# General > General >  Gosh!! / Baillie Windfarm Approval

## Tubthumper

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/...ds/8454053.stm

----------


## joxville

Typical. Destroy the Caithness landscape even more to supply electricity to homes a few hundred miles away. But wait! It'll provide jobs for 30 people during construction, so that's okay then. BIG-BLOODY-WOW  ::

----------


## Gronnuck

According to the article, "the bid attracted 829 letters of support and 433 objections," that's democracy for you.  ::

----------


## Tubthumper

Look on the positive side, there will be up to £100,000 a year for the West Caithness Community Fund.

----------


## Mrs Bucket

> Look on the positive side, there will be up to £100,000 a year for the West Caithness Community Fund.


 Ah but how much will the landowner be getting

----------


## northener

> Ah but how much will the landowner be getting


A bloody good deal, I would hope. I know I'd want a pile if it was my land. Free enterprise an' all that.

----------


## bekisman

According to the article, _"the bid attracted 829 letters of support and 433 objections,"_ that's democracy for you

Don't think so, be very interested in seeing where these 1262 'voters' lived.. were these the jokers who had a little stall outside Ethel Austin's in Wick, stopping passer-by's ? - what's that, about 30-40 miles away?

Anyway at least our electric bills will go down. Oh no, forgot, the energy company pays the land owner £xthousands to put the turbines there, and 'we' have to pay more for buying 'green energy'.. what a joke
one big con me thinks.

Wonder if they will ban muirburn now.. nah of course not; sod the CO2, give us the money.

----------


## olivia

> According to the article, "the bid attracted 829 letters of support and 433 objections," that's democracy for you.


The crucial thing missing from this statement is the breakdown of the 829 letters of support. How many of these so called support letters were from Caithness people and how many of the locals to the development signed a letter of support. Very few I bet.

----------


## Rheghead

> According to the article, "the bid attracted 829 letters of support and 433 objections," that's democracy for you.


It is a triumph of democracy and truth over scaremongering and lies.

----------


## bekisman

"It is a triumph of democracy and truth over scaremongering and lies."

Come on Reggy I did not know that Olivia was going to post exactly the same comment as my own did I? 

And now you can assist us both with our question?

----------


## Gronnuck

::  Of course bekisman and Olivia are right but I dont think were ever going to be allowed to know the origins of any of the letters. If the rest of the country wants to cover Caithness with wind turbines I doubt theres much we can do about it!  ::

----------


## Rheghead

> Look on the positive side, there will be up to £100,000 a year for the West Caithness Community Fund.


Are you sure it is destined for them?  They showed negative support for the development so I expect a seperate trust will be formed to manage it.

----------


## bekisman

Here you are Reggy, done it for you; democracy in action!
38. An analysis of this data where the location is known shows the demographic spread of these objectors [CWAG/064 Table 1] shows this. It highlights that 73 (45%) of these objectors live closer than 5km to the site. 
56. In June 2007, over a year after the consultation closed, a petition was received with 830 names. ECU data in Feb 2009 shows a total of 811 petition letters. A copy of a specimen is referenced [CWAG/063]. This shows that the prime focus of the petition letter is very generic in support of renewable energy. The signatories were obtained by members of a group called the Sustainable Energy Alliance  a group who state "that renewable forms of energy and especially that of wind power, should be adopted as soon as possible". They canvassed for support in *Wick, Thurso and Inverness*. 
57. We have been informed of one person who became aware that her name was being used to support this development. She thought that she had signed a sheet supporting renewable energy in general and not to support the Baillie Wind Farm. CWAG/096 Exh 6 shows a copy of her comments to the ECU. 
61. This highlights that there is only one person who signed the petition that lives near (within 5km) the proposed Wind Farm. 
65. The Community Council and Highland Council organised a postal poll 
66. Overall 82.3% of the total returns were against the proposal. 
Democracy? are you having a larf?

http://www.highland.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/C7000B87-7184-4F24-85D8-894B922B90D5/0/Project415BaillieHillPrecognitionAMFull.pdf

----------


## Tubthumper

> Are you sure it is destined for them?  They showed negative support for the development so I expect a seperate trust will be formed to manage it.


That wouldn't be very democratic, would it? The community elected by the (National) majority to host something against their (local) democratic will, prevented from making use of part of the product? Anyway, the community isn't that big surely - certainly not over 1200 strong - and thus any move to prevent the benefits getting to any part of the community would go against the conditions of the development. Or maybe there are no conditions?
Anyway, >£100k a year could fund a decent wee swimming pool or sports centre.

----------


## Rheghead

> Anyway, >£100k a year could fund a decent wee swimming pool or sports centre.


Victoria Hall committee were wanting to extend to build a sports complex.

----------


## Tubthumper

> Victoria Hall committee were wanting to extend to build a sports complex.


