# General > General >  Spittal Hill - Dumbest Place Ever for a Windfarm

## Tilter

Take a look at http://www.spittalwindfarmopposition.co.uk/

Great - dirty great noisy windfarm on a hill slap bang in the middle of the county where all of us (including tourists) can see it (and Causeymire and Dunbeath windfarms and goodness knows how many other proposals) defacing our lovely county.

This takes the cake.  Enough's enough.  What do other .Orgers think?

----------


## tommy1979

would you rather we just kept burning fossil fuels at an exponential rate then??

----------


## lynne duncan

probably a daft question I am prone to them but why can they not build one large windfarm instead of all these small collections, ie 1 farm with a 1000 or heck 10,000  say 20 miles west of berridale where it cannot be seen from the road( picked there out of the smallest of brain just for example) (though there maybe something there already that would people would object to it going there as well)

----------


## Tilter

> would you rather we just kept burning fossil fuels at an exponential rate then??


Tommy,
Yup.  With current and future carbon capture techniques (think of it like you probably do nuclear waste - it's just as bad ("exponentially")).  There's lots of fossil fuel.  There's no longer a lot of Scottish landscape.  Or habitat.  Or anything that makes Scotland Scotland.  And Caithness has a living to make.  And its living is not by wind turbines (except for a few landowners/developers/big foreign energy companies seeking mega-government-subsidies-via-ROC'S).

----------


## Tilter

> probably a daft question I am prone to them but why can they not build one large windfarm instead of all these small collections, ie 1 farm with a 1000 or heck 10,000  say 20 miles west of berridale where it cannot be seen from the road( picked there out of the smallest of brain just for example) (though there maybe something there already that would people would object to it going there as well)


Lynne,
That's a genius question - not a daft question.  They can't build one huge mega-mega-watt windfarm in Caithness where no one can see it because it would be in the Flow Country (which is a something like - so don't quote me right now before I can look it up - proposed World Heritage Site).  Seriously, we need to protect the Flow Country because it's world heritage status 
Blanket-Bog-unique, and THE LARGEST ON THE PLANET I BELIEVE.  However, outwith the Flow Country is "Where People Live in Caithness" land and that's where developers want to put windfarms so they can make millions and move to the Caribbean (joking - but probably Antigua).  

One small windfarm - to provide free electricity to Watten or Spittal or Strathy or Wherever - would be great!!!  But it won't happen.  Wind power will put your electricity bill up - that's all.  It costs about 3 times the price of conventional power.

----------


## MadPict

> probably a daft question I am prone to them but why can they not build one large windfarm instead of all these small collections, ie 1 farm with a 1000 or heck 10,000  say 20 miles west of berridale where it cannot be seen from the road( picked there out of the smallest of brain just for example) (though there maybe something there already that would people would object to it going there as well)


Maybe you'd like to see this spreading out over the Flow Country.....



Oh heck, why not make a tourist attraction of them while we're at it....

http://forum.caithness.org/showpost....2&postcount=90

----------


## Tilter

> Maybe you'd like to see this spreading out over the Flow Country.....
> 
> 
> 
> Oh heck, why not make a tourist attraction of them while we're at it....
> 
> http://forum.caithness.org/showpost....2&postcount=90


Thank you Mad Pict.  California right?  No different than here soon.  I won't post the turbine-kill photos of raptors - it's quite gory.

----------


## dozy

Don't bother with lodging a verbal or written protest .the deals been done the access roads are in and the turbines have been ordered .So much for planning permission, its all cut and dried 
When has your vote in local elections ever helped the Environment..3 more Wind Factories have already been given the nod ,its just the public that have to be fooled into believing that its helping  cut Carbon Emissions. China will put 10 million new car in their roads this year alone ..Its a GREAT CARBON CON that we are happy to pay into ...

----------


## ruthasuth

I believe that the access road for the turbines will be the dunn hill road... so no the access roads are not ready for the turbines at spittal, mega changes would have to be made to the bottom of the dunn hill road junction to allow a turbine round the corner. There is a new access road from the Causewaymire into the area of the proposed site but I dont believe that it is for turbines?

There is so much wildlife and birds around spittal hill that will be adversely affected by the wind turbines. It is an undisturbed paradise for the large amount of birds including swan and geese, bats, otters, deer to name just a few.

The windfarms are only viable due to a high government incentive - which us tax payers are contributing to! Windfarms in other countries are now in the process of being taken down due to their inefficiency. Anyone who believes that this is the answer to our power shortage is mistaken. Our current government appear to be trying to tick the "green" box without finding a "real" solution.

All objections are worthwhile and I urge you (where-ever you live) to let your feelings known and raise an objection. The rural community around spittal hill need the support.

----------


## MadPict

Be it peat bog....
http://environment.newscientist.com/...-turbines.html

or hilltop...
http://johnrsweet.com/personal/Wind/windpix1.html

...the damage to the environment is not minimal as the wind companies allege......

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~hi...lery/index.htm

Is this what we want Caithness to look like....

----------


## spurtle

[QUOTE=dozy;217480]Don't bother with lodging a verbal or written protest .the deals been done the access roads are in and the turbines have been ordered .So much for planning permission, its all cut and dried 
When has your vote in local elections ever helped the Environment..3 more Wind Factories have already been given the nod ,its just the public that have to be fooled into believing that its helping  cut Carbon Emissions. 

In response to a lot of  pressure from community councils and the general public, Highland Council did try to put an end to what was a complete free-for-all by the wind power companies.  This is contained in their Renewable Energy Strategy.  
The power companies obviously think this is totally irrelevant, and have come forward with  big schemes like Spittal, Dunbeath, Durran, Camster, Stroupster, Strathy - others in the pipeline are Scoolary (Barrogill), Baillie Hill - rumours abound about others lurking. They all breach the strategy. These will all bypass the local planning dept by being under the aegis of the Scottish Executive, for which read a resurrected Strathclyde Council - they don't care what happens here. They don't care about HC's strategy, and don't care what you or I think.  So the free-for-all is what you have got. 
Pressure needs to be put on the executive to start listening to local government, or what remains of it. (Try ringing Caithness Area offices - you get a call centre in Alness  After next week, you'll get a council based in Golspie  - great!)


The  smaller schemes, including Yarrows, will come under HC.  The application for this one was so badly drafted that Historic Scotland can't even respond until a proper survey is done - NPower insisted on the cheapest and most basic bird survey to be done, so that this has to be repeated.  One gets the impression they have set up the poor  landowner who thinks he is going to make a whack of money out of this scheme.  I believe it is standard practice to have a raft of applications whiich include a target sacrificial one to draw the fire off the others. Incompetence at that level is not really believable - 
use your voice at the elkection to put them on the spot - Caithness will never be the same again if this lot goes through - say good-bye to tourism, watch property prices tumble and electricity bill go through the roof.

----------


## sweetheart

Caithness is being traded away by the scottish executive to large industry 
because large industry is more important than democracy, as we are all just
mere little fleshpods next to the giant gears of global lazyness and war.

China is building a new coal power station every week... the carbon credits
saved are not worth a piss.... the fact is, that the earth's population is simply
too greedy for energy to stop modernising, and as the other 6 billion people
aspire to the only economic lifestyle choice that's been presented to them by
the big corporate industrial complex.

So, it looks like rather the windfarms are a deliberate ploy from edinburgh to 
show who rules scotland, to prove that the people in edinburgh own the 
scenic highlands, and it doesn't matter what the rural people think at all,
but rather that everyone should be conquored, every landscape spoiled, every
child locked up in a prison and told what to think by endless tapeloops from
the windfarm energy corporations who're devaluing the public goods of the
highlands for another private goldrush.  

Frankly, spittal hill is horrible, yarrows is evern worse... that one wrecks 
an archeological site that any other nation on earth would keep sacred.

But it seems that the scottish executive is entirely bonkers and out of touch, 
i hope labour loses the next poll badly to the libdems.. who will
then continue to follow this path of energy-folly and colonial imperialism
until the planet is 5 degrees hotter and all of england has come up to
cathness and built houses in the only form that will be accepted by planning, 
everywhere!; houses shaped like 100 meter tall turbines, tubular
tower blocks with a tiny room on 30 floors and a fast elevator.  

The executive needs to stop all the planning applications for parts of the
sacred highlands, as the gold rush will otherwise destroy the only heritage
that has survived all these thousands years of human destructive development.

The largest peatland in *europe* (larger ones in in russia), is doing fine as
carbon sink without being developed.  The stupid people are on both
sides of the atlantic following the course of imperial wars and pollution
economics until they've killed off and drowned out a few hundred millions
in low lying lands around the earth.  For all its rationality, our society is
more degenerate than any society we used to call primitive, it has become
a malignant tumor that stands to destroy the planet's ecosystem entirely,
and a turbine on spittal hill won't make any lick of difference... so why not
find another way for people in the far north to build an economy besides
resource stripping like in a 3rd world country... why not design and construct 
a large world class university for renewable energy system 
design, and create a cluster of employment for the long term by not
draining away the brain power of the future economy.

Even america in its foolish destruction of its natural heritage would not
put wind turbines around the grand canyon, and as much, the entire 
scottish highland natural zone should be well enough left alone.

----------


## Tilter

[QUOTE=sweetheart;217505] . . . houses in the only form that will be accepted by planning, everywhere!; houses shaped like 100 meter tall turbines, tubular
tower blocks with a tiny room on 30 floors and a fast elevator.  

Sweetheart, it is true that if someone wanted to build a house next door to me I would have to be notified.  Highland Council would listen to me if light, etc., was excluded from my property.  However, I doubt anyone could build a house next door to me, given Highland Council's quite stringent rules for rural development with regard to housing.  However, if someone wants to build a windfarm next door to me, they don't have to bother to notify me at all, and they certainly don't have to give any consideration to my well-being, my livelihood, or my environment and the flora/fauna I share it with.

----------


## Ricco

Sorry, Tilter.  I really like wind farms - I have been known to drive for miles just to see one.  I'll drive miles the opposite way to get away from a nuclear site or a fossil fuel power plant.  :Wink:

----------


## Tilter

> Sorry, Tilter.  I really like wind farms - I have been known to drive for miles just to see one.  I'll drive miles the opposite way to get away from a nuclear site or a fossil fuel power plant.


That's OK Ricco.  Whatever floats your boat.  You're in luck as you won't have to drive anywhere to see this one.  Someone's just given me a pretty picture from the Environmental Statement for Spittal and you'll be able to see it from the Strath to the East coast and from Dunnet to below Dunbeath.  

If I were smarter, I could figure out how to post the picture for you.  Maybe MadPict could help me?  I know the code - [img] and [/img] but how do I link the jpg file in the middle?

----------


## MadPict

Unless you upload it to the Org server (has to fit the image size parameters) if you host it on somewhere like imageshack.com they will give you the URL for the image once hosted.

----------


## badger

There'll soon be hardly anywhere in Caithness that you can go without seeing wind turbines in one direction or another.  Some places you'll be able to see them in several directions at once.  Causeymire, Spittal, Yarrows, Camster, Stroupster (rejected but could come back), Scoolary (that's a big one) and so on.  Look at the lists on the .org http://www.caithness.org/windfarms/  over on the right.  Could be quite a challenge for all those fighter planes zooming over - like an obstacle course.  As for birds - turbines aren't called bird mincers for nothing.

----------


## cliffhbuber

There are very legitimate concerns raised over the construction of wind power towers.
One concern that seems to have been underplayed in North America is the disruption to migrating birds.
A recent study showed that one skyscraper in Chicago had a dead bird count of approx. 4000 a year.
The latest info I have seen on wind power suggests that on average only 40% of the potential is achieved the course of a year.
Backup energy sources, probably on a grid, will be needed.

Several groups in Canada have researched over 30 years the use of peat for power, as in Ireland, Denmark, and Finland.
Politicians are hesitant to make a (drastic) shift in what they are used to, or to think independently of the pressure from nuclear and coal lobby groups.

Another recent study reveals that peat bogs give off 45 times more methane to destroy the ozone layer than does CO2.
Peat burns much cleaner than coal, including no metals in the affluent.
Locally developed peat plants would provide employment.

Using peat for power would allow for cheaper energy as well as the opportunity of reclaiming bog sites as wetlands for birds, and even to stock with fish.

----------


## Tilter

> Unless you upload it to the Org server (has to fit the image size parameters) if you host it on somewhere like imageshack.com they will give you the URL for the image once hosted.


MadPict, thank you.  I've registered but will have to figure out Image Shack later.  Also it's a shade too big to simply attach.  Apologies too for digressing - I should have put this on a Techy thread.

----------


## Tilter

> Another recent study reveals that peat bogs give off 45 times more methane to destroy the ozone layer than does CO2.
> Peat burns much cleaner than coal, including no metals in the affluent.
> Locally developed peat plants would provide employment.
> 
> Using peat for power would allow for cheaper energy as well as the opportunity of reclaiming bog sites as wetlands for birds, and even to stock with fish.


Cliffhbuber, I'm not following your argument re peat.  Am I missing something?  It is my understanding that peat (lying undisturbed in the ground) is good because as a carbon sink it is three times as efficient as rain forest.  (See the excellent New Scientist article to which Mad Pict provided a link earlier in this thread.)  Are you suggesting we dig up our peatland for fuel?  I have to say, having dug, dried, stacked and burned peat in the past, I'd prefer doing a shift in the salt mines.

You're spot on about turbines killing birds.  It's not just that though, it's the destruction of habitat as well.

----------


## rupert

Really Tilter, I don't know what you are on about. Having now had a good look at the Environmental Statement for the proposed windfarm on Spittal Hill it would appear to be the best place in the world for a windfarm!
No birds, no bats, no potential noise, fits snugly into the landform, doesn't matter that its close to peoples houses, close to Spittal village, etc. etc. 
But then isn't that always the case - these consultants who prepare these environmental statements and the bird watchers who do the surveys have to come up with what their masters want.
What about peer review or better still have a truly independant ornithologist spend real amounts of time recording all the Whooper Swan and Geese movements we know that occur (to name just two species)?
Oh, but then it might show that it would have a truly monumental effect on these protected birds and that would never do would it?
Go to www.spittalwindfarmopposition.co.uk soon to lodge your objection or write a letter and help stop this environmental catastrophe from happening.

----------


## ruthasuth

The bird survey was a joke - the bloke who did it was lying back in his car asleep several of the times I saw him doing the survey! The enviromental statement is not a true independent view as it should be. 

The windfarm is a get rich quick scheme (due to huge government subsidy) for the few landowners involved and not a long term strategy for Caithness which is what we need. All these windfarm plans for caithness appear to have arisen since the government introduced incentives - mmmmm wonder why????

Well done to the opposition group www.spittalwindfarmopposition.co.uk for getting organised to assist people object to the scheme! 

Can someone from the group let everyone on org know when the online objection form is available???

----------


## sweep

well if the bird survey man was asleep he might have missed the ospreys flying over spittal hill on their way between the lochs in the area. it would be a crying shame to put up a windfarm there as the birdlife and indeed wildlife is unique. ps there's also loads of otters as they've crossed the road in front of my car

----------


## Tilter

> The windfarm is a get rich quick scheme (due to huge government subsidy) for the few landowners involved and not a long term strategy for Caithness which is what we need. All these windfarm plans for caithness appear to have arisen since the government introduced incentives - mmmmm wonder why????


CRC, the problem is that the subsidies (Renewable Energy Certificates or ROC's) are being reviewed, reviewed, reviewed and will end up with the developers' cash cow yielding less and less money as we move away from unproductive wind technology.  The developers will lose interest along the way, and guess what Caithness will be left with?  Yup, lots of dilapidated windfarms.

Remember the forestry.  Lots of money there once, and now the powers-that-be are trying to dig it up and restore what was once wild and beautiful land supporting its own ecosystem.

----------


## Rheghead

> CRC, the problem is that the subsidies (Renewable Energy Certificates or ROC's) are being reviewed, reviewed, reviewed and will end up with the developers' cash cow yielding less and less money as we move away from unproductive wind technology.


The truth of the matter is the complete opposite.  As we moved towards more involvement with renewable energy then the market price of the renewable obligation will fall thus making wind technology less profitable.  There needs to be more market confidence with insurance and underwriters in other technologies like tidal, offshore wind and wave generators to bring the RO down to a realistic price.  The technology is there for wave, it just needs more market confidence to enable it to go forward.

----------


## rupert

> The bird survey was a joke - the bloke who did it was lying back in his car asleep several of the times I saw him doing the survey! The enviromental statement is not a true independent view as it should be.


Well crc that would explain why he didn't see anything on the hill I hope he got paid well for kipping in his car!
Its just as I feared, we, but most importantly the wildlife, are being treated with contempt by these windfarm developers and their associates.
The worry is that the powers that be believe all this twaddle and don't investigate further. We must expose this for the scam it is - come on all you bird and wildlife lovers in this county (and beyond) lets start shouting by objecting to this development.

----------


## rupert

> well if the bird survey man was asleep he might have missed the ospreys flying over spittal hill on their way between the lochs in the area. it would be a crying shame to put up a windfarm there as the birdlife and indeed wildlife is unique. ps there's also loads of otters as they've crossed the road in front of my car


Sweep, glad you brought up the subject of the Ospreys and the Otters. The most northernly nesting Ospreys in Great Britain, flying all this way every year to raise a family, I wonder how long it will be before Daddy Osprey is minced on his way to Loch Toftingall to catch his fish for his wife and babies? And as for the Otters - yes, they do acknowledge there is a strong population on the hill of 'regional importance' but its OK because they have moved those turbines back a shade and everything is rosy. Forget the umpteen lorries that will be trundling backwards and forwards everyday collecting stone from the quarry or the noise and racket the diggers and dumpers will make, or the polluted water courses --- I could go on and on and on----but you get my drift.

----------


## MadPict

They might as well put up the new road sign on the Caithness boundary -



> WELCOME TO THE COUNTY OF CAITHNESS
> 
> THE LARGEST WIND FARM IN THE UK
> 
>  ONCE THE HOME OF CAITHNESS GLASS - NOW THE HOME OF CAITHNESS WIND

----------


## sweep

i really love the bird and wildlife we have in caithness.
how can i object to this proposed disaster and really make a difference?

----------


## Rheghead

> The bird survey was a joke - the bloke who did it was lying back in his car asleep several of the times I saw him doing the survey! The enviromental statement is not a true independent view as it should be.


How do you know?  Are you an expert in this field?

I know the chap and I can say without a smallest doubt that he is very dedicated to his work.  He has never imparted to me that he is influenced by wind energy business or environmental concerns, he just records the data impartially.  Though being a keen birder he must be for the birds.  

We all need sleep and since he is his own boss, he could easily sleep at home rather than take a wee nap on the job at odd hours of the day.  It sounds to me he was sacrificing his sleep for the benefit of his work!!! ::

----------


## Tilter

Hi there Rheghead
Have you been on holiday?

We will never know if birdman was sacrificing his sleep for his work or sacrificing his work for his sleep.  However, CRC caught him at it several times.  Wish I could have a nap at work when I felt like but I think I'd be shown the door.

The point is, bird surveys for windfarms are inadequate.  If they were adequate, there wouldn't be all the collisions etc. that are on record.

----------


## rupert

> How do you know? Are you an expert in this field?
> 
> I know the chap and I can say without a smallest doubt that he is very dedicated to his work. He has never imparted to me that he is influenced by wind energy business or environmental concerns, he just records the data impartially. Though being a keen birder he must be for the birds. 
> 
> We all need sleep and since he is his own boss, he could easily sleep at home rather than take a wee nap on the job at odd hours of the day. It sounds to me he was sacrificing his sleep for the benefit of his work!!!


I think the point that needs to be made here is that Mr Birdman is employed by the developer. I have read the ornithology section of the environmental statement for this development (have you by the way?) and am busy ploughing my way through it for a second time. My reaction has been one of dismay and disbelief. Those who live nearby will tell you that the numbers of swans flying between feeding areas and roost sites on and around Spittal Hill, including the windfarm site itself, can number up to the mid-nineties and the geese can number into the thousands (and I am not exagerating as I have counted them) at any one time. But does it say that in the ES - not on your nelly. One can only assume then that he wasn't there for long enough,(a few hours a month is hardly what I would call a survey), he was asleep (as has already been discussed), he is only seeing what they want him to see or he needs new glasses.
People would have more faith in these bird surveys if they were undertaken by a truly independent ornithologist.

----------


## MadPict

I suggest you photograph said 'bird survey man' asleep on the job and send it to his "employer" and any relevant party who might be interested in the depth of his observations....

----------


## Rheghead

> If they were adequate, there wouldn't be all the collisions etc. that are on record.


Bird collisions are inevitable with large structures, not just windfarms.  A blackbird knocked itself dead by flying into my bungalow house for example last year.  The RSPB accepts this and that is why they endorse windfarms in areas where the risk is minimised.

The birdman is truly independent.

----------


## MadPict

Perhaps he was a Napwing?

Or maybe worn out from counting the nocturnal avian residents?

----------


## Tilter

Here goes,

I think I've attached it.  I doubt it will be legible but you'll see the outline of Caithness and what's where.  The small dark blue areas are where you'll only be able to see between 1 and 7 turbines, going through light blue (8-13 turbines), green (14-19 turbines), orange (20 - 25 turbines) and yellow (the huge area) where you'll have all the benefits of seeing the whole shooting match (26 - 30 turbines).

The ZTV's showing this site in conjunction with the other existing and proposed sites (about 13 I think) to show cumulative impact are too busy and complicated for my poor old eyes so I'll stick with this one.

----------


## Tilter

> Perhaps he was a Napwing?


Or a Greater Spotted Snoozer?

----------


## rupert

> i really love the bird and wildlife we have in caithness.
> how can i object to this proposed disaster and really make a difference?


you can write or email your objection to -

The Scottish Executive
Energy Consents Unit
2nd Floor
Meridian Court
5 Cadogan Street
Glasgow
G2 6AT
or
energyconsents@scotland.gsi.gov.uk

identifying the proposal (Spittal Hill, Caithness) and specifying the grounds for representation *not later than 1st June 2007*
Representations should be dated and should clearly state your name (in block capitals) and full return email or postal address

or you can go to www.spittalwindfarmopposition.co.uk where there will be the facility for an online objection or downloadable form shortly

----------


## olivia

Sounds to me like this windfarm on Spittal hill will be an ecological disaster that we all pay for in the long term while the developers get rich quick

----------


## badger

Most of these windfarms are disasters one way or another.  Who in their right minds would build them by the Grey Cairns of Camster or Yarrows Archaeological Trail - both incredibly special places that should be considered sacred and preserved as they have been for thousands of years?  

Another aspect of all this is that they set neighbour against neighbour.  Those who want them see only the money, those who don't consider other things are more important.  Too often the landowners with the money are also employers and landlords and many people are scared to protest openly in case they lose their jobs/houses.

----------


## Rheghead

> Sounds to me like this windfarm on Spittal hill will be an ecological disaster that we all pay for in the long term while the developers get rich quick


How come?  I've walked around Causeymire windfarm and I can't see an ecological disaster.  No dead birds, pollution or 'owt.  

Pumping zillions of tonnes of coal into the atmosphere sounds like an ecological disaster, mind.

----------


## Tilter

> Pumping zillions of tonnes of coal into the atmosphere sounds like an ecological disaster, mind.


Yes it is.  Nothing we can do with a few windfarms in Caithness producing next to nothing by way of energy is going to make any difference to what China's chucking into the atmosphere.  However, hopefully clean coal, carbon capture and all that will make a difference in future, though it would be better not to use so much in the first place.  Then again, you can't stop China wanting to become like us - all developed and civilised (ha!)

Anyway, I still think Spittal's a really daft place for a windfarm for many many reasons I can't get into right now - maybe after I've had my tea.  

Do you think Spittal Hill is a good place for a windfarm Rheghead?

----------


## Rheghead

> Do you think Spittal Hill is a good place for a windfarm Rheghead?


I haven't seen the developer's report in relation to wind speeds and stuff.  So I can't say.

----------


## Tilter

> I haven't seen the developer's report in relation to wind speeds and stuff.  So I can't say.


I believe the developer's Environmental Statement and Technical Summary are in Thurso library, and Spittal garage and Watten P.O if you wish to see them.

I expect the wind speeds are quite good.  They're quite good in the whole of Scotland.  However, from a planning perspective - landscape and visual impact, cumulative impact, impact on ecology, ornithology, cultural heritage, tourism, etc., it all looks pretty dodgy.

----------


## hilary

spittal hill a place of tranquil bliss ,will be no more if it is covered with giant turbines, they will be 300ft high  and will beat and thrum and vibrate night and day .well if the wind blows.

----------


## Rheghead

> I believe the developer's Environmental Statement and Technical Summary are in Thurso library, and Spittal garage and Watten P.O if you wish to see them.
> 
> I expect the wind speeds are quite good.  They're quite good in the whole of Scotland.  However, from a planning perspective - landscape and visual impact, cumulative impact, impact on ecology, ornithology, cultural heritage, tourism, etc., it all looks pretty dodgy.


I can see a problem with visual impact but only if you have adopted the idea that windfarms are bad from a visually impact point of view. Plenty of folk don't see a problem. 

There is a problem with ornithology but only from the protection of target species eg white tailed eagle (which aren't resident in Caithness).

I can't see a problem with the other things you have stated, the protection of cultural sites and views don't seem to do anything to halt or retard global warming, in fact the oppposite, it just promotes people to get in their cars and gawk at  landscapes.

----------


## rupert

> I can see a problem with visual impact but only if you have adopted the idea that windfarms are bad from a visually impact point of view. Plenty of folk don't see a problem. 
> 
> There is a problem with ornithology but only from the protection of target species eg white tailed eagle (which aren't resident in Caithness).
> 
> I can't see a problem with the other things you have stated, the protection of cultural sites and views don't seem to do anything to halt or retard global warming, in fact the oppposite, it just promotes people to get in their cars and gawk at landscapes.


Your right, there is a problem with ornithology and that is because we have a significant number of target species that need protection in the vicinity of this proposed site (although why other poor little birds who are going to get minced do not matter is beyond me).

Of course, don't forget that tourism is Scotland's biggest industry and employs (I believe) one in five people in the Highlands. People come to the Highlands to gawk at the scenery, as you put it, in their polluting cars, but they then stay at the b & bs, hotels, use the pubs and chip shops etc. etc.

The visual impact is another matter - there is a whole lot of difference between viewing a thirty turbine windfarm on a distant hill top as you travel down to Inverness and viewing same size windfarm less than 900 metres away. This, by the way, is the distance one poor person's house is going to be away from it.

There is no getting away from the fact that the siting of this development is unbelievably insensitive to the local community and thats all there is to it.

----------


## Tilter

> views don't seem to do anything to halt or retard global warming,


Rheghead
You're being just a teeny bit obtuse again.  This windfarm will have nothing to do with global warming.  It will have a lot to do with developers making a lot of money off of other people's backs.  Wind farms make for very unpleasant next door neighbours.  And Spittal hill and its surrounding area have residences, settlements even, all around it.  Good places for windfarms, if you believe they are a fantastic weapon against global warming, are where they are well away from people and protected species.

----------


## hilary

the cumulative impact of such a big wind farm development could have serious and damaging effect on the character of our unique landscape and the health of the inhabitants.could also destroy tourism in Caithness.

----------


## Rheghead

> the cumulative impact of such a big wind farm development could have serious and damaging effect on the character of our unique landscape and the health of the inhabitants.could also destroy tourism in Caithness.


The reverse is true.

The cumulative impact of everyone who perceives that windfarms will have a damaging effect on the character of our unique landscape and the health of our  inhabitants will ironically have the effect of damaging our unique landscape.  The experts predict that global temps will rise by 1.4-3.8c over the next 100 years which will devastate our and third world countries.  Yes, it is that serious.

----------


## MadPict

..and the teeny tiny bit of difference that turning the UK into one big wind factory will be wiped away in a blink of the eye by the likes of China and India and Africa pursuing their "right" to pollute the planet in the same way the developed world did.......

But that's cool cos we can sit and look out of our windows at the crappy wind turbines which we were forced to accept by politicians and greedy landowners on the ticket of saving the planet......

----------


## sweetheart

You don't work in any industry that is affected by tourism, for that matter,
your working in nuclear complex hardly makes you an unbias critic.  You moved
up here and live on the taxpayer subsidy to nuclear energy, and you're pining
for more big-energy to muck up the landscape as you don't care, its your field.

I'm sure you feel very green every time you drive in to the green tesco's at
wick, where those green solar panels offset the parking lot and all the fuel
all of the north is using to drive there.   Your sense that destroying 
the last wilderspaces in europe to satisfy an impossible conundrum is
just cynical and destructive.

People are so trusting of the instutitons of democracy, much as so many people 
believe that opposing this goldrush will work using traditional instutitons,
or even a highland renewable strategy.... but as we're seeing, there is no
method to the madness... its a pure gold rush, and the big money has
bought off the political parties who all suck on big green lies that you're
helping to spread that destroying the highlands with windfarms will
make *any* impact at all on global warming.

----------


## Rheghead

> ..and the teeny tiny bit of difference that turning the UK into one big wind factory will be wiped away in a blink of the eye by the likes of China and India and Africa pursuing their "right" to pollute the planet in the same way the developed world did.......


Without the west taking the lead on renewable energy then there isn't a cat in Hell's chance that China, India etc will follow.  The UN recognises this and that is why they are promoting an 'expansion and contraction' policy on developing country's use of fossil fuels.  It is a fact that renewable energy is more expensive than fossil fuel so how do we expect them to go for renewable energy??  Only when China etc are fully developed that they can afford to go fully renewables.  

In the meantime, renewable energy will cut our fossil fuel useage and ween us from foreign fuel imports.

----------


## Rheghead

> You don't work in any industry that is affected by tourism, for that matter,
> your working in nuclear complex hardly makes you an unbias critic.  You moved
> up here and live on the taxpayer subsidy to nuclear energy, and you're pining
> for more big-energy to muck up the landscape as you don't care, its your field.


What??  I don't have any connection with the nuclear energy industry!!  So your assumption has fallen onto its face...

----------


## MadPict

The "expansion and contraction' policy" won't work. 

We contract our dependence on fossil fuels and use even more expensive alternatives while the "third world" expands it's reliance on it's own 'homegrown' natural fossil fuel reserves. 

They insist it is their "right" to follow a path of industrial revolution just as we did in the west, using the "don't do as we did but do as we say" argument against any attempt by the first world to stop them from driving the planet into an even worse state.

It's like bailing out a sinking boat with a fork.

----------


## rupert

The trouble is with wind turbines as a form of renewable energy is that they are inefficient and the energy they produce is poorly predictable. There will always have to be some guy stoking the fire to keep that dirty old fossil fuel station going for when the winds not blowing.
You would have to plaster the whole of Scotland with them to produce anywhere near the amount of energy we all consume. (And don't come back to me and say that would be OK because I cant see many tourists visiting one big wind factory - once you've seen one windfarm you've seen them all). Surely, for example, it would be better to make energy conservation measures in homes, schools and offices compulsory and really cut down on our energy usage.
The developers of Spittal Hill windfarm are doing it purely as a business venture not to save the planet I can assure you.

----------


## Rheghead

> The trouble is with wind turbines as a form of renewable energy is that they are inefficient and the energy they produce is poorly predictable.


All forms of renewable energy is subject to intermittency problems.

Fuel efficiency means nothing in the context of renewable energy as the fuel is free.  And conventional power plants used as back-up can react to a short fall from the wind energy sector in minutes making predictability a weak arguement for the time being.  

As Scotland goes for a mad dash for renewables under an SNP government, the Highlands will be exploited with turbines to make up for its anti nuke manifesto.  So the biggest problem is storage and distribution of renewable energy to the parts of the country that need it most and when they need it.

----------


## badger

Actually no, renewable energy isn't free. The reason so many developers are rushing to cover Caithness in windfarms is because of the ROCs - a system which pays a certain amount for every MW of electricity generated from renewable sources. Yet another bright idea of govt. not sufficiently thought through. The result, as reported by OFGEM, is that -



> We fully support the Government's aims of reducing carbon emissions and promoting renewable generation but we think there are cheaper and simpler ways of meeting these aims than the RO scheme which is forecast to cost business and domestic customers over £30bn.


Which is why electricity costs to customers are already soaring. 


If it kills off the local tourist business, which it almost certainly will unless future developments are stopped, that is yet another cost to the area with many people simply going out of business.

----------


## Rheghead

> Actually no, renewable energy isn't free.


You have failed to read my post properly.

I said the fuel is free, not the energy to the customer.  Thermal efficiency is totally irrelevent when discussing windfarms.  However, the thermal efficiencies of coal, nuke and gas varies from 20-50% depending on age of plant.

However, renewable energy mitigates net fossil fuel energy on the grid so in terms of fossil fuel efficiency, windfarms are 100% efficient apart from the <10% thermal losses which all generators are subject to.

----------


## MadPict

Thankfully there is not enough sun for these to be an option......

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6616651.stm

But like Caithness, it is not the locals who will benefit -



> The vision is of the sun-blessed lands of the Mediterranean - even the Sahara desert - being carpeted with systems like this with the power cabled to the drizzlier lands of northern Europe. A dazzling idea in a dazzling location.


Power hungry Europe will get the output....

----------


## spurtle

Comments by Eugene Walter, editor of "Animal Kingdom" in 1988, talking of the flow country and forestry, but he could just as well have been talking about turbines (see this week's Courier Archive for 1988) 

"Should plantations fail to live up to foresters' predictions, the tree people can depart, having lost little ... but they will leave behind a mutilated landscape, unattractive to both tourists and birds, offering even fewer employment opportunities than before"

History teaches us that we do not learn from history.

----------


## Rheghead

> History teaches us that we do not learn from history.


A point that can apply to renewable energy far too appropriately.  20 years ago environmentalists have been warning of the dangers of Global Warming due to us  relying on fossils.  Since then most years have been the warmest in the last 100.  

They are now talking about desertification of some parts of Europe.  Every geography student knows that there is transition of flora from desert through to temperate rain forests which in includes savannah, mediterranean and temperate grassland.  If deserts are coming to Europe then savannahs are coming as well.

This April/May (not to mention the whole year) has been one of the driest I've seen.  Our flow country relies on rain and more rain and is one of the most rarest and sensitive types of ecosystems in the world.

If I was in power then I'd introduce a carbon points system which includes a yearly allowance for each of us.  The limit would be set by Government in conjunction with scientific rather than fiscal advice.  Small users can freely sell to large users thus making money for themselves thus providing an incentive to cut down their carbon footprint.

