate then I can see decommissioning more expensive.  The government has already promised that a cap will be in place on the decomissioning costs the relevant companies should be responsible.

What we are seeing now is a massive subsidy of public money running through the nuclear industry.

The money is spent to clean up the environment, the renewable obligation can also be seen as a subsidy, it too is designed to clean up the environment thus I see no difference between them, the wider public pays and the companies rake it in.  I'm not advocating any wrong, just putting things into perspective.

For what it is worth I don't think any new builds are possible without public subsidy or loan.  A new nuke will cost probably around £4billion, no company can afford that.  But suppose it passes the cost of decommisioning onto the consumer, what happens to the accrued money over the lifetime of the powerstation that will pay for decommissioning?  For example, take the instance of the favorites to run our new nuclear fleet, EDF or RWE, those foreign state owned companies, will the nest egg get robbed by a takeover or sale or just get lost into the ether of a foreign government coffers?

We could be left with the full cost of the clean up.

Very risky.

----------


## Tubthumper

Are there any alternatives for the generating companies? I'd say it's a gamble they really have to take if they want to play at the top. And in 50 years, who's to say what the world will be like. 
I just hope that Caithness doesn't get totally denuded of employment, overwhelmed by turbines, underwhelmed by people and written off as only fit for a deep repository.

----------


## ducati

> Glad to see we're good at something, even if it is only knocking things down. But I heard it was the Americans that were running the Dounreay work now - did I hear wrong??


Latest contracts are to UK companies unless sominks happened since

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/...s/10282697.stm

----------


## Murdina Bug

Hi, I'm new to this type of topic but thought that this might be relevant. Part of a statement by Charles Hendry, Misiter for Energy:

*'Nuclear power - as long as it can demonstrate that it can be viable without public subsidy* - has a role to play in our energy mix. In parallel with a massive expansion in other low carbon technologies, including renewables and CCS.
But let me be clear. *It will be for private sector energy companies to construct, operate and decommission new nuclear plants*. *And conversations Ive had with companies suggest they are willing to invest without public subsidy.* Though we will have a role in removing any obstacles, such as a carbon floor price for example to bring on all forms of low carbon technology. And it will be for the Government to ensure appropriate levels of safety, security and environmental regulation.'

You can see the full article at: http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cm...y8jun2010.aspx

----------


## badger

> There is a lot of jealousy or reverse-class snobbery which sort of runs through the anti-wind brigade. It is typical of Caithness (I'm not saying you are from Caithness) that we don't like to see people who try to make a success of themselves. I've seen many talk happily of another's downfall. That is why Caithness seems to fail to play to her strengths, opposite to Orkney where they celebrate progress. It is not an insult, rather an observation.
> 
> My own opinion is that I couldn't give two hoots if someone makes a success of himself, good luck to them and if they are providing employment and making the world a better place to live in then good luck to them. I don't care if they are motivated by greed because I know 90% of those who object would do exactly the same if roles were reversed. To say otherwise is denial.


You have no grounds for any of this.  Believe it or not for many people quality of life and good health are worth far more than money.  Windfarms provide very little employment and certainly don't make the world a better place to live - whatever gave you that idea?  

All the people I know who object to windfarms, including myself, do so because they believe that windfarms do only generate money and are never going to be a useful source of renewable energy, while at the same time they destroy the landscape, we don't yet know what damage they do to all kinds of wildlife to say nothing of the people suddenly forced to live near them.  We also don't know how much damage offshore turbines will do in the sea, as if man has not done enough already.  

No doubt many still think deep sea drilling for oil is a good idea because it generates money and if it destroys lives and health (as in Niger) so what?  It's all about money.  

Sorry Rheggy but you're way too cynical.  Money is not everything.  Would you really be prepared to see your home surrounded by turbines - noise, flicker, movement wherever you looked?  I don't think so.  Given the choice between so much destruction and a simpler way of life without all the gadgets and luxuries we now take for granted, I know which I would choose.

----------


## Rheghead

Sorry badger but are you one of those that constantly write to the paper?

----------


## ducati

> Sorry badger but are you one of those that constantly write to the paper?


Seems to me that you think Wind power is vital no matter what the real or percieved downside. You haven't (that I have seen) put forward a convincing argument. Have you one? :Grin:

----------


## Rheghead

> Seems to me that you think Wind power is vital no matter what the real or percieved downside. You haven't (that I have seen) put forward a convincing argument. Have you one?