Ah, but are they on-side with the developer? If they were against the windfarm they've had it, eh? And how about addressing the 'democracy' issue, seeing as the newspaper story's looking a bit dodgy??

----------


## Rheghead

> They canvassed for support in Wick, Thurso and Inverness....61. This highlights that there is only one person who signed the petition that lives near (within 5km) the proposed Wind Farm.


That explains it then.  They should have canvassed in Shebster and Achreamie!!  ::  ::

----------


## Rheghead

> Ah, but are they on-side with the developer? If they were against the windfarm they've had it, eh? And how about addressing the 'democracy' issue, seeing as the newspaper story's looking a bit dodgy??


Well they seem happy with the ~£3000 a year they are getting off Forss.

----------


## bekisman

'Well they seem happy with the ~£3000 a year they are getting off Forss'.

Ah Forss - is that the one they have to turn off because of turbine flicker? do tell! ::

----------


## Rheghead

> 'Well they seem happy with the ~£3000 a year they are getting off Forss'.
> 
> Ah Forss - is that the one they have to turn off because of turbine flicker? do tell!


Would you rather they kept it going?

----------


## Tubthumper

> That explains it then.  They should have canvassed in Shebster and Achreamie!!


Hahahah. You really are a , Rheggy.
Ignoring this idiot, if the development is to happen and community gain is to be had then so be it. 
However, the point remains that the granting of permission for this development looks decidedly fishy. 
Is it any wonder that community attitude polarises against any development in their locale when due process is so regularly dumped on?

----------


## Rheghead

No need for insults Tubthumper, I thought you were better than that.

----------


## redeyedtreefrog

Don't know all the details but surely with this, as with most renewable sites, the benefits far outweigh the disadvantages.

----------


## Tubthumper

You're right. Your obviously celebratory demeanour got to me. I thought your chosen persona of rational logic and the application of science (where it suits) would have steered away from glib quips, and would have applied more of a cold eye to the suspicious democratic circumstances surrounding this. 
How about commenting on the democracy bit? Or is that where the selective part of the persona comes in?
On a side note, I wonder if Prof. Geri Halliwell appeared on the list of letters of support?

----------


## Rheghead

> How about commenting on the democracy bit?


I'm glad to comment upon that.  We do live in a democracy and that democracy has come up with a procedure whereby there is a right of appeal, I wouldn't accept any other draconian final decision if truth be known.  The developer followed his right of appeal and the ministers came down on his side after a lengthy appeal hearing where both sides were given their equal chance to represent their views.  I can't see how the democratic process has been trampled upon here, there is nothing hidden and it was all done above board.  The development is classified as in the national interest because it is above 50MW so votes in Inverness count as valid as those from Shebster.  That is what this democracy has come up with so there is no point in gurning about it if things don't go the way you like.  

The supporters had their say, the objectors had theirs and the latter lost.

----------


## bekisman

Reggy: "Would you rather they kept it going?"

Why, do you agree that wind turbines cause shadow flicker?

----------


## Rheghead

> Why, do you agree that wind turbines cause shadow flicker?


No I don't if it is right in what you say that they shut them down at certain times to prevent it.

----------


## Green_not_greed

No we don't live in a democracy - we live in a dictatorship.  Just look at Beauly-Denny.  The government consulted and received 20,000 representations about it, over 18,000 of which were objections.  They were ignored and the wee dictator did what he wanted to do in any case.  Same with Baillie.  Over 400 local objections with valid and genuine concerns - ignored in favour of political targets.  (I presume you have actually read the report and letter?).  The wee dictator is engaged in a pissing competition with Westminster and will do what he can to try and make his targets "bigger and better" than theirs.  By doing so he is ruining Scotland as we know it.  I just hope that this short-sighted nonsense will be realised by the voters at the next elections (UK and Scotland).  Baillie has 5 years before construction has to start - a lot can happen in that time.

Oh and BTW, last week's statement by Jim Mather that Beauly-Denny's approval will not open up the Highlands to a free-for-all by every wind cowboy going is clearly a complete lie.

----------


## Green_not_greed

....better known in text language as:

//:=|

----------


## Rheghead

> No we don't live in a democracy - we live in a dictatorship.  Just look at Beauly-Denny.  The government consulted and received 20,000 representations about it, over 18,000 of which were objections.


Regardless of what you think of wind farms, the Beauly-Denny line is essential to bring down the 10GW Pentland Firth tidal power to the central belt.  Trouble was, objecting to Beauly-Denny was heralded by anti wind farm groups as an objection to wind farms in general which could have potentially harmed economic prospects in Caithness.  Friends like them eh?  I think the link with anti wind farms groups was not lost on ministers given that their bias leads them into trouble so many times.

I'd like to know where the route of the pylons are going to be from the shore terminal at Mey to the Dounreay line.  Are they going to go south of Thurso or through Thurso or submarine?  All very interesting...