----------


## MadPict

> Our flow country relies on rain and more rain and is one of the most rarest and sensitive types of ecosystems in the world.


Yet you're quite happy to see it smothered and destroyed by forests of wind turbines?......

----------


## Rheghead

> Yet you're quite happy to see it smothered and destroyed by forests of wind turbines?......


I can't see how windfarms can destroy the flow country when fossil fuels are doing a much more efficient job.  The bogland plants can still grow between the pylons and insect life will not be affected.

----------


## MadPict

The damage to boglands by the introduction of the pylon bases, access roads, maintenance infrastructure, site drainage, is not going to affect them? Where is your evidence tht they will not be affected in the long term?

"is one of the most rarest and sensitive types of ecosystems in the world."

So plough it all up, just as they did to plant the "tax break forests", plant great number of turbines to feed the electricity hungry south with a token benefit to the local communities but with huge wads of cash for the landowners who don't give a flying duck about what goes on in the county as long as their bank balance is healthy?

Hidden Costs of Wind Turbines

----------


## Rheghead

> The damage to boglands by the introduction of the pylon bases, access roads, maintenance infrastructure, site drainage, is not going to affect them? Where is your evidence tht they will not be affected in the long term?
> 
> "is one of the most rarest and sensitive types of ecosystems in the world."
> 
> So plough it all up, just as they did to plant the "tax break forests", plant great number of turbines to feed the electricity hungry south with a token benefit to the local communities but with huge wads of cash for the landowners who don't give a flying duck about what goes on in the county as long as their bank balance is healthy?


The area of the pylon bases, access roads etc don't even compare with the area of a forest.  Yet windfarms like Causeymire mitigate 85,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year.  Bogland grows by 1mm per year which means that the area taken up by 21 causeymire pylons will prevent 0.5 tonnes of peat growing per year for the benefit of the 85,000 tonnes of CO2 being mitigated.  That is a good trade off eh?

Mind you, I don't advocate placing windfarms actually on bog, there are other areas such as heathland and arable farm that can be better.

----------


## MadPict

So you have no evidence that long term damage will be done?

Sounds like a good system. Let's just build them, use them and if the peat bogs get damaged it was worth the pathetic amount it will take off the UK's carbon emissions......

----------


## Rheghead

> So you have no evidence that long term damage will be done?


Where is the long term damage going to come from?  I've already pointed out the long term damage posed by excessive reliance on fossil fuels.

By the way, did you know that the biggest single contribution that you can seriously do to preserve the countryside (and regain lost ecosystem types) and to reduce carbon emissions is simply achieved by changing to a meatfree diet?

Are you willing to make the change? :: 

Afterall energy useage is a symptom of 1st world greed.

----------


## MadPict

I followed a meat free diet for about five years. The smell of BBQing burgers got to much in the end......

And I may eat meat once or twice a week now. 

Trouble is, following a meat free diet is all well and good - but unless you also follow a "UK sourced food" only diet you are still adding to global warming.

I try to pick only UK veg and fruit when I shop. Luckily my local shop stocks "East Anglian Grown" veg so I know it has only travelled a few miles instead of the 1000's that many others have.

Where does your fruit and veg come from Rheghead?

I'm sorry that I do not subscribe to your green energy at any costs mantra - I see a place for wind energy but not in the last few remaining areas of wilderness in this country. just because no-one lives there or it is flat barren landscape does not mean it is OK to stick 100's of wind turbines on it.
Once you decide that the countryside is just a place to stick things you don't want in your back yard then the countryside is lost.

----------


## KittyMay

> I'm sorry that I do not subscribe to your green energy at any costs mantra - I see a place for wind energy but not in the last few remaining areas of wilderness in this country. just because no-one lives there or it is flat barren landscape does not mean it is OK to stick 100's of wind turbines on it.
> Once you decide that the countryside is just a place to stick things you don't want in your back yard then the countryside is lost.


Hear, hear, Madpict.

----------


## rupert

> By the way, did you know that the biggest single contribution that you can seriously do to preserve the countryside (and regain lost ecosystem types) and to reduce carbon emissions is simply achieved by changing to a meatfree diet?


You may have a point here but that would put all the livestock farmers out of business. So we now have no tourist industry because the Highlands is one big windfarm and no livestock farmers either. Oh dear!

But to get back to the original point of this thread - Spittal Hill, the dumbest place ever for a windfarm - if you too think it is the dumbest place for a windfarm go to www.spittalwindfarmopposition.co.uk where there now is an online objection facility. All objections have to be in before the deadline of 1 June 2007

----------


## Tilter

Ahem,
Back to the point of the original thread, ladies and gents and avatars, I see I can now happily object to said Dumbest Place Ever for Windfarm on Spittal Hill by objecting on-line at http://www.spittalwindfarmopposition.co.uk/ and we must do so before 1st June.  You going to object Rheggers?  You should, because tomorrow I'm going to list all the stuff you've said I agree with 100 %.  Signing off with cliffhanger as time for bed.

----------


## ywindythesecond

> The area of the pylon bases, access roads etc don't even compare with the area of a forest. Yet windfarms like Causeymire mitigate 85,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year. Bogland grows by 1mm per year which means that the area taken up by 21 causeymire pylons will prevent 0.5 tonnes of peat growing per year for the benefit of the 85,000 tonnes of CO2 being mitigated. That is a good trade off eh?
> 
> Mind you, I don't advocate placing windfarms actually on bog, there are other areas such as heathland and arable farm that can be better.


Hi Reggy
Can you please explain using sums how windfarms like Causeymire mitigate 85,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year. 
ywindythesecond

----------


## Rheghead

> Hi Reggy
> Can you please explain using sums how windfarms like Causeymire mitigate 85,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year. 
> ywindythesecond


I took the figure from the CREF website.

----------


## ywindythesecond

> I took the figure from the CREF website.


Must be right then.

----------


## spurtle

The point about these things is that they are in the wrong place. We have all heard the pros and cons of   wind farms, but the locations are decided by who comes forward with an offer of land, in exchange for a whack of money. 

There then begins a propaganda offensive on the part of the wind farm company, while the landowner sits there and hopes everyone will be fooled by the misinformation that is disseminated, so tha he can then cash in. 

Fake montages, inadequate surveys - they always specify the cheapest and most cursory surveys available  (carried out by qualified people, who are generally pulled out at assessment stage, when a "competent person" who can cut and paste, will be employed for a day, to put the company's slant on the findings. 

The party that has the most to gain produces the "information" to support his plan.

If we meekly accept the sort of rubbish that comes out, then, as Gordon Campbell would say, they have made asses of us. 

Since when were the power companies leading the charge to save the environment?? 
Filling their pockets at our expense is more the idea they had in mind.

They will leave when the inducements come to an end, which will be sooner than you think, and what then??

A disfigured landscape, no tourism, and  so more unemployment.  Oh, there's always Tesco, I suppose.

----------


## MadPict

Seems like my tongue in cheek graphic about the future look for Caithness might be not so far from the truth....

----------


## Rheghead

> I followed a meat free diet for about five years. The smell of BBQing burgers got to much in the end......
> 
> And I may eat meat once or twice a week now. 
> 
> Trouble is, following a meat free diet is all well and good - but unless you also follow a "UK sourced food" only diet you are still adding to global warming.
> 
> I try to pick only UK veg and fruit when I shop. Luckily my local shop stocks "East Anglian Grown" veg so I know it has only travelled a few miles instead of the 1000's that many others have.
> 
> Where does your fruit and veg come from Rheghead?
> ...


So you would be in favor of windfarms if they were financially neutral? ::

----------


## spurtle

> Seems like my tongue in cheek graphic about the future look for Caithness might be not so far from the truth....
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.highland.gov.uk/NR/rdonly...nd_aug2006.pdf


Yup! looks like a nasty rash to me.  We'd better do something about us - wouldn't want to get too near anyway

----------


## olivia

> The point about these things is that they are in the wrong place. We have all heard the pros and cons of wind farms, but the locations are decided by who comes forward with an offer of land, in exchange for a whack of money. 
> 
> There then begins a propaganda offensive on the part of the wind farm company, while the landowner sits there and hopes everyone will be fooled by the misinformation that is disseminated, so tha he can then cash in. 
> 
> Fake montages, inadequate surveys - they always specify the cheapest and most cursory surveys available (carried out by qualified people, who are generally pulled out at assessment stage, when a "competent person" who can cut and paste, will be employed for a day, to put the company's slant on the findings. 
> 
> The party that has the most to gain produces the "information" to support his plan.
> 
> If we meekly accept the sort of rubbish that comes out, then, as Gordon Campbell would say, they have made asses of us. 
> ...


Well said Spurtle! 
Come on all you .orgers go to www.spittalwindfarmopposition.co.uk for an online objection form (or downloadable one) that you can use to stop the rot. Object to this 30 turbine windfarm proposed for Spittal Hill in the middle of your county - local opposition is our strongest weapon.

----------


## MadPict

> So you would be in favor of windfarms if they were financially neutral?


I am in favour of wind farms in the right place - offshore being one of my preferred choices.

No-one owns the seabed so I guess that would make them financially neutral? ::

----------


## KittyMay

> ....the area taken up by 21 causeymire pylons will prevent 0.5 tonnes of peat growing per year for the benefit of the 85,000 tonnes of CO2 being mitigated. That is a good trade off eh?


As far as I'm aware no-one has a clue what level of CO2 is mitigated by wind energy. Any figures quoted by the wind industry, dti and government are guesstimates at best. There is no mechanism in place to measure displacement of fossil fuels by wind. Makes one wonder why. What an opportunity for the wind industry to silence the anti brigade once and for all.

You are eager to gamble away our landscape, environment and heritage on a wish and a prayer. There are many people who recognise the great value of what we have now and are not convinced by the wind argument. These people simply want to preserve our unique landscapes and protect this county/region from exploitation. As do many others across the length and breadth of this country - and quite rightly so.

Some things are too precious to gamble with - some times it's safer to hedge your bets.

----------


## hilary

what is your views on the s.n.p.policy on wind farms? will the country side be covered with these turbines ? even more so than with the last government it is a worrisome time,only hope folks dont get too depressed.

----------


## Countryman

The Ormlie Community Association(OCA) wants to put wind turbines at Shebster, against the wishes of the local residents.OCA members are running a petiton in  support of this wind farm, members working for social services are asking their clients to sign the petition when they visit them. How can they be allowed to do this ?

----------


## Tilter

> The Ormlie Community Association(OCA) wants to put wind turbines at Shebster, against the wishes of the local residents.OCA members are running a petiton in  support of this wind farm, members working for social services are asking their clients to sign the petition when they visit them. How can they be allowed to do this ?


Countryman,

You have a real problem there.  Suggest you start a new thread about OCA/Shebster to get it the attention it needs.  I once went to an OCA meeting re its windfarm proposal but couldn't really figure it all out.  Perhaps you can explain?  I don't understand why you can live in Ormlie and make money off of a windfarm by sticking it in Shebster where no one wants it.

Who is the boss of "members working for social services?"  I do know petitions aren't counted if they are against a windfarm.  I expect they are probably given credence if they are in support.  Anyway, said "members working for social services" need to be stopped.  I think there's an Ombudsman to whom you can register a formal complaint?  I do know that a neighbour of mine who is a carer was threatened with disciplinary action after being seen distributing "anti-windfarm leaflets" in Halkirk.  So what's sauce for the goose is definitely not sauce for the gander.

----------


## Tilter

> No-one owns the seabed so I guess that would make them financially neutral?


I think maybe Moray eels and very odd-looking-to-us-creatures believe they own the seabed?

----------


## Tilter

> As Scotland goes for a mad dash for renewables under an SNP government, the Highlands will be exploited with turbines to make up for its anti nuke manifesto.


You are so right, Rheghead.  With you all the way.

----------


## Tilter

> By the way, did you know that the biggest single contribution that you can seriously do to preserve the countryside (and regain lost ecosystem types) and to reduce carbon emissions is simply achieved by changing to a meatfree diet?


Rhegmeister,
You are 100% spot on again here.

----------


## MadPict

> I think maybe Moray eels and very odd-looking-to-us-creatures believe they own the seabed?


I suspect they use wave energy rather than wind....


I dare say someone will raise the point about damaging marine life/sea floor by building offshore wind farms.
Well from what I have seen, the sea has a strong ability to actually populate objects left in the water. Artificial reefs have been created by dumping old cleaned vehicles with life moving in within days of being left in place. Ships have been sunk to provide habitat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_reef

----------


## Tilter

> I suspect they use wave energy rather than wind....
> 
> 
> I dare say someone will raise the point about damaging marine life/sea floor by building offshore wind farms.
> Well from what I have seen, the sea has a strong ability to actually populate objects left in the water. Artificial reefs have been created by dumping old cleaned vehicles with life moving in within days of being left in place. Ships have been sunk to provide habitat.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_reef


You're right of course, but I do think you got my point.

But shouldn't we worry about dolphins/whales/whatever's heads being done in by submarines and the like?  Isn't the US Navy killing these creatures that are probably a bit smarter than us?

----------


## rupert

Putting wind turbines out at sea can almost (but not quite) be as dumb as sticking them on Spittal Hill.  I saw a film recently about the numerous wind turbines that have been and will be built just off of the west coast of Norway.  They are causing devastating consequences to birds on migrations routes.  Also, lots of locals have had their beautiful seascapes ruined.  Lets face it these huge whirling monstrosities don't really fit in anywhere.

----------


## Tilter

Madpict,

Sorry - I forgot to say in last post - I meant danger to sea mammals via pile-driving or whatever you have to do to put in the concrete founds for off-shore turbines - excuse the pun but I'm out of my depth here (waiting to here from Rheghead . . .).

----------


## rupert

> OCA members are running a petiton in support of this wind farm, members working for social services are asking their clients to sign the petition when they visit them. How can they be allowed to do this ?


This sounds highly dodgy to me Countryman - I bet their bosses don't know its happening - maybe you should let them know!  The whole issue over OCA and Shebster is an absolute disgrace, if they want wind turbines they should have them in their own back yard not someone else's.

----------


## MadPict

> Putting wind turbines out at sea can almost (but not quite) be as dumb as sticking them on Spittal Hill.  I saw a film recently about the numerous wind turbines that have been and will be built just off of the west coast of Norway.  They are causing devastating consequences to birds on migrations routes.  Also, lots of locals have had their beautiful seascapes ruined.  Lets face it these huge whirling monstrosities don't really fit in anywhere.


The wind turbines off the coast of East Anglia are about 20 miles out to sea. They are barely visible from the shore. I know where I would prefer them to be.

Birds are going to be affected wherever they are placed without a doubt.


Re pile driving - I expect it will drive some species out of the area while it is gong on - but will it cause any more distress than the continual drilling for oil and gas in the North Sea?

----------


## Rheghead

> Madpict,
> 
> Sorry - I forgot to say in last post - I meant danger to sea mammals via pile-driving or whatever you have to do to put in the concrete founds for off-shore turbines - excuse the pun but I'm out of my depth here (waiting to here from Rheghead . . .).


Well no one has actually quantitated the risk to sea mammals from tidal energy.

----------


## MadPict

I don't think tidal generators are what Tilter means - it's the wind turbines out at sea.

----------


## Rheghead

Wind turbines at sea could put certain species of seabirds at risk, out of sight, out of mind must be much better for the environment ::  .  Nothing is without an ecological rub except turning off your wasteful appliances.  

Solar takes 10-15 years to achieve an economic/energy payback then it will probably need to be replaced due to degradation of the panels.

----------


## rupert

> Wind turbines at sea could put certain species of seabirds at risk, out of sight, out of mind must be much better for the environment . Nothing is without an ecological rub except turning off your wasteful appliances.


What I have never been able to understand is the apparent contradiction in law where it is illegal to harm a protected bird in any way and yet when a windfarm is built if a golden eagle gets minced thats OK.
Harming rare and protected species of birds can never be an acceptable ecological rub.
Spittal Hill windfarm will have a serious effect on a number of rare and protected species, therefore it should never be built. Object now - go to www.spittalwindfarmopposition.co.uk to help save our birds.

----------


## Tilter

> What I have never been able to understand is the apparent contradiction in law where it is illegal to harm a protected bird in any way and yet when a windfarm is built if a golden eagle gets minced thats OK.


Well, it should be a trade-off Rupert.  Mince a few birds but get lots of lovely clean renewable energy.  Which takes us back to the old saw of turbines not producing enough energy to negate emissions during construction, destruction of habitat, loss of amenity and all that.

No pain no gain.  I doubt there will be any way of estimating what sort of ecological damage the installation of tidal schemes will produce till they're up and running.  At least they sound like they'd give us a much better return than wind.  If we can ever get one up and running but the govt. is not putting enough money into tidal to get the R&D done I believe - it's all going in subsidies to wind.

It's very very worrying Salmond not wanting nuclear for Scotland.

----------


## Rheghead

> What I have never been able to understand is the apparent contradiction in law where it is illegal to harm a protected bird in any way and yet when a windfarm is built if a golden eagle gets minced thats OK.
> Harming rare and protected species of birds can never be an acceptable ecological rub.


Millions of birds per year get minced by road traffic including rare species.  By your reasoning, cars should be illegal.

----------


## Rheghead

> If we can ever get one up and running but the govt. is not putting enough money into tidal to get the R&D done I believe - it's all going in subsidies to wind.


Incorrect.

No R&D money is required on the level at which you suggest.  The technology to produce renewable energy via wave/tidal is already well established.  

The issue that is holding back this energy sector is the lack of market confidence due to the operational infancy of the industry in bringing that energy to the Grid from a marine environment.  

Ironically, the only way forward would seem to be increased sudsidies in the form of under-writing the industry which seem counter to your original arguement...

----------


## Tristan

> Millions of birds per year get minced by road traffic including rare species.  By your reasoning, cars should be illegal.


Road traffic and other man-made interventions can always cause problems.  I think the point was that wind-farms can have a devastating effect on migration routes. 
If you factor in the importance of the Peatlands for seabirds the effect could catastrophic if care is not taken with their placement.

----------


## rupert

> Millions of birds per year get minced by road traffic including rare species. By your reasoning, cars should be illegal.


There is a slight difference between cars a few feet off the ground and moving turbine blades up to 110 metres high placed in the flight paths of migrating birds (which also fly at night).

----------


## olivia

> Millions of birds per year get minced by road traffic including rare species. By your reasoning, cars should be illegal.


Many more birds get killed every year by people's pet cats. Nobody's saying that birds are not killed by cars and cats and that they should be illegal, what needs to be said is that a windfarm the size of the proposal for Spittal Hill is an additional non-justifiable risk to birds. Its too high a price to pay for a wee squirt of electricity every now and again. I wonder how much electricity Causeymire and all the others up and down the country were producing during this recent good spell of weather?
Please go to www.spittalwindfarmopposition.co.uk to object to Spittal Hill windfarm before the deadline of 1 June 2007.

----------


## ruthasuth

Have heard rumour that if enough object to the spittal windfarm on www.spittalwindfarmopposition.co.uk then a certain group of locals are going to stage a naked protest on top of the hill with their banners!!!!  ::  

So come on guys help them to make the front page of the groat and the org and get objecting in support of their cause  ::

----------


## sweep

it might be a bit chilly in caithness for that sort of thing but all that naked flesh sounds a lot nicer than a load of ugly wind turbines. count me in please

----------


## Rheghead

> Many more birds get killed every year by people's pet cats. Nobody's saying that birds are not killed by cars and cats and that they should be illegal, what needs to be said is that a windfarm the size of the proposal for Spittal Hill is an additional non-justifiable risk to birds. Its too high a price to pay for a wee squirt of electricity every now and again.


I have read that up to 30% of animal species are threatened with extinction due to Global Warming.  That is a lot of birds.

But it is true that if the UK only achieve their 20% target for renewable energy then that will only offset Global Carbon dioxide emissions by a paltry ~0.2%.

Chicken feed perhaps?  Carbon dioxide isn't even the main cause of GW, it is 40% responsible.

Still, 0.08% of 30% of the World's birds is a lot of birds which makes the  5 birds per turbine per year mortality rate rather insignificant.

By adopting a more balanced view of onshore wind farms we will take the first steps onto the path of _hope_ rather than the  trail of _fear_.

----------


## sweetheart

If nuclear powered submarines are such useful things in carbon-terms why
is the public goodwill being squandered on fear, nuclear power at vulcan too.

Fear of security, fear that the huge waste dump of toxic bile at dounreay will
get out again, no mention of the cancer clusters and hidden airial releases
of plutonium gas in past screwups... i agree rheghead that wind power is
a vital part, but the turbines are the path of fear, that 's where you've got
it wrong.

IF you want the path of hope, then spend that same development money 
in insulation and passive solar features on to housing.  More local jobs will be created and the energy not-burned will exceeed what the turbines would
have generated by a mile.

And the difference with the sound is that its constant, a car comes and goes,
traffic stops at night.  Wind turbines run 24x7 and never take a holiday,
they are a blight on the landscape and should not be sited anywhere near
a coastline, a populated area by miles, and any natural preserve.  

You're just apologizing for big corporate exploitation that is unnecessary.

----------


## Rheghead

sweetheart, submarines good in terms of carbon terms? who claimed or even mentioned that?  please deal with the issue and not non-sequittars.  I don't know what hazy point you are trying to make.

----------


## sweetheart

The support of the war(s), is the carbon emitter to start with.  The military
complex and its justifiers in right wing thinking are the emitters, and a 
flock of turbines is just a whitewash, a public hairshirt to flagellate.

Then people will feel pompous and arrogant about how wise they are, when
they take a holiday on easyjet to ski on artificial snow, that they paid it back
by suffering those bloody turbines, after all that flicker, who wouldn't need a
holiday.

----------


## MadPict

> ...a public hairshirt to flagellate.


Eh......................

----------


## hilary

> Have heard rumour that if enough object to the spittal windfarm on www.spittalwindfarmopposition.co.uk then a certain group of locals are going to stage a naked protest on top of the hill with their banners!!!!  
> 
> So come on guys help them to make the front page of the groat and the org and get objecting in support of their cause


come on guys get stripping as well! this is getting exciting! when is the weather improving? Also how much tax is levied on the folks leasing out their ground to the wind farm developers is it 40%?

----------


## Tilter

> Also how much tax is levied on the folks leasing out their ground to the wind farm developers is it 40%?


I don't know how much they are taxed.  Does anyone know?  Do you have to pay tax on windfalls?   (Aaaarggghhhh)

----------


## rupert

> Also how much tax is levied on the folks leasing out their ground to the wind farm developers is it 40%?


Don't know much about tax issues - but is it because its unearned income? Maybe its not so lucrative after all.

----------


## rupert

[quote=hilary;221453]come on guys get stripping as well! this is getting exciting! when is the weather improving? [quote]
I've just seen a weather forcast for snow soon - its going to be pretty cold up Spittal Hill!

----------


## Rheghead

> The support of the war(s), is the carbon emitter to start with.


From my point of view the complete opposite is true.  You have jumped on a gas guzzling plane from the far side of the US to be in self-imposed political asylum and you spend hours on your coal burning computer.  That is not very green to me, and the hair shirt for flagellation sounds too much like hot air as well. :Wink:  

I for one know that it isn't windfarms we are talking here but a difference in our political ideologies.  I am sorry but the 'war' on Global Warming should be apolitical but I am not so naive to think it isn't.  The wider international issue is how differing political spectrums can come together in reducing carbon emissions.  Science is apolitical, what I do find rather disturbing is making those steps to reduce carbon emissions which have been put in place from a current political framework as a vehicle for political attack.

----------


## Bill Fernie

> come on guys get stripping as well! this is getting exciting! when is the weather improving? Also how much tax is levied on the folks leasing out their ground to the wind farm developers is it 40%?



The tax rates are the same for everyone.  It all depend on whether your total income reaches the level to pay at 40%.  

For 2006-07 the rates were 
£2150 @10%
£2151 - £33,300 at basic rate 22% 
then Higher Rate of 40% on over £34,000.

For 2007-08 the rates are 
£2230 at 10% 
£2231 - £34,600 at 40%

First you have to deduct the personal allowance which for the current taxt year is £5225 and any married couples allowance currently £2440 (given at the 10% rate).

There may be other factors such as is the income coming in to the individual personally or through a partnership, company, trust or other set up.  There are many variations but simple one might be that a husband and wife share the income and if one partner does not have any other income that will reduce the liability to the higher rate tax as the above allowances will kick in for the half that goes to the other partner/spouse.  This is no different to any other income situation.  

So someone gaining £60,000 a year income from wind turbines might pay some level of higher rate but if the income is only £30,000 due to a sharing arrangement then the charge would all be at the lower and basic rate with no higher rate of 40% being involved.  It should be remembered that the split would depend on ownership of the land or capital but it is quite straightforward for anyone to gift away an asset.  This may be done to maximise the use of allowances and get the lowest possible tax rates and is quite normal practice.

That is very simple expalanation and there are many other factors that might be included.  For example the wind turbines might be owned by a limited company with husband and wife directors or indeed other people or members of a family.  The company would of course be liable to corporation tax so you would need to consider another set or rules to cover that. 

You might then make pension contributions that attract tax relief.

If a company was involved then payments to directors would be under PAYE and any dividends from the comapany would be taxed intially at the basic rate and subject to higher rates 40% via the self-assesment process.

Again that is cutting a very complex issue very short.

So would the landowners with wind farms pay at 40%?  The answer is maybe depending on the amounts involved and the many variable circumstances and tax planning carried out by the persons accountant or financial adviser unless they are very good at it themselves.  Every case will be different.

----------


## MadPict

So, while on one hand, they are doling out money hand over fist to develop windfactories, they are reducing the amounts to individuals to help with micro systems. I would have though it far more important to encourage people to generate their own power (at point of use) rather than the current system of building vast wind factories 100's of miles away from the 'customers'. Make people as self sufficient as possible.





> Changes to the Low Carbon Buildings Programme mean that future applicants will be limited to £2,500 for domestic micro-generation projects.
> 
> Previously, grants of up to £15,000 and £5,000 were available for solar energy and micro-turbine schemes respectively.
> 
> Ministers said the changes would enable more people to participate.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6640233.stm


"Ministers said the changes would enable more people to participate."

Really? The length of time it takes to recoup your money on the average installation of solar panels previously was about 15 years. If they now reduce the grants thereby making the time taken to 'repay' the outlay even longer I can see people just saying "Why bother?"




> For £9000 (nine panels) you can equip the average British home with the latest in green energy which should reduce their electricity bill by around a half.
> 
> Only problem is it will take you 30 odd years to actually get your money back.
> If you take advantage of subsidies offered by the govt. your actual cost is reduced to around £4500 - but it will still take 15 years to recoup your money....
> 
> Original Post

----------


## Rheghead

> First you have to deduct the personal allowance which for the current taxt year is £5225 and any married couples allowance currently £2440 (given at the 10% rate).


I thought married couples allowance was scrapped yonks ago?? ::

----------


## rupert

I have heard (or read somewhere) that the landowner who leases out land to the developer to put his wind turbines on is responsible at the end of the 25 year period for reinstating the site - they would cost a pretty bob too. Do they know what they are getting into? It all sounds so wonderful at first but it seems to me that the only person who makes massive amounts of money is the developer and he is just exploiting everyone, including the landowner, to get rich quick and whizz off to the Bahamas to live.

----------


## spurtle

> I have heard (or read somewhere) that the landowner who leases out land to the developer to put his wind turbines on is responsible at the end of the 25 year period for reinstating the site - they would cost a pretty bob too. Do they know what they are getting into? It all sounds so wonderful at first but it seems to me that the only person who makes massive amounts of money is the developer and he is just exploiting everyone, including the landowner, to get rich quick and whizz off to the Bahamas to live.


A pattern that is emerging is, that the landowner sells his interest or indeed the land plus the interest, to a third party, and moves on - I imagine the obligation carries on with the new owner, but this would be worth checking.

If something is too good to be true, then it probably is.
The whole thing is so short-sighted. What are these people's next generation going to do with the ground?  Presumably they are the ones to have to shell out for reinstatement.

I suppose if it has been sold to big business, then it is irrelevant. Caithness will end up belonging to big corporate faceless landowners.  You may not like the bunch you have now, but it could be worse .....

----------


## Tilter

well - if it was me, here's what I'd do:  I'd become a corporation (possibly - not sure on that - with several dodgy others), get as much money as I could from my windfarm, spend it and have a nice life somewhere else of course, or salt it away in an untouchable place, or gift it to my kids.  Then, when my elderly windfarm is in a highly dilapidated state and I'm no longer getting any subsidies, I'd declare bankruptcy.  But then who would pay to return my site to greenfield?  Would the Council pay for it?

----------


## olivia

An engineering friend of mine told me that the huge concrete turbine bases stay in the ground forever and then nothing ever grows on them. Its apparently to costly to take them out, so its not really reinstatement is it? Just another con job.

----------


## olivia

> Caithness will end up belonging to big corporate faceless landowners. You may not like the bunch you have now, but it could be worse .....


Sounds like the Highlands have been here before - remember the clearances!

----------


## Rheghead

> An engineering friend of mine told me that the huge concrete turbine bases stay in the ground forever and then nothing ever grows on them. Its apparently to costly to take them out, so its not really reinstatement is it? Just another con job.


The concrete is chemically inert so there will be no problem with relandscaping afterwards if the land is prepared properly.  Mind you, there are hundreds of miles of old roads in the Highlands that have been left to be grown over after Euro money has been pumped into provide an 'improvement'.  Nobody seems to go on about that though and the problem is several magnitudes bigger.

----------


## Mr_Me19

> Sorry, Tilter. I really like wind farms - I have been known to drive for miles just to see one. I'll drive miles the opposite way to get away from a nuclear site or a fossil fuel power plant.


Well I haven't quite driven for miles to see windfarms but I do agree that they are a rather beautiful sight. I love going past the Causeway Mire windfarm. Such a sight. And there is nothing better than seeing them at sunset. I think a great idea would be to have spotlights underneath lighting them up at night. That way we can show how proud we (or at least some of us) are that we are using renewable energy sources. Of course there are always some people who instead of seeing these horrific contraptions lit up at night would rather the nice health green glow of Sandside beach....

----------


## rupert

> I think a great idea would be to have spotlights underneath lighting them up at night.


Don't worry, thats quite unnecessary, they will have lovely red lights on top to stop all the planes flying into them!

----------


## Mr_Me19

Ok not quite what I meant. Although it could be a disaster if planes flew into them. What I meant was spotlights to light them up to be.... visually pleasing.

----------


## KittyMay

> Of course there are always some people who instead of seeing these horrific contraptions lit up at night would rather the nice health green glow of Sandside beach....


We're really,really lucky in Caithness - we don't have to choose between illuminated turbines and green glows off beaches, do we? We get both - whether we like them or not.

----------


## rupert

If we had spotlights underneath them, red lights on top and green glowing beaches we would have our own version of the Northern lights: maybe then all the tourists would come back to visit who were put off by all the windfarms - thats what I would call real diversification.

----------


## Tilter

> Of course there are always some people who instead of seeing these horrific contraptions lit up at night would rather the nice health green glow of Sandside beach....


Mr Me, I think the more you learned about windpower and the more you learned about nuclear, the more you might lean toward the latter.

Anyway, here's something controversial, assuming a hypothetical situation where I was given a choice, and given the fact that I live not too distant from Spittal Hill:

I would object if a large-scale windfarm was built on Spittal Hill.
I would NOT object if a modern nuclear power plant was built on Spittal Hill.

Why?

Because:

(1)  A nuclear plant would provide a decent, reliable and stable amount of clean energy.
(2)  It would therefore do some good in the world by combatting climate change so I'd be happy to put up with it.
(2)  It would take up a fraction of the space of a windfarm and wouldn't be seen for miles.
(3)  It would provide employment for local people.
(4)  If I decided after all I didn't want to live next door, I could still sell my home and move, given that people always want to buy homes close to their work.
(5)  I am not afraid of nuclear energy or nuclear waste - in fact I'm less afraid of it than I am of GHG etc.

----------


## olivia

> I would object if a large-scale windfarm was built on Spittal Hill.


I hope you *are* going to object before the deadline of 1st June! Everyone can object by going to www.spittalwindfarmopposition.co.uk and using the online objection facility.

----------


## Mr_Me19

> Mr Me, I think the more you learned about windpower and the more you learned about nuclear, the more you might lean toward the latter.


I know much more about nuclear power but I still prefer windpower. My dad is high up in the wind turbine 'industry' so I can get a lot of information from him and I have around 10 family members in Dounreay, as well as doing plenty of research online for debates and talks etc. I made sure I was in Dounreay for my work experince too so I could get some opinions on the matter too. To make it clear I am not against nuclear power, I would just prefer wind power. 




> (1) A nuclear plant would provide a decent, reliable and stable amount of clean energy.


Definately. But you also have to remember windpower is much cheaper and safer. Not to mention clean too.




> (2) It would take up a fraction of the space of a windfarm and wouldn't be seen for miles.


You forget how much of an area Dounreay actually does take up. Not to mention the large no fishing area surrounding it. It wouldn't be seen from as far away but it would attract more attention. How many times have we seen our local windfarm on the news compared to Dounreay?




> (3) It would provide employment for local people.


I am quite happy to give you this one. The windfarms provide manual labour when being constructed but then only take few people to maintain them.




> (4) If I decided after all I didn't want to live next door, I could still sell my home and move....


You could do that if a windfarm was built next door too? 




> (5) I am not afraid of nuclear energy or nuclear waste - in fact I'm less afraid of it than I am of GHG etc.


Unfortunately there are many people who are though and they are quite right. It is very dangerous. No more so that GHG's are to the planet but dangerous none the less. Nuclear waste has more direct effects on people than GHG's do though.


I do not wish to change your views on the matter. I just wish to express mine. I don't mean to cause any offence and any comments on my post are welcome.

----------


## KittyMay

Mr Me19 - A good response - very fair and balanced. A few things I'm not convinced about though- 

Wind cheaper than nuclear?? I don't think there's agreement on that - the last report I read (sorry can't find it at the moment) suggested that if you take into account ROC's, the cost of conventional generation needed as back up and the grid upgrades needed for wind then nuclear is considerably cheaper.

Cleaner? I think they're much the same, MW for MW.