I keep saying it in terms of carbon dioxide mitigation, climate change, energy sustainability, animal and human health, desertification, profitability, prevention of soil degradation, fairness and stength of communities, community benefit, local employment, energy efficiency and storage, ocean acidity, entrepreneralism, global political cohesion, ad nauseum but no one listens

----------


## ducati

> I keep saying it in terms of carbon dioxide mitigation, climate change, energy sustainability, animal and human health, desertification, profitability, prevention of soil degradation, fairness and stength of communities, community benefit, local employment, energy efficiency and storage, ocean acidity, entrepreneralism, global political cohesion, ad nauseum but no one listens


 
Blimey, I'm not surprised. Can you distill that to one or two of the most vital reasons?

----------


## Rheghead

> Blimey, I'm not surprised. Can you distill that to one or two of the most vital reasons?


Yes

"I don't care about anything or anyone so long as the view from my house is free from the sight of wind farms so I don't lose any loss of capital from it."

----------


## Phill

> There is a lot of jealousy or reverse-class snobbery which sort of runs through the anti-wind brigade.  It is typical of Caithness (I'm not saying you are from Caithness) that we don't like to see people who try to make a success of themselves.  I've seen many talk happily of another's downfall.  That is why Caithness seems to fail to play to her strengths, opposite to Orkney where they celebrate progress.  It is not an insult, rather an observation.
> 
> My own opinion is that I couldn't give two hoots if someone makes a success of himself, good luck to them and if they are providing employment and making the world a better place to live in then good luck to them.  I don't care if they are motivated by greed because I know 90% of those who object  would do exactly the same if roles were reversed.  To say otherwise is denial.


So is this an admission it is about the money?   :: 

I'm all for enterprise and people being successful, go for it. But when it's dressed up as saving the planet, being green etc. etc. etc. it really annoys me. 
I really do question the employment side of things too, like so many other applications it is total BS about the created jobs, they will not create any significant number of fulltime, longterm, permanent jobs. They create a contract for installation, installation engineers come form Holland or Denmark and then go again. OK a hotelier may fill a few rooms but then what.

I do quite agree there is a a gleeful snobbery up here when someone fails in a venture or business, but that is certainly not restricted to Caithnessians.

----------


## ducati

> Yes
> 
> "I don't care about anything or anyone so long as the view from my house is free from the sight of wind farms so I don't lose any loss of capital from it."


No No that's my argument  ::

----------


## Dog-eared

I'm not against Nuclear energy if we have the costs totalled up, and it can be cleaned up.
We don't. 
We have thousands of years of looking after radioactive waste in front of us. What does that cost ?

----------


## bekisman

> Yes
> 
> "I don't care about anything or anyone so long as the view from my house is free from the sight of wind farms so I don't lose any loss of capital from it."


Just a quick one Rheghead - can you actually see a wind turbine from your house windows?

----------


## Rheghead

> No No that's my argument


No no it is mine, trouble is that i gotta think about the drawback of more immigration if more peeps go to UK because climate change will make the tropics less inhabitable.

----------


## Rheghead

> Just a quick one Rheghead - can you actually see a wind turbine from your house windows?


No the anti wind brigade have put paid to that idea!!

----------


## Tubthumper

I'm sure you could pick up a nice property close by one of the existing or proposed windfarms very cheap. Free electricity too, I believe!

----------


## Rheghead

> I'm sure you could pick up a nice property close by one of the existing or proposed windfarms very cheap. Free electricity too, I believe!


Anything that helps struggling first time buyers must be good, it is universally accepted that house prices are too inflated anyway.

----------


## Scout

> I'm sure you could pick up a nice property close by one of the existing or proposed windfarms very cheap. Free electricity too, I believe!



This is not true. what happens is there is a dip with house price when in planning however when up and running you will find this starts to rise again. and in fact people will buy. Take the one along the road at Causeymire Wind Farm a croft was sold and restored now that is very near Wind farm. Don't for get there has been recession in UK that has had effect on house price. For Tourist that again is not true take Lake District there is a Wind Farm there has any one been lately? You can not stop to take a picture of the number of cars.