Dounreay does take up quite a large area but to generate an equivalent level of electricity from wind as that of a nuclear power station - you'd need many, many large windfarms (an installed capacity 3 times that of the generating capacity) located across the length and breadth of the country in order to capture the wind resource as often as possible. Keep in mind the site for the Spittal Hill Windfarm will occupy an area of 980 hectares. No contest.

I just can't see how you can argue that nuclear is more dangerous to humans than climate change. Driving a car and flying are much more dangerous than nuclear. Surely climate change is by far the biggest threat to this planet. No contest there either, IMO. Unless you mean badly managed nuclear power stations as in Chernobyl?

I'm not arguing for nuclear and I respect your views but wind is not all it's cracked up to be.

----------


## rupert

> My dad is high up in the wind turbine 'industry' so I can get a lot of information from him


Oh dear - the trouble is with windfarms in populated areas, such as the one proposed for Spittal Hill, is that they are foisted upon people who do not want them. It just so happens that some people have a plot of land and can see what a cash cow the wind industry is and to hell with their neighbours! It is the most selfish, devisive, community wrecking project that can happen to an area - and thats talking from experience.

----------


## NickInTheNorth

Putting my cards on the table.

1) I love the look of windfarms. I think they can positively enhance some landscapes

2) I believe that renewable energy resources should be developed, but not just windpower, tidal energy should be tapped, as should sunlight. And what about geothermal energy, used to produce hydrogen from water as the Icelandic people are now doing

3) I believe that as a country we would be better off investing in more nuclear, and using less oil, gas, or coal

The thing that I do not like is that it is necessary to pay corporations large sums of money to develop windfarms. Why does the government always use the carrot and never the stick?

Make the fossil fuel generators pay to make their plants clean, make them make the plants more efficient. Punish them for breaches of pollution limits. Impose a "carbon tax". When fossil fuel generation pays it's full bill it won't be necessary to subsidise renewables, they will be a genuinely cheaper option. 

Yes, it will cost us more for electricity. But that may just persuade the dinosaurs that we should cut back on the amount of electricity each one of uses. I lived quite happily with a 2kw supply for many years, with all the modern conveniences.

As to Spittal Hill, probably not a good idea. What would be far better would be to use the government subsidies to create many small "community renewables" schemes. Invest in communities futures, not in big businesses profits.

----------


## MadPict

> Dounreay does take up quite a large area...


Don't forget that Dounreay was built on a brownfield site - the old RAF station. 

Now if the siting of windfarms was done in a similar way, using many of the old airfields now lying redundant across the UK I would have less of a problem with the impact they have...

----------


## Mr_Me19

I do agree with that. Its just a shame that most airfields etc. don't have the right geography.

----------


## Tilter

Mr Me,
You certainly didn't cause me any offence with your post.  It was a good response, and we'll agree to differ, though I think there's a lot we could agree on too.  I apologise if I inferred you were uninformed.  

Re the amount of space taken up, I think you're thinking too much along the lines of the Dounreay Dinosaur and not a modern nuclear plant.  It's main purpose in life was experimental and it was never created to produce energy, although it did because it could.  I shouldn't think any thought was given to the amount of space taken up at the time it was created - they had carte blanche.  So we're agreed - space taken up: windpower nil points.

Windpower cheaper?  I'm going with Kitty Mae and Nick OTN on that one.

Windpower safer?  I think Chernobyl is bound to come up here.  However, nuclear v. wind, judged MW for MW - windpower can come up with some rather nasty safety stats in exchange for what it produces.  See http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/

Could I still sell my home and move if I didn't like my neighbouring windfarm?  Well according to your dad's BWEA pages, yes - no problem, though they do admit that house selling difficulties may exist during the planning stages before a windfarm becomes operational.  Yes - and planning stages can last for years.  What if I want to move now?  What if I have to move now for my job?  What if I'm 75 and don't have years to wait?  At the other end of the scale, some house surveyors estimate a house can devalue by 25 to 30% because of proximity to an operational windfarm, let alone the uncertainty surrounding a potential windfarm.  In Caithness terms that probably averages out at ~£40K.  A fair amount to give up to enable someone else to make money.  Of course no one likes to mention that in case it makes them look - horror of horrors - nimby.  Why not?  I'd choke if someone asked me to hand over 40 grand for nothing (even assuming I had it to hand over).

OK - let's go with BWEA and assume I could move whenever I wanted and realise the full market value of my home.  Discussing windpower v. anything else wasn't really the point of my thread.  I don't think some turbines in some places look so bad, if we absolutely must have them because Holyrood says so.  I do think Spittal Hill is a terrible place to put 30 of them.

May I ask you if you live in the town or the country Mr Me?  It usually makes a big difference to your opinion of wind farms.  If you look at the environmental statements produced by developers, they usually show photomontages (which are all skewed by the way) from distances of ~4 km to ~20 km.  Some houses around Spittal Hill will only be 1000 metres away but you don't see developers bandying about photomontages of 1 km distance.  Go to Causewaymire and take 1000 long strides from a turbine and see if you'd like to build a house there and live in it for the rest of your life.  There are just too many houses and settlements situated around the perimeter of this site which will be overwhelmed by the sheer size of the turbines.  Nick OTN finds them beautiful.  Possibly, in the distance.  Up close, I find them very intimidating because of their sheer size.  I'd not like to live close to them in winter with a nice fresh Caithness breeze blowing.  Or in summer with our northern sun strobing through the blades - it would be mega-headache time.

Phew - this is the longest post I've ever done.  As with Mr Me - it's my opinion only and no offence intended to anyone.  (Actually it's so long it probably won't get read!)

----------


## MadPict

Don't they? Many WWII airfields were located away from population areas and more often than not on top of high ground. Ideal for aircraft taking off and landing - so why not plonk the wind factories on these brownfield sites?

The whirling of turbine blades could even be seen as a form of 'monument' to the brave aviators who flew from these places, day after day, in the defence of their country and freedom from facism.

----------


## Tilter

> Now if the siting of windfarms was done in a similar way, using many of the old airfields now lying redundant across the UK I would have less of a problem with the impact they have...


What about tethering a turbine to every pylon, since you have to have pylons anyway.  Could the elec. go straight into and out of it?  Have I read that somewhere?  Maybe my other half was wittering on about it.  Wouldn't work anyway - not enough wind in the S. of England, lucky devils.

----------


## MadPict

Well you could 'tie' these to them....

http://www.magenn.com/

----------


## Tilter

> Well you could 'tie' these to them....
> 
> http://www.magenn.com/


Um - thanks for that MP.  Not quite what I had in mind - hey, maybe it would work.  Although all that blurb fails to state how much power is generated.  You got carried away with my bad choice of word "tether."  I thought more a conventional rigid turbine with a connecting rigid brace somewhere.  Your balloons need a horizontal base too.

How about turbines down motorways instead of street lights?  Motorways are ugly anyway.  No - there'd be safety issues.  Well, how about taking out the street lights on motorways and therefore not needing turbines?

----------


## MadPict

It gives the output here - http://www.magenn.com/products.php
At present each unit is 2kW rising to 4kW next year and up as technology improves I expect.
These are not intended for farming the wind on a large scale - more a portable method replacing diesel generators.

----------


## Rheghead

> But you also have to remember windpower is much cheaper and safer. Not to mention clean too.


I disagree, every cost breakdown that I've read shows that windpower is more expensive.  I think this has a lot to with the RO, problems with supply and demand from turbine manufacturers, and legal problems with windfarms in the planning stage.

However, cost is relative and I am not sure if all costs have been factored into the cost of conventional energies.  

For years, the nuclear industry and petroleum industry have been subsidised under nationalisation.  It would be very unclear to work out what the true cost of conventional energy would be to the end user (per kWh) if those subsidies were hypothetically removed, even in today's prices. 

Certainly the renewable energy sector does not receive subsidies through taxation and it is being rolled out as a triumph of privatisation.  However the RO is a subsidy set up by Government in any case.

What I am really saying, is that it is unclear one way or the other if wind is cheaper or not.

----------


## peter macdonald

"Originally Posted by spurtle  View Post
Caithness will end up belonging to big corporate faceless landowners. You may not like the bunch you have now, but it could be worse ...."
 How do you mean ?? there is only a very small percentage of people in Caithness who have enough ground in the right place to be able to sell to wind farm developers These are large hill farmers or estate owners and therefore it is ONLY  people within this group who can SELL  on "to big corporate faceless landowners" The vast majority in Caithness have absolutly no say in what goes on these estates whether they are bought or sold either wholly or piecemeal
PM

----------


## rupert

> there is only a very small percentage of people in Caithness who have enough ground in the right place to be able to sell to wind farm developers These are large hill farmers or estate owners and therefore it is ONLY people within this group who can SELL on "to big corporate faceless landowners" The vast majority in Caithness have absolutly no say in what goes on these estates whether they are bought or sold either wholly or piecemeal
> PM


Even more reason for everyone to stand up and start shouting about the desecration of Caithness' unique landscape by a few landowners without any thought for all the other residents who will have their amenity ruined. I really do not think people realise what is going on behind their backs. Go to www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk for a map of all the windfarm developments in the pipeline - it is very scary.  You *can* make a difference by objecting to all of these planning applications before its to late.

----------


## Mr_Me19

Sorry about the following post. I'm in a bit of a rush and don't really have time to do individual quotes etc. I just want to make a few points. About the abandoned air strips. They do seem like a great place at first but the lay of the land around them has to be taken into account. The wind cant be too weak and it also cant be funneled by hills creating winds too strong for the turbines. Windpowers biggest flaw there. Too much wind and it doesn't work?

As for the cost. It is roughly 1 million pound per turbine. Not a small sum i know. But it is between a quarter and a third of a BILLION for a nuclear plant. Now people will say "yes but the nuclear plant produces more power". It certainley does. But it takes seven years for a nuclear plant to produce the energy that just went into building it!!! 

Sorry about the quick haphazzard post.

----------


## Rheghead

> Go to www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk for a map of all the windfarm developments in the pipeline - it is very scary.


Don't forget that the round spots on the map on that site are totally out of proportion, it is drawn up like that to scaremonger.

----------


## rupert

> Don't forget that the round spots on the map on that site are totally out of proportion, it is drawn up like that to scaremonger.


I think you're picking a nit there Rheghead, it does actually tell you how many turbines are at each location (although must admit Spittal Hill is out of date - its now *only* 30 instead of the original 47) that'll make us all sleep easier!!

----------


## MadPict

> Don't forget that the round spots on the map on that site are totally out of proportion, it is drawn up like that to scaremonger.



OK, augment the dots with actual turbine figures...How about this?....



In Caithness nearly 300 have either been applied for, approved/under construction, refused, built/operational, appealed or "scoping opinion"....

How many more can the landscape support without making the county look like a industrial site?

----------


## Rheghead

So a site with 21 turbines deserves the same size spot as one with 2 turbines?  I calculated the area of the spot to be 6km².  Even the Causeymire windfarm sits on an area between its turbines of <2km². ::

----------


## rupert

> So a site with 21 turbines deserves the same size spot as one with 2 turbines? I calculated the area of the spot to be 6km². Even the Causeymire windfarm sits on an area between its turbines of <2km².


The site area for the proposed windfarm on Spittal Hill is quoted in the environmental statement as 980 hectares. I personally, couldn't care less what size the flipping spot is on the CWIF map - its whats happening on the ground that matters. At least CWIF are letting people know about the rape of this county by windfarm developers.

----------


## MadPict

> So a site with 21 turbines deserves the same size spot as one with 2 turbines?  I calculated the area of the spot to be 6km².  Even the Causeymire windfarm sits on an area between its turbines of <2km².


Your reply is ridiculous - next you'll be claiming you drove out to Forss to see if there is a big green spot on the site!!!!

The size of the spot is irrelevant, though the spot sizes are as offered up on the  Highland Council Map Of Wind Applications which can be found here, so I hardly see that as "scaremongering" by the people supposed to be impartial in this?

By adding the numbers of turbines to the area indicated by the "spot" makes it clearer as to the size of the developments. The option is to read a list on a separate page or table.

So of course Spittal Hill with FORTY SEVEN turbines will have more impact on the landscape than Olgrinmore Moss with TWO.

By the way, is the A9 painted green in real life?.......

----------


## ywindythesecond

> Your reply is ridiculous - next you'll be claiming you drove out to Forss to see if there is a big green spot on the site!!!!
> 
> The size of the spot is irrelevant, though the spot sizes are as offered up on the Highland Council Map Of Wind Applications which can be found here, so I hardly see that as "scaremongering" by the people supposed to be impartial in this?
> 
> By adding the numbers of turbines to the area indicated by the "spot" makes it clearer as to the size of the developments. The option is to read a list on a separate page or table.
> 
> So of course Spittal Hill with FORTY SEVEN turbines will have more impact on the landscape than Olgrinmore Moss with TWO.
> 
> By the way, is the A9 painted green in real life?.......


Madpict
Spittal windfarm is now down to 30. For a while it was 31. This might not be true, but I want to believe it is. Last Autumn, the application was imminent, but nothing happened. I have heard that the wife of one of the landowners involved found out that she would see a windmill from her house and went spare about it. Hence the reason for the long delay, and now down to 30.
Regarding how much space a windfarm takes up, I will tell you, but first please answer this:
HOW MANY FOOTBALL FIELDS DOES AN AVERAGE WIND TURBINE TAKE UP?
ywindythesecond

----------


## MadPict

If they get 30 then they will try for more - so the numbers aren't set in concrete unlike the bases of these things....




> HOW MANY FOOTBALL FIELDS DOES AN AVERAGE WIND TURBINE TAKE UP?


Four?

----------


## ywindythesecond

> If they get 30 then they will try for more - so the numbers aren't set in concrete unlike the bases of these things....
> 
> 
> 
> Four?


Nope.  
Twenty four and a half.  
Ask me why.

ywindythesecond

----------


## Tilter

> HOW MANY FOOTBALL FIELDS DOES AN AVERAGE WIND TURBINE TAKE UP?
> ywindythesecond


I give up windytwo.  Pray do tell.

(It can't be that many - I know a jumbo jet fits into the blades, but a football field is ..............  ummm ............ Leeds United I seem to recall has (had?) biggest  - 100 yds or so?  No, I can't go on.  I'm not an engineer and I don't know what spread of found it would take for a 110 metre structure to make it stand up straight.  Definitely give up.

----------


## Tilter

> Ask me why.
> 
> ywindythesecond


You were all discussing this while my poor brain was rumbling around.

Why?

----------


## ywindythesecond

> I give up windytwo. Pray do tell.
> 
> (It can't be that many - I know a jumbo jet fits into the blades, but a football field is .............. ummm ............ Leeds United I seem to recall has (had?) biggest - 100 yds or so? No, I can't go on. I'm not an engineer and I don't know what spread of found it would take for a 110 metre structure to make it stand up straight. Definitely give up.


Sorry Tilter, need someone with a keen analytical brain to ask the question. No offense, but you effectively ruled yourself out.
ywindythesecond

----------


## rupert

> Madpict
> This might not be true, but I want to believe it is. Last Autumn, the application was imminent, but nothing happened. I have heard that the wife of one of the landowners involved found out that she would see a windmill from her house and went spare about it. Hence the reason for the long delay, and now down to 30.


Oh, I think you can safely say it's true - amazing isn't it, can't cope with one but the rest of us have to put up with thirty! I hope she's got good ear plugs and sunglasses.

Go on then ywindy - why oh why?

----------


## Tilter

> Sorry Tilter, need someone with a keen analytical brain to ask the question. No offense, but you effectively ruled yourself out.
> ywindythesecond


See http://forum.caithness.org/showthrea...021#post223021

----------


## ywindythesecond

> Oh, I think you can safely say it's true - amazing isn't it, can't cope with one but the rest of us have to put up with thirty! I hope she's got good ear plugs and sunglasses.
> 
> Go on then ywindy - why oh why?


Thanks rupert

If you look at wind farm planning applications in Caithness in detail and study the distribution of turbines, a pattern emerges for the larger (100-110m turbines) of around 350 metres between each turbine.  
So each turbine occupies a space equivalent on average to 350m x 350m.
Now football enthusiasts must please bear with me, because there is no defined size for a football field that I can find. 
But, if a football field was 100m x 50m, then the turbine would stand in a space three and a half football fields long by seven football fields wide = twenty-four and a half football fields.

Interestingly, the toy turbines at Buolfruich are generally spaced at 175 metres, presumably because they are only half the size of proper ones like Spittal.

ywindythesecond

----------


## Tilter

> Now football enthusiasts must please bear with me, because there is no defined size for a football field that I can find. [/SIZE][/FONT]


No, there isn't.  Between 95 and about 105 I think.

Your Pea-Brained Friend

----------


## rupert

> Interestingly, the toy turbines at Buolfruich are generally spaced at 175 metres, presumably because they are only half the size of proper ones like Spittal.
> 
> ywindythesecond


Well I'm glad to here we're in the big boys league and not faffing around with diddy turbines - if we're going to have a windfarm lets have the biggest and the best!!

----------


## Rheghead

> But, if a football field was 100m x 50m, then the turbine would stand in a space three and a half football fields long by seven football fields wide = twenty-four and a half football fields.


The last time I looked at Causeymire, each pylon stood on a round base approximately 5m wide.  Which means you could get 255 turbines on a football field.

Statistics and then there are damned lies... ::

----------


## olivia

> The last time I looked at Causeymire, each pylon stood on a round base approximately 5m wide. Which means you could get 255 turbines on a football field.
> 
> Statistics and then there are damned lies...


What are you talking about Rheghead? I seem to remember from the Spittal Hill planning application that your 5m wide turbine bases have 40 metre long blades twizzling around at the top. 

One thing about these windfarms is that they do make them so neat and tidy, all in straight rows and columns making a really pretty pattern - I just hope all those Icelandic swans and geese know how to fly in formation between these mincing machines.

Save the hill, save the birds, save Caithness from this madness - object now go to www.spittalwindfarmopposition.co.uk for an online objection facility or a form to print and post before the deadline of *1 June.*

----------


## ywindythesecond

> The last time I looked at Causeymire, each pylon stood on a round base approximately 5m wide. Which means you could get 255 turbines on a football field.
> 
> Statistics and then there are damned lies...


Disappointing Reggy, doesn't do you justice. Think you should read my post again, but in the meantime, I was was talking space between turbines, nothing to do with pylons, and as regards size of bases, please check this: http://www.caithness.org/windfarms/p...ery=15&image=4.
ywindythe second

----------


## Rheghead

> Disappointing Reggy, doesn't do you justice. Think you should read my post again, but in the meantime, I was was talking space between turbines, nothing to do with pylons, and as regards size of bases, please check this: http://www.caithness.org/windfarms/p...ery=15&image=4.
> ywindythe second


I was just being intentionally disingenuous because I took your post as being that as well re the 24.5 football pitch claim. It was obviously more misinformation. Obviously sarcasm was being wasted there. ::  

A wind turbine with a 100m swept diameter would stand upon 1.57 football pitches.  If there are 2 windturbines which are 350m apart, then each windfarm would stand upon 3.3 football pitches.  If there were 3 turbines which are 350m apart then each turbine would stand on 2.52 football pitches.

----------


## badger

Why this obsession with football pitches - too big for me to visualise so many all laid out.  How about tennis courts?  

Meanwhile, if we're going to have turbines on land and in the sea (watch out for Beatrice) why not in the sky as well so we're completely surrounded
http://skywindpower.com/ww/index.htm  ?  Very soon we won't be able to look in any direction horizontally without seeing whirling turbines so the only way to look will be up.  I'm sure that could soon be sorted.

----------


## Tilter

> Why this obsession with football pitches - too big for me to visualise so many all laid out.  How about tennis courts?  
> 
> Meanwhile, if we're going to have turbines on land and in the sea (watch out for Beatrice) why not in the sky as well so we're completely surrounded
> http://skywindpower.com/ww/index.htm  ?


Have only just had time to skim the home page of your link - sounds good.  I also liked Mad Pict's link to a similar balloon-type device which, says the blurb, would be ideal for remote areas or third world countries, all depending on cost I suppose.  Perhaps YWindy can tell me how many football pitches high the different devices would be, as I can now only think in those terms.

By the way, I've had some very good responses via private messaging re offers of a brain.  I just need to ensure I select the right one.  Then, be prepared to be amazed.

----------


## ywindythesecond

> I was just being intentionally disingenuous because I took your post as being that as well re the 24.5 football pitch claim. It was obviously more misinformation. Obviously sarcasm was being wasted there. 
> 
> A wind turbine with a 100m swept diameter would stand upon 1.57 football pitches. If there are 2 windturbines which are 350m apart, then each windfarm would stand upon 3.3 football pitches. If there were 3 turbines which are 350m apart then each turbine would stand on 2.52 football pitches.


I hate these angels for ever having danced on a needle! As you are still being intentionally disingenuous ( I hope!), I will explain once again that I was talking about the space between wind turbines, ie within a windfarm occupying a certain area, and therefore each turbine being allocated on average its proportion of the whole area.

The proposed turbines at Spittal Hill are spaced at between approx 280m (between turbines 24 and 28), and approx 420m (between turbines 26 and 30).

Taking a line from turbine to turbine, the perimeter of the turbines is 6264 metres long, and the enclosed area is 1,860,172sq m. Allowing a perimeter space of 150m gives a total area of 2,799,722 sqm divided by 30 turbines equals 93326 sqm, equal to a space 305 metres by 305. Access tracks still to be added.

Going back to the start of this particular conversation, the size of dots on maps indicating windfarms was called into question as being unrepresentative. This is true of Lieurary with only two proposed, and equally true of Scoolary with 48 proposed and covering an area equivalent to Dunnet Head north of a line between Dunnet and Brough.

Anyone want proof?

ywindy the second

Badger, what size is a tennis court?

----------


## MadPict

Just as a "spot" on a map might indicate a town it may not give an accurate size or outline of the town.
When I drew up the map that Rheghead complained about the spots were intended only to indicate the area of the county the windfarms were going to be located in relation to the main known landmarks such as Wick or Thurso.
As I already said the number of turbines indicated on each "spot" will give the reader an idea of the actual size of the site. So a site with 2 turbines will be significantly smaller than one with 30 or 40. Is it such a hard thing to visualise?

If I had access to the actual site plans to transpose accurately onto a map for posting on the forums, I suspect the size of the actual image would be huge.
If such a document exists on a site somewhere please link me to it (I do have the site plan for Spittal so don't need that link ta.)

A tennis court is 78' x 36'......

----------


## badger

Thank you MadPict - I was about to have to confess ignorance and I know Ywindy likes precision.  It's just easier to visualise a tennis court, for me anyway.  I can picture a few yards but not miles - maybe I have a small brain.   Will see what's left over when Tilter has selected a new one.

----------


## hilary

1,400 ton concrete per turbine base , 2,300 lorries of it to be driven to site from bower quarry unless they batch it up the hill.plus the lorries have to return empty to refill .So much for saving energy?
the woman thats worried about a turbine spoiling her view should be concerned about the poor souls that have to look at 30 of the x things.
she surely has not heard of the house that is suffering from vibrations!

----------


## rupert

> 1,400 ton concrete per turbine base , 2,300 lorries of it to be driven to site from bower quarry unless they batch it up the hill.plus the lorries have to return empty to refill .So much for saving energy?
> the woman thats worried about a turbine spoiling her view should be concerned about the poor souls that have to look at 30 of the x things.
> she surely has not heard of the house that is suffering from vibrations!


Well said Hilary. Also, do they not have to bring in ingredients to make the concrete - more lorries, dust, noise, pollution. Its not just what it will be like once its built, its the building of it too that people will have to put up with - and that could go on for a minimum of eighteen months. But then there's lots of lovely money involved .......

----------


## hilary

you are right rupert forgot to mention the sand to be delivered to the quarry.there could be a lorry passing every 12 mins and theres children that live beside that road

----------


## olivia

> you are right rupert forgot to mention the sand to be delivered to the quarry.there could be a lorry passing every 12 mins and theres children that live beside that road


Someone was telling me today that they will need much bigger turbine foundations and loads more steel reinforcing for Spittal Hill compared to the Causeymire because there is not a great depth before you reach the bedrock. So more habitat destroyed, more ingredients stuck in the ground forever and more lorry loads adding carbon to the atmosphere. Maybe, when the winds blowing a hooly in the middle of January they'll all come crashing down if they don't anchor them well enough!

----------


## spurtle

This month's "Field" has a beautifully illustrated article on fishing in Caithness - features Toftingall, Watten, St. John's etc..  "Loch Watten is probably the finest wild trout loch in the UK.............." 
People who come from all over the world to enjoy fishing in this beautiful scenery haven't a clue that the stunningly beautiful open landscapes around the lochs of Caithness are under threat of disfigurement and banality - Watten, Watenan, Yarrows etc etc  
Also in this edition, incidentally, some very enticing pictures of Watten Estate on the market - no word of wind-farms in the blurb,   - they had better move fast, or the price will drop like a stone, much as everyone else's property in the vicinity will.  
- if you care anything for this your birthright - get objecting now - 1st June is the deadline - the simple way to do it is to clock into  www.spittalwindfarmopposition.co.uk,
where there is an on-line form for submissions.

----------


## Tilter

> I do have the site plan for Spittal so don't need that link ta.)


Mad Pict, could you possibly post the site plan using that uploading website? (as I've not got it figured out yet).  I have site plan too, but can't simply attach it, even having made the file smaller, as I seem to have used up my tiny forum attaching space with the ZTV I posted earlier. 

BTW I like your little windfarm mannie.

----------


## Tilter

> This month's "Field" has a beautifully illustrated article on fishing in Caithness - features Toftingall,


They've started doing their bird surveys at Toftingall.  Gamesa (Spanish) is the energy company involved.




> Also in this edition, incidentally, some very enticing pictures of Watten Estate on the market - no word of wind-farms in the blurb,   - they had better move fast, or the price will drop like a stone, much as everyone else's property in the vicinity will.


Mr Pottinger, the developer/landowner of Spittal and Baillie windfarms, assured us in today's John O'Groat Journal that property prices will not be affected.

Spurtle, going back to your "Field" magazine theme - if Spittal windfarm is approved (which I personally can't see happening), then it's open season for every windfarm application (genuine and spurious) in Caithness.  If Spittal is approved, in spite of visual impact, cumulative impact, proximity to residences and settlements, impact on ornithology, hydrology, ecology, geology, archeology, then there's no reason for any other windfarm application in Caithness to be refused.

----------


## rupert

> Mr Pottinger, the developer/landowner of Spittal and Baillie windfarms, assured us in today's John O'Groat Journal that property prices will not be affected.


I wonder why he made no mention of the fact that he is also the Spittal Hill windfarm developer in the paper today? Maybe, thats a touchy subject.

----------


## Tilter

> I wonder why he made no mention of the fact that he is also the Spittal Hill windfarm developer in the paper today? Maybe, thats a touchy subject.


Why?  (Apparently this reply is too short to send according to our forum meisters so I say again, why?)

----------


## MadPict

> Mad Pict, could you possibly post the site plan using that uploading website? (as I've not got it figured out yet).  I have site plan too, but can't simply attach it, even having made the file smaller, as I seem to have used up my tiny forum attaching space with the ZTV I posted earlier. 
> 
> BTW I like your little windfarm mannie.

----------


## Tilter

Thank you Mad Pict.

You know, this seems to be taken from the same OS map I have - ND 05/15, which states it "has been compiled from . . . maps published 1962 - 1976 which were made from surveys dated 1961 - 1974."  There are obviously many, many more houses built since 1974 which will be affected by said windfarm.  Can't really blame this on the developer, but it helps distort some truths as to how many people will be afected.

How often do OS surveys get done?  They must be very short staffed.

----------


## spurtle

If anyone is in any doubtas to the effect on tourism, read the gentleman from Cambridge, writing in the 'Groat - pretty well saying - forget it - if you go ahead with all this, we will not be visiting Caithness again.

The proliferation of wind farms in an area like ours, which does not have the grand scale of mountain terrain into which they might fit (I don't think they should be anywhere near such wild, magnificent areas either) is going to be a massive turn-off for visitors, causing businesses like B & Bs, hotels, tackle shops, outdoor activity places, visitor centres , wildlife and scenic tour guides etc etc to lose business or even go t*ts up.  Who is going to clear them up afterwards anyway??  The Spittal Hill site is going to be filled up with giant concrete bases even if the superstructures come down. It covers a massive 2,000+ acres for we old-fashioned folk who can't get our heads round hectares - what a disaster!

----------


## Rheghead

> If anyone is in any doubtas to the effect on tourism, read the gentleman from Cambridge, writing in the 'Groat - pretty well saying - forget it - if you go ahead with all this, we will not be visiting Caithness again.


Acht, it was obviously a set-up to play mind games with us.  His name was Angus Ballantyne for pity's sake..

----------


## spurtle

Why would having a good Borders name negate his opinion, I wonder?  Come on, Rheghead - you can do better than that.

----------


## rupert

> Acht, it was obviously a set-up to play mind games with us. His name was Angus Ballantyne for pity's sake..


You are unbelievable Rheghead. Just cause the guy's got a Scottish name but happens to live in Cambridge makes it a set-up? Do you think no Scots have ventured south of the border then? The point he makes is very valid and if you can't see the potential consequences to the tourist industry by the proliferation of windfarms you need a good optician. I'm beginning to wonder if you're not a set-up!

----------


## sweep

yes Reghead, beginning to wonder if your name is really tom??!!

----------


## olivia

> They've started doing their bird surveys at Toftingall. Gamesa (Spanish) is the energy company involved.


Its becoming a free-for-all! As one of the landowners leasing his land for turbines on Spittal Hill has said 'there's money in turbines'! To hell with everyone else. Anyone with a pocket handkerchief of land here thinks he can exploit us all and be quids in. Its a very sad and selfish world we live in.

----------


## rupert

I see that in the Groat on friday Spittal Windfarm Ltd have submitted an application for the renewal of their planning permission for that anenometer mast stuck up there on the hill. As far as I can see it should never have been given permission in the first place - we all knew didn't we that they intended to build a windfarm there - and yet the planners would have you believe that 'an anenometer mast doesn't mean there's going to be a windfarm' - duh?? Do they think we are all stupid?

----------


## Rheghead

> yes Reghead, beginning to wonder if your name is really tom??!!


possibly Geoffrey?? ::

----------


## Rheghead

> The point he makes is very valid and if you can't see the potential consequences to the tourist industry by the proliferation of windfarms you need a good optician.


In my experience of people, those tourists that cherish the countryside realise that the biggest threat to it comes from burning fossil fuels. ::

----------


## spurtle

> In my experience of people, those tourists that cherish the countryside realise that the biggest threat to it comes from burning fossil fuels.


Wind farms are not going going to reduce the number of coal/gas/oil-fired power stations, even in the national context, and certainly going to make no difference whatsoever to emissions in the global context - China is commissioning a new coal-fired station every month.  Most of us would accept some deficit in the quality of our surroundings if it made any difference to emissions.  The only difference wind farms will produce is to the developer's/.landowner's bank balance.  Anyone involved in tourism will see the reverse effect, and that is a lot of people. 
A quick squint through the Register of Sasines in Edinburgh will see a number of potential wind-farm beneficiaries sharing out their landed possessions between as many of the family as possible, to avoid getting into the 40% tax bracket, so they obviously think they are a) going to earn squillions of dollars, or b) cop a massive capital gains tax burden when they sell on, which is the most likely scenario in most cases.

----------


## Rheghead

> Wind farms are not going going to reduce the number of coal/gas/oil-fired power stations, even in the national context, and certainly going to make no difference whatsoever to emissions in the global context - China is commissioning a new coal-fired station every month.  Most of us would accept some deficit in the quality of our surroundings if it made any difference to emissions.  The only difference wind farms will produce is to the developer's/.landowner's bank balance.  Anyone involved in tourism will see the reverse effect, and that is a lot of people. 
> A quick squint through the Register of Sasines in Edinburgh will see a number of potential wind-farm beneficiaries sharing out their landed possessions between as many of the family as possible, to avoid getting into the 40% tax bracket, so they obviously think they are a) going to earn squillions of dollars, or b) cop a massive capital gains tax burden when they sell on, which is the most likely scenario in most cases.


Windfarms will make a tangible difference in fossil fuel usage.  Why do you think they are building them??  China will be responsible for their carbon emissions and seem to be more keen to indulge in renewable energy than the UK.  Currently, 1% of the UK's energy is generated by windfarms, which would have been generated by coal and gas.  That is a 0.3% reduction in UK carbon emissions.  The problem is the number of windfarms being stuck in the planning stage, hopefully, the new system will iron out those problems.

Comments about money are immaterial because people are getting rich from fossil fuels, have you seen the price of oil lately?

----------


## MadPict

> China will be responsible for their carbon emissions and seem to be more keen to indulge in renewable energy than the UK.


Three Gorges Dam? Renewable energy fo' sho' - but at what expense? Over a million people have been moved from their homes (with 80,000 more still to move) to make way for the project and more than 1,200 towns and villages wiped out.

Ah but the Chinese government can have green power for their palaces and country retreats which the average Chinese citizen could only dream about. 
What's the saying "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely"? Seems like those in charge in China have honed that down to a fine art...
Government "officials" grab land from farmers to build $1m homes. It's OK though cos we will ave green energy.

I suspect that Rhegheads avatar reflects his view on this topic - it's upside down!  :Grin:

----------


## golach

> If you can't see the potential consequences to the tourist industry by the proliferation of windfarms you need a good optician. I'm beginning to wonder if you're not a set-up!


I work in the tourist industry in Edinburgh and talk to many visitors to our country, and yes I do brag I am Caithness born and advise them to visit the county.
We have Wind farms all over Scotland and not one visitor has mentioned that they are an eyesore. So why would they be a deterrant at Spittal...just how many visitors visit the Spittal area? Not many I would think.
We *need* some form of renewable energy or my Grandchildren will be paying the cost in the near future.
So what are you anti wind farmers going to replace them with?
IMO you anti's are suffering from NIMBYism

----------


## MadPict

It's WINDY-ism Golach......

And while I am anti wind factories in Caithness I am not anti wind factories elsewhere. I see Caithness as a place to be protected from over development and small wind generators providing power to the local community is something I could quite happily accept. 

Not the replacement of the old Forestry Commission tax break eyesore with even more monstrous tax break eyesores feeding the rapacious energy needs of the larger conurbations. Those fir trees were out of place then and the wind generators will be out of place tomorrow.




> We have Wind farms all over Scotland and not one visitor has mentioned that they are an eyesore.


Maybe they don't stand out like a sore thumb elsewhere? Hidden by rolling hills or tree lines they may 'blend' in better. But Caithness doesn't have many rolling hills or tree lines to hide them behind. You can see from one side of the county to the other on a clear day. Well, if the likes of Spittal go ahead that will be a distant memory, unlike the sodding great line of metal whirly things you will see from everywhere....

----------


## olivia

> I work in the tourist industry in Edinburgh and talk to many visitors to our country, and yes I do brag I am Caithness born and advise them to visit the county.
> We have Wind farms all over Scotland and not one visitor has mentioned that they are an eyesore. So why would they be a deterrant at Spittal...just how many visitors visit the Spittal area? Not many I would think.
> We *need* some form of renewable energy or my Grandchildren will be paying the cost in the near future.
> So what are you anti wind farmers going to replace them with?
> IMO you anti's are suffering from NIMBYism


Well I suppose if you live and work in Edinburgh where there isn't a hope in hell of any large scale windfarms being built like the one proposed for Spittal Hill you can spout off about how everyone else should suffer them to help your grandchildren!! Give me a break.
Caithness, or haven't you been back lately, already has its fair share of windfarms built, being built, or approved and to be built in the near future. Calling people NIMBYS who will have to suffer 110 metre turbines less than 1000 metres from their homes with all the associated and recognised problems with wind turbines such as noise, strobe effect, shadow flicker and vibration is just insulting. I also think if you asked these residents they would say 'Not in anyone's backyard'. I wonder what you would do if the same was threatening your lifestyle in good old Edinburgh.

----------


## hilary

looks like tom is in a panic,calling people names .photomontages on his presentations were very cloudy to say the least.and not all directions covered.well not presentedto view.

----------


## Tilter

> China will be responsible for their carbon emissions


Rheghead, please expand and back up your statement.  How is China being responsible for its carbon emissions?  Has it installed carbon capture for its one-new-coal-fired-power-station-per-month?  



> Comments about money are immaterial because people are getting rich from fossil fuels, have you seen the price of oil lately?


Why are comments about money immaterial?  People are getting rich from windfarms and fossil fuels are they?  Two wrongs making a right here Rheghead?

----------


## laguna2

> Well I suppose if you live and work in Edinburgh where there isn't a hope in hell of any large scale windfarms being built like the one proposed for Spittal Hill you can spout off about how everyone else should suffer them to help your grandchildren!! Give me a break.
> Caithness, or haven't you been back lately, already has its fair share of windfarms built, being built, or approved and to be built in the near future. Calling people NIMBYS who will have to suffer 110 metre turbines less than 1000 metres from their homes with all the associated and recognised problems with wind turbines such as noise, strobe effect, shadow flicker and vibration is just insulting. I also think if you asked these residents they would say 'Not in anyone's backyard'. I wonder what you would do if the same was threatening your lifestyle in good old Edinburgh.


Well said Olivia, I couldn't agree with you more

----------


## spurtle

Interesting to see that Dounreay is not being considered as a suitable site for a fresh-generation nuclear power station for, among other reasons the fact that transmission losses dictate that it would not be cost-effective, situated so far away from the end users. Surely the same reasoning works for on-shore wind factories.  
Stick with what we have got - we have enough installed capacity to supply every home in Caithness several times over, if intermittently, already.

Realise that this argument is irrelevant to the T.Pottingers and other similar  who have a finger in the pie.

----------


## Rheghead

> Two wrongs making a right here Rheghead?


Why is making money wrong?  Have you anti-capitalist leanings?  Don't take that personally but I think anti-windfarmism has many facets, one being anti-capitalism.  Not sure if the real subject being discussed was windfarms or not.

Not so long ago, badger quoted that £30 billion had been paid out in RO for windfarm energy.  The true figure is actually £1.7 billion, cheap at half the price.

----------


## Tilter

> Why is making money wrong?  Have you anti-capitalist leanings?


Anti-capitalist leanings?  Um probably.  I knew I'd not said that quite right and you'd get me.  So oil barons are rich.  Does that make it OK to make an obscene amount of money from windfarms and in so doing give Mr Ordinary Joe Blow Public grief from having to live under a windfarm?  An extreme example would be whether it's OK to make money from a diamond mine and exploit workers enduring slave conditions.  Is it OK to own a diamond ring in that case?  Is it OK to make money from gun manufacturing if said weapons end up employed by children in the Congo or whatever it's called now?  I could go on, but back to windfarms.  If you've read today's Groat you'll see that a Mr Young writes that farmer/landowners have been offered £8K - £10K per turbine per annum by the developer of Spittal Hill windfarm.  He goes on to state that the developer himself gets about £250K per turbine per annum (through subsidies which are added directly to our electricity bills).  Multiply that by 30!  Wow.  Sounds like a diamond mine or better to me.  I'd be asking that developer for a bit of an increase.



> Not sure if the real subject being discussed was windfarms or not.


What do you think was the real subject?  (I may have lost the plot here.)



> Not so long ago, badger quoted that £30 billion had been paid out in RO for windfarm energy.  The true figure is actually £1.7 billion, cheap at half the price.


OK, Badger and Rheghead, could you both please back up your claims with references?  I don't know where this Mr Young gets his figures from either.  Perhaps other DotOrgers can shed light.

----------


## Tilter

This is a dreadful shame:  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...nsuicide24.xml

----------


## MadPict

While the death of this farmer is indeed sad, many farmers commit suicide because of the worries and strain of trying to make ends meet.

The link between his death and the "rural terrorists" sounds like a finger being pointed unfairly at the persons campaigning against wind farm developments.




> Figures from the Office of National Statistics in 2001, reveal that 74 farmers took their own lives in England and Wales in 1999.
> 
> 
> http://www.channel4.com/health/micro...w_farmers.html

----------


## Tilter

> The link between his death and the "rural terrorists" sounds like a finger being pointed unfairly at the persons campaigning against wind farm developments.


This stood out for me:  _Henry Bellingham, the Tory MP for North West Norfolk, said: "Mr Herbert's death is an absolute tragedy. I fear it could be an indication of the amount of stress and pressure building up in a community that is absolutely furious about what is going on over these wind farm proposals."_ 

I just thought, what a pretty pass we have come to - these installations are causing such emotions in staid English villagers that this happens.  In France they're setting fire to turbines, though it must be said the French set fire to lots of things when they get a strop on.  (No badmouthing intended there - I've got a lot of time for France and French people.)

----------


## rupert

> This stood out for me: _Henry Bellingham, the Tory MP for North West Norfolk, said: "Mr Herbert's death is an absolute tragedy. I fear it could be an indication of the amount of stress and pressure building up in a community that is absolutely furious about what is going on over these wind farm proposals."_


Its the same old thing again - someone has a piece of land, they've heard how others are making, or going to, make a fortune out of windfarming, so off they go and jump on the bandwagon - no thought for the rest of the community who may not want their open flat (and I mean *flat* in the case of the Fens) landscape filled with whirling windmills.
It really is not surprising that the rest of the community get so upset by thoughtless landowners treading all over them.
Now where did I see an anenometer mast . . . . . .

----------


## Tilter

> Its the same old thing again - someone has a piece of land, they've heard how others are making, or going to, make a fortune out of windfarming, so off they go and jump on the bandwagon - no thought for the rest of the community who may not want their open flat (and I mean *flat* in the case of the Fens) landscape filled with whirling windmills.
> It really is not surprising that the rest of the community get so upset by thoughtless landowners treading all over them.
> Now where did I see an anenometer mast . . . . . .


Rupert,
That's beside the point.  For someone to take their own life because of this carry on - it sickens me.

----------


## crayola

> Spittal Hill - Dumbest Place Ever for a Windfarm


Is there a smart place for a windfarm or am I the only one who understands the true signficance of this?

The only long term solution to our energy needs is to harness the power that drives us all, the power of the Sun.

----------


## Tilter

> Is there a smart place for a windfarm


Absolutely.  For example, in a community where the majority wants a  community windfarm, where the electricity generated benefits only that community and possibly even makes them self-sufficient and the power goes directly to the community, bypassing the National Grid, and where that community's turbines do not impact on another community, and where there's enough wind, and where there's not too much damage done to habitat and flora/fauna.



> or am I the only one who understands the true signficance of this?


I don't know.  What is your understanding of the true significance of determining a smart place for a windfarm?



> The only long term solution to our energy needs is to harness the power that drives us all, the power of the Sun.


Do you mean fusion?

----------


## rupert

> Rupert,
> That's beside the point. For someone to take their own life because of this carry on - it sickens me.


I'm afraid thats how it is - people take their lives for all sorts of reasons, like Madpict said earlier, many farmers committed suicide during the BSE crisis and then the foot and mouth epidemic, equally as sickening. But of course there is one difference - BSE and the foot and mouth epidemic was not of their own making.

----------


## crayola

> Absolutely.  For example, in a community where the majority wants a  community windfarm, where the electricity generated benefits only that community and possibly even makes them self-sufficient and the power goes directly to the community, bypassing the National Grid, and where that community's turbines do not impact on another community, and where there's enough wind, and where there's not too much damage done to habitat and flora/fauna.


Great answer, but don't forget that your community will need a connection to the Grid for windless and stormy days when those you tilt at will stand motionless on the skyline. Baseline, baseline, baseline; backup, backup, backup. You know what I mean.  :Wink: 




> I don't know.  What is your understanding of the true significance of determining a smart place for a windfarm?


Your thread title was clearly political. Spittal Hill is not the dumbest place ever for a windfarm: it's a windy hill for goodness' sake.  :: 

Practicalities aside, I am with you politically. I knew Tom Pottinger decades ago; evidently he hasn't changed much in the intervening years. 




> Do you mean fusion?


Of course. Fusion made us: we are stardust, we are golden. We are the children of Mother Earth, and the Earth is the Child of the Stars. Let us worship their Creation and use their power to enable our Children to journey to Them, on a kind of modern pilgrimage.

----------


## ywindythesecond

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Rheghead*  
_Not so long ago, badger quoted that £30 billion had been paid out in RO for windfarm energy. The true figure is actually £1.7 billion, cheap at half the price._


Some time ago I recommended to Rheghead that he reads OFGEM's response to the Government's Consultation on the future of the ROCs.  Well he has obviously read it and once again has cherrypicked the bits he wants to hear. The response says that the present ROCs regime HAS ALREADY COST US £1.7 BILLION, AND WILL EVENTUALLY COST US £30 BILLION if it is allowed to continue. How cheap is that for virtually no gain Reggy? Does it sound like a good strategy? 
ywindythesecond

----------


## Ricco

I have been reading a number of the articles and arguments for and against wind farms.  I also read and watch many of the discussions about the need for more use of renewable energy.  There seems to be a gross dichotomy of opinions- most thinking people agree that continuing to burn fossil fuels is not a good idea... and that they will run out ere long anyway.  Most thinking people also agree that countries should be doing more about using renewable energy sources.

However, the sad fact is that the number of thinking people is a small fraction of the population and that the greater part of the populace couldn't actually give a monkey's just so long as they can have all their lights on, run all of their electronic gadgets at the same time (whether they are using them or not), fill their chav wagons full of petrol and tear around burning it back up again as quick as possible.  Some of the comments I hear that they make about those of us who care about the environment cannot be repeated here.
I am afraid that most people care only about 'me', 'now' and 'why should I give a monkey's whatsit'.

My comments above do not refer to any orgers (we are all so sensible that we join forums and discuss our views and opinions) but refer instead to the bulk of the population (mostly English) who have an 'Im alright, Jack' attitude.

Those poeple who cut down that anamometer mast are a prime example of this ignorance.  For all they knew this measuring device would have actually proved that a wind farm there would be pointless.  Such a shame... ::

----------


## MadPict

Stumbled across this -
http://www.caithness.org/atoz/thurso/windsock.htm

While 'doctored' it still made me chuckle. Perhaps change "Thurso" for "Spittal"?

Or Caithness.....

----------


## olivia

> Those poeple who cut down that anamometer mast are a prime example of this ignorance. For all they knew this measuring device would have actually proved that a wind farm there would be pointless. Such a shame...


I am not condoning in any way the destruction of the anenometer mast in Norfolk - it is pointless vandalism. However, maybe these people were at the end of their tether the same as the poor farmer who committed suicide. It is just an example of how large scale windfarm proposals (which I believe this one was, twenty odd turbines I think) divides a community which I've no doubt was rubbing along quite nicely before some bright spark had the idea for a windfarm.
Please do remember that windfarms are only one form of renewable energy, and a very inefficient one at that. It seems to me the ignorance lies in people who believe windfarms will save the planet and forget all the other things we could be doing such as energy conservation, clean coal, carbon capture, wave/tidal power, small community windfarm projects etc. etc.

----------


## Ricco

> I am not condoning in any way the destruction of the anenometer mast in Norfolk - it is pointless vandalism. However, maybe these people were at the end of their tether the same as the poor farmer who committed suicide. It is just an example of how large scale windfarm proposals (which I believe this one was, twenty odd turbines I think) divides a community which I've no doubt was rubbing along quite nicely before some bright spark had the idea for a windfarm.
> Please do remember that windfarms are only one form of renewable energy, and a very inefficient one at that. It seems to me the ignorance lies in people who believe windfarms will save the planet and forget all the other things we could be doing such as energy conservation, clean coal, carbon capture, wave/tidal power, small community windfarm projects etc. etc.


Fully with you on that one, Olivia. Considering the large-scale input some countries put into their renewable energy programmes, our Gov't is stingey to the extreme. Personally, I have insulated my loft (but have additional ideas afoot), am getting a Class A boiler system installed, have had cavity wall insulation put in, have plans to insulate those areas where it was impossible to do cavity wall - such as the integral garage, and wish to install a domestic wind turbine. However, I am having great trouble getting some answers over this last one.... such as the life span of home turbines, what the carbon debt is by manufacturing one (will it actually be balanced by its use during its lifetime), etc. It would be nice to get some answers on voltaic cell electric generation as well - are these long term effective? How much do they cost? etc.

----------


## peter macdonald

"I am not condoning in any way the destruction of the anenometer mast in Norfolk - it is pointless vandalism."
Good thats exactly what is was ...and illegal 
"However, maybe these people were at the end of their tether the same as the poor farmer who committed suicide. It is just an example of how large scale windfarm proposals (which I believe this one was, twenty odd turbines I think) divides a community which I've no doubt was rubbing along quite nicely before some bright spark had the idea for a windfarm."
Well you seem to be providing an excuse for those events that caused a man to take his life 
"maybe these people were at the end of their tether "  over what exactly ?? 
A spoilt view?? A fear that their house prices maybe hit ?? A five minute delay in getting to work because of a lorry backing up?? 
I dont know what the farmers motives were for wanting the windfarm and its none of my business.. it could be greed or it could have been his last chance to clear debt from the foot and mouth or BSE disasters farmers had .As I said  it aint my business ..but there is one thing for sure it was not worth his life

After all these protesters could always move on somewhere else which is more than that poor soul can  
Good grief if that is what folks get to "the end of their tether" with then they should get out more and see the real problems of the world   
PM

----------


## olivia

[quote=peter macdonald;227129
After all these protesters could always move on somewhere else which is more than that poor soul can 
Good grief if that is what folks get to "the end of their tether" with then they should get out more and see the real problems of the world 
PM[/quote]
What do you mean by 'these protesters could alway move on somewhere else'? Why should they have to leave their area, that maybe their families have lived in for generations, to accomodate another persons wish to make lots of money? Residents who have the prospect of large windfarms being built very close to their homes have genuine fears and worries, such as immense visual impact, noise, strobe effects, shadow flicker etc. etc. Your flippant comments obviously come from someone who just doesnt understand the real issues involved.

----------


## NickInTheNorth

> <content snipped>
> 
> However, I am having great trouble getting some answers over this last one.... such as the life span of home turbines, what the carbon debt is by manufacturing one (will it actually be balanced by its use during its lifetime), etc. It would be nice to get some answers on voltaic cell electric generation as well - are these long term effective? How much do they cost? etc.


Often get decent answers on this site to such questions.

----------


## peter macdonald

"Your flippant comments obviously come from someone who just doesnt understand the real issues involved."
Flippant  ---- a man died because of this-- please read that again 
Im not being flippant  Please compare "have genuine fears and worries, such as immense visual impact, noise, strobe effects, shadow flicker etc. etc." and -----death----     
Im sorry but you want to get a grip

Last post on this  

In fact Im so sickened Im out of here period 
PM

----------


## rupert

> Fully with you on that one, Olivia. Considering the large-scale input some countries put into their renewable energy programmes, our Gov't is stingey to the extreme. Personally, I have insulated my loft (but have additional ideas afoot), am getting a Class A boiler system installed, have had cavity wall insulation put in, have plans to insulate those areas where it was impossible to do cavity wall - such as the integral garage, and wish to install a domestic wind turbine. However, I am having great trouble getting some answers over this last one.... such as the life span of home turbines, what the carbon debt is by manufacturing one (will it actually be balanced by its use during its lifetime), etc. It would be nice to get some answers on voltaic cell electric generation as well - are these long term effective? How much do they cost? etc.


I have never understood why solar panels in peoples roofs have never really taken off. Many years ago, like back in the 80's, my forward thinking neighbours installed solar panels in their roof. I think they cost quite a bit but they swore it made all the difference to the bills. Why doesn't the government subsidise this form of renewable energy (or do they already)? Surely, if we all went for solar panels, the price would come down and the manufacturers would have loads of business.

----------


## Tilter

> Personally, I have insulated my loft (but have additional ideas afoot), am getting a Class A boiler system installed, have had cavity wall insulation put in, have plans to insulate those areas where it was impossible to do cavity wall - such as the integral garage, and wish to install a domestic wind turbine, though we should. However, I am having great trouble getting some answers over this last one.... such as the life span of home turbines, what the carbon debt is by manufacturing one (will it actually be balanced by its use during its lifetime), etc. It would be nice to get some answers on voltaic cell electric generation as well - are these long term effective? How much do they cost? etc.


Ricco,
Your energy conservation tactics are laudable.  We have pretty much the same thing, except we've not looked into a wind turbine.  I think the problem is that a lot of people can't afford to do all that, and the government isn't stepping in adequately where it should be - at the bottom, with the simple things.

Please come back to me with what you've found out about domestic turbines.  From what I've read they don't seem to be all they're cracked up to be, e.g., hardly able to boil a kettle and even causing cracks or stress in house walls.  And it always seems impossible to find out how much energy is expended in the process of manufacturing anything.

We had solar roof panels on a house we owned in the 1980's.  It worked well but it only produced hot water, and we had an immersion heater backing it up  when the sun didn't shine enough.  I would imagine they're a lot better these days, but it did save money.

----------


## Tilter

> it's a windy hill for goodness' sake.


Most of Scotland's a windy hill.  Do we have to have them mucking up a place where quite a lot of people live?

Anyway, Crayola, we have no argument.  Hey, thanks for the link:



> we are golden.


 I never knew the words to that - just the chorus.  It's a great song/poem.

----------


## Ricco

> Ricco,
> Your energy conservation tactics are laudable. We have pretty much the same thing, except we've not looked into a wind turbine. I think the problem is that a lot of people can't afford to do all that, and the government isn't stepping in adequately where it should be - at the bottom, with the simple things.


You can get a grant for around £400 from the DTi.




> Please come back to me with what you've found out about domestic turbines. From what I've read they don't seem to be all they're cracked up to be, e.g., hardly able to boil a kettle and even causing cracks or stress in house walls. And it always seems impossible to find out how much energy is expended in the process of manufacturing anything.


I must confess that stressing the walls had not occurred to me - must look into that one




> We had solar roof panels on a house we owned in the 1980's. It worked well but it only produced hot water, and we had an immersion heater backing it up when the sun didn't shine enough. I would imagine they're a lot better these days, but it did save money.


I hope to get more up-to-date info soon.

----------


## MadPict

*Fenland Landscape Against Turbines*

With regards to the "rural terrorism" which was supposed to be responsible for the death of this fenland farmer the commitee involved in the campaign against the development have issued a press release in light of the allegations by the developers about hostility towards consortium speakers at recent meetings and the 'felling' of the anemometer mast.


http://www.flat-group.co.uk/press-re...007-05-26.html

----------


## Tilter

> *Fenland Landscape Against Turbines*
> 
> With regards to the "rural terrorism" which was supposed to be responsible for the death of this fenland farmer the commitee involved in the campaign against the development have issued a press release in light of the allegations by the developers about hostility towards consortium speakers at recent meetings and the 'felling' of the anemometer mast. http://www.flat-group.co.uk/press-re...007-05-26.html


Well - there goes another community.  The things should be banned if only for the bad feelings they arouse neighbour to neighbour.  My own experience of dealing with developers and consultants, and the sheer quantity of spin they arrogantly produce - spin often crossing the line into misinformation - makes me lean towards FLAT's version of event.  But calling them rural terrorists would be a bit steep by anyone's standards.

----------


## MadPict

> It is interesting to note that the meeting only became “rather heated” after the consultants had introduced themselves as “the enemy” and told the audience that “they had never lost the fight with any wind farm that they had been involved with and did not intent to break their record with this one”!  From then onwards they continued to both antagonise and alienate the audience and at one point even told one questioner to “shut up”.


Way to go to win the battle for hearts and minds....

----------


## ywindythesecond

> *Fenland Landscape Against Turbines*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.flat-group.co.uk/press-re...007-05-26.html


What ever made us think that only Caithness was targetted?
I haven't read it but I understand the recent Energy White Paper proposes double ROCs for offshore wind to promote offshore development, not half ROCs to reduce onshore wind development. ( Got a link please MadPict?)
ywindythesecond

----------


## Tilter

In case you missed this morning's Courier: http://www.johnogroat-journal.co.uk/...off_talks.html .  Watten COmmunity Council's chairman has done nothing but promote this scheme regardless of what anyone else, including his fellow councillors, think, and has never taken any active steps to seek out community views, i.e., has refused to hold a ballot, refused to hold a public meeting, refused to disseminate any information on the scheme, etc.

He says he's talked to a lot of people.  According to the Association of Scottish Community Councils Best Practice guidelines, that's not good enough.  They specifically state at http://www.ascc.org.uk/page.aspx?pg=...dIsYourCC.aspx that _"word of mouth and informal personal contact is a common practice, and has its place.  It is the least objective method of discovering the community's views and should not be relied upon in making important decisions."_

And one of the COuncillors has close family with a financial interest in the scheme apparently.

I don't understand what's going on here.

----------


## sweep

just got back from hols and saw the latest on proposed plans at spittal. it's a real shocker that watten cc chair has a vested financial interest in this and has been trying to push it through .surely he cannot continue in this com council any longer. how very embarrassing!!!!

----------


## Green_not_greed

If as Sweep says and is reported in the local media that some of Watten CC are representing themselves (or their family) and not the views of the community then I suggest that the community hold their own meeting and hold a vote of no confidence in the existing community council.  I'm unsure of the rules but with the media involved and a clear majority against the current CC surely they can be forced to restand - possibly against truly independent representative candidates?

----------


## Tilter

> I haven't read it but I understand the recent Energy White Paper proposes double ROCs for offshore wind to promote offshore development, not half ROCs to reduce onshore wind development. ( Got a link please MadPict?)
> ywindythesecond


Paper is at www.dtistats.net/ewp/ .  I've not had a look through it yet either.  Saving it for a bout of insomnia.

Oh, and here's what we think about it:  http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Rele...07/05/31171000

----------


## hilary

yes seen the paper seems the chairman approves  blackmail as well.thats w.cc.I am discussing .I believe there was no decision taken at that last meeting to approve the wind farm,as they are open meetings .Cant wait to see the minutes of that meeting.Feel sorry for the Watten community being denied their right to have a say in what goes on.

----------


## rupert

> yes seen the paper seems the chairman approves blackmail as well.thats w.cc.I am discussing .I believe there was no decision taken at that last meeting to approve the wind farm,as they are open meetings .Cant wait to see the minutes of that meeting.Feel sorry for the Watten community being denied their right to have a say in what goes on.


What's going on at Watten Community Council is totally wrong. How dare that Chairman state in the paper (Courier 30 May) 'We have made our position clear that we will not be objecting to the windfarm and that we're keen to look into the possibility of community involvement'! Has he asked his community if they want to be involved, has he heck. He has gone behind peoples backs, including fellow councillors, negotiating with the developer without even trying to find our what his community thinks to the whole business. Community councillors are supposed to represent their community and do the best for their community provided the minority *do not* suffer subsequently. He has made no attempt whatsoever to consult his community whether it be a public meeting or postal ballot. The excuses he makes about it costing to much are rubbish. He could easily call a public meeting, how much would that cost? Just lies, damn lies. Me thinks he doth protest too much. Or is he just corrupt?

----------


## crayola

> Most of Scotland's a windy hill.  Do we have to have them mucking up a place where quite a lot of people live?


How many people live there? It's been some time.




> Anyway, Crayola, we have no argument.  Hey, thanks for the link: (to Joni Mitchell's Woodstock lyrics)
> 
>  I never knew the words to that - just the chorus.  It's a great song/poem.


I enjoyed it again too.

We are stardust, we are golden, 
We are billion year old carbon.

That chorus is as poignant today as it was back then. Perhaps more so. Not that I was old enough to understand back then. We won't have made real progress until we can tame the light of the stars.

I don't believe we've learned a lot in the intervening years or we wouldn't allow evil doers to desecrate our landscape with profitable but pointless windmills.

----------


## hilary

cant say rightly how much ,but there are lots not as much as thurso ,but there is village called spittal +lots smallholdings and houses. Its like the highland clearances folk had no say replaced gy sheep now the same thing is happening again only turbines are being put there instead.
Tom pottinger could be remembered in history as being one of the many responsible for destroying scotland.and the chairman of watten C.C and his relations that are on the council

----------


## johndeere

Why are people blaming Watten community council for taking the rights of the people of Watten away? The community council is there to serve the people of there community.
Wcc have obviously discussed the proposed windfarm at a community council meeting and they are in favour of it, but it is not a fait accompli, how many Watten residents actually have spoken or written to there community councillors to let them know how they feel and if there is enough support against ask them to hold a public meeting, so the people of Watten can decide how *they* want* there* *councillors* to proceed, instead of moaning that they were never asked for there opinion.

----------


## hilary

your right johndeer, time people got pen to paper the sec. is anne alexander perhaps ask for a puplic meeting or postal vote

----------


## olivia

> Why are people blaming Watten community council for taking the rights of the people of Watten away? The community council is there to serve the people of there community.
> Wcc have obviously discussed the proposed windfarm at a community council meeting and they are in favour of it, but it is not a fait accompli, how many Watten residents actually have spoken or written to there community councillors to let them know how they feel and if there is enough support against ask them to hold a public meeting, so the people of Watten can decide how *they* want* there* *councillors* to proceed, instead of moaning that they were never asked for there opinion.


Well, johndeere let me update you with some facts. The Community Council have been written too to ask them how they are going to consult their community over the last year, to which, I understand they have never bothered to reply. They have been asked to hold a public meeting on several occasions, which they have refused to do, the previous chairman stating 'it would just turn into a riot' (I wonder why he thought that?). They have had a presentation to them by a section of their community who are against the windfarm, and yet still they assume that they can go ahead and support the windfarm. If you get a chance read the article on the front page of the Courier dated 30 May and you will see for yourself the attitude of the present Chairman. One more thing - how can he think it is OK for a councillor who has a financial interest to take part in discussions on the windfarm? This man is not representing his community he is representing his family's financial interests - if I was being cynical I would say that it is probably the reason for him becoming a councillor in order to influence the vote.
Lastly, the figures from the Energy consents unit on Friday afternoon (the closing date for representations about the windfarm, but apparently they will accept late ones for the next 10 days) were as follows -

Letters of support for the windfarm - 10
Letters of opposition to the windfarm - 890

I think that says it all.

----------


## MadPict

Wonder how many of the 10 'in support' will benefit financially from the wind factory?

----------


## KittyMay

Does anyone know what date Spittal windfarm has been allocated space for connection to the grid? I heard 2013 but don't know if this is correct. Not sure if further connections are reliant on the controversial Beauly to Denny upgrade. Anyone know?

Any ideas where to find this info for all north of scotland windfarms?

----------


## peter macdonald

I wonder how many of the objections came from folks from within Watten CC area ??? That would be a better view of opinions 

Nice to see a name popping out in this thread instead of people poking accusations about impropriety from behind "org" names 
Surely there IS a lawful planning formula to go through before a decision is made either way .....and if you are not happy with that then go see your MP and MSP  and if not then try the House of Lords after that if you want to break the law ....well thats what the Highlands constabulary is for isnt it?? I think its the way they do things in our society  or have I missed 800 years of history ?? 

But hey its much easier to whisper on a web site ...or complain about unpaid local volenteers who give their time to try to help their community on Community Councils........ especially other peoples CCs
You know not all of Caithness is covered by CCs ..some folks could not be hacked with the hassle ...and I dont blame them reading the comments on here
PM

----------


## MadPict

> Nice to see a name popping out in this thread instead of people poking accusations about impropriety from behind "org" names 
> PM


Errr, not sure what you are getting at? I had an .org name before windfarms were even dreamt of at Spittal. And I suspect that "johndeere" is not their "real name".......

And if the council are truly riding rough shod over the community they are supposed to represent, and possibly doing it for ulterior motives, then it should be highlighted.

I am not sure of the exact purpose or standing of the Watten Community Council but if the anything like the Parish Councils down here, if a councilor has a conflict of interests they should declare it or resign. 

And to me it sounds like a conflict of interests and I don't need to post that under a 'real name'.
 ::

----------


## peter macdonald

Errr, not sure what you are getting at? I had an .org name before windfarms were even dreamt of at Spittal. And I suspect that "johndeere" is not their "real name".....
What Im getting at are folks on here are making accusations about impropriety 
whilst hiding behind "other" non real names  or org monikers what ever you call them  If they were to use there own names for some of these accusations of underhand dealings ,blackmail etc  would they then not be liable for legal action if the accusations were false ???? 

"And if the council are truly riding rough shod over the community they are supposed to represent, and possibly doing it for ulterior motives, then it should be highlighted."

I would also like to point out you have used the word "possibly " so you obviously have realised why I posted this Also how do you know the council are riding roughshod over the views of their constituants ??  The views of a vocal view (many of whom are NOT from Watten according to their profiles)on here are not representative of a diverse community many of whom are not on this forum but if the anything like the Parish Councils down here, if a councilor has a conflict of interests they should declare it or resign. and never have been   

"I am not sure of the exact purpose or standing of the Watten Community Council 

Easy I would hazard a guess at " to represent ALL of the constituants of Watten to the best of their abilities "

"but if the anything like the Parish Councils down here, if a councilor has a conflict of interests they should declare it or resign."

Yes I would think it would be the same( if there is evidence to the fact) wherever you are....  where ever that is


Now personally I dont care if they put windmills on Spittal Hill or not Im looking at some now as i write this along with an oil rig and some peat banks and none of which puts me one bit up or down  but I think it is terrible that folk who are trying to do some good (for no gain )for the small community they live in are getting torn up like this by some faceless typists on the net

Also I have found that after a heck of a lot of reading that community councils input into the decision making process for wind farms through out Scotland is basically sod all so I suggest you find the right targets to chuck your bile at
PM

----------


## MadPict

Well we agree that IF a member of the WCC DOES have some interests which could cause them to step out of the WCC that should be the case.

And so if someone who does live in the catchment area of WCC feels that such a conflict of interests exists they should contact the Highland Council ASAP to voice their concerns.

Funnily enough one of the 2 of the FAQ's in the PDF "Planning Matters For CCS" is regarding windfarms development. If they have "sod all" to do with such matters why put it in there?

Obviously there must be some opposition otherwise the JOGJ would not have run the story -
http://www.johnogroat-journal.co.uk/...off_talks.html

"SWOG has also questioned the position of community council member John Swanson, who farms at Bylbster, near Watten. *Mr Swanson took part in the council discussion earlier this month even though there could be a direct financial benefit* to members of his family if the wind farm gets the go-ahead." _I think I would question his position too......_

"Community council chairman Jim Macdonald insisted the criticism was unjustified." 

"Mr Swanson yesterday acknowledged that croftland near Dunn owned by his son Liam and daughter Morag is the proposed site for one of the turbines. However, he did not think this should debar him from taking part in the community council discussions on the wind farm." _So he thinks that is not a conflict of interest?_

Perhaps the use of the word "blackmail" by some posters is wrong, but there certainly seems to be something going on which needs looking into.

----------


## Tilter

> Wonder how many of the 10 'in support' will benefit financially from the wind factory?


MP, 8 farmers are financially involved with Mr Pottinger's scheme.  Add in Mr P and his brother (co-developer) = 10.

----------


## MadPict

Interesting..........

----------


## Tilter

> And I suspect that "johndeere" is not their "real name".....


I'm pretty sure a farmer would have picked John Deere for a pseudonym.




> What Im getting at are folks on here are making accusations about impropriety 
> whilst hiding behind "other" non real names  or org monikers what ever you call them  If they were to use there own names for some of these accusations of underhand dealings ,blackmail etc  would they then not be liable for legal action if the accusations were false ????


 Peter, it is the custom on Dot Org forums to use a pseudonym.  It is the best way to get a debate going (especially in a relatively small community where many people know each other and would hesitate to voice their true opinions to neighbours with whom they have to rub along, etc).  This is the purpose of these forums and I don't understand why this bothers you, although I accept you don't live here and therefore may view things differently.  If anyone is going to make a formal complaint against WCC, it will have to be under their own name and they will be responsible under law for their allegations.  



> "And if the council are truly riding rough shod over the community they are supposed to represent, and possibly doing it for ulterior motives, then it should be highlighted."


I'm sure it will be.



> The views of a vocal view (many of whom are NOT from Watten according to their profiles)on here are not representative of a diverse community many of whom are not on this forum but if the anything like the Parish Councils down here, if a councilor has a conflict of interests they should declare it or resign.


The vocal few in this case are actually the vocal many.  Spittal Hill is just that - a hill in the centre of a relatively flat county.  This windfarm affects everyone living in Caithness - everyone will see it, even in Orkney.  In addition, the people living closest to the windfarm are not in Watten (Watten village itself will probably be slightly shielded), but are located in settlements at Dunn, Mybster, Spittal, Banniskirk, Georgemas, Clayock, Stemster, Larel and Oldhall.