----------


## ywindythesecond

> No the anti wind brigade have put paid to that idea!!


More bollocks! 
Shebster Windfarm which I suppose he is talking about was turned down by the Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross Planning Committee, not the anti wind brigade. The developer appealed, and the Scottish Government Reporter confirmed it because it would have been too much with the recently consented Baillie Windfarm right on the other side of Shebster Village.
Baillie Windfarm, which Reggy championed, was also turned down by the Committee but perversely allowed by the Scottish Government Reporter who decided that the clause in Scottish Planning Policy 6 which said that if a development had a "significant long-term detrimental impact on the amenity of people living nearby", then it should not be allowed, was less important than Government Targets and it was ok to make a few suffer for the benefit of the many. 
Scottish Planning Policy has since been changed and that clause has been quietly removed so there is now no formal protection of residential amenity in Scottish Planning Policy or Guidance.
Both developments are theoretically visible from Reggyland, but 6 kilometers, local topography, and and a nice tree shelter belt cushion Reggy from having to live with the reality of Baillie Windfarm, or any other windfarm.
Unlike folk at Baillie - "In total, six houses would be within 500 metres from the nearest turbine, almost 30 within one kilometres, and over 60 within two kilometres."

----------


## Rheghead

> More bollocks! 
> Shebster Windfarm which I suppose he is talking about was turned down by the Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross Planning Committee, not the anti wind brigade. The developer appealed, and the Scottish Government Reporter confirmed it because it would have been too much with the recently consented Baillie Windfarm right on the other side of Shebster Village.
> Baillie Windfarm, which Reggy championed, was also turned down by the Committee but perversely allowed by the Scottish Government Reporter who decided that the clause in Scottish Planning Policy 6 which said that if a development had a "significant long-term detrimental impact on the amenity of people living nearby", then it should not be allowed, was less important than Government Targets and it was ok to make a few suffer for the benefit of the many. 
> Scottish Planning Policy has since been changed and that clause has been quietly removed so there is now no formal protection of residential amenity in Scottish Planning Policy or Guidance.
> Both developments are theoretically visible from Reggyland, but 6 kilometers, local topography, and and a nice tree shelter belt cushion Reggy from having to live with the reality of Baillie Windfarm, or any other windfarm.
> Unlike folk at Baillie - "In total, six houses would be within 500 metres from the nearest turbine, almost 30 within one kilometres, and over 60 within two kilometres."


If there is not a connection between protest and planning decisions then why do you feel the need for all the banners and flags, the website and the slogan 'yes you can make a difference'?  ::  ::

----------


## Rheghead

> Baillie Windfarm, which Reggy championed, was also turned down by the Committee but perversely allowed by the Scottish Government Reporter who decided that the clause in Scottish Planning Policy 6 which said that if a development had a "significant long-term detrimental impact on the amenity of people living nearby", then it should not be allowed, was less important than Government Targets and it was ok to make a few suffer for the benefit of the many.


I championed Baillie because I saw the injustice on how CWIF had misrepresented the development on their website.  I appeared at the hearing to present my evidence and you had the opportunity to question it and you never even had the bottle to turn up to cross examine me.  My evidence was unopposed by the CWAG/HC coalition because it was absolutely damning of the anti-wind farm organisation's misrepresentaions and activities.

And the reporter obviously realised the false foundations of the CWAG/HC's case which severely undermined CWIF's credibility.

----------


## Tubthumper

> This is not true. what happens is there is a dip with house price when in planning however when up and running you will find this starts to rise again. and in fact people will buy. Take the one along the road at Causeymire Wind Farm a croft was sold and restored now that is very near Wind farm. Don't for get there has been recession in UK that has had effect on house price. For Tourist that again is not true take Lake District there is a Wind Farm there has any one been lately? You can not stop to take a picture of the number of cars.


Is this backed by any data Scout? Are tourists going to be coming here to take photos of our windfarms?

----------


## Rheghead

> Is this backed by any data Scout? Are tourists going to be coming here to take photos of our windfarms?


seems like no but that is not what they come here for anyway.

http://www.johnogroat-journal.co.uk/...m_worries.html

----------


## Neil Howie

Well we can stop worrying about new nuclear power sites in SCotland while the SNP are in power.!

They seem open to the possibility of nuclear _fusion_ though, and Dounreay has been chasing the money and opportunity of helping developing fusion for the last couple of years.