> Easy I would hazard a guess at " to represent ALL of the constituants of Watten to the best of their abilities "


Actually, they have a duty to represent all the constituents of Watten parish, which covers a very wide area.  No one in the parish has been consulted in ways recommended by the Local Authority, i.e., via local ballot, public meeting, or information dissemination by leaflet.



> "but if the anything like the Parish Councils down here, if a councilor has a conflict of interests they should declare it or resign."


A councillor in WCC has admitted that his son owns land which will be leased to the developer and will hold at least one turbine from which a significant amount of money will be earned.  I believe anyone would regard that as a conflict of interest but the Chairman of WCC does not regard it as a conflict of interest.




> Now personally I dont care if they put windmills on Spittal Hill or not


You might care if your house was situated less than 1000 metres away from 30 turbines.



> I think it is terrible that folk who are trying to do some good (for no gain )for the small community they live in are getting torn up like this by some faceless typists on the net


 If it were that simple Peter, I'd agree with you.  There's a lot going on here that is morally wrong but faceless typing is not the correct medium for discussing that. 



> Also I have found that after a heck of a lot of reading that community councils input into the decision making process for wind farms through out Scotland is basically sod all so I suggest you find the right targets to chuck your bile at


That isn't true.  This application has gone to the Scottish Executive for a decision because of its size (>50 MW).  The Executive will put it to Highland COuncil for consultation.  Highland Council will ask the Community Councils involved (in this case Halkirk, Watten and probably Bower) for their opinion.  Here is where it is going wrong:  Watten CC should ask its constituents "do you want this windfarm or not?" and respond accordingly to Highland COuncil.  If the majority of Watten folk don't want this windfarm but, for whatever reason, the CC chairman and one or two councillors with a direct financial interest say "yes, we want this windfarm please," then they are totally out of order and not fulfilling their responsibilities -  worse, they are corrupt.

----------


## Tilter

> Does anyone know what date Spittal windfarm has been allocated space for connection to the grid? I heard 2013


Close.  I think I heard 2014.




> Not sure if further connections are reliant on the controversial Beauly to Denny upgrade. Anyone know?


I believe so. 



> Any ideas where to find this info for all north of scotland windfarms?


I think there's a list on Ofgen?  I'll try and look up but have to leave pc for now.

----------


## MadPict

Tilter,
You have mistakenly attributed some of _my_ quotes to _peter macdonald_ - this was due to PM quoting my previous post #247 and leaving out the quote tags.
So I actually said



> And I suspect that "johndeere" is not their "real name".....


and



> "And if the council are truly riding rough shod over the community they are supposed to represent, and possibly doing it for ulterior motives, then it should be highlighted."


and



> "but if the anything like the Parish Councils down here, if a councilor has a conflict of interests they should declare it or resign."


_peter macdonald_ might enjoy staring out at a wind farm and oil rig and peat bank (what a visual melange of power sources through the ages) but he has to accept that those who might feel this development will blight their lives have a) a right to object and b) the expectation that their objection is heard.
From the attitude of the members of the WCC this does not seem likely to happen. That is unacceptable.


This government is hell bent on reducing the CO2 output of the UK yet it is actively trying to encourage airport development, not far from where I sit and type, with the result that passenger numbers will increase from 25 million to 35 million a year.
What logic is there in that?

----------


## Tilter

> Tilter,
> You have mistakenly attributed some of _my_ quotes to _peter macdonald_


Oh MP, I'm sorry - how could I have done that?




> This government is hell bent on reducing the CO2 output of the UK yet it is actively trying to encourage airport development, not far from where I sit and type, with the result that passenger numbers will increase from 25 million to 35 million a year.
> What logic is there in that?


It's all mad.  I'm guilty - I'm about to take a short-haul flight because I can't face 12 hours driving or 16 hours on the train.  Well, I wouldn't mind the train, but it would be very expensive for two of us and there'd be 16 hours moaning from Significant Other.  So your passenger numbers will now be 25,000,002.  I've also noted a lack of British apples in shops - they're all (naturally) from Southern hemisphere this time of year.  I never noticed this sort of thing till a year or so ago when I started taking account of air miles.  Bring on the windfarms so I can eat mangos again, or apples whenever.

----------


## MadPict

You could always offset your flights - http://carbonneutral.com/

And fruit from far away? I read somewhere that the fruit is actually about a year old - not sure how true it is. But I always try to buy UK produce. It is difficult sometimes but not only supports UK producers it saves the planet a wee bit(e)........

----------


## johndeere

I would like to clear up a few facts for you:
Yes i'm from a farming background. No i am not one of the farmers involved in the spittal hill windfarm development. Yes i have been a community councillor but i am not at present, so i do know that the community council should represent the views of the community they serve and yes it can be a thankless unpaid job but you try to do the best for your community.I must admit i am surprised that Watten community council have not held a public meeting to determine the feelings of the community, as other community councils have done when windfarms were proposed in there areas.

----------


## Tilter

> You could always offset your flights - http://carbonneutral.com/


Well, it says we will travel 1378 km for the return trip and will emit .4 tonnes of CO2.  I can offset it by spending £3 or £4 to plant trees in Lanarkshire or something or other in Pennsylvania.  And I get a certificate, a colour map, a baggage tag of recycled leather and a cream folder, none of which I need and will use up some of those Lanarkshire trees.




> But I always try to buy UK produce.


So do I, so do I - drawing the line only at brussel sprouts.

----------


## MadPict

johndeere,
You don't have to explain yourself. But as you have perhaps you can shed some light on councilors with conflicts of interest - are they supposed to withdraw from discussions as stated in the CC Good Practice Guide? 



> CC Members should:
> declare any private or personal interest in a planning application and withdraw from the meeting while the matter is discussed.


You said "_Wcc have obviously discussed the proposed windfarm at a community council meeting and they are in favour of it_" - well from the sounds of it (the report in the JOGJ, just so no accusations of libel get posted after this) of course they are going to be in favour of it.

Mr Swanson is possibly going to benefit financially from the development.

Mr Jim Macdonald stated, "_The other side of this is that three people put themselves up for election to the community council purely because of their anti-wind-farm stance. They are not there to represent the views of the community  they are just there to represent their own views.
How can they take an objective stance any more than someone who has a financial interest?_"

Well Mr Jim MacDonald - whose views are you supposed to be representing if not the communities? The community is more than just a few landowners. 
I think I would rather trust an anti-windfarm councilor to one who may have making money as an incentive.

----------


## hilary

was there a man in thurso precinct promoting the wind farm on thursday ,?
someone said it was Green peace]

----------


## MadPict

Reported here -
http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?t=27282

Looks like they are drumming up support.....

----------


## olivia

Well folks I've resurrected this massive thread nearly three years to the day since the last post by MadPict.

After all this time the Highland Council planning committee are to sit on 22 June at the Ross Institute, Halkirk to decide what they think about this wind farm.

I know what I think!!

As Rupert has said on the other wind farm thread we aint getting a chance to speak before our Councillors. Why is that I wonder?

Is this a done deal? What do other .Orgers think?

www.spittalwindfarmopposition.co.uk

----------


## katarina

but but but with all those wind farms - why don't we have cheap er electricity?

----------


## badger

> but but but with all those wind farms - why don't we have cheap er electricity?


Because we are paying for them via our bills and taxes  ::  . No wind farm would ever be built without the massive govt. subsidies and where does that money come from? Us of course. The only people who benefit from wind farms are the developers and landowners who are laughing all the way to the bank. Sad. 

There's a letter in the Groat today with a link to a website showing all the rusting useless turbines in so many places. How long before these join them I wonder?

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/..._ghosts_1.html

----------


## olivia

Scary bit in the link posted by badger about Altamont Pass -

Altamont's turbines have since 2008 been tethered four months of every year in an effort to protect migrating birds after environmentalists filed suit. According to the Golden Gate Audubon Society, 75 to 110 Golden Eagles, 380 Burrowing Owls, 300 Red-tailed Hawks, and 333 American Kestrels (falcons) are killed by Altamont turbines annually. A July, 2008 study by the Alameda County Community Development Agency points to 10,000 annual bird deaths from Altamont Pass wind turbines. Audubon calls Altamont, "probably the worst site ever chosen for a wind energy project"

I'm convinced that if Spittal Hill wind farm is built there will be loads of swans and geese killed every year not to mention other smaller birds. But nobody seems to care about them. We just hear the usual waffle about how they will avoid the turbines and its going to be alright. Maybe they will in daytime but at night what will happen?  

Any other bird lovers out there who feel the same?

----------


## HaggarJ2

I do not mind the wind farm on the causewaymire sometimes it is quite relaxing to sit and watch. But I am totally opposed to any new developments of wind farms on spittal hill or indeed anywhere in caithness or the highlands.
They are totally inefficient as you need power to them initially. They are only about 20% as efficient as the goverment and developers say they are. They are only being put up because greedy little men who own the land are making a killing from the scottish goverment and some of them, are making a killing too in backhanders no doubt.
I agree with some of the other writers that the building control authority's involvement in this is at the least farsical if not corrupt.
So far the only thing that spittal has gained from the windfarm on the causewaymire I beleive, is the re-roofing of spittal hall,which has done nothing for the people of spittal as the hall is mainly used by people from thurso and wick to play bingo instead of being used by locals.
Although I am against anymore wind farms being erected,unless people take decisive action to rid ourselves of corrupt politicians in the highlands and in the scottish goverment( the golf complex in aberdeen is a prime example when the first minister exceeded his authority over council run building and planning controls decisionto refuse it,He decided to intervene and allow it when its clearly states that it should only go to the scottish goverment on appeal, yet no appeal was ever lodged)  then we will have to get used to them and a lot more like them

----------


## orkneycadian

> There's a letter in the Groat today with a link to a website showing all the rusting useless turbines in so many places. How long before these join them I wonder?


25 years at a wild guess since thats how long since the ones in the link were built (1985).  Not too bad considering they only have a 20 year projected lifespan.  :: 

Unlike the USA, and 25 years ago, current projects in this country are required to build in a decommisioning bond and agreement to ensure removal of the turbines after they come to the end of their useful life and cease to operate.

Tis a pity that a lot of the cars, tractors, farm machinery and whatnot, lying about in both Orkney and Caithness, rusting away is a lot younger than 25 years old.  Never seems to attract the same comments though....  Will take note of the amount of scrap I see lying about at ground level next time I am passing through!

----------


## Green_not_greed

> Unlike the USA, and 25 years ago, current projects in this country are required to build in a decommisioning bond and agreement to ensure removal of the turbines after they come to the end of their useful life and cease to operate.


And do those "decommissioning bonds" require complete removal of the massive concrete bases too?

----------


## Even Chance

> And do those "decommissioning bonds" require complete removal of the massive concrete bases too?


 Why? Wouldn't they just install a replacement turbine?

----------


## badger

> Why? Wouldn't they just install a replacement turbine?


By that time wind turbines will be seem as some kind of government lunacy and have long since been replaced by something more reliable.  Sadly the concrete will still be there.  

Who's to say what those "bonds" will be worth in 25 years or whether any of the companies so happily making megabucks now will even exist?

Then there's the problem of maintenance, which is proving pretty expensive especially as the gear boxes have a much shorter life than this projected 25 years.

----------


## Eve

> By that time wind turbines will be seem as some kind of government lunacy and have long since been replaced by something more reliable.  Sadly the concrete will still be there.  
> 
> Who's to say what those "bonds" will be worth in 25 years or whether any of the companies so happily making megabucks now will even exist?
> 
> Then there's the problem of maintenance, which is proving pretty expensive especially as the gear boxes have a much shorter life than this projected 25 years.


I am hoping it will be seen as that sooner rather than later, but does anybody know if they can actually be chucked before the 25 years or are the contracts with these money grabbing landowners and electricity companies to run for 25 years whatever?

----------


## badger

> I am hoping it will be seen as that sooner rather than later, but does anybody know if they can actually be chucked before the 25 years or are the contracts with these money grabbing landowners and electricity companies to run for 25 years whatever?


I suspect that's where the turbine graveyards come in.  When they stop producing money for whatever reason, and the maintenance becomes too expensive, they will be left to rust.  In theory in this country they have to be removed after a certain time if they stop working but that length of time is increasing and who will enforce it?  Planning conditions are not enforced now so I doubt if these will be.

----------


## olivia

Thought I would resurrect this thread started all that time again by our mate Tilter as at long last the decision on whether a thirty turbine windfarm is suitable for Spittal Hill is fast approaching.
The Public Local Inquiry is due to start at 10am on Tuesday, 3 May 2011 in the Ross Institute, Halkirk.  We hope that as many of you as possible who are against this windfarm will come along to the Inquiry in order to show the Reporter the widespread opposition there is.
Lined up against the applicants are Highland Council, Scottish Natural Heritage and the opposition group - should be quite a fight!

----------


## theone

I'm not a fan of windfarms, but at the same time they don't particularly bother me.

I understand that government policy has had to be created to encourage renewables, wind included, to meet our targets and obligations.

Whay does bother me is the way in which these policies have been developed, and the detriment we face because of them.

The incentives offered have resulted in a proliferation of small, independent wind farms, promoted by sharp landowners and supported by multinational conpanies. What we've got it a few people making a lot of money because the government needs these things built.

Why, in a county our size do we have so many developments? Why are there 3 turbines here, 5 there etc etc? It's because of this unstructured approach that has been developed. There are how many, 15? turbines south of spittal? Why not make it 25, or 35, then leave the rest of the county clear? If you're going to cause eyesores etc, do it one place, then leave the rest as they were.

If windfarm planning was controlled, using centralised planning, I believe it would better for the general public than this "snatch and grab" by landowners of subsidies and incentives.

----------


## ducati

To make the tiniest dent in the ratio of renewable to carbon based generation you need thousands and thousands of turbines. 

What we need, is to get rid of Alex the fish and his cronies, install a proper, grown up Govenment that doesn't keep being lured by sweeties, and develop Nuclear power. One decent site will generate all the power that we can expect from wall to wall wind turbines, and give a reliable surplus to sell on.

----------


## orkneycadian

> Why, in a county our size do we have so many developments? Why are there 3 turbines here, 5 there etc etc? It's because of this unstructured approach that has been developed.


The opponents of windfarms are not without blame either.  The bigger the proposed windfarm, the more vociferous the case the minority opponents put forward.  Smaller, more diverse developments are often to appease the opponents.




> What we need, is to ...... develop Nuclear power. One decent site will generate all the power that we can expect from wall to wall wind turbines, and give a reliable surplus to sell on.


At what cost?  I learned in the last week that Dounreay has cost more in site maintenance since 2000 than it ever generated in electricity.  In the same searches, I also learned that the site will not be fully decommisioned till 2336 (on one web page), 2294 on this more official looking page, however, the latter is "under review", which presumably means the budget figures are similarly "under review"

It is understandable that when all this site maintenance money is thrown around in Caithness, that it generates lots of support for the industry.  But it turns out that holistically, its a worse loss leader than wind turbines!  

This site suggests that the Dounreay Fast Reactor produced 600 million kWh of electricity between 14th October 1962 - 1977.  The maximum this 14 MW generator could produce was 14,000 kW x 24 hours x 365 days x 15 years = 1,839.6 million kWh.  So, in the same way that opponents of windfarms cite the "efficiency" of wind turbines, the "efficiency" of the DFR was a mere 32.6%.  From a source of energy that is supposed to be *more reliable* than wind?  But yet, wind turbines in the north of Scotland can easily attain this figure, and exceed it!

The wind turbines of today, when they reach the end of their useful lives, can be taken down in a day and recycled into whatever the next requirement for the steel is.  Between now and 2294, we can even recycle them in 20 year cycles into useable turbines 14 times, before the Dounreay site has even been recycled once!

----------


## ducati

> The opponents of windfarms are not without blame either. The bigger the proposed windfarm, the more vociferous the case the minority opponents put forward. Smaller, more diverse developments are often to appease the opponents.
> 
> 
> 
> At what cost? I learned in the last week that Dounreay has cost more in site maintenance since 2000 than it ever generated in electricity. In the same searches, I also learned that the site will not be fully decommisioned till 2336 (on one web page), 2294 on this more official looking page, however, the latter is "under review", which presumably means the budget figures are similarly "under review"
> 
> It is understandable that when all this site maintenance money is thrown around in Caithness, that it generates lots of support for the industry. But it turns out that holistically, its a worse loss leader than wind turbines! 
> 
> This site suggests that the Dounreay Fast Reactor produced 600 million kWh of electricity between 14th October 1962 - 1977. The maximum this 14 MW generator could produce was 14,000 kW x 24 hours x 365 days x 15 years = 1,839.6 million kWh. So, in the same way that opponents of windfarms cite the "efficiency" of wind turbines, the "efficiency" of the DFR was a mere 32.6%. From a source of energy that is supposed to be *more reliable* than wind? But yet, wind turbines in the north of Scotland can easily attain this figure, and exceed it!
> ...


As you now know, Dounreay was never a commercial generation site. Compare wind with Hunterston, Sellafield or Torness, you will find even the most optimistic projections make wind turbines look like a pointless waste of money.

----------


## orkneycadian

So whats in it for communities in Orkney, who are going to have to live with the further threat of leaks and contamination for the next 300 years or so?  Orkney is, after all, closer to Dounreay than Dounreay is to Wick.

----------


## bekisman

At what cost? I learned in the last week that Dounreay has cost more in site maintenance since 2000 than it ever generated in electricity. 

Here we go again. _"ever generated in electricity"_ it was not built to provide electricity as a 'normal power station'

Dounreay was experimental
"Dounreay Nuclear Power Development Establishment was established in 1955 primarily to pursue the UK Government policy of developing fast breeder reactor (FBR) technology. Three nuclear reactors were built there by the UKAEA, two of them FBRs plus a thermal research reactor used to test materials for the program, and also fabrication and reprocessing facilities for the materials test rigs and for fuel for the FBRs."

----------


## bekisman

Wind turbines? what are they producing now? whoops, bit of a high at the moment - never mind can always get power from the French via the Interconnector, oh shock horror - that will be nuclear..

I was trying to search Google for the number of power-stations that have closed down, since this 'rush to wind', but can't find any - wonder why?

These 'poor farmers' stick three or four turbines up, they get c£10,000 per year rent (each) + percentage of the power produced, a nice little earner - for which WE obviously pay for,  getting ripped off by ROC's (makes our electric bills go through the roof!).. well the energy supplies have to get their cash from somewhere!

The Greens are slowly waking up, that the only way to 'save the planet' is good powerful nuclear power stations (just like France)

Suggest you have a look at: http://www.ecolo.org/base/baseen.htm (Environmentalists For Nuclear Energy) 
Since EFN was created, many of the greatest environmental leaders have joined our organization or share our views such as, for example, Pr. James Lovelock (author of the Gaia theory), Patrick Moore in North America (co-founder of Greenpeace international in 1971 in Vancouver, Honorary Chairman of EFN-Canada). Others include : Stewart Brand (author of the Whole Earth Catalogue), late Bishop Hugh Montefiore (founder and former director of Friends Of the Earth until he joined EFN) and Stephen Tindale (former executive director of Greenpeace U.K. from 2000-2005) who protested against nuclear power for 20 years, but changed his view in 2009 to support clean nuclear energy & has founded the group Climate Answers. The Environmental Defence Fund (EDF) who was hostile to nuclear power until 2005, is now neutral to it. The environmental group Center for Environment, Commerce & Energy (CECE) supports nuclear power in the US.

----------


## pmcd

True stuff, Bekisman. Notice in your post the idea that many have "changed their minds" about nuclear. It really is nothing more than a fashion. 

Three years ago it was anathema to even consider thinking about the remote possibility that a feasilbility study might be undertaken with a view to forming focus groups to survey the probable impacts of nuclear energy on the environment, with a view (in the longer term) that if no such undertakings or caveats were found to be outstanding, that a White Paper might be produced by a cross-parliamentary steering committee with a view to progress the nuclear debate to the next stage. 

This year its panic. Wind farms are just a 21% efficient sop to the Green Monsters: oil is totally screwed thanks to volatility in the Middle East, and Joe Public will cheerfully lynch any government which runs out of power and fuels.

So, whether you like it or not, nuclear is the only mainstream. It will become fashionable to love it again. Very quickly, if some honest politician (oxymoron?) does the simple sums on the back of an envelope.

All the rest is either in long term decline, or not capable of delivering the amounts required.

----------


## bekisman

> True stuff, Bekisman. Notice in your post the idea that many have "changed their minds" about nuclear. It really is nothing more than a fashion. 
> 
> Three years ago it was anathema to even consider thinking about the remote possibility that a feasilbility study might be undertaken with a view to forming focus groups to survey the probable impacts of nuclear energy on the environment, with a view (in the longer term) that if no such undertakings or caveats were found to be outstanding, that a White Paper might be produced by a cross-parliamentary steering committee with a view to progress the nuclear debate to the next stage. 
> 
> This year its panic. Wind farms are just a 21% efficient sop to the Green Monsters: oil is totally screwed thanks to volatility in the Middle East, and Joe Public will cheerfully lynch any government which runs out of power and fuels.
> 
> So, whether you like it or not, nuclear is the only mainstream. It will become fashionable to love it again. Very quickly, if some honest politician (oxymoron?) does the simple sums on the back of an envelope.
> 
> All the rest is either in long term decline, or not capable of delivering the amounts required.


Ta, You mean this pmcd?:
ix) 
Confirmation that there will be no incentives for new conventional electricity generation plant and that there are no current plans for new nuclear power plants (_subject to the caveat that new nuclear build may be_ _necessary should the UK be unable at some future point to meet its carbon_ _targets_).

http://www.milbank.com/NR/rdonlyres/...ePaperComm.pdf

----------


## olivia

[QUOTE=theone;842315] 
Why, in a county our size do we have so many developments? Why are there 3 turbines here, 5 there etc etc? It's because of this unstructured approach that has been developed. There are how many, 15? turbines south of spittal? Why not make it 25, or 35, then leave the rest of the county clear? If you're going to cause eyesores etc, do it one place, then leave the rest as they were.

[QUOTE]

Hi theone -There are infact 21 turbines in the Causeymire windfarm with another three yet to be built. Also, across the road there is an application in for 18 turbines at Halsary. Also, there is now a scoping opinion being sort for a further 20 (I think) turbines south of Causeymire. You may have noticed the new anemometer mast. So plenty going on south of Spittal already. Therefore, it certainly is not necessary to have another 30 on Spittal Hill itself.

Spittal Hill Windfarm Public Local Inquiry - starts 10am 3 May, Ross Institute, Halkirk, all welcome.

----------


## orkneycadian

> Here we go again. _"ever generated in electricity"_ it was not built to provide electricity as a 'normal power station'
> 
> Dounreay was experimental
> "Dounreay Nuclear Power Development Establishment was established in 1955 primarily to pursue the UK Government policy of developing fast breeder reactor (FBR) technology. Three nuclear reactors were built there by the UKAEA, two of them FBRs plus a thermal research reactor used to test materials for the program, and also fabrication and reprocessing facilities for the materials test rigs and for fuel for the FBRs."


Not quite the point I was making.  If a landowner uses some of his money to build a wind turbine, he gets slated as "grabbing money" unless there is "something in it for the community"

I was merely asking what folks that live near Dounreay are going to get, on the same basis, over the next 300 years for putting up with it?  If a community can expect to get a handout for "putting up with a windturbine" for the next 20 years, surely we must be in line for some huge handouts for putting up with a radioactive repository for the next 300 years?

And if it doesnt work like that, why not?

----------


## canadagirl

> I was merely asking what folks that live near Dounreay are going to get, on the same basis, over the next 300 years for putting up with it?  If a community can expect to get a handout for "putting up with a windturbine" for the next 20 years, surely we must be in line for some huge handouts for putting up with a radioactive repository for the next 300 years?
> 
> And if it doesnt work like that, why not?


I think it's called "class action suit"  :Grin:

----------


## bekisman

> Not quite the point I was making. If a landowner uses some of his money to build a wind turbine, he gets slated as "grabbing money" unless there is "something in it for the community"
> 
> I was merely asking what folks that live near Dounreay are going to get, on the same basis, over the next 300 years for putting up with it? If a community can expect to get a handout for "putting up with a windturbine" for the next 20 years, surely we must be in line for some huge handouts for putting up with a radioactive repository for the next 300 years?
> 
> And if it doesnt work like that, why not?


Well 'spose a great many jobs for a great many years, why sir, I quote your own; _"In the same searches, I also learned that the site will not be fully decommissioned till 2336 (on one web page), 2294"_.. And your Orkney wind farms?

Thought I'd have a look to see what other Orcadians think of it 'across the water': 

"Over the last five years or so the prospect of Wind Turbines being imposed on the Orkney landscape has been growing as some would say an inevitable part of the now established and institutionalised fight against “Climate Change”.
The truth of this is now mired in a horrible obfuscation intertwining poor scientific understanding with week minded politicians and driven by that basic and primary force, *Greed*.

It is important to be unequivocal in this discussion. I am a committed environmentalist and am putting my money where my mouth is. I have just completed building a highly ecologically-sound dwelling and am about to start on the next, East Heddle. I have planted 3000 trees and am actively managing 11 acres as a wildlife sanctuary and bird reserve.
The knee-jerk reaction of the ill-informed, self-interested or simple wind turbine enthusiast is to accuse anyone campaigning against these machines as a parochial NIMBY. Actually my personal backyard is pretty well protected as we live on the boundary of the WHS ZVI, (World Heritage Site Zone of Visual Influence)."
It goes on....
http://www.simontreasure.name/about-.../orkney-winds/

----------


## orkneycadian

> http://www.simontreasure.name/about-.../orkney-winds/


Ah yes, Orkney's very own ywindythesecond!  The thing is, the real ywindythesecond actually knows a thing or 2 about energy and how it is generated!

Oh, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orcadians contains a little bit about the definition of an Orcadian!   :Wink:

----------


## orkneycadian

> Well 'spose a great many jobs for a great many years, why sir, I quote your own; _"In the same searches, I also learned that the site will not be fully decommissioned till 2336 (on one web page), 2294"_.. And your Orkney wind farms?


Well, I suppose one put up this year, if it comes to the end of its useful life in 2031, will also likely be decommisioned in 2031 - The same year as it ceases generating - Not 300 years after it ceases generating.....

Site all nice and tidy again within a few months!

----------


## bekisman

Hmmm Quite cheap these wind farms aren't they? nice little earner too (Poor farmers my arse):
The total Renewables Obligation paid to the wind industry last year was £400 million. So each of Britain’s wind turbines earned, on average, £138,000 in subsidy last year. Add in the profits from selling the electricity they generate and after construction costs are cleared, you will be making nearly £300,000 per year per turbine, half of it courtesy of the Government.

----------


## spurtle

The whole windfarm thhing is a scam for turning money, not electricity.  Latest monitored figures show average output at just over 20% of max capacity.  What a jojke!  It would be a joke if  you and I were not paying fot it as part of every electricity bill we pay (Climate Change Levy),  thus funding greedy people to destroy some of our most valuable landscapes 
Highland Council are apparently asking for views on how we should plan for these things and they particularly mention Caithness as being in line for saturation levels of them.  
As they  have already produced their Renewable Energy Strategy at huge public expense, and take  no notice of it when determining applications, what are anyone's views worth?

----------


## ywindythesecond

> Ah yes, our very own ywindythesecond! The thing is, ywindy actually knows a thing or 2 about energy and how it is generated!
> 
> Oh, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orcadians contains a little bit about the definition of an Orcadian!


Evening okc. Do you have any specific views on Spittal Hill Windfarm, the supposed topic of this thread?

----------


## Rheghead

> Latest monitored figures show average output at just over 20% of max capacity.  What a jojke!


There was a JMT-commissioned study out recently that reported on wind farm performance from October 2008 to December 2008, I do not know what the average load factor for that period the author was prepared to claim but I have done my own study of that period.

I collated the monthly numbers of ROCs from the national fleet of wind farms which are published on the OFGEM website.  I then tabulated that data with the level of wind farm capacity at the relevent month and calculated the monthly load factor.  I then averaged the whole lot from Oct 2008 to Dec 2010 and the load factor which was derived was 27.23% which is very respectable (and in accordance with the wind industry claims) considering that there was some very long anticyclones in the winters.  Presuming that OFGEM do not give out ROCs without proper proof of generation then I think that method is a reliable indicator of wind farm performance.  Granted there was huge variations in load factors from month to month eg. Junes were pretty poor in the region of ~12-15% but the winters were pretty good 30-42% except Feb and Dec 2010 ~18%.

I surmise the author of the report got his data from BMReports but there in lies a problem which is hard to defend, ywindy and I identified that the BMReports suffered from communication problems which is most likely to do with the SCADA systems which failed to send the correct level of output from the wind farm to the BMReport website and so could affect the potentially false conclusions of the JMT study.

Just saying...

----------


## orkneycadian

> Evening okc. Do you have any specific views on Spittal Hill Windfarm, the supposed topic of this thread?


Yes, hopefully I will have a view of it out my livingroom window!  Can see 19 of those at Causeymire, so Spittal Hill should hopefully be in range!

Aside from that, the supposed topic, and the opening post talks about Spittal Hill being the dumbest place ever for a windfarm.  As far as I can gather, the OP thinks it is a dumb place because it is in the middle of the county, and means the turbines can be "seen".  I could understand it if the proposal was to put turbines in the bottom of a valley with Munro's all around it - That would be dumb.  But on a hill, in one of the windiest parts of Scotland, near the grid, near a good access road seems quite a sensible proposition to me, and far from "dumb"!

----------


## olivia

Just out of interest Orkneycadian how far away do you live from Spittal Hill?

Would you change your mind if your house was less than 800 metres away from the proposed windfarm and the 'view' from your window was filled with wind turbines with the added 'benefits' of the stacking phenomenon?

Oh, and in answer to one of your previous comments us 'antis/nimbys' are certainly vocal but certainly not in the minority.

*Spittal Hill Windfarm Public Local Inquiry - starts 10am, 3 May 2011, Ross Institute, Halkirk - all welcome.*

----------


## ywindythesecond

> But on a hill, in one of the windiest parts of Scotland, near the grid, near a good access road seems quite a sensible proposition to me, and far from "dumb"!


All good attributes for a windfarm okc, but the dumb bit is this one is in the heart of a community. It not just us usual supects think it is dumb, Highland Council and SNH also think so.

----------


## ywindythesecond

> There was a JMT-commissioned study out recently that reported on wind farm performance from October 2008 to December 2008, I do not know what the average load factor for that period the author was prepared to claim but I have done my own study of that period.
> 
> I collated the monthly numbers of ROCs from the national fleet of wind farms which are published on the OFGEM website. I then tabulated that data with the level of wind farm capacity at the relevent month and calculated the monthly load factor. I then averaged the whole lot from Oct 2008 to Dec 2010 and the load factor which was derived was 27.23% which is very respectable (and in accordance with the wind industry claims) considering that there was some very long anticyclones in the winters. Presuming that OFGEM do not give out ROCs without proper proof of generation then I think that method is a reliable indicator of wind farm performance. Granted there was huge variations in load factors from month to month eg. Junes were pretty poor in the region of ~12-15% but the winters were pretty good 30-42% except Feb and Dec 2010 ~18%.
> 
> I surmise the author of the report got his data from BMReports but there in lies a problem which is hard to defend, ywindy and I identified that the BMReports suffered from communication problems which is most likely to do with the SCADA systems which failed to send the correct level of output from the wind farm to the BMReport website and so could affect the potentially false conclusions of the JMT study.
> 
> Just saying...


No need to surmise anything Reggy. The John Muir Trust Report (supported, not commissioned) can be found at www.JMT.org, and it is a cracking good read! Recent DECC published figures are almost identical.
I am very interested in your own study. Dredging up information from OFGEM records is ballbreaking task. How did you establish connected generation levels at any one time?
Incidentally, the JMT report dealt with SCADA problem you and I identified by 
"Where there was a gap in data, for example due to instrumentation failure, then the last credible data before the event and the first credible data after the event have been averaged, and the appropriate number of five minute periods inserted at these average values. This maintains 288 five minute periods in each day."

These are DECC's figures
The figures are in row 42 of the attached file (but youll need to unhide the columns if you want to see figures earlier than 2005)

Data for 2000 to 2009 are taken from DUKES 7.4 (http://decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/statistics/source/renewables/renewables.aspx), while 2010 is calculated from the latest data from Energy Trends today.


Year
Onshore wind load factor (%)
2000
27.4 
2001
23.8 
2002
28.0 
2003
24.1 
2004
26.6 
2005
26.4 
2006
27.2 
2007
27.5 
2008
27.0 
2009
27.4 
2010 (provisional)
21.4

----------


## rupert

Good to see the two Musketeers are back - we missed you ywindy and rheggy!


*NO TO SPITTAL HILL WINDFARM!!*

----------


## Rheghead

> I am very interested in your own study. Dredging up information from OFGEM records is ballbreaking task. How did you establish connected generation levels at any one time?
> Incidentally, the JMT report dealt with SCADA problem you and I identified by 
> "Where there was a gap in data, for example due to instrumentation failure, then the last credible data before the event and the first credible data after the event have been averaged, and the appropriate number of five minute periods inserted at these average values. This maintains 288 five minute periods in each day."


I have been taking data from BWEA monthly just to show the levels of growth in wind generation for some time now.

The trouble with what you have is that total SCADA outages are easy to notice and yes you can do exactly as you say to make an average, it is a good reasonable approach what you have done.  However, where you may have erred is that a partial failure will have gone unnoticed and low levels of generation will have been interpreted as natural variation from predicted output.  I have noticed many times that generation levels have not quite matched prediction and more often than not it was below prediction.  If the SCADA systems performed 100% then I'd expected to see generation levels equally higher and lower than predicted but this is not the case, there is a bias to under performance.

EDIT: Yes and I did allow for offshore ROC banding at the appropriate times over the study period.

----------


## Rheghead

> Data for 2000 to 2009 are taken from DUKES 7.4 (http://decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/statistics/source/renewables/renewables.aspx), while 2010 is calculated from the latest data from Energy Trends today.
> 
> 
> 2010 (provisional)
> 21.4


I concur that there was a significant fall in performance over 2010, it was pretty exceptional I suppose with those anticyclones.  My calculated figure for 2010 from OFGEM is 22.75%.

----------


## Novice

Windfarms Hmmm !

I have a long story about experiences in dealing with a windfarm company, too long for now, back soon.

----------


## orkneycadian

> All good attributes for a windfarm okc, but the dumb bit is this one is in the heart of a community.


Over here, the communities themselves are all beavering away building their own wind turbines in the hearts of their communities.  Theres a whole lot of them going in in each community, for the community.  In each respective parish / island, there seems to be lots of enthusiaism for them, as they are their own projects.

Are you doing the same thing over in Caithness, or do you just sit back and take pot shots at private individuals who build the projects instead?

How many community owned wind turbines will there have been built in Caithness by the end of this year?

----------


## ducati

> Over here, the communities themselves are all beavering away building their own wind turbines in the hearts of their communities. Theres a whole lot of them going in in each community, for the community. In each respective parish / island, there seems to be lots of enthusiaism for them, as they are their own projects.
> 
> Are you doing the same thing over in Caithness, or do you just sit back and take pot shots at private individuals who build the projects instead?
> 
> How many community owned wind turbines will there have been built in Caithness by the end of this year?


Would they be as enthusiastic if they were being forced on the communities by foreigners in cahoots with the idiots 300 miles away?

----------


## ywindythesecond

> Over here, the communities themselves are all beavering away building their own wind turbines in the hearts of their communities. Theres a whole lot of them going in in each community, for the community. In each respective parish / island, there seems to be lots of enthusiaism for them, as they are their own projects.
> 
> Are you doing the same thing over in Caithness, or do you just sit back and take pot shots at private individuals who build the projects instead?
> 
> How many community owned wind turbines will there have been built in Caithness by the end of this year?


C'mon okc!! Are you suggesting lots of Orkney communities are beavering away at building their very own 30 No x 110m high turbine development covering approx 3sq km in their own back yards?
If you want to be taken seriously, compare apples with apples, not apples with pips!
Thank goodness for a system which on the face of it at least steps in to see that common sense prevails and that there is a public inquiry for Spittal windfarm.

The people threatened with gross intrusion on their amenity will at least have a chance to put their case.

----------


## ywindythesecond

> I have noticed many times that generation levels have not quite matched prediction and more often than not it was below prediction. If the SCADA systems performed 100% then I'd expected to see generation levels equally higher and lower than predicted but this is not the case, there is a bias to under performance.


This assumes that National Grid's output prediction is always correct. Attachment 9020
This is the current situation. According to your understanding, SCADA systems have been over recording wind output for nearly two days, which if correct, would overestimate wind performance. The reality is that system errors are relatively infrequent and even uncorrected are statistically insignificant, and such errors were sought out in preparation of the report, not just noted when apparent on the output graphs. The other reality is that no-one, no organisation anywhere, has the ability to accurately predict output from wind generators at any period in the future, regardless of size of generating unit or geographical spread or location. Can't be done. The major variable is the wind output, not the the recording systems.

----------


## Rheghead

> Over here, the communities themselves are all beavering away building their own wind turbines in the hearts of their communities.  Theres a whole lot of them going in in each community, for the community.  In each respective parish / island, there seems to be lots of enthusiaism for them, as they are their own projects.
> 
> Are you doing the same thing over in Caithness, or do you just sit back and take pot shots at private individuals who build the projects instead?
> 
> How many community owned wind turbines will there have been built in Caithness by the end of this year?



Don't be daft, this is how it works on this side of the water.

We have a dire jobs situation with the rundown of Dounreay, so instead our pseudo tory Liberal Democrat MP publically calls for a blanket moratorium on the development of renewable energy projects thus potentially and recklessly causing immense harm to the economy of the area and the environment.

There have been proposals for turbines in school to give pupils an insight in green matters and to reduce fuel bills to the taxpayer, a win-win situation, and yet the usual individual suspects lodge objections because if they are spouting the same safety nonsense for big turbines then it must be bad for smaller ones.  Oh the children!!

We had a local businessman who wanted to put up a wind farm but the local group objected and it got rejected thus opened the door to the bigger wind farm getting planning permission that had the backing of a foreign utility because there were no other wind farms planned for the area.  Bad timing that one.

We have wind farms that have been pegged back to smaller proposals because of pressure from local objectors, if passed then the developer will put an application for an expansion thus putting the community under a longer protracted uncertain future.  Come on guys you know that it is less painful to pull a plaster off in one full swoop than to peel it off gradually.

Change is coming and not just to the climate, let us get used to it.

----------


## Rheghead

> This assumes that National Grid's output prediction is always correct. Attachment 9020
> This is the current situation. According to your understanding, SCADA systems have been over recording wind output for nearly two days, which if correct, would overestimate wind performance. The reality is that system errors are relatively infrequent and even uncorrected are statistically insignificant, and such errors were sought out in preparation of the report, not just noted when apparent on the output graphs. The other reality is that no-one, no organisation anywhere, has the ability to accurately predict output from wind generators at any period in the future, regardless of size of generating unit or geographical spread or location. Can't be done. The major variable is the wind output, not the the recording systems.


No that is not according to my understanding.  I refer you back to post #298

----------


## bekisman

You be careful ywindythesecond, Rheghead has a habit of throwing a hissy and giving a bad red rep if he's not happy - usually when he's not actually involved in the thread..

I like his oxymoron; "_There have been proposals for turbines ... to reduce fuel bills to the taxpayer"_ Eh? it's the bloody taxpayer who's footing the bill for the bleeding turbines anyway..

He mentions _"the local group objected"_ and _"from local objectors"_ he calls the democratically elected representative _"recklessly causing immense harm"_ because he doesn't share rheghead's philosophy.. I'm afraid to rheghead objectors are an evil influence that stops us 'saving the planet' - total and complete utter tosh, there's not a hope in hell that stupid ineffectual ROC supported wind farms will ever make a jot of difference. 

At least (unlike our Rheggy) there are a rapidly increasing number of Greens who ARE seeing sense and  realising we do not have the time to fiddle around with costly and ineffectual turbines and are now stating that Nuclear is the ONLY way we will have any chance at all to 'save the planet'.. 
Don't come the tosh and whinge about 'there's not enough Uranium' rubbish either..Thank God there's a caveat on standby that nuclear power stations WILL be built if these windy things don't (as they do) deliver..

Get off your pushbike rheggy and get real!

----------


## Rheghead

> The major variable is the wind output, not the the recording systems.[/FONT]


The major shortcoming in the quality of the BMReports data may indeed be the fault of the recording systems, indeed here are 50 vulnerabilities of the system...

http://www.blade-software.com/News/n...3-11-SCADA.htm

----------


## Rheghead

> At least (unlike our Rheggy) there are a rapidly increasing number of Greens who ARE seeing sense and  realising we do not have the time to fiddle around with costly and ineffectual turbines and are now stating that Nuclear is the ONLY way we will have any chance at all to 'save the planet'..


Have you not been watching the news?

----------


## olivia

> Don't be daft, this is how it works on this side of the water.
> 
> We have a dire jobs situation with the rundown of Dounreay, so instead our pseudo tory Liberal Democrat MP publically calls for a blanket moratorium on the development of renewable energy projects thus potentially and recklessly causing immense harm to the economy of the area and the environment.
> 
> There have been proposals for turbines in school to give pupils an insight in green matters and to reduce fuel bills to the taxpayer, a win-win situation, and yet the usual individual suspects lodge objections because if they are spouting the same safety nonsense for big turbines then it must be bad for smaller ones. Oh the children!!
> 
> We had a local businessman who wanted to put up a wind farm but the local group objected and it got rejected thus opened the door to the bigger wind farm getting planning permission that had the backing of a foreign utility because there were no other wind farms planned for the area. Bad timing that one.
> 
> We have wind farms that have been pegged back to smaller proposals because of pressure from local objectors, if passed then the developer will put an application for an expansion thus putting the community under a longer protracted uncertain future. Come on guys you know that it is less painful to pull a plaster off in one full swoop than to peel it off gradually.
> ...


Did our MP not call for a moratorium on further windfarm development until all that had been consented are built, in order to then establish the true cumulative impact that does or does not exist?

To say that this would cause immense harm to the area both economically and environmentally is rather overstating it don't you think?

I do think there has to be a sensible appraisal of how small wind turbines fit in to school premises. After all they are moving mechanical structures that do sometimes fail. A blade coming off at speed near a playground could be disastrous.

Did the large windfarm not get permission before the smaller one by the local businessman got rejected? Yes, unfortunate timing for him, but I seem to remember you were a great supporter of the big windfarm, were you not?

Finally, are you saying that it is never worth making any sort of protest to anything that may impinge on people's lives because it's always a foregone conclusion that one will lose? It would be a poorer place if that was the case.

*Spittal Hill windfarm public local inquiry starts 10am, Tuesday 3 May in the Ross Institute, Halkirk - all welcome.*

----------


## Rheghead

> Did our MP not call for a moratorium on further windfarm development until all that had been consented are built, in order to then establish the true cumulative impact that does or does not exist?
> 
> To say that this would cause immense harm to the area both economically and environmentally is rather overstating it don't you think?
> 
> I do think there has to be a sensible appraisal of how small wind turbines fit in to school premises. After all they are moving mechanical structures that do sometimes fail. A blade coming off at speed near a playground could be disastrous.
> 
> Did the large windfarm not get permission before the smaller one by the local businessman got rejected? Yes, unfortunate timing for him, but I seem to remember you were a great supporter of the big windfarm, were you not?
> 
> Finally, are you saying that it is never worth making any sort of protest to anything that may impinge on people's lives because it's always a foregone conclusion that one will lose? It would be a poorer place if that was the case.
> ...


Our MP really puzzled me on that one, he clearly should know better that what he was suggesting would not happen in practice but he still made it clear that he is hostile to renewable energy businesses coming on to his patch.  Perhaps it was just a gesture to the masses prior to election time? Oh well...

I believe the objections went in for the school prior to knowing _what_ was sited _where_, hardly informed but more irrational.

No, the bigger one got rejected unanimously and went to appeal, the smaller one got its fair crack at getting permission and objectors should have seen that approval of the big one would have killed off the big one.  But alas, the objectors were too short sighted and lacked 'objector management' which let the door open for the biggie.  Anyone else  looking in could have seen that a mile off.

Just saying

----------


## ywindythesecond

> Don't be daft, this is how it works on this side of the water.
> 
> 
> 
> We have wind farms that have been pegged back to smaller proposals because of pressure from local objectors, if passed then the developer will put an application for an expansion thus putting the community under a longer protracted uncertain future. Come on guys you know that it is less painful to pull a plaster off in one full swoop than to peel it off gradually.


So you suggest the "Lie back and think of England" approach is best?
And before anyone jumps in, it is not a racist remark, I am just quoting a well known phrase which more or less says that you are stuffed anyway, so make the best of it.

----------


## rupert

> The people threatened with gross intrusion on their amenity will at least have a chance to put their case.


But who really cares about the little people? We may get our say but is it not just a sop to all of us objectors? 

I have an awful feeling that the big business (which is pulling the puppets strings in this case, nothing to do with being local) will get their way in the end. After all they have pots of money to throw at the case, employing the most ruthless and hardbitten lawyers they can find, to squash us mere mortals into the ground.

Just a very cynical and depressing thought.

*Residents, Highland Council and Scottish Natural Heritage say 'No' to Spittal Hill Windfarm!!*

----------


## hilary

I read that a headmaster had to shut down a wind turbine at his school because of the amount of dead birds lying on the ground and the kids were upset at seeing so many of them.
keep positive rupert the objectors could come out on the winning side.
every body try and turn up on *tues.3rd May at 10 am Ross Institute Halkirk*

----------


## Rheghead

It is interesting to note that according to the Renewable Energy Foundation, an organisation typically hostile to wind farms, Caithness windfarms perform well above national averages last year.

Boulfruich 30.2% 
Causeymire 28.2% 
Forss 40.5%
Bilbster 28.1%
Achairn 31.4%

It is to be expected that Spittal wind farm will perform just as well.  And at a capacity rating of 77.5MW, it will mitigate on average over 120,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year ( 0.02% of the UK's carbon dioxide emissions) being released into the atmosphere from fossil fuel generators, (77.5MW X 8760 X 0.3 X 0.6t CO2).  To give you some scale of this, it is like taking over 1000 coal truck journeys off our roads each year, which in itself would probably will have a carbon footprint and other risks attached.

Choosing the ideology of Hope over Fear.

----------


## bekisman

> It is interesting to note that according to the Renewable Energy Foundation, an organisation typically hostile to wind farms, Caithness windfarms perform well above national averages last year.
> 
> Boulfruich 30.2% 
> Causeymire 28.2% 
> Forss 40.5%
> Bilbster 28.1%
> Achairn 31.4%
> 
> It is to be expected that Spittal wind farm will perform just as well. And at a capacity rating of 77.5MW, it will mitigate on average over 120,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year ( 0.02% of the UK's carbon dioxide emissions) being released into the atmosphere from fossil fuel generators, (77.5MW X 8760 X 0.3 X 0.6t CO2). To give you some scale of this, it is like taking over 1000 coal truck journeys off our roads each year, which in itself would probably will have a carbon footprint and other risks attached.
> ...


Rheghead - can't seem to find any power stations that have closed down because your 'wonder wind' appeared..

----------


## Rheghead

> Rheghead - can't seem to find any power stations that have closed down because your 'wonder wind' appeared..


OK Russell Howard you've got 30 seconds on 'Things most least likely to be said by polluters'

"We closed earlier than planned voluntarily even though we are a functioning poluting business and we have paid millions for this facility because there was a better alternative for the planet."

 ::

----------


## bekisman

This 'rush to wind' causes carnage to our bird population.. Poor kids coming to school and seeing wildlife being battered out of the sky, I've got grandkids and I'd hate them to experience the site of some mangled bird spread across the playground.. Head teacher Stuart McLeod said he has been coming to school early to clear up the dead birds to minimise the distress to pupils - Thank God the thing was turned off.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10518796

The Fact is, no matter how many wind factories are built (at horrendous cost to us) they will never have an effect on any global warming, millions upon millions are needed.. 
These eco-wind warriors are more interested in promoting their so-called green agenda, and refuse to see that we need a powerful non CO2 source of energy that may, just may make a difference. 

Instead we will get our land totally despoiled by these subsidy sucking relics, producing (when the wind blows of course) piddling amounts of electricity - whilst in the background we have conventional power stations in spinning reserve, ready to take up the slack - pumping out CO2 - what's the sense in that. 

Nuclear power such as in Sweden - which produce about 45% of the country's electricity - on 5 February 2009, the Swedish Government announced an agreement allowing for the replacement of existing reactors, effectively ending the phase-out policy. There's  Finland with it's four nuclear reactors.  In 2007 they provided 28.4% of Finland's electricity. They are among the world's most productive, with average capacity factors of 94% in the 1990s.  making Rheghead's paltry wind turbine factors look extremely silly - A fifth nuclear reactor is under construction, scheduled to go online in 2013.

Of course Denmark - 'king of the turbine'  has to import from Sweden (5.0 billion kWh in 2007),  half of which is nuclear And interestingly enough Denmark's CO2 emissions make them only 62nd out of 216? AND they have the second highest electricity costs in Europe!!..
Belgium has seven nuclear reactors generating more than half of its electricity. Nuclear energy provides 54% of the country's domestically-generated electricity 

The Netherlands has one nuclear reactor generating about 4% of its electricity.  Two large new units are now proposed.  In 1994 the Dutch parliament voted to phase out the Borssele nuclear power plant by 2003. The government however ran into legal difficulties to implement that decision. In 2003, the ruling conservative government coalition moved the closure date back to 2013, and in 2005 the phase-out decision was abandoned.


Of course there's  French Nuclear power which is the primary source of electric power in France. In 2004, 425.8 TWh out of the country's total production of 540.6 TWh of electricity was from nuclear power (78.8%), the highest percentage in the world.. France is also the world's largest net exporter of electric power, exporting 18% of its total production (about 100 TWh) to Italy, The Netherlands Belgium *BRITAIN* and Germany, and its electricity cost is among the lowest in Europe. 

Why oh why do these Greens not love the world enough to try and save it by all means possible? self-centred Neanderthals selfishly hanging on to a useless, ineffective method of saving the planet.. 

You know Lovelock Rheghead?

----------


## ywindythesecond

> It is interesting to note that according to the Renewable Energy Foundation, an organisation typically hostile to wind farms, Caithness windfarms perform well above national averages last year.
> 
> Boulfruich 30.2% 
> Causeymire 28.2% 
> Forss 40.5%
> Bilbster 28.1%
> Achairn 31.4%
> 
> It is to be expected that Spittal wind farm will perform just as well. And at a capacity rating of 77.5MW, it will mitigate on average over 120,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year ( 0.02% of the UK's carbon dioxide emissions) being released into the atmosphere from fossil fuel generators, (77.5MW X 8760 X 0.3 X 0.6t CO2). To give you some scale of this, it is like taking over 1000 coal truck journeys off our roads each year, which in itself would probably will have a carbon footprint and other risks attached.
> ...


That is true Reggy, Caithness windfarms will have higher average outputs than most of UK, but average output doesnt mean reliable despatchable electricity. Have a look at the graphs attached to that admirable report Analysis of UK Wind Power Generation November 2008 to December 2010 which is on John Muir Trust Website at www.jmt.org.
Also look at the number of times generation from the metered wind capacity studied was effectively zero (Less than 20MW from over 1600MW on average)  On 121 occasions over 26 months. 

The most recent effective total failure was on 28th March this year when 2124MW Scottish onshore, 180MW Scottish offshore, and 920MW English offshore capacity generated as low as 9MW between them.
.
These capacity totals include both the biggest onshore and offshore windfarms in Europe at Whitelee and Thanet. They also include Buolfruich and Causeymire. So if Spittal WF had been connected since November 2008, it too would have by now failed on at least 122 separate occasions.

How frequently do all our nuclear power stations fail simultaneously? (Or gas, or coal, or oil, or hydro?) Wind is the only generation source which can disappear entirely, over which we have no control, and which we cannot predict when that will happen. 

If our oil or gas was delivered the way wind power is, we would go to war to secure our energy supply.

Opening credits,  Have I got News for You. Just imagine the Russian Soldier is a wind.

----------


## Tilter

Well well well.  Almost 4 years to the day and we're still arguing the toss.  Who'd have thought!!

I must make a point of coming back on in April 2015.  Either (1) the blades will be spinning or (2) Spittal's been rejected, then appealed, then maybe rejected again so then the developer will come back with another application that's a bit different (ish) and we'll be arguing about that.  All that should take us nicely into 2015, while the poor devils who'll be most affected will still be in limbo.  My money's on (2) by the way.

Interesting to see Bekisman's post about greens coming out of the closet re nuclear.

Would like to say I stand by my OP.

Goodnight all.

----------


## Rheghead

> Interesting to see Bekisman's post about greens coming out of the closet re nuclear.


Yes I would like proof of that please.  Fact is that nuclear supplies only 4% of UK energy, it is a finite energy source and uranium reserves are dwindling.

I recognise that nuclear is a magnificent technical achievement but as a sustainable energy option it is very limited and fraught with risks which recent events have exposed.

I'm not against nuke per se, I'm just not in denial about its limitations.

----------


## Rheghead

> That is true Reggy, Caithness windfarms will have higher average outputs than most of UK, but average output doesn’t mean reliable despatchable electricity.


You are right, putting a variable and uncontrollable energy source on to the grid is an electrical engineer's nightmare.  What the JMT report does is just over state the obvious.

If wind was controlled and predictable then the internal combustion engine wouldn't have had a look in and we'd all be getting our energy from wind already.  :: 

But we are facing an environmental disaster of Biblical proportions and an energy crisis the like we have not seen before.  When nuclear energy costs are approximately 8p per kWh and wind is matching it at 8p per kWh then it is no  wonder which will come out on top in the end.

EDIT:  Just out of interest ywindythesecond, you are the Chairman of the Caithness Windfarm Information Forum, so why does the CWIF website not tell us relevent information that Caithness windfarms are performing well above UK national averages?  ::   ::

----------


## Rheghead

> You know Lovelock Rheghead?


Yes I am aware of his work, what do you think of his belief that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are warming up the planet?

----------


## peter macdonald

"There's Finland with it's four nuclear reactors. In 2007 they provided 28.4% of Finland's electricity. They are among the world's most productive, with average capacity factors of 94% in the 1990s. making Rheghead's paltry wind turbine factors look extremely silly - A fifth nuclear reactor is under construction, scheduled to go online in 2013."

I dont think using the 5th reactor in Finland at Olkiluoto as an example for the nuclear industry is a good idea 
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/bu...l?pagewanted=2
http://www.nuclearpowerdaily.com/rep...ports_999.html

----------


## bekisman

> Yes I am aware of his work, what do you think of his belief that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are warming up the planet?


Duh - OK, you believe that CO2 does this. (Incidentally with your posts being written in the early hours of the morning - whilst I slept in a 'dead' house - I presume you feel guilty with your own unnecessary carbon footprint)?

So, by hanging onto your misplaced doctrine that nuclear power is Beelzebub personified, you totally miss the point that your selfish actions of NOT encouraging a non-CO2 powerful and reliable source of energy (see France at el) you are by default guilty of bringing the date of Armageddon ever closer - dare I say Sir; you are a dinosaur.

Your 'Green' credentials are - by your immense number of postings negated.. Wind power will never - in even your wildest dreams - provide us with reliable power that we desperately need to save the Earth from catastrophe. 

In reference to Lovelock he ALSO states that nuclear power is possibly the only chance we have of diverting this coming disaster, we cannot stand by whilst you fiddle and Rome burns.

----------


## bekisman

> "There's Finland with it's four nuclear reactors. In 2007 they provided 28.4% of Finland's electricity. They are among the world's most productive, with average capacity factors of 94% in the 1990s. making Rheghead's paltry wind turbine factors look extremely silly - A fifth nuclear reactor is under construction, scheduled to go online in 2013."
> 
> I dont think using the 5th reactor in Finland at Olkiluoto as an example for the nuclear industry is a good idea 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/bu...l?pagewanted=2
> http://www.nuclearpowerdaily.com/rep...ports_999.html


Why is it that some people always look towards the negative? quote: _"The construction side and installation start up have progressed somewhat slower than was planned,"_ as if the evil of nuclear must be avoided at all costs; sod saving our Earth, fiddle around with silly bit and pieces, but do not use nuclear; result; our planet dies. 

Of course in a perfect society we may well have fusion, but we don't have time, but we do have 'something' that works far far better than ineffectual windfarms that stayed idle in UK during the recent High..

Do you not feel guilty that right this very second France is pouring their nuclear power into our National Grid? your PC is being powered by atoms through the interconnector?

OK you and Rheghead go look for just the negative, I fully agree nuclear power is a curate's egg, but unlike Rheghead I want to save the planet for my children and grandchildren - we are fast running out of time..

----------


## Rheghead

Bekisman, You never answered my question.  This is why your posts are so incoherent on climate change and energy policy.  You promote the use of nuclear energy and use references such as Lovelock, but your ideological position is completely different than his.  He is in desperate need for nuclear power because for its quick fix and low carbon energy to tackle a environmental disaster ie, GLOBAL WARMING but you deny that it even exists.

Anyone who doubts the existence of Global warming due to the burning of fossil fuels makes the least convincing argument against the development of wind farms across Scotland.  It is as simple as that I'm afraid because if climate change doesn't exist then wind farms make little sense because of their visual impact across the pristine countryside.

Anyway that is me out of this discussion, I'll leave you all alone again.

----------


## Kenneth

I'm gonna throw this out there - I think windfarms look quite nice really.

----------


## Carole

Have always thought of them as elegant structures.

----------


## bekisman

Oh my God, my _"ideological position"_  and my posts are _"incoherent"_  Rheghead, you are totally missing the point! I'll ask you a fair pertinent question; do YOU agree with lovelock? i.e._ "He is in desperate need for nuclear power because for its quick fix and low carbon energy to tackle a environmental disaster"_ - THAT is the crux of the matter, HE is a Green, and believes in Global warming - he understands the need for a non-CO2 solution. It matters not one jot what I, a mere layman (as you yourself)  believe. 
You are an average Joe on the street who is not a climate scientist or an Engineer.  But for some obscure reason you are fixated and devoutly insist that the only way is wind. 
IF you honestly accept this, then you, my friend are a vandal for desecrating the countryside, raising our energy bills through ROC's, lining the developers pockets, and ignoring the experts view that the only quick fix is nuclear.

_"It is as simple as that I'm afraid because if climate change doesn't exist then wind farms make little sense because of their visual impact across the pristine countryside"_ Wind farms make little sense, of that you are correct, if you only had a little courage to accept the word of those who know, then these few simple words of yours would not belie the arrogance of your position. 

I have my own personal doubts on reasons for Global Warming; simply input 'Global Warming Myths" - and you; Rheghead, know no more or less than I.
But If the planet has to be saved - more non- CO2 energy is urgently needed. I do not understand why you belittle Lovelock and his urgent solution.

If you accept that global warming exists and use only wind, and abhor Lovelock's proposition you are Sir, a dinosaur 

Oh, and those that think turbines 'look nice' obviously do not live within a few hundred yards of them.

----------


## Carole

> Oh, and those that think turbines 'look nice' obviously do not live within a few hundred yards of them.


Very few people live within a few hundred yards of wind farms however your otherwise well-reasoned arguments are weakened when you stray into 'not in my back yard' areas.

----------


## Kenneth

Well said Carole..

----------


## bekisman

Weakened? stray? the proximity of turbines is but a minuscule part of my postings; _please_ peruse fully.

Not in my back yard? - surely any reasonable person would not like them in their own back yard - presume you'd be quite happy? Never mind, got Strathy South and Strathy North coming, what about you?
Carole and Kenneth - where is YOUR nearest windfarm? and please; your thoughts on those who do live within a few hundred yards of wind farms? 
Presume you have no idea of SPP6 - that distance is for a reason, but nah, who's bothered as 'they look nice' after all..

PS just realized, you think I wrote: "_"It is as simple as that I'm afraid because if climate change doesn't exist then wind farms make little sense because of their visual impact across the pristine countryside" ?_ nah, not me that was Rheghead!

----------


## Mystical Potato Head

> I'm gonna throw this out there - I think windfarms look quite nice really.


I'm gonna throw it right back- all they do is ruin beautiful natural habitats.

----------


## Mystical Potato Head

> Have always thought of them as elegant structures.



Elegant they may  be but they dont exactly fit in with the surroundings do they?They dont exactly blend into the countryside.

----------


## bekisman

Oh dear, Rheghead's thrown another hissy fit - it's amazing but on this Org we are all used to robust discussion - Anfield gets right up my nose and I his, and yet I've never given him a red bad reputation point, and he not me. 


In fact since I became an Orger I've only ever had two bad points given; guess what?: BOTH from Rheghead, obviously a sign of a rattled poster who can't get his way.. Poor little boy..


Never mind, I'm not really bothered, if a person can't have a valid argument without having a tantrum, that person ain't much of a person in my opinion.. 


Maybe he'll flounce off again..?  ::

----------


## Carole

> Weakened? stray? the proximity of turbines is but a minuscule part of my postings; _please_ peruse fully.



I have only recently come upon this thread and have not read all the 336 posts but of those I have read - and I have said this before - your reasoning was good. I'd have thought you would have welcomed that comment?




> Not in my back yard? - surely any reasonable person would not like them in their own back yard - presume you'd be quite happy?






> Carole and Kenneth - where is YOUR nearest windfarm? and please; your thoughts on those who do live within a few hundred yards of wind farms?



I don't have one next to me but I do have an ugly mobile phone mast about one hundred yards away. Would prefer not to have it (given the query over medical issues) but they have to go somewhere. That's reasonable, isn't it?




> PS just realized, you think I wrote: "_"It is as simple as that I'm afraid because if climate change doesn't exist then wind farms make little sense because of their visual impact across the pristine countryside" ?_ nah, not me that was Rheghead!


Not sure who this is aimed at but no, I didn't think you wrote that.

----------


## Carole

> Oh dear, Rheghead's thrown another hissy fit - it's amazing but on this Org we are all used to robust discussion - Anfield gets right up my nose and I his, and yet I've never given him a red bad reputation point, and he not me. 
> 
> 
> In fact since I became an Orger I've only ever had two bad points given; guess what?: BOTH from Rheghead, obviously a sign of a rattled poster who can't get his way.. Poor little boy..
> 
> 
> Never mind, I'm not really bothered, if a person can't have a valid argument without having a tantrum, that person ain't much of a person in my opinion.. 
> 
> 
> Maybe he'll flounce off again..?


I take back my comment about your well-reasoned argument.  Haven't read much of Rheghead's posts but (from what you say) you are both getting equally heated.

----------


## bekisman

> I take back my comment about your well-reasoned argument. Haven't read much of Rheghead's posts but (from what you say) you are both getting equally heated.


Ah I understand where you are coming from now, my _"well-reasoned argument"_ did not have a cats chance in hell did it? 


Considering your involvement in the Group: "Supporters of Windfarms in Caithness"..


Never mind... :Wink:

----------


## Carole

> Ah I understand where you are coming from now, my _"well-reasoned argument"_ did not have a cats chance in hell did it? 
> 
> 
> Considering your involvement in the Group: "Supporters of Windfarms in Caithness"..
> 
> 
> Never mind...


'My involvement'?  Ticking a box - yes, but that is all so far.  However I am tempted to assist the cause for wind (and wave, solar, etc) power further.  Just wish I had more time available.

----------


## bekisman

Opps, thought this thread was too good to last, but it's been interesting, and folks have given their honest opinions on wind farms, and there's been some quite robust discussions - although really I've seen many others much more animated.. 

But sad to say (although fully expected) I have just received a long and personal, some would say, abusive PM from Rheghead, calling me a troll, insult thrower, can't argue, I'm a 'contrarion' (whatever that is), I'm blind, I talk bull s h i t (can I quote that?), I am wrong, I defend the indefensible, I'm a bully (echoes here of someone?) I'm a hardcore anti-wind and climate change merchant, stick two fingers up to me, and I'm a 'buco' (whatever that is?).. etc

So to placate the waters, I'll leave this particular thread to the more delicate and go pick a fight with Anfield..  :Wink:

----------


## olivia

Hi there, Tilter. Nice to hear from you again!

Oh dear, come on Rheghead and Bekisman, let's all stop throwing toys. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, whatever it may be.

I resurrected Tilter's thread because of the forthcoming public Inquiry for Spittal Hill windfarm which starts on Tuesday, 3 May in the Ross Institute, Halkirk at 10am, but as usual windfarm talk has caused ructions!!

Carole and Kenneth - look into the actual facts on the Spittal Hill proposal and perhaps you will see that for local people this will be a nightmare. It has nothing to do with nimbyism, we believe this size of a windfarm should never be proposed so close to *anyone's* backyard.

If you go to the opposition group's website at www.spittalwindfarmopposition.co.uk you will see a true representation of what it will be like for one resident. Would you like this next to your homes - don't forget of course that this is a static image? Try to imagine it with the blades rotating.

I agree with Tilter's recent post, even if this is refused we are no doubt to be subjected to years more (we have already had 7 years of this) aggravation from people who will stop at nothing until they get what they want.

There is one glimmer of hope - the new Highland Council onshore wind energy supplementary guidance (which is out for public consultation at the moment) has given Spittal Hill special status - no wind turbines of any size or number. So, *if* this current proposal is turned down, (here's hoping), maybe that will scupper any further plans.

*Save Spittal Hill - a very special place!*

----------


## marwill

Oh dear here we go again,  _'people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones'_...

I see that Rheghead is throwing 'red reputation points' at Bekisman because that is the only way he can get over Bekisman's arguments.
The 'greens' are complaining because they cannot get more windturbines.  I really wonder what they would be like if they had one more less over looking their property, oh they are not noisy, they look nice, they enhance the countryside.
  Well I lived near one in Norfolk and they are noisy, they are unsightly, they do spoil the countryside, they do not provide enough power, there is never enough wind all the time for them to that.
We are hypocites to call nuclear power when we are supplemented by it from France because we cannot provide enough power ourselves.  The 'greens' are happy to have their electrical appliances powered, quite probably without realising it comes from nuclear power.  

But hey, this is only a forum, a place for people to 'air' their views and have a discussion, as has been said, some folk take it all to 'literally'. :Wink:

----------


## ducati

Hey! I have an idea, why not build them......... under ground?  ::

----------


## ywindythesecond

> 'My involvement'? Ticking a box - yes, but that is all so far. However I am tempted to assist the cause for wind (and wave, solar, etc) power further. Just wish I had more time available.


Hi Carole, 
Before you take up the cudgel for wind etc, there are two books you need to read. 

One is The Wind Farm Scam by Dr John Etherington, and the other is  Sustainable Energy-Without the Hot Air by David J C Mackay.

Etherington is a well known opponent of wind so you should read his book not expecting to be impressed, and see what happens.

Mackay on the other hand is Chief Scientific Adviser to the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC). No hype, just sums in a very readable form.

You have to buy Etheringtons book but it is only £5.88 from Amazon http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wind-Farm-Scam-Independent-Minds/dp/1905299834 , and Mackays book is free from http://www.withouthotair.com/download.html

Worth taking the time to read before making your mind up.

----------


## Carole

Thank you ywindy, having got myself a little deeper into this than I had intended, I will make the effort and do more reading up on this specific proposition.  Before I do so, I'd just like to make a couple of very small points:

I bought some raffle tickets at one of the shows last year - could have been Halkirk? - it wasn't until after I had stumped up the money (on the basis that the prizes were quite attractive) that I discovered the fundraising was in aid of 'your' cause.  Felt a bit cheated as this fact was not made clear up front.  No matter - didn't win!

One of the first posts I read on this thread (just in the last week I think) was encouraging all anti wind farm folks to fill the hall when the candidates turn up to answer Qs on the Spittal proposal.  I hope that there is room for all opinions to be heard and that the hall is not overflowing with just one point of view.

Now where are my reading glasses?

----------


## Rheghead

I would recommend Sustainable Energy without the hot air, a damn good read and holds no punches as what is needed to get the UK weaned off fossil fuels.  There are a number of energy mix scenarios which the author claims could see us utilising, eg no nuclear, lots of wind, then lots of nuclear, very little wind etc.

Some of his calculations do boggle the imagination and seem a bit dodgy though but on the whole do give a real insight.

The Wind Farm Scam I have bought and read twice and it is the real scam in all of this, it is the anti-wind gurners Bible full of unsubstantiated claim and speculation as usual.

----------


## Anfield

> Oh dear, Rheghead's thrown another hissy fit - it's amazing but on this Org we are all used to robust discussion - Anfield gets right up my nose and I his, and yet I've never given him a red bad reputation point, and he not me.