If ywindy thinks wind gets subsidised, he would explode (implode?) if he knew the huge sums of money being invested in fusion!

----------


## Tubthumper

Neil, what Fusion at Dounreay? :: 
I was looking at Risk Assessment documentation for the LHC a couple of years ago. Remarkable stuff, the potential consequences of unintentionally creating a Black Hole had to be quantified!

----------


## Neil Howie

Was in the paper today,

just John Thurso repeating the usual request (2008, 2009, 2010) for fusion work to come to Dounreay.

I couldn't find the Groat so this will have to do:




> John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD): Is the  Prime Minister aware of the interesting progress in the European project  for fusion research, of the opportunity for a materials testing  facility to come to the United Kingdom, and of the suitability of  Dounreay to deliver that work? Will the Government support such an  application?
>  The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend speaks with great knowledge about  scientific issues. It is important that we lead in such areas. His  constituency, with Dounreay, obviously has a huge technical edge, so I  shall take his representations seriously.

----------


## Sara Jevo

PM pledge over nuclear test centre in North - Press and Journal today

----------


## Tubthumper

Excellent news! :Smile:  With the Lib Dems being in bed with the Tories, there's a chance something might get done here, to stuff it in the face of the SNP!

----------


## Scout

> Is this backed by any data Scout? Are tourists going to be coming here to take photos of our windfarms?



They are facts what I have said as I have been there and seen it for myslef. Yes you get people  take pictures of the Causeymire Wind farm and walk around them You even have groups called Hug wind farm were they go up to them and hug them  ::   Facts Cornwall has wind farm Tourist still go there. Facts Devon has wind farms Tourist goes there lot more then we have up here. The problem we have is fuel price not wind farms.

----------


## Tubthumper

Blast, so I'll have a great big rotating monstrosity in my back garden AND hordes or rubber-necking wierdoes wi cameras creeping round my house! :Frown: 
But at least my house will gain some value! :Smile:

----------


## bekisman

*These killer wind turbines!*
Mrs Beks and I are avid bird-watchers. We have even been to the expense of building a 12 ft x 12 ft 'cage' of 2" mesh, so as the little birds can enter, feed and leave without larger birds such as rock-doves, crows and gulls beating 'em up.. 
*BUT*, when you read headlines like this, it makes my blood boil..these totally greedy developers chasing the mighty pound, for a pointless experiment!  :: 

'A red kite has been found dead at a wind farm which RSPB Scotland had objected to because of concerns the turbines were a threat to rare birds.
The bird was one of three kites, adopted by primary schools, which the BBC Scotland news website reported last week as having gone missing.
The raptor was found at Fairburn wind farm, near Dingwall. Its injuries included fractures and bruising.
Scottish and Southern Energy said it was also probing the death at its site.
Last Friday, BBC Scotland reported how three kites were missing from RSPB Scotland's Eyes to the Skies project.
Pupils had nicknamed the satellite-tagged kites Tweety Pie - the one found at the wind farm - Sky and Ruby.
The RSPB was investigating the deaths of the other two birds - one which "perished in unusual circumstances" and the other in an accident.
Scottish and Southern Energy said it had notified the authorities as soon as the kite was found.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/...s/10413334.stm

----------


## Rheghead

Very unfortunate.

I drove my OH's car the other day and a bird flew out and splatted on the front bumper, brown bread.  It makes my blood boil that I should be able to drive along happily to my destination and that happens.  Perhaps if I rode my bike instead of going in the car then I might have saved a life?  One day I saw a red kite circling over Tore roundabout, I wondered if it fed on road kill.  Perhaps it risks being run over by traffic?

But what is the alternative to wind farms?  Nuclear, coal and more gas.  I've heard that if we don't invest in renewables then a third of all species are destined to die.  The RSPB understands this.

----------


## ywindythesecond

> Very unfortunate.
> 
> 
> But what is the alternative to wind farms? Nuclear, coal and more gas. I've heard that if we don't invest in renewables then a third of all species are destined to die. The RSPB understands this.


Did you hear it on the road to Damascus?

----------


## bekisman

> Did you hear it on the road to Damascus?


I think that one died out at 10.58 this morning...