Yes Bekisman you are correct in one respect in that I have never left bad reputation for you, and vice versa.
However,  have you forgotten when you reported a post of mine to Mods and I received some infraction points?  
You know the post where I asked you to check with Dr.&%^%% about changing your medication,  and you reported it as "..giving personal information..".
A bit silly when you consider that you list where you live as being Strathy,  and there is only one doctors surgery that covers that area!

----------


## Rheghead

> Yes Bekisman you are correct in one respect in that I have never left bad reputation for you, and vice versa.
> However,  have you forgotten when you reported a post of mine to Mods and I received some infraction points?  
> You know the post where I asked you to check with Dr.&%^%% about changing your medication,  and you reported it as "..giving personal information..".
> A bit silly when you consider that you list where you live as being Strathy,  and there is only one doctors surgery that covers that area!


Yes indeed, it is a case of can give it but can't take it.  He accused me of 'giving personal information' last year when the said stuff was clearly typed by himself on his public profile.   

As it happens, I have had many more discussions with ywindythesecond and I've never given him bad rep nor he to me, we can discuss wind power without getting too personal.  It is Bekisman's rudeness and ad hominem attacks that is annoying.  You know when he starts with that is when he loses the argument.

And all that leaking of stuff out of context in a private PM is really pathetic, what does he want, public sympathy and a remonstration for the big bad Rheghead?  You would have thought an ex-marine or whatever he was would have a thicker skin than that.

----------


## ywindythesecond

> Thank you ywindy, having got myself a little deeper into this than I had intended, I will make the effort and do more reading up on this specific proposition. Before I do so, I'd just like to make a couple of very small points:
> 
> I bought some raffle tickets at one of the shows last year - could have been Halkirk? - it wasn't until after I had stumped up the money (on the basis that the prizes were quite attractive) that I discovered the fundraising was in aid of 'your' cause. Felt a bit cheated as this fact was not made clear up front. No matter - didn't win!
> 
> One of the first posts I read on this thread (just in the last week I think) was encouraging all anti wind farm folks to fill the hall when the candidates turn up to answer Qs on the Spittal proposal. I hope that there is room for all opinions to be heard and that the hall is not overflowing with just one point of view.
> 
> Now where are my reading glasses?


I understand what you are saying about the raffle, but as you say you bought the tickets out of self interest...... (I'm not guilty btw)

I agree with Reggy's assessment of Mackay's book, but I think he must have been reading something other than "The Wind Farm Scam " by Etherington.  You will make up your own mind in due course.

Re Spittal PLI, the Reporter will control the process within the rules laid down, and only those people or organisations who have gone through the proper processes at the right time will actually take part.

The Public Inquiry process tests whether or not the development goes beyond limits set by Government in Planning law and guidance.  It is enormously expensive to take part, and not everyone relishes being questioned by a QC.  Many people would have to live with the intrusion of Spittal WF into their homes for 25 years, in some cases for the rest of their lives.  One small way in which the outcome of the inquiry might be influenced is attendance at it when possible to show the Reporter that many people who don't want to put themselves in the limelight are concerned and anxious.  No public turnout will be construed as no public concern.

----------


## Rheghead

Ywindy, talking of books, I have found * Renewable electricity and the grid: the challenge of variability* By Godfrey Boyle to be an excellent read as well.  It is a tad expensive and I am happy to lend you my copy.

----------


## bekisman

> Yes Bekisman you are correct in one respect in that I have never left bad reputation for you, and vice versa.
> However, have you forgotten when you reported a post of mine to Mods and I received some infraction points? 
> You know the post where I asked you to check with Dr.&%^%% about changing your medication, and you reported it as "..giving personal information..".
> A bit silly when you consider that you list where you live as being Strathy, and there is only one doctors surgery that covers that area!


Sorry for delay old chap,  but just got in. Facts were that Anfield I believe published details of my medication and named the actual Doctor in the practise of two, I did at that time also have a physician outside the area, this medicinal information is actually private and is not on my profile.. 
My reaction was not to throw a hissy fit, and throw a bad rep like a spoilt child would do, I simply asked the Mods to delete the page, which they did.. If they decided in their all powerful wisdom to give you infraction points, than that is their prerogative.. I would never give a bad rep to anyone, as this admits that an argument is lost.. now, can we move on?

----------


## bekisman

> Yes indeed, it is a case of can give it but can't take it. He accused me of 'giving personal information' last year when the said stuff was clearly typed by himself on his public profile. 
> 
> As it happens, I have had many more discussions with ywindythesecond and I've never given him bad rep nor he to me, we can discuss wind power without getting too personal. It is Bekisman's rudeness and ad hominem attacks that is annoying. You know when he starts with that is when he loses the argument.
> 
> And all that leaking of stuff out of context in a private PM is really pathetic, what does he want, public sympathy and a remonstration for the big bad Rheghead? You would have thought an ex-marine or whatever he was would have a thicker skin than that.


Oh my dear, why on earth do you keep this going rheggy? I'm personally more interested in blowing holes in your "I love wind farms' philosophy instead of answering your twittering on here.. but must admit a bit sad with your (quote)_ "his belly snake gurn of 'I am disabled, so don't give me any gip".._ where on earth did you get that from - apart from it being rather distasteful to a fair number of disabled orgers on here, it was uncalled for.. 
I'm pretty sure there are orgers on here who could vouch for that fact that I never show the 'cripple card'. 
But as you say I should have a thicker skin, I'm pretty sure I do have, I don't think you'll find I go flouncing off when I get tied in knots or lambasted over shall we say the Haiti thread? or was it the HMS Astute one?.

It's obvious you have a grievance, and dare I say it, find it impossible to let go.. give it a rest reggy

Fact:this forum is just that; a forum for general discussion, it's not real life..

Oh before I go.. I seem to have heard of someone who 'borrowed' details from an anti-wind farm source and passed it on to the developers!, Hmm who was that I wonder?, don't know if you have any ideas, or could help me Reggy, but I'll add (of course) I'm not pointing fingers, heaven forbid!  :Wink: 

I'm off to watch two and half men
__________________________________ (that's 'line under')

----------


## Rheghead

> I don't think you'll find I go flouncing off when I get tied in knots or lambasted over shall we say the Haiti thread? or was it the HMS Astute one?.


I don't know where you get this idea from.  I merely wanted a break from posting.

edit: never mind, leave it, sitting solid refusing to be goaded.

----------


## Tilter

> Hi there, Tilter. Nice to hear from you again!



Thank you Olivia.  Glad to hear you're all persevering re Spittal and wish you the best of luck.

What I wanted to say (especially to Carole and Kenneth) is that since we moved 300 miles away from Spittal, windfarms no longer bother me at all.  I can see one in the distance from the hill at the back of my house and there are some in the Firth 10 miles from us but that's it, and none are threatened round about us.  However, I have worked underneath the turbines at Forss and spent time under those at Causewaymire.  I think it would be very very difficult, if not impossible, to have any perception of the threat to your whole way of life (I guess that's what's meant by amenity) if you are not living under this threat.  This is not nimbyism.  As Olivia says, they should not be in anyone's backyard.  To say that only a few people (often 200 or 300 at least in the area of most windfarms) would be affected does not mean that those few should have their lives turned upside down because they are few in number.  They have the same civil rights as the rest of the population.

I'm only talking about amenity here, and not about efficiency of wind turbines or what they could do for climate change or not, or any other argument.  Also wanted to say Carole impresses me as a sound and thoughtful person who wants to get information before forming an opinion, so I'll be very interested to see what she's saying in future posts.

Also, I think it's sad that the thread has been highjacked by irrational dummy-spitters but I guess it takes all kinds or it wouldn't be a forum.

(Carole, I once almost signed a letter/petition believing it to be calling for action on climate change when actually it was a letter used in support of a specific windfarm - I think it may have been Spittal or Baillie  - so I sympathise with your unwittingly giving money to a cause you may/may not support, but at least you stood a chance of winning something - too bad you didn't.   :Smile:

----------


## ywindythesecond

> Ywindy, talking of books, I have found *Renewable electricity and the grid: the challenge of variability* By Godfrey Boyle to be an excellent read as well. It is a tad expensive and I am happy to lend you my copy.


I'll take you up on that thanks. 

Another good read is "When will the Lights go Out" by Derek Birkett. Derek is a former grid controller. I'll swap books with you. 

A bit like Checkpoint Charlie. We need "rules of engagement" to make the transfer.

----------


## Anfield

> Sorry for delay old chap,  but just got in. Facts were that Anfield I believe published details of my medication and named the actual Doctor in the practise of two, I did at that time also have a physician outside the area, this medicinal information is actually private and is not on my profile.. 
> My reaction was not to throw a hissy fit, and throw a bad rep like a spoilt child would do, I simply asked the Mods to delete the page, which they did.. If they decided in their all powerful wisdom to give you infraction points, than that is their prerogative.. I would never give a bad rep to anyone, as this admits that an argument is lost.. now, can we move on?


So what you are saying is that I accurately diagnosed your illness,  and guessed correctly what medication you had been prescribed.
All this from just observing a few of your posts on this forum.

Just imagine how good a doctor I would have made if I had undergone the necesary training!

----------


## highland red

They should build some in Surrey if they NEED them and see how that goes down with the locals.  I think we've done quite enough in The Highlands, when you think how much money is generated with the tourist industry and in particular our Flora and fauna.  Who would want to take photos of the scenery with these abominations blighting the view.

----------


## bekisman

> So what you are saying is that I accurately diagnosed your illness, and guessed correctly what medication you had been prescribed.
> All this from just observing a few of your posts on this forum.
> 
> Just imagine how good a doctor I would have made if I had undergone the necesary training!


Well as you give the impression of being the font of all knowledge, it would literally be 'Childs play' to suss out my details after ploughing through 3,029 of my postings.

N.B there's two 's' in necessary - maybe you could have progressed to being a doctor, their writing is indecipherable too..

----------


## weezer 316

I havent read this entire thread, but.....

Im all for wind farms. The more the merrier. Might also helo get the cost of the electricity down and that cant be bad.

As for complaining they are noisy then im sorry but thats tough, try living in the town. Or if thats why you live in the country then I say thats tough again but you bought your house, not your view. 

Or maybe we all just turn the lights out no?

----------


## ywindythesecond

> I havent read this entire thread, but.....
> 
> Im all for wind farms. The more the merrier. Might also helo get the cost of the electricity down and that cant be bad.
> 
> As for complaining they are noisy then im sorry but thats tough, try living in the town. Or if thats why you live in the country then I say thats tough again but you bought your house, not your view. 
> 
> Or maybe we all just turn the lights out no?


Hi weezer, could you just explain how windfarms might get the cost of electricity down please.

----------


## ywindythesecond

Carole,
There is a letter in today's Scotsman at http://news.scotsman.com/letters/Let...les.6758344.jp . You will find it interesting reading.  Once you have read it you should Google each of the authors.

----------


## Carole

> Carole,
> There is a letter in today's Scotsman at http://news.scotsman.com/letters/Let...les.6758344.jp . You will find it interesting reading. Once you have read it you should Google each of the authors.


Ok ywindy, read the article, it is interesting.  Given what google (top results) and wiki say about the authors, I was beginning to wonder if I had misremembered your position on this subject. Perhaps it's a case of perception but it appears that some of these guys may be straying outside of their area of expertise when expounding on the merits (or otherwise) of wind power.  I will keep an open mind.

Ps. Please everyone don't give me any more reading material.  I'm not a fast reader and still working on the first two books!

----------


## Rheghead

> I havent read this entire thread, but.....
> 
> Im all for wind farms. The more the merrier. Might also helo get the cost of the electricity down and that cant be bad.


I agree with the cost of electricity and I just wish that pro-nuclear and anti-wind wind campaigners would include all costs which appertain to their favorite generator.

Local wind farms in Caiithness are generating electricity @2.5p/kWh, they get an incentive bonus @4.5p/kWh so total would be 7p/kWh.

Nuclear generation has hidden costs that aren't usually included into the cost.  There are decommissioning costs, build costs, refuelling costs and peripheral costs like people and the huge amount of justification costs attached.

Build costs are ~2.5p/kWh, decommissioning costs are 5p/kWh and the rest of the costs add another 1p/kWh, total 8.5p/kWh.

The cheapest marginally is coal, but coal prices which are linked to oil prices ($140 per tonne) and are going up and the cost of coal amounts to 80% of the base price of a kWh, coal comes to 4p/kWh.  Add on the fact that George Osbourne has put a price of £16 per tonne of carbon dioxide which when related to a kWh is 2p/kWh, total 6p/kWh.

The only sustainable generation in terms of cost must be wind and other renewables.

----------


## ywindythesecond

Hi Carole, 
Thanks for reading the letter. Two points. You haven't misremembered my position on this subject.  You do not know my position, you have only seen a few posts on caithness.org. 
On the question of the expertise of the authors of the letter in the Scotsman today-two of them are:
_Colin Gibson C Eng FIEECCMI Network director National Grid 1993-97, and_ _Sir Donald Miller C EngFREng FRSE, Chairman ScottishPower 1982-92 ._ Where would you go for more expert knowledge on how to run an electricity grid? 
They weren't expounding on the merits of wind power. They were expounding on the failure of Governments, particularly in Scotland, to face reality regarding our electricity supply.
I don't know anything about the other signatories, but their positions and qualifications would seem to put their views on a higher level than say a spokesman for the wind industry in Scotland or me. Oh, and Reggy and Beki too.  We need to listen to engineers and economists. Not politicians and spokesmen/ladies for the wind industry.
A good chance to help make your mind up, Sir Donald Miller is on Newsnight Scotland tonight.  If you miss it it will be on BBCi.

----------


## david

> I agree with the cost of electricity and I just wish that pro-nuclear and anti-wind wind campaigners would include all costs which appertain to their favorite generator.
> 
> Local wind farms in Caiithness are generating electricity @2.5p/kWh, they get an incentive bonus @4.5p/kWh so total would be 7p/kWh.
> 
> Nuclear generation has hidden costs that aren't usually included into the cost. There are decommissioning costs, build costs, refuelling costs and peripheral costs like people and the huge amount of justification costs attached.
> 
> Build costs are ~2.5p/kWh, decommissioning costs are 5p/kWh and the rest of the costs add another 1p/kWh, total 8.5p/kWh.
> 
> The cheapest marginally is coal, but coal prices which are linked to oil prices ($140 per tonne) and are going up and the cost of coal amounts to 80% of the base price of a kWh, coal comes to 4p/kWh. Add on the fact that George Osbourne has put a price of £16 per tonne of carbon dioxide which when related to a kWh is 2p/kWh, total 6p/kWh.
> ...


Okay, I don't know much about wind energy so maybe you can explain-I live at Westerdale which overlooks the ord windfarm and I have noticed numerous times(today being one) when it is windy but only a small percentage of the windmills are going round. There was only 10 spinning out of 22 today. Is there a logical reason for this? I have seen as little as 5 working when we have had plenty of wind. Do they switch them on depending on demand?

----------


## Rheghead

> A good chance to help make your mind up, Sir Donald Miller is on Newsnight Scotland tonight.  If you miss it it will be on BBCi.


Thanks for the heads up.  I googled Sir Donald Miller and found that he is described as 'pro-nuclear and anti-wind', he has even objected to wind farms in person.   A former chairman of Scottish power 1982-1992 and a SONE member, not very impartial, is he an engineer or economist?  A dinosaur of old world generation, I don't think he has much clue in the 'modern world' since he has been out of it for 20 years but I'll keep my mind open.

http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Donald_Miller

----------


## Rheghead

> Okay, I don't know much about wind energy so maybe you can explain-I live at Westerdale which overlooks the ord windfarm and I have noticed numerous times(today being one) when it is windy but only a small percentage of the windmills are going round. There was only 10 spinning out of 22 today. Is there a logical reason for this? I have seen as little as 5 working when we have had plenty of wind. Do they switch them on depending on demand?


Is that what you call a snapshot assessment?  I suggest you look up some performance data for the wind farm in question.

----------


## david

> Is that what you call a snapshot assessment?


 
Just an honest question. Can you tell me why, when we have wind, at times the ord windfarm operates at less than 50%. Just wondered why thats all!

----------


## bekisman

> Hi Carole, 
> Thanks for reading the letter. Two points. You haven't misremembered my position on this subject. You do not know my position, you have only seen a few posts on caithness.org. 
> On the question of the expertise of the authors of the letter in the Scotsman today-two of them are:
> _Colin Gibson C Eng FIEECCMI Network director National Grid 1993-97, and_ _Sir Donald Miller C EngFREng FRSE, Chairman ScottishPower 1982-92 ._ Where would you go for more expert knowledge on how to run an electricity grid? 
> They weren't expounding on the merits of wind power. They were expounding on the failure of Governments, particularly in Scotland, to face reality regarding our electricity supply.
> I don't know anything about the other signatories, but their positions and qualifications would seem to put their views on a higher level than say a spokesman for the wind industry in Scotland or me. Oh, and Reggy and Beki too. We need to listen to engineers and economists. Not politicians and spokesmen/ladies for the wind industry.
> A good chance to help make your mind up, Sir Donald Miller is on Newsnight Scotland tonight. If you miss it it will be on BBCi.


So very true ywindythesecond I bow to your more intimate knowledge - I acknowledged my lack of scientific knowledge back in #330 above; _"It matters not one jot what I, a mere layman (as you yourself) believe. You [and I] are an average Joe on the street who is not a climate scientist or an Engineer"_
Obviously I have my own personal views, but you are most certainly getting the point over far better than I ever could - to whit; I'm keeping out of this for reasons given..

----------


## david

> Is that what you call a snapshot assessment? I suggest you look up some performance data for the wind farm in question.


 
I suggest you come up to Westerdale and get your own snapshot of how often the windymills are turning.

----------


## Rheghead

> I suggest you come up to Westerdale and get your own snapshot of how often the windymills are turning.


Thanks, I have already.  I'm surprised how quiet they are and I see that they are performing well above national average.

----------


## david

> Thanks, I have already. I'm surprised how quiet they are and I see that they are performing well above national average.


Yes I was really suprised today when only 10 out of 22 were turning-the others static, As for noise, get up to beat 9 for the day tommorrow and do another snapshot, you dont have far to travel I hope.

----------


## ywindythesecond

> Thanks for the heads up. I googled Sir Donald Miller and found that he is described as 'pro-nuclear and anti-wind', he has even objected to wind farms in person. A former chairman of Scottish power 1982-1992 and a SONE member, not very impartial, is he an engineer or economist? A dinosaur of old world generation, I don't think he has much clue in the 'modern world' since he has been out of it for 20 years but I'll keep my mind open.
> 
> http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Donald_Miller


Reggy, you will have to get your mind prised open before you can keep it open! Which of these do you object to:
1. A former chairman of Scottish power 1982-1992 
2. and a SONE member 
Google deeper. Donald Miller is a respected recognised figure in electricity generation, and far from out of it.  
Where did you get "pro nuclear and anti -wind" from ? If we googled Reggy and got "pro wind and anti nuclear" should we just dismiss it with equal contempt?

----------


## david

> Reggy, you will have to get your mind prised open before you can keep it open! Which of these do you object to:
> 1. A former chairman of Scottish power 1982-1992 
> 2. and a SONE member 
> Google deeper. Donald Miller is a respected recognised figure in electricity generation, and far from out of it. 
> Where did you get "pro nuclear and anti -wind" from ? If we googled Reggy and got "pro wind and anti nuclear" should we just dismiss it with equal contempt?


Another "Miller" has a property for rent at Westerdale. Guess his windfarm workers living eleswhere. Funny that!

----------


## Rheghead

> If we googled Reggy and got "pro wind and anti nuclear" should we just dismiss it with equal contempt?


I don't think I am any of those in the real sense of the word.  I support wind energy but only on the basis that I have found in my research on the subject that it is a clean low carbon energy that is environmentally benign and can make a substantial contribution to making the human race compatible with the rest of nature.  If I found out that wind is incapable of delivering based on solid evidence rather than clever talk then I would change my view and also that of Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace who are much more fanatical than me at preserving the pristine nature of our planet and the creatures that walk upon it.

I am not essentially anti-nuclear per se, I am just not in denial of its limitations in matching what renewables can do.  Firstly I am in awe of the human technical achievement and scientific endeavor of creating energy from nuclear power.  But then there is the huge cost attached, both economically and environmentally even when we do not mention Fukushima and Chernobyl.  Plus, nuclear energy is a finite energy resource, uranium reserves are only going to last another 100 years at the most, (probably 50 if foreign nations don't go down the renewable route), what happens then when we have to look after its waste legacy for another 20,000 years?  How much will that cost to our children and their children's children?

Well perhaps we are selling them a high carbon and radioactive ponzi scheme?

----------


## secrets in symmetry

> Carole,
> There is a letter in today's Scotsman at http://news.scotsman.com/letters/Let...les.6758344.jp . You will find it interesting reading.  Once you have read it you should Google each of the authors.


At least one politician is sanguine about a nuclear future. Gordon Brown told us last week that Africa has some of the world's largest deposits of plutonium.  ::

----------


## david

[QUOTE=Rheghead;844299]I don't think I am any of those in the real sense of the word. I support wind energy but only on the basis that I have found in my research on the subject that it is a clean low carbon energy that is environmentally benign and can make a substantial contribution to making the human race compatible with the rest of nature. If I found out that wind is incapable of delivering based on solid evidence rather than clever talk then I would change my view and also that of Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace who are much more fanatical than me at preserving the pristine nature of our planet and the creatures that walk upon it.

I am not essentially anti-nuclear per se, I am just not in denial of its limitations in matching what renewables can do. Firstly I am in awe of the human technical achievement and scientific endeavor of creating energy from nuclear power. But then there is the huge cost attached, both economically and environmentally even when we do not mention Fukushima and Chernobyl. Plus, nuclear energy is a finite energy resource, uranium reserves are only going to last another 100 years at the most, (probably 50 if foreign nations don't go down the renewable route), what happens then when we have to look after its waste legacy for another 20,000 years? How much will that cost to our children and their children's children?

Well perhaps we are selling them a high carbon and radioactive ponzi scheme?[/QUO

----------


## david

[QUOTE=david;844324]


> I don't think I am any of those in the real sense of the word. I support wind energy but only on the basis that I have found in my research on the subject that it is a clean low carbon energy that is environmentally benign and can make a substantial contribution to making the human race compatible with the rest of nature. If I found out that wind is incapable of delivering based on solid evidence rather than clever talk then I would change my view and also that of Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace who are much more fanatical than me at preserving the pristine nature of our planet and the creatures that walk upon it.
> 
> I am not essentially anti-nuclear per se, I am just not in denial of its limitations in matching what renewables can do. Firstly I am in awe of the human technical achievement and scientific endeavor of creating energy from nuclear power. But then there is the huge cost attached, both economically and environmentally even when we do not mention Fukushima and Chernobyl. Plus, nuclear energy is a finite energy resource, uranium reserves are only going to last another 100 years at the most, (probably 50 if foreign nations don't go down the renewable route), what happens then when we have to look after its waste legacy for another 20,000 years? How much will that cost to our children and their children's children?
> 
> Well perhaps we are selling them a high carbon and radioactive ponzi scheme?[/QUO


 
Dont, know what happened here, this is reggys comments not mine. BTW all 21 turbines on the Ord are static today-no noise though.

----------


## Rheghead

> BTW all 21 turbines on the Ord are static today-no noise though.


Wind turbines are not turning when there is no wind, who'd of thought that, eh? You don't say, huh? Well I never.

----------


## rupert

I happened to catch the interview last night on Newsnight Scotland with Sir Donald Miller and the other chap (unfortunately I've forgotten his name) and thought Sir Donald spoke very well.

I notice he said twice that he had permission to state blah, blah so it obviously was not just his own personal opinions he was getting across.

The figures he quoted as to how much this Scottish obsession with wind farms will cost us all are staggering. Personally, I find our electricity bill quite enough to pay as it is, but if it will be going up further how on earth is everyone going to cope?

I do feel this is so unfair on the ordinary person. We have wind farm developers/landowners etc. becoming millionaires on the backs of pensioners, single mums etc etc having to pay higher electricity prices. This is not right or fair.


Spittal Hill windfarm public local inquiry - 10am, 3 May 2011, Ross Institute, Halkirk.

----------


## Rheghead

> The figures he quoted as to how much this Scottish obsession with wind farms will cost us all are staggering. Personally, I find our electricity bill quite enough to pay as it is, but if it will be going up further how on earth is everyone going to cope?


But the thing is failure to grasp the nettle of renewables will lead to much higher fuel bills, too many developing countries outbidding the UK on the international market for uranium, oil and coal.

By your actions in objecting to wind farms you will be responsible for costing us very dear indeed as we will be paying for expensive fuels and fines from the EU for not meeting our energy targets, that is the reality I'm afraid.  Think what you are doing for your short term interest.

----------


## david

> Wind turbines are not turning when there is no wind, who'd of thought that, eh? You don't say, huh? Well I never.


 
And who would have thought of windmills not turning when there is wind! I have seen as little as 4 spinning when there is plenty of wind-that equates to around 25% of the capacity.

----------


## rupert

> By your actions in objecting to wind farms you will be responsible for costing us very dear indeed as we will be paying for expensive fuels and fines from the EU for not meeting our energy targets, that is the reality I'm afraid. Think what you are doing for your short term interest.


My objection to Spittal Hill windfarm hardly makes me responsible for your gloomy prediction even *if* it was true.

Relying on onshore wind farms and ruling our nuclear power is never going to do the trick.

I think you and Mr Salmond need to wake up and smell the coffee, as they say.

----------


## Rheghead

> I think you and Mr Salmond need to wake up and smell the coffee, as they say.


The scientific advisers who advise the Government armed with the over-whelming body of evidence from climate scientists, recommend that we go all out for renewable energy in all forms and that is what Alex Salmond is trying to do.

What gives him the right or me to say the scientists are talking rubbish?   :: 

That is the harsh reality.

----------


## david

Rheghead, can you give me a reason for some of the windmills not turning and therefore not producing when we have wind?

----------


## rupert

> The scientific advisers who advise the Government armed with the over-whelming body of evidence from climate scientists, recommend that we go all out for renewable energy in all forms and that is what Alex Salmond is trying to do.


But that's exactly what he's not doing because he has ruled out future nuclear power production in Scotland.

It is hypocritical to do just that but to then accept electricity from across the border that is produced from nuclear.

----------


## Rheghead

> But that's exactly what he's not doing because he has ruled out future nuclear power production in Scotland.
> 
> It is hypocritical to do just that but to then accept electricity from across the border that is produced from nuclear.


Nuclear is not carbon free or even low-carbon, it has a much larger carbon footprint attached to it of 84-122g CO2/kWh (Storm and Smith) compared with wind of 11-37g CO2/kWH so I disagree with that since we need to reduce our carbon emissions by 80% and nuclear leaves us with little to play with compared with renewables.

----------


## ywindythesecond

> Yes I would like proof of that please. Fact is that nuclear supplies only 4% of UK energy, it is a finite energy source and uranium reserves are dwindling.
> .


Where does the 4% of UK *energy* from come from? *Energy* includes transport fuel etc.  This thread is about electricity and nuclear provides around 8GW out of 60GW max at winter peak and about 5GW or 6GW in summer. What percentage of our *electricity* demand is met by nuclear?

----------


## Rheghead

> Where does the 4% of UK *energy* from come from? *Energy* includes transport fuel etc.  This thread is about electricity and nuclear provides around 8GW out of 60GW max at winter peak and about 5GW or 6GW in summer. What percentage of our *electricity* demand is met by nuclear?


Have you read the book that you recommended to Carole?

In it, it describes what is needed to create a low carbon economy, eventually we will have to generate more electricity by renewable methods than current levels for electric vehicles and space heating etc so it is correct to put some broader perspective on what nuclear provides in terms of overall energy.

----------


## peter macdonald

http://www.newsnetscotland.com/scott...-strategy.html

From last nights Newsnet

----------


## ywindythesecond

> http://www.newsnetscotland.com/scott...-strategy.html
> 
> From last nights Newsnet


*"Father of renewables backs SNP strategy* 

Friday, 29 April 2011 00:00 

The SNP has today welcomed the news that Professor Stephen Salter has backed the party's green energy targets which would see the equivalent of 100% of Scotland’s electricity needs coming from renewables by 2020.

Professor Salter is the pioneer of marine renewables. He led the Edinburgh University team that designed and developed the ‘Salter’s Duck’ wave energy converter in the 1970s and has since been working on turbines for the Pentland Firth.
Earlier this year he was awarded the inaugural Saltire Prize medal recognising his outstanding role in the development of marine renewables.
Professor Salter’s endorsement comes on the back of the support that the 100% renewables target has received from industry leaders and environmental groups."


*40 YEARS ON AND STILL NO SALTER DUCKLINGS!*
Obviously planning for a slow start and a quick finish. 

Who invented and awarded the "inaugural Saltire Prize? 
*"Stephen Salter wins inaugural Saltire medal* 
*Published Date: 23 March 2011*  

Professor Stephen Salter, pictured, has won the Scottish Government's inaugural Saltire medal in recognition of his role in the development of marine energy."
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scot...ire.6738798.jp 
These people really believe we are stupid!!

Sorry, these people believe we are *really* stupid.

----------


## peter macdonald

Oh now I see what your really against is any thing connected with the Scottish government ...and their efforts in renewable wave power energy...   Should have said earlier I would have understood  

Here is a bit more information about Prof Salter and the Edinburgh Wave group 
http://www.mech.ed.ac.uk/research/wavepower/
also the Artimis group
http://www.artemisip.com/ 
but then again you dont seem seem to like any thing to do with the Scottish Government so you will dismiss this idea even if it helps the job situation in the North of Scotland

Back to politics
Here is the Labour leaders view on windfarms 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...on-ed-miliband..   
and the Liberals
http://www.libdems.org.uk/latest_new...f-c85d9dfc1848
and the Conservatives
http://www.conservatives.com/Policy/...nd_Energy.aspx
and the Greens
http://policy.greenparty.org.uk/en
especially their view on tidal power
EN805 Research and development funding will be made available for the development of renewable energy technologies. High priority will be given to tidal and wave power, concentrated solar power, bio-energy carbon capture and storage, electric transport, energy storage and dynamic demand technologies.

So where does that leave you??
Anarchists?? 

In short the point Im making is that none of these parties are anti windfarm, so why pick on one??
Your cause is not served by incorporating your personal political views and you are undermining a lot of the good work being done by your fellow campaigners
PM

----------


## ywindythesecond

> Oh now I see what your really against is any thing connected with the Scottish government ...and their efforts in renewable wave power energy... Should have said earlier I would have understood 
> 
> Here is a bit more information about Prof Salter and the Edinburgh Wave group 
> http://www.mech.ed.ac.uk/research/wavepower/
> also the Artimis group
> http://www.artemisip.com/ 
> but then again you dont seem seem to like any thing to do with the Scottish Government so you will dismiss this idea even if it helps the job situation in the North of Scotland
> 
> Back to politics
> ...


Brilliant stuff Peter! I make one post and you know all there is to know about my political leanings and motivation!!

My point which you seem to have missed or avoided is that in March 2011, the SNH Scottish Government invented the Saltire Medal and presented it to Professor Salter, and in April 2011, the SNP is delighted to announce that Prof Salter supports their policy.  It is an insult to our intelligence.

My other point is that the award was made for an achievement 40 years ago and we are effectively no further forward.  Why is it that our coast is not already surrounded by wave and tidal maches?  Why did we not have wind turbines before Renewable Obligation Certificates allowed us consumers to directly subsidise them to the tune of approx 5p per kWh?

And, God help us all, only UKIP is against windfarms!

----------


## Rheghead

> And, God help us all, only UKIP is against windfarms!


And the BNP.

----------


## david

> And the BNP.


Looks like I'll be voting UKIP or BNP then.

----------


## peter macdonald

Brilliant stuff Peter! I make one post and you know all there is to know about my political leanings and motivation!!

No Im sorry ..You are missing the point ..you are politicising a cause that needs all the help it can get .... 
and therefore undoing a lot of the good work your fellow anti windfarmers are doing 
PM

Is it really just one post??? I think not
PM

----------


## olivia

It is (or I should say 'was') an SNP minister who has approved controversial onshore wind farm after wind farm, including one here in Caithness, so it's not really surprising that Alex Salmond etc. get the blame for the desecration of our landscapes and amenity.

I don't want the argument to be political but it's the politicians that are making the controversial decisions.

What's the betting that Jim Mather gets a nice little earner working for some wind farm company as an advisor in the near future?

*Spittal Hill Public Local Inquiry starts 10am, Tuesday 3 May 2011, Ross Institute, Halkirk - all welcome.*

----------


## secrets in symmetry

> Brilliant stuff Peter! I make one post and you know all there is to know about my political leanings and motivation!!
> 
> My point which you seem to have missed or avoided is that in March 2011, the SNH Scottish Government invented the Saltire Medal and presented it to Professor Salter, and in April 2011, the SNP is delighted to announce that Prof Salter supports their policy.  It is an insult to our intelligence.
> 
> My other point is that the award was made for an achievement 40 years ago and we are effectively no further forward.  Why is it that our coast is not already surrounded by wave and tidal maches?  Why did we not have wind turbines before Renewable Obligation Certificates allowed us consumers to directly subsidise them to the tune of approx 5p per kWh?
> 
> And, God help us all, only UKIP is against windfarms!


You're right. The Salter ducks didn't work. Salter is a doddery old git. His supporters live in a dreamworld of conspiracy theories. As far as I can see, there is little prospect of extracting much energy from the waves.

Alex Salmond may be a gullible fool, but as I said before, Gordon Brown told us last week that Africa has huge plutonium reserves.

----------


## ywindythesecond

> Brilliant stuff Peter! I make one post and you know all there is to know about my political leanings and motivation!!
> 
> No Im sorry ..You are missing the point ..you are politicising a cause that needs all the help it can get .... 
> and therefore undoing a lot of the good work your fellow anti windfarmers are doing 
> PM
> 
> Is it really just one post??? I think not
> PM


What are you doing for the "cause" Peter?

----------


## bekisman

> You're right. The Salter ducks didn't work. Salter is a doddery old git. His supporters live in a dreamworld of conspiracy theories. As far as I can see, there is little prospect of extracting much energy from the waves.
> 
> Alex Salmond may be a gullible fool, but as I said before, Gordon Brown told us last week that Africa has huge plutonium reserves.