----------


## bekisman

Originally Posted by *Rheghead*  
_I felt great pity on someone the other day. He was blind to the needs of others and because he thought the law was on his side then that vindicated his position. And yet there was no compassion for the people that were affected by his actions. I thought that was shameful on me to just listen and nod and walk away. I think he wanted power, he wanted to be right or the need to be noticed, it was more about his own vanity than his greed. I think he wanted me to think he had eventually came of age and was now to be respected. I just couldn't respect someone who could trod on someone else just because he could. And he wouldn't listen to them or me. It is true that you should do unto others as they do unto you because I would expect others to pity me in that same situation for being so vane.

I've learned that the sweetest things that you can do to someone is say their name, smile, listen and show genuinely that you care about what they think and see things from their perspective. I'd like to see more of that in this world, and on this forum for that matter..._




Being honest Rheghead, I thought - just for a second - your Damascus journey was about the various windfarm developers, up here, as those words ring very very true to _'the selfishness of these people who have no compassion for the people who affected by their actions'_ to _'couldn't respect someone who could trod on someone else, just because they could'_ and  _'he wouldn't listen to them'_ 

I am not knocking you, just a twinge of 'Eureka' which was immediately dashed by the realisation of no..

----------


## Rheghead

> Being honest Rheghead, I thought - just for a second - your Damascus journey was about the various windfarm developers, up here, as those words ring very very true to _'the selfishness of these people who have no compassion for the people who affected by their actions'_ to _'couldn't respect someone who could trod on someone else, just because they could'_ and  _'he wouldn't listen to them'_ 
> 
> I am not knocking you, just a twinge of 'Eureka' which was immediately dashed by the realisation of no..


My Damascus moment was not aimed at wind energy specifically, I regret that you channelled yourself into thinking that way for your own agenda.

The hole in your logic is that the developers can't do because they can, they have to go through due process.  I don't particularly care about individual wind developer's business sense, their motives are quite clear, if they want to run a business for the benefit of themselves and the  planet then that is up to them.

If you think about it really hard, you may realise that renewable energy requires incentives to be profitable, fossil fuels are still the business to be in especially when times are hard like these.  But the incentives, the allowing of monies to be diverted from a profitable dirty business sector to a cleaner one is altruistic in sense when Business, the public and politicians know it is in the Earth's best collective interest to move towards a low carbon economy.  

I'd much prefer that they did it for nothing in return but unfortunately we still live in the _real world_.

And also, you may have realised that some of the propaganda by anti-windies include the 'view from one's living room'. How could that possibly be more enticing to one's own self need for protection?  It is a primal fear.  And it is also  NIMBY, selfishness and like the zebra in the herd who stick together for their own self interest and not for the group's interest, individual nimbys are grouping together for their own self interest under the guise of the area's interest.

----------


## bekisman

> My Damascus moment was not aimed at wind energy specifically, I regret that you channelled yourself into thinking that way for your own agenda.
> 
> The hole in your logic is that the developers can't do because they can, they have to go through due process. I don't particularly care about individual wind developer's business sense, their motives are quite clear, if they want to run a business for the benefit of themselves and the planet then that is up to them.
> 
> If you think about it really hard, you may realise that renewable energy requires incentives to be profitable, fossil fuels are still the business to be in especially when times are hard like these. But the incentives, the allowing of monies to be diverted from a profitable dirty business sector to a cleaner one is altruistic in sense when Business, the public and politicians know it is in the Earth's best collective interest to move towards a low carbon economy. 
> 
> I'd much prefer that they did it for nothing in return but unfortunately we still live in the _real world_.
> 
> And also, you may have realised that some of the propaganda by anti-windies include the 'view from one's living room'. How could that possibly be more enticing to one's own self need for protection? It is a primal fear. And it is also NIMBY, selfishness and like the zebra in the herd who stick together for their own self interest and not for the group's interest, individual nimbys are grouping together for their own self interest under the guise of the area's interest.


 
_"for my own agenda"_ what pompous drivel, I do - so unlike yourself - have concern and indeed feelings of sympathy for those who are 'forced' to be confronted by wind turbines. 
As has been shown numerous times, an overwhelming vote against a wind farm, by those 'locals' affected, and indeed the council, is negated by 'the Scottish Reporter' - sometimes aided by the clandestine passing on of information gained without honour by certain pro-wind individuals. The oft quoted "Why have guidelines and policies on the effect of turbines on residential amenity when they can be overturned so readily.".. so true and so very sad.
_'Due process'_ my god are you really that naive? _'altruistic'_ i.e.: Characterized by kindness and concern for others.. I don't think so Rheghead. _'view from one's living room'_ I did actually ask you; did your view consist of turbines? it appears not.. 
I'm afraid at this stage you seem to be loosing it my friend, with this puerile utterance: _'__propaganda' 'one's own self need for protection? It is a primal fear. And it is also NIMBY, selfishness and like the zebra in the herd who stick together for their own self interest and not for the group's interest, individual nimbys are grouping together for their own self interest under the guise of the area's interest.'_ - your diatribe does seem to indicate a problem here.

You have come up from England, does that give you the right to help, by your manic support, to despoil the beauty of this Scottish Highlands, the serenity, the open skies, the unspoilt beauty for a dubious contribution of miniscule power from turbines which the National Grid is paying the developers not to accept?

This is not my self interest Rheghead - just an understanding and empathy for those poor souls affected.. your continuing adherence of all things wind-powered, is tedious, and your lack of understanding the needs of others is vainglorious.. I was not unduly surprised when you flounced away, but your absence has not unfortunately improved you..

----------


## Rheghead

> _"for my own agenda"_ what pompous drivel, I do - so unlike yourself - have concern and indeed feelings of sympathy for those who are 'forced' to be confronted by wind turbines. 
> As has been shown numerous times, an overwhelming vote against a wind farm, by those 'locals' affected, and indeed the council, is negated by 'the Scottish Reporter' - sometimes aided by the clandestine passing on of information gained without honour by certain pro-wind individuals. The oft quoted "Why have guidelines and policies on the effect of turbines on residential amenity when they can be overturned so readily.".. so true and so very sad.
> _'Due process'_ my god are you really that naive? _'altruistic'_ i.e.: Characterized by kindness and concern for others.. I don't think so Rheghead. _'view from one's living room'_ I did actually ask you; did your view consist of turbines? it appears not.. 
> I'm afraid at this stage you seem to be loosing it my friend, with this puerile utterance: _'__propaganda' 'one's own self need for protection? It is a primal fear. And it is also NIMBY, selfishness and like the zebra in the herd who stick together for their own self interest and not for the group's interest, individual nimbys are grouping together for their own self interest under the guise of the area's interest.'_ - your diatribe does seem to indicate a problem here.
> 
> You have come up from England, does that give you the right to help, by your manic support, to despoil the beauty of this Scottish Highlands, the serenity, the open skies, the unspoilt beauty for a dubious contribution of miniscule power from turbines which the National Grid is paying the developers not to accept?
> 
> This is not my self interest Rheghead - just an understanding and empathy for those poor souls affected.. your continuing adherence of all things wind-powered, is tedious, and your lack of understanding the needs of others is vainglorious.. I was not unduly surprised when you flounced away, but your absence has not unfortunately improved you..


I'm afraid you have your priorities totally all wrong.  The highlands will not be destroyed by wind turbines.  Tourist chiefs rubbish those claims.  Climate change will change the Highlands irrepairably.  Mass extinctions across the globe, mass human displacement, and you are thinking about the view.

You stoop low when you mention that I want to come to Scotland to facilitate wind farm proliferation and seem to mock me because I will not any as if that actually matters.  It wouldn't matter as I lived with close proximity to a wind farm before.

I forgive you though for you do not know what you do...

----------


## bekisman

> I'm afraid you have your priorities totally all wrong. The highlands will not be destroyed by wind turbines. Tourist chiefs rubbish those claims. Climate change will change the Highlands irrepairably. Mass extinctions across the globe, mass human displacement, and you are thinking about the view.
> 
> You stoop low when you mention that I want to come to Scotland to facilitate wind farm proliferation and seem to mock me because I will not any as if that actually matters. It wouldn't matter as I lived with close proximity to a wind farm before.
> 
> I forgive you though for you do not know what you do...