Could not resist - could you post link?

----------


## secrets in symmetry

> Could not resist - could you post link?


I'm trying to find one, but I've had no success so far. I'll keep looking.

----------


## bekisman

I'm not too bothered as he does have the habit of saying things that we're not supposed to hear.. :Wink:

----------


## olivia

Evening Bekisman

Just wondered what has happened to your windy Miller logo/avatar/thingy?

Thought he was rather cute!

----------


## bekisman

> Evening Bekisman
> 
> Just wondered what has happened to your windy Miller logo/avatar/thingy?
> 
> Thought he was rather cute!


Eh?
Sorry Olivia, bit confused (me age I suspect), but really have no idea what you're referring too, can you help?

----------


## olivia

Sorry, just having a mad moment.  Thought it was you but infact it was MadPict's little picture (see his posts at the start of this thread all that time ago), just getting old!

----------


## bekisman

> Sorry, just having a mad moment. Thought it was you but infact it was MadPict's little picture (see his posts at the start of this thread all that time ago), just getting old!


no problem - Know how you feel  :Wink:

----------


## Rheghead

> You're right. The Salter ducks didn't work......[]......As far as I can see, there is little prospect of extracting much energy from the waves.


Functionally, the Salter ducks did work in trials.  The R&D on the project was wrapped up in 1982 which was a)many years before Climate Change became an environmental and political issue, b) years after the threat of OPEC shananigans had subsided and c) two years before Thatcher ran down the coal mines.  What a perfect time to cut the 'wastage' of public funding into something that wasn't 'needed'?, another Tory ideological triumph and short term gain.

However, I agree that there is little prospect of wave power curing the UK energy crisis, although it will be a valuable contributor, it will be marginal compared to other well established renewables.  Probably about 4% of our total energy needs is the full potential and that would need a massive investment of wave machines stretching from northern Scotland to Argyll and from Pembrokeshire to Cornwall almost continuously.

----------


## ducati

I still think that public funding for some of these wacky ideas is wrong. If an idea has merit it will attract commercial investment (if, there is any prospect of it becaming profitable to the right degree).

----------


## peter macdonald

"What are you doing for the "cause" Peter? "
It isn't my cause ..and politicising it will not convert me . Maybe Ive missed something ie that you have to be of certain political persuasions to be "anti wind farm". Reading the main parties views on the subject it does not leave a lot to pick and choose from
PM

----------


## Scout

I have been reading the response to arguments off dumbest place ever for wind farm. First were would one be good place? as I can see every application is the wrong place the sea is the wrong place etc. As regards to Tourist I came back from the Lake District They have a wind farm and believe me you could not park to see lake Windermere from tourist. These are facts however the more you got north the less traffic on the roads this has nothing to do with Wind farms but the price of fuel facts. As regards to money being pump in to wind farms. This is no different to Dounreay, land buy outs, Farming, Crofting, all these have big hand outs. I have also been reading about few Turbines had to be shut down as there was too much power being produced for the grid. Now if we all believe anti Wind farm groups these wind farms do not produce enough power then why do they need to pay few to shut down for? ::

----------


## ywindythesecond

> I have been reading the response to arguments off dumbest place ever for wind farm. First were would one be good place? as I can see every application is the wrong place the sea is the wrong place etc. As regards to Tourist I came back from the Lake District They have a wind farm and believe me you could not park to see lake Windermere from tourist. These are facts however the more you got north the less traffic on the roads this has nothing to do with Wind farms but the price of fuel facts. As regards to money being pump in to wind farms. This is no different to Dounreay, land buy outs, Farming, Crofting, all these have big hand outs. I have also been reading about few Turbines had to be shut down as there was too much power being produced for the grid. Now if we all believe anti Wind farm groups these wind farms do not produce enough power then why do they need to pay few to shut down for?


Scout 
The problem with wind energy is that you have no idea when you are going to get it, and how much or how little it will be when you do.  So there always has to be an alternative source of power available, and as frequently there is effectively no wind generation across the country, other forms of generation have to be in place and paid for for when there is no wind.  The only reason wind generated power is used is that the Government has decreed that it will be used when it is generated so we can satisfy EU targets for generation by renewables. Otherwise it is too costly and too unreliable to use. The very high prices paid recently to persuade wind generators to turn off their input when wind and hydro generation was high and demand was low was necessary to maintain a stable supply to customers, including you, and the level of charge was effectively blackmail. The more wind power that is built the more frequently the electricity consumers will have to foot the ransom bill for turning it off when it threatens grid stability.  Scotland is already overprovided with wind generation. We need a National Energy Strategy and our politicians are avoiding the issue. 
http://www.ref.org.uk/publications/2...6th-april-2011

----------


## bekisman

Oh you mean this ywindythesecond,? makes disgusting reading - wonder where the money comes from.. I'm not being confrontational either..
'Six Scottish windfarms were paid up to £300,000 to stop producing energy, it has emerged. The turbines, at a range of sites across Scotland, were stopped because the grid network could not absorb all the energy they generated.
The REF said energy companies were paid £900,000 to halt the turbines for several hours between 5 and 6 April.According to the REF research, the payments made cost up to 20 times the value of the electricity that would have been generated if the turbines had kept running
The largest payment was given to Whitelee windfarm in East Renfrewshire, owned by Scottish Power, which was paid £308,000 in April.  The RWE nPower-owned Farr windfarm, south of Inverness, received £265,000 in the same month. 
Hadyardhill in South Ayrshire, which is owned by SSE Renewables, was given £140,000 to stop producing energy, while Blacklaw windfarm in Lanarkshire - also owned by Scottish Power - was given £130,000.
The Millennium windfarm in the Highlands and Beinn Tharsuin, just north of Alness, each received £33,000 and £11,500 respectively.'


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-13253876

----------


## Rheghead

> Oh you mean this ywindythesecond,? makes disgusting reading - wonder where the money comes from.. I'm not being confrontational either..
> 'Six Scottish windfarms were paid up to £300,000 to stop producing energy, it has emerged. The turbines, at a range of sites across Scotland, were stopped because the grid network could not absorb all the energy they generated.
> The REF said energy companies were paid £900,000 to halt the turbines for several hours between 5 and 6 April.According to the REF research, the payments made cost up to 20 times the value of the electricity that would have been generated if the turbines had kept running
> The largest payment was given to Whitelee windfarm in East Renfrewshire, owned by Scottish Power, which was paid £308,000 in April.  The RWE nPower-owned Farr windfarm, south of Inverness, received £265,000 in the same month. 
> Hadyardhill in South Ayrshire, which is owned by SSE Renewables, was given £140,000 to stop producing energy, while Blacklaw windfarm in Lanarkshire - also owned by Scottish Power - was given £130,000.
> The Millennium windfarm in the Highlands and Beinn Tharsuin, just north of Alness, each received £33,000 and £11,500 respectively.'
> 
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-13253876


So this costly event happened because of a transmission fault which had nothing to do with the practicalities of managing wind energy on the grid.

How much were fossil fuel generators paid to stop producing electricity?

----------


## Scout

> Oh you mean this ywindythesecond,? makes disgusting reading - wonder where the money comes from.. I'm not being confrontational either..
> 'Six Scottish windfarms were paid up to £300,000 to stop producing energy, it has emerged. The turbines, at a range of sites across Scotland, were stopped because the grid network could not absorb all the energy they generated.
> The REF said energy companies were paid £900,000 to halt the turbines for several hours between 5 and 6 April.According to the REF research, the payments made cost up to 20 times the value of the electricity that would have been generated if the turbines had kept running
> The largest payment was given to Whitelee windfarm in East Renfrewshire, owned by Scottish Power, which was paid £308,000 in April.  The RWE nPower-owned Farr windfarm, south of Inverness, received £265,000 in the same month. 
> Hadyardhill in South Ayrshire, which is owned by SSE Renewables, was given £140,000 to stop producing energy, while Blacklaw windfarm in Lanarkshire - also owned by Scottish Power - was given £130,000.
> The Millennium windfarm in the Highlands and Beinn Tharsuin, just north of Alness, each received £33,000 and £11,500 respectively.'
> 
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-13253876



Yes that was what I was reading from. But what you don't go on and say in the paper I was reading this was fair payout as wind farms have to pay high price to connect to grid and it is only right they should be paid compensation when ask to switch off.

----------


## ywindythesecond

> Yes that was what I was reading from. But what you don't go on and say in the paper I was reading this was fair payout as wind farms have to pay high price to connect to grid and it is only right they should be paid compensation when ask to switch off.


Twenty times the value of the electricty? Fair payment? National Grid balances the system by bringing on and constraining off thermal plant and compensates plant turned off for their losses, that is only reasonable but it is a controlled operation.  This latest windfarm scam is not compensation for loss, it is blackmail.  And Scout, you will pay for your  share of it in your next electricity bill.

----------


## bekisman

> Twenty times the value of the electricty? Fair payment? National Grid balances the system by bringing on and constraining off thermal plant and compensates plant turned off for their losses, that is only reasonable but it is a controlled operation. This latest windfarm scam is not compensation for loss, it is blackmail. And Scout, you will pay for your share of it in your next electricity bill.


You are right windy - *20 times!!* wish people would read the whole article.

----------


## Rheghead

> You are right windy - *20 times!!* wish people would read the whole article.


Yes, I just wish folks would read the full article.  20 times eh? Not even close.  Just one wind farm, Farr wind farm, 92MW was paid 16 times the going rate at £800 per MWh, but the report says the over whelming majority of generators amounting to 619MW were compensated at an average of £196 per MWh, just less than 4 times the going rate for lost production of electricity.

----------


## bekisman

A few thoughts on wind farms (I have links if needed):

"Soon we "celebrate" the 20,000th wind plant, without replacing even one single small plant of conventional energy."__ Ferdinand Fürst zu Hohenlohe-Bartenstein, Chairman, Bundesverband Landschaftsschutz (Federal Association for Landscape Protection), Germany 

"To us these windfarms are a disaster in the countryside, we know their effect on global warming is pathetically tiny, but to the Government they are seen as proof positive to a gullible populace that something really is being done to reduce CO2 emissions."__ Edward Luscombe, C.Eng., B.Sc. (Eng.), MIEE 


"Increased development of wind turbines does not reduce Danish carbon dioxide emissions." __ Flemming Nissen, Head of Development, Elsam, Denmark 

"Wind farms don't live up to the hype that they are an environmental saviour and a serious alternate energy source, and the effects they can have on their neighbours are so serious it means they should not be allowed to get away with the exaggerated claims. Their claims are fraudulent." __ Peter McGauran, Australian Federal Agriculture Minister, former Minister for Science 

"The turbines are the worst desecration of our countryside since it was laid waste in the 30 Years War nearly 400 years ago."__Hans-Joachim Mengel, Berlin University professor 

The dream of environmentally friendly energy has turned into highly subsidised destruction of the countryside."__Germany's influential magazine Der Spiegel 

"As our continental neighbours have discovered, and we in the UK are quickly learning, the infrastructural costs needed to support wind power generation appear to hugely outweigh the advantages. It provides a trickle of green energy but is against all the principles of sustainable development."__Clive Aslet, Country Life Magazine Editor 

"The Whinash project, by replacing energy generation from power stations burning fossil fuel, will reduce carbon dioxide emission by 178,000 tonnes a year. This is impressive, until you discover that a single jumbo jet, flying from London to Miami and back every day, releases the climate-change equivalent of 520,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide a year. One daily connection between Britain and Florida costs three giant wind farms."
__George Monbiot, visiting professor of planning at Oxford Brookes University and 1995 recipient of the United Nations Global 500 Award for outstanding environmental achievement 

"Wind turbines don't make good neighbors." __ John Zimmerman, Northeast U.S. Representative Enxco. 

Wind farms are "environmentally damaging money wasters whose large scale use increases power demand. The New Age dream of a world operated by wind farms will remain a dream because the laws of physics do not allow it in an industrialised world. If wind power were economic then oil tankers would be sailing ships". __Dr. Richard Courtney, internationally recognised expert on Energy and climate change 

With the right subsidies, wind could become a viable energy source. And, with the right subsidies, gasoline could be made free, and 2-carat diamonds could be given away in cereal boxes. How is it that wind, with a 4000-year head start, is such a small player in the energy scene? Could it be  just possibly  that the answer has something to do with physics instead of economics and politics?__ Dr. Howard Hayden, Professor Emeritus of Physics, University of Connecticut 

"The Prince of Wales believes that wind farms are a "horrendous blot on the landscape" and that their spread must be halted before they irreparably ruin some of Britain's most beautiful countryside. Prince Charles, who has an abiding interest in environmental issues, has told senior aides that he does not want to have any links with events or groups that promote onshore wind farms."__ (news.telegraph, October 25, 2004) 

"I am delighted to learn of the Prince of Wales's views. His Royal Highness's support on this matter would be invaluable. He understands there is nothing incompatible with being green and being opposed to wind turbines. We oppose the huge, dominant use of wind farms onshore because they won't do the job. I am sure the Prince is concerned by the aesthetics of wind farms. The great thing about the Prince is that he doesn't just shoot from the hip. He studies the facts and makes carefully formed judgments." __Campbell Dunford, chief executive of the British Renewable Energy Foundation, 2004 

"I was asked to open the windfarm at Delabole. At that time nobody was talking about a gigantic programme, getting 15 or 20 per cent of the country's energy from wind turbines. It was a kind of nice green gesture. I think, now that I know as much as I do, I wouldn't have touched it with a bargepole."__ James Lovelock, founding historical and cultural leader of environmentalism for environmentalists around the world and originator of the GAIA concept. 

"The trouble with wind farms, they have a huge spatial footprint for a piddling little bit of electricity. You would need 800 turbines to replace the output of a coal fired power station" __ Sir Martin Holdgate, former chairman of the British Renewable Energy Advisory Group 

"Windpower is a big lie. The windmills sprouting all over our countryside are a giant nonsense." (Reader's Digest August 2003) __German professor Otfried Wolfrum, "a long-time Friends of the Earth supporter" 

"Huge amounts of tax payers money for scant environmental and electrical benefit make them a scam. Wind-farms are inefficient, destroy the landscape and far more could be achieved through energy efficiency. If you lagged the roofs of 500 homes it would have the effect of putting up one turbine. They can only work 30% of the time at very best, in Denmark it is only 17%. We have to keep other stations running, spinning in reserve, inefficiently pouring out carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide. These turbines are 22 storeys high put on hills where everyone can see them. They kill bats and birds and need 1,000 tonnes of concrete as well as a road infrastructure. It beggars belief that some environmental groups can say they are 'green'."__Professor David Bellamy 

"The landscape is being raped [by large wind turbines] with governmental collusion and fraudulent claims." __ Dr. John Etherington, Llanhowell, Pembrokeshire in 'Founded on a lie', The Scotsman 12/27/05

----------


## olivia

All good stuff Bekisman.

Went along to the first day of the Inquiry today in the Ross Institute, Halkirk.  A good turnout. Going along nicely, but slowly, but then there's a lot to say.  All about Landscape, Visual and Cumulative impacts.  Should get on to Highland Council and Scottish Natural Heritage witnesses tomorrow starting at 0930 am. 

See you there!

----------


## bekisman

> All good stuff Bekisman.
> 
> Went along to the first day of the Inquiry today in the Ross Institute, Halkirk. A good turnout. Going along nicely, but slowly, but then there's a lot to say. All about Landscape, Visual and Cumulative impacts. Should get on to Highland Council and Scottish Natural Heritage witnesses tomorrow starting at 0930 am. 
> 
> See you there!


Hope it goes well olivia

----------


## ywindythesecond

> So this costly event happened because of a transmission fault which had nothing to do with the practicalities of managing wind energy on the grid.
> 
> How much were fossil fuel generators paid to stop producing electricity?


Reggy, it was nothing to do with a transmission fault. It was a national strategy fault.  There was just more wind energy available than the grid could handle, and wind  had to be shut down to manage the grid capability.  By co-incidence, the excellent recently published report "Analysis of UK Wind Power Generation November 2008 to December 2010" www.jmt.org , foresees such an event, but not for the first time. Engineers and economists have been predicting it for years.

----------


## Rheghead

> Reggy, it was nothing to do with a transmission fault.


I beg to differ.

"Mr Larque said a transmission fault in the system meant the surplus energy could not be transferred to England and so generation had to be cut."

----------


## bekisman

Interesting to see (in Caithness Courier) the cavalier attitude of Landscape architect Alexander Schlicke, (for the developers)
"While accepting there would be a significant impact on small farm and croft settlements, he said this would not be unacceptable.
Seventeen houses lie within a kilometre of a turbine and two of them are within 500 metres.
While there would be a significant impact on these householders, Mr Schlicke did not believe this would be "overbearing or overwhelming".
"It would not render them unpleasant places to live in," he claimed.
Overall, he said that it has to be accepted that the Caithness landscape has become characterised by wind-farm developments."

What a self-centred, could-not-care-less-about-anyone-else attitude!

----------


## Rheghead

It is also important to point out that when the anti-wind protesters say that :-  ' there are xxx houses within xx metres of the wind farm that will be significantly affected', they will include unoccupied and even 'ruinous' dwellings and crofts that may have been left empty for hundreds of years and will never be inhabited again.

All good tactics to inflate the impact to bolster one's cause.

----------


## bekisman

Just a thought...Democracy in action

So Pottinger wants to make even more money and stick a load of turbines up on spittal hill, locals appalled and the elected representatives (Highland Council) objects against them unanimously..  Democracy in Action.

Rubbish!

The Developers totally ignore the Highland Council and the people who actually live there and go scrambling off to the parliament in Edinburgh, and wee eck sends out the 'Scottish Reporter' Democracy in action? 

Then, depending on his masters bidding the reporter can overrule the locals and the Highland Council. Call that democracy? No it's totally non-democratic.. they will see through him eventually when up here we're trying to beg the English to let us have more power -for when the wind drops, silly..

PS I'm off to bed, and as I want to save the planet, my PC monitor is OFF

----------


## bekisman

Whoops! forgot to point out #426 is what the developers state..
night night

----------


## badger

> It is also important to point out that when the anti-wind protesters say that :- ' there are xxx houses within xx metres of the wind farm that will be significantly affected', they will include unoccupied and even 'ruinous' dwellings and crofts that may have been left empty for hundreds of years and will never be inhabited again.
> 
> All good tactics to inflate the impact to bolster one's cause.


So you're happy to ignore all the real people whose lives will be so badly affected? Those who will never be able to look out of their windows again without seeing huge turbines or enjoy their gardens/farmyards?  Who will have to keep their windows closed to shut out the noise and their curtains drawn against the flicker and the motion?  Who can't escape as no-one will buy their houses and why should they be driven from their family homes?  All to make a lot of money for a few people who ensure they don't personally have to suffer because they don't put the turbines round their own houses.  

Maybe you should try moving into a house by a large windfarm (and I don't mean stay for a brief period) and then see how enthusiastic you are.  Turbines can, and do, make people ill.  How would you feel if it was a member of your family and you had no escape?  Have a little compassion.

----------


## Rheghead

> So you're happy to ignore all the real people whose lives will be so badly affected? Those who will never be able to look out of their windows again without seeing huge turbines or enjoy their gardens/farmyards?  Who will have to keep their windows closed to shut out the noise and their curtains drawn against the flicker and the motion?  Who can't escape as no-one will buy their houses and why should they be driven from their family homes?  All to make a lot of money for a few people who ensure they don't personally have to suffer because they don't put the turbines round their own houses.  
> 
> Maybe you should try moving into a house by a large windfarm (and I don't mean stay for a brief period) and then see how enthusiastic you are.  Turbines can, and do, make people ill.  How would you feel if it was a member of your family and you had no escape?  Have a little compassion.


I lived  near a 12 turbine wind farm for 5 years and had no problems re noise or owt, most villagers were against before the wind farm was built but most eventually came to love being its neighbour after seeing how their fears were stoked up by a small minded minority.  All part of my dissertation study into wind farm perceptions.  In fact the moor where the wind farm now stands is still a valuable SSSI and the peat is still there as well as the wildlife.  Just saying that the game is up on all the negative stuff anti-windfarmers are spouting.  And yes, a wind farm doesn't bother the residents of a ruinous 17th century rock pile.

----------


## david

> I lived near a 12 turbine wind farm for 5 years and had no problems re noise or owt, most villagers were against before the wind farm was built but most eventually came to love being its neighbour after seeing how their fears were stoked up by a small minded minority. All part of my dissertation study into wind farm perceptions. In fact the moor where the wind farm now stands is still a valuable SSSI and the peat is still there as well as the wildlife. Just saying that the game is up on all the negative stuff anti-windfarmers are spouting. And yes, a wind farm doesn't bother the residents of a ruinous 17th century rock pile.


You could sell up then and move close to the Causewaymire windfarm. Sure you'd get a cheap property

----------


## bekisman

> I lived near a 12 turbine wind farm for 5 years and had no problems re noise or owt, most villagers were against before the wind farm was built but most eventually came to love being its neighbour after seeing how their fears were stoked up by a small minded minority. All part of my dissertation study into wind farm perceptions. In fact the moor where the wind farm now stands is still a valuable SSSI and the peat is still there as well as the wildlife. Just saying that the game is up on all the negative stuff anti-windfarmers are spouting. And yes, a wind farm doesn't bother the residents of a ruinous 17th century rock pile.


I've had you on 'Ignore' Rheghead, but you've got to be honest; these turbines you lived near, I seem to remember they were wee ones compared to today's monsters, tell us where they were (nothing private about that) and it might help.. Oh by the way the developers often include ruins and empty houses in their reports - and are able to say that no objections were received from them.

----------


## ywindythesecond

> It is also important to point out that when the anti-wind protesters say that :- ' there are xxx houses within xx metres of the wind farm that will be significantly affected', they will include unoccupied and even 'ruinous' dwellings and crofts that may have been left empty for hundreds of years and will never be inhabited again.
> 
> All good tactics to inflate the impact to bolster one's cause.


If you are referring to Spittal Windfarm opponents Reggy, that comment is probably actionable.  I suggest you moderate or even consider what you are saying when you post such comment.  Anyone who doubts the rigour with which each side in this due process is examined should attend the Inquiry and see for themselves.

----------


## ywindythesecond

> Just a thought...Democracy in action
> 
> So Pottinger wants to make even more money and stick a load of turbines up on spittal hill, locals appalled and the elected representatives (Highland Council) objects against them unanimously.. Democracy in Action.
> 
> Rubbish!
> 
> The Developers totally ignore the Highland Council and the people who actually live there and go scrambling off to the parliament in Edinburgh, and wee eck sends out the 'Scottish Reporter' Democracy in action? 
> 
> Then, depending on his masters bidding the reporter can overrule the locals and the Highland Council. Call that democracy? No it's totally non-democratic.. they will see through him eventually when up here we're trying to beg the English to let us have more power -for when the wind drops, silly..
> ...


Beki, In the interest of fairness to Reggy, I suggest you moderate your tone.

----------


## ywindythesecond

> I've had you on 'Ignore' Rheghead, but you've got to be honest; these turbines you lived near, I seem to remember they were wee ones compared to today's monsters, tell us where they were (nothing private about that) and it might help.. Oh by the way the developers often include ruins and empty houses in their reports - and are able to say that no objections were received from them.


Reggy. Call Beki's bluff  and tell him which windfarm you lived near.  
Beki.  Before Reggy asks, tell him where developers say they have said they have had no objection from empty houses.
*And when you have both done that can we get back to a serious discussion please.*

----------


## bekisman

> Beki, In the interest of fairness to Reggy, I suggest you moderate your tone.


you call that a tone???

----------


## bekisman

> Reggy. Call Beki's bluff and tell him which windfarm you lived near. 
> Beki. Before Reggy asks, tell him where developers say they have said they have had no objection from empty houses.
> *And when you have both done that can we get back to a serious discussion please.*


OK ywindythesecond you are undoubtedly the one with all the knowledge, and presumably seem to have the authority to tell me what to post on this thread, telling me to moderate my tone?.. who the heck are you to talk? 
You [A] seem unable to grasp the basic concept that this is an open forum and that there are many shades of opinion as to what we think of windfarms, you may well post your unfathomable graphs, which confuse the hell out of most of us, and [B] you obviously think I write crap, but unfortunately I do get PM's and even good reps for my postings, which you dismiss with your cavalier "*lets get back to serious discussion".*

I bow to your perceived superiority/authority, and I'll try to keep my inquisitive snout out..

----------


## ywindythesecond

Blessed be the peacemaker.

----------


## bekisman

Oh before I go
Hey Windy I'm trying to track down the bloke that dealt with Rengen(?) Renewables, he lived on Strathy Point, I think they were going to put a wind farm at Baligil, with promises of cash to the crofters? turned out this bloke (whoever he was) with help from at the time MAFF and their maps, discovered that the area where the turbines were to go was only very marginally on the common grazing, and hence no cash for the locals - seems he went to meetings and met personally with the directors of said company, and (it seems) had many phone conversations and productive email exchanges - I think he produced a booklet which was posted to all residents in the area, and was instrumental in getting a postal vote progressed which resulted in being voted against?


I 'think' it was the same bloke who attended an SSE meeting in Melvich where they planned a windfarm by the A836 and ended up with a detailed exchange of views with the developers representative, again this bloke - whoever he was - was instrumental in fighting that development too..


Oh yes he was involved in the Strathy North Wind Farm by SSE I think they sent this bloke an environmental Scoping Report which he used.. 

Seems this bloke does things differently..


But then again, no idea who it was.. :Wink:

----------


## olivia

> It is also important to point out that when the anti-wind protesters say that :- ' there are xxx houses within xx metres of the wind farm that will be significantly affected', they will include unoccupied and even 'ruinous' dwellings and crofts that may have been left empty for hundreds of years and will never be inhabited again.
> 
> All good tactics to inflate the impact to bolster one's cause.


As this thread is about the proposed Spittal Hill windfarm I assume the anti-wind protesters you are referring to above are those opposed to this particular development.

If this is infact the case, this is a pretty serious slur against the many genuinely concerned locals who are fighting this development.

If you had half a brain you would realise that this sort of alleged 'rigging' would not stand scrutiny at Inquiry. 

Prove what you have posted or shut up and get out of here.

----------


## olivia

For those who are interested in what is happening at the Inquiry - today was the official accompanied site visit.  The weather stayed fine and the Reporter seemed to have a productive morning visiting various properties and viewpoints around the area.  This afternoon the Inquiry continued with the Highland Council's landscape witness giving his evidence and being cross-examined by the applicant's lawyer.  I was most impressed with the witness who was extremely competent and able to stand up to a pretty vigorous cross-examination with ease.  The applicant's lawyer showed his true colours as we all expected and got a wee warning shot across the bows from the Reporter.  All interesting stuff.

*Spittal Hill Windfarm Local Inquiry continues tomorrow, Ross Institute Halkirk 0930 hrs - all welcome.*

----------


## Rheghead

Ywindythesecond, I'll bring that book to the inquiry tomorrow at 10am if you can make it?  cheers

----------


## ywindythesecond

OK but the Inquiry will be in session.

----------


## Tilter

Hi Olivia, just want to wish all you objectors well at the hearing.  Keep us posted please.  Who is the developer's attorney?  And who is the objectors' attorney?  Thanks.

----------


## secrets in symmetry

> Hi Olivia, just want to wish all you objectors well at the hearing.  Keep us posted please.  Who is the developer's attorney?  And who is the objectors' attorney?  Thanks.


I have always found the title of this thread strange. I would have thought Spittal Hill is a windy place and therefore a very suitable place for a wind farm.

Now I am even more surprised - because I have seen wind farms in far dumber places in what I would suspect (from your choice of words in more than one post) is your native America.

----------


## secrets in symmetry

> Functionally, the Salter ducks did work in trials.  The R&D on the project was wrapped up in 1982 which was a)many years before Climate Change became an environmental and political issue, b) years after the threat of OPEC shananigans had subsided and c) two years before Thatcher ran down the coal mines.  What a perfect time to cut the 'wastage' of public funding into something that wasn't 'needed'?, another Tory ideological triumph and short term gain.
> 
> However, I agree that there is little prospect of wave power curing the UK energy crisis, although it will be a valuable contributor, it will be marginal compared to other well established renewables.  Probably about 4% of our total energy needs is the full potential and that would need a massive investment of wave machines stretching from northern Scotland to Argyll and from Pembrokeshire to Cornwall almost continuously.


Yes, the story I heard from someone close to the original project was that Salter's wee scale model ducks worked in trials in a controlled environment with "perfect" waves in the carefully constructed wave tank in the lab, but they had problems if you relaxed any of those conditions, and they didn't scale up to the size that would be needed to generate anything useful. They would be destroyed at sea very quickly.

Salter himself is a very strange character. He's still full of ideas, mostly impractical, but he's a real conspiracy theorist, which means you can't have a normal conversation with him.

The figures I recall for wave energy range from 1% to 10% of our total needs, with the 10% being an "in your dreams pal" figure that no-one takes seriously. I get the impression that 1% or 2% maximum is more realistic, but that's not far from your estimate.

----------


## Rheghead

Just wondering how a huge public endorsement of a political party that puts Climate Change and carbon free  energy more seriously than others will have on the final outcome of this inquiry?

----------


## olivia

> Hi Olivia, just want to wish all you objectors well at the hearing. Keep us posted please. Who is the developer's attorney? And who is the objectors' attorney? Thanks.


Thanks Tilter for your good wishes. 

Lawyers - for the the applicants is Mr David Hardy of Cobbetts, for the Council is Mr James Findlay QC, for SNH is Ms Louise Coburn and for SWOG is Mr John Cambell QC.

Another robust round of cross-examination today of the SNH landscape witness. She stood her ground and as yesterday, with the Council's witness, was extremely competent and professional.

There's been a lot of debate about siting and design, different landscape character types, etc. etc. - I've learnt quite a lot and it's actually been very interesting!!

Back next week with the final landscape witnesses, then its policy and planning and conditions, noise and the Hearing session for us yokels.

*Inquiry starts back 0930 am, Tuesday 10 May, Ross Institute, Halkirk - all welcome.*

----------


## Rheghead

> Another robust round of cross-examination today of the SNH landscape witness. She stood her ground and as yesterday, with the Council's witness, was extremely competent and professional.


Yes it was good cross examination, to which she replied very non specifically to a lot of questions that she should have known very specific answers to.

----------


## Green_not_greed

"Dumbest place ever for windfarm" - glad to see that others agree - its just been rejected by Scottish Ministers.  The first one rejected in 4 years.  And about time too.  Great news !

----------


## olivia

Absolutely fantastic news for everyone who has worked tirelessly over all these years to get this monstrosity rejected.

Well done the people of Caithness and beyond.

----------


## sweep

best news ever!! well done to the folk who put a huge effort into stopping this in its tracks!!

----------


## Felix258

There are many people who recognise the great value of what we have now and are not convinced by the wind argument. These people simply want to preserve our unique landscapes and protect this county/region from exploitation. As do many others across the length and breadth of this country - and quite rightly so.

----------


## Rheghead

> There are many people who recognise the great value of what we have now and are not convinced by the wind argument. These people simply want to preserve our unique landscapes and protect this county/region from exploitation. As do many others across the length and breadth of this country - and quite rightly so.


Scientists tell us that climate change is the biggest threat to those landscapes as well as the flora and fauna which they hold.  So to me it is rather counter-intuitive that people should be against all wind farms wherever they may be proposed.  (the glib response from an antiwind person that they are not against wind farms if they are in the right location notwithstanding)

The "don't look nice" argument falls flat on it face when one considers the impact of climate change and the deleterious effects of further conventional generation on the landscape like mining, smoke, radiation etc.

In a way, wind farms can or will be perceived as the guardians of the hills.  History has yet to tell us on that.  But one thing is for sure generally, the younger generation are set to gain the most from a low carbon generation but it is the older generation who hold the more social power who are the most set against wind power, presumably people don't like change as we get older and they fear for the value of their more expensive houses.

----------


## ducati

> Scientists tell us that climate change is the biggest threat to those landscapes as well as the flora and fauna which they hold. So to me it is rather counter-intuitive that people should be against all wind farms wherever they may be proposed. (the glib response from an antiwind person that they are not against wind farms if they are in the right location notwithstanding)
> 
> The "don't look nice" argument falls flat on it face when one considers the impact of climate change and the deleterious effects of further conventional generation on the landscape like mining, smoke, radiation etc.
> 
> In a way, wind farms can or will be perceived as the guardians of the hills. History has yet to tell us on that. But one thing is for sure generally, the younger generation are set to gain the most from a low carbon generation but it is the older generation who hold the more social power who are the most set against wind power, presumably people don't like change as we get older and they fear for the value of their more expensive houses.


I'm all for trying to turn around climate change. (it won't happen, the best we can hope to achieve is to slow its pace a little) but I dont believe wind farms are the solution, even if the scale were increased by massive amounts. I feel I can believe what I like because there is so much contradictory 'evidence'. Anyone who believes you can stop it with wind power and exclude Nuclear is nuts.

----------


## Rheghead

> Anyone who believes you can stop it with wind power and exclude Nuclear is nuts.


Nobody is claiming wind farms are the answer, it is only the anti-wind brigade who claim that is what the politicians and green movement believe.

Nuclear only provides and can only provide 3% of all energy in the UK.  It is a finite energy source and at present consumption rates, the uranium that is used will be all gone in 60-100 years based on current reserves.  

So, we have an inverse linear relationship between consumption and resource availability.  Increase it by 100% to reduce the need for renewables and you will shorten availability by 50%.  We could be looking at uranium is all gone in less than 50 years in a desperate attempt to cut carbon dioxide levels.  But carbon dioxide levels will still go up despite this unless society fundamentally changes to low carbon energy sources, not just because the uranium only scratches the surface of tackling climate change but because the half life of the rate at which the Earth's natural carbon dioxide sinks can suck in the CO2 is in the century level orders of magnitude.

That is why nuclear is just a token gesture.

----------


## ywindythesecond

1.30am on 26th June, first day of the Druim Ba Windfarm Inquiry, 4686MW worth of connected windpower was producing 34MW.

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

----------


## Rheghead

> 1.30am on 26th June, first day of the Druim Ba Windfarm Inquiry, 4686MW worth of connected windpower was producing 34MW.


I'm not unduly worried about that snapshot statistic because 26th June was one of the sunniest days of the year for solar energy systems to kick in big style. As you keep reminding us, there is a loose inverse relationship between absence of wind and lots of sun.

----------