_"Climate change will change the Highlands irreparably. Mass extinctions across the globe, mass human displacement"_  you're not Private Fraser are you rheghead  "we're all doomed"are you coached by Al Gore? (he was totally over the top too)

_"Tourist_ _chiefs rubbish those claims."_ Hmm, you'd know that of course?: nope of course not!, however I am involved directly in the tourism industry so have a far better insight into what the visitor really thinks, and they are unhappy that the highlands are being despoiled.  Are you obtuse enough to think our 'chiefs' would advertise the fact that wind farms put off tourists? have some savvy Rheghead, for goodness sake.

_"You steep low when you mention that I want to come to Scotland to facilitate wind farm proliferation and seem to mock me because I will not any as if that actually matters"_ - I think you had better do that one again, as it's a wee bit nonsensical.

_"I forgive you though for you do not know what you do... "_ what a prig, sorry but I could not help, my mirth cup overfloweth , oh you are so funny Rheghead.. incidentally do you know any pro-wind person who's passed on 'helpful' info to a developer? - just wondered...  :Wink:

----------


## Rheghead

> _"Climate change will change the Highlands irreparably. Mass extinctions across the globe, mass human displacement"_  you're not Private Fraser are you rheghead  "we're all doomed"are you coached by Al Gore? (he was totally over the top too)
> 
> _"Tourist_ _chiefs rubbish those claims."_ Hmm, you'd know that of course?: nope of course not!, however I am involved directly in the tourism industry so have a far better insight into what the visitor really thinks, and they are unhappy that the highlands are being despoiled.  Are you obtuse enough to think our 'chiefs' would advertise the fact that wind farms put off tourists? have some savvy Rheghead, for goodness sake.
> 
> _"You steep low when you mention that I want to come to Scotland to facilitate wind farm proliferation and seem to mock me because I will not any as if that actually matters"_ - I think you had better do that one again, as it's a wee bit nonsensical.
> 
> _"I forgive you though for you do not know what you do... "_ what a prig, sorry but I could not help, my mirth cup overfloweth , oh you are so funny Rheghead.. incidentally do you know any pro-wind person who's passed on 'helpful' info to a developer? - just wondered...


I am sorry but look at the tone in your post.  So narrow, so full of hate so full of self-interest, so willing to twist my message into the one that is wrong.  Open your heart and mind to the bigger picture, love life, be in tune with the balance of the natural world.

----------


## bekisman

> I am sorry but look at the tone in your post. So narrow, so full of hate so full of self-interest, so willing to twist my message into the one that is wrong. Open your heart and mind to the bigger picture, love life, be in tune with the balance of the natural world.


_"full of hate"_ hang on, Fred's suspended I thought?
_"Open your heart and mind to the bigger picture, love life, be in tune with the balance of the natural world."_ blinking heck; over to you Saveman, my friend!  :Wink: 

8,474 posts - that's an awful lot! just think; two Google searches use enough power to boil a kettle of water (look it up folks) - those piddly turbines must be spinning their little hearts out.

No Rheghead, I'm totally laid back - no hatred in me, I'm easy going, been around, done a bit; don't drink, don't smoke, just very very relaxed.. so much so mate I'm going to bed and see if you hit 8,480 overnight.. bye
Oh before I go _"incidentally do you know any pro-wind person who's passed on 'helpful' info to a developer? - just wondered..._

----------


## Rheghead

> Oh before I go _"incidentally do you know any pro-wind person who's passed on 'helpful' info to a developer? - just wondered..._


Do you know of any anti-wind orger who denies being a person suspected of snooping around a pro-wind persons house and steals that person's orger ID on another forum but gets found out when he forgets and reveals his true identity in a later pm?   ::   They're so full of self interested hate, spite and vindictiveness.

----------


## Neil Howie

> two Google searches use enough power to boil a  kettle of water (look it up folks)





uhhhh well ok .... so I looked it up and it isn't right....


Revealed: How The Times Got Confused About Google  and The Tea Kettle

----------


## bekisman

> uhhhh well ok .... so I looked it up and it isn't right....
> 
> 
> Revealed: How The Times Got Confused About Google and The Tea Kettle


Thanks for that Neil (well I did get it from the Times!) .. never mind; wrist slapped..

_"The post estimates that one Google search equates to 6.8 grams of CO2 emissions, which is apparently where this oft-repeated statistic originated. But even if Wissner-Gross is telling the truth and he never misrepresented the origin of the data, he used a blog that could hardly be considered a reputable scientific source (no offense, Mr. Kersten) to write his article."_

----------