----------


## redeyedtreefrog

> ....better known in text language as:
> 
> //:=|


If you're going to liken Alex Salmond to Hitler at least use something that isn't blatantly drawn with the big brush in Paint.

----------


## peter macdonald

I find the picture above very offensive  Just because a decision using a democratic process has gone against your wishes it does not give you licence to compare the first minister with someone who orchestrated the killing of millions of Jews Slavs Gipsys Freemasons etc and plunged the world into the horrors of WW2. What for? over the siting of a few windmills ??..You really should get things in perspective  as at this moment you are doing your cause no favours
PM

And in case anyone is wondering I would write this if he picture was of Annabel Goldie Ian Gray Tavish Scott or any leader of a democratic party in these islands

----------


## Green_not_greed

> Regardless of what you think of wind farms, the Beauly-Denny line is essential to bring down the 10GW Pentland Firth tidal power to the central belt.  Trouble was, objecting to Beauly-Denny was heralded by anti wind farm groups as an objection to wind farms in general which could have potentially harmed economic prospects in Caithness.  Friends like them eh?  I think the link with anti wind farms groups was not lost on ministers given that their bias leads them into trouble so many times.
> 
> I'd like to know where the route of the pylons are going to be from the shore terminal at Mey to the Dounreay line.  Are they going to go south of Thurso or through Thurso or submarine?  All very interesting...


And I agree that a replacement line was indeed essential as I want to see the Pentland Firth succeed as a tidal energy centre.  But by the time it generates power and also Beatrice (1000 x 5MW turbines = 5GW) then B-D appears to have filled its capacity.  BTW I am in support of off-shore wind.   The point I was making about B-D was on democracy.

If our governments (Scotland and Westminster) got their acts together this could indeed work.  And I would like to see that work as - hopefully - it would deliver opportunities to the local community in engineering, maintenance and monitoring jobs.  And at the same time hopefully stop further land-mounted turbines.  However licenses for the Pentland Firth tidal have been put back and back so much so that a renewable energy company who set up office late last year to take advantage of this opportunity closed just before Xmas.   So while I agree with the sentiments, its the governments which are doing little more than posing with some new turbines, while other communities are racing ahead with developing the technology.  Because of lack of government funding and political wrangling/pissing competition between Holyrood and Westminster (I've got more turbines than you....!), I fear we will miss the bigger picture.  Posing will continue and someone else will reap the rewards.

----------


## Green_not_greed

> I find the picture above very offensive  s


So do I - but the moustache improves it a little, don't you think?

Perhaps you will now get some understanding of how others feel about this decision.  "Very offensive" is a hell of an understatement.  The people of Shebster and Forss will have to live beside this development for at least the next 25 years.  They are now in a position that they won't be able to move house as they will not be able to get yesterday's market price.  And why?  For the good of a political pissing contest.....

----------


## redeyedtreefrog

> The people of Shebster and Forss will have to live beside this development for at least the next 25 years.  They are now in a position that they won't be able to move house as they will not be able to get yesterday's market price.  And why?  For the good of a political pissing contest.....


I'd like to be able to look out my window and see several majestic white skyscrapers turning effortlessly in the winter breeze, generating clean energy for everyone.  :Grin:

----------


## rupert

Would some one please explain to me how one reporter can turn down three turbines on Lieurary Hill because of adverse visual and cumulative impact (good decision by the way) and yet this bloke says 21 on Baillie hill is fine?

It all stinks. If you are going to have a democratic and accountable process of appeal then it should be just so. 

Oh, and btw, I hope they've had the decency to invite you to the party Rheggy after all of your hard work!

----------


## Green_not_greed

> I'd like to be able to look out my window and see several majestic white skyscrapers turning effortlessly in the winter breeze, generating clean energy for everyone.


Where do you live?  I'm sure that some in Shebster would willingly do a swap.  Are you frog enough to put your honesty where your mouth is?

----------


## peter macdonald

So do I - but the moustache improves it a little, don't you think?

Perhaps you will now get some understanding of how others feel about this decision. "Very offensive" is a hell of an understatement. The people of Shebster and Forss will have to live beside this development for at least the next 25 years. They are now in a position that they won't be able to move house as they will not be able to get yesterday's market price. And why? For the good of a political pissing contest..... 


Aye but not as offensive as the mass slaughter Hitler caused....How many people died because of that???
Get a grip 
PM

----------


## Green_not_greed

Peter

You and Froggie are the only ones who mentioned Hitler. I was thinking more along the lines of



because Salmond is such a clown!

----------


## joxville

> I'm glad to comment upon that. We do live in a democracy and that democracy has come up with a procedure whereby there is a right of appeal, I wouldn't accept any other draconian final decision if truth be known. The developer followed his right of appeal and the ministers came down on his side after a lengthy appeal hearing where both sides were given their equal chance to represent their views. I can't see how the democratic process has been trampled upon here, there is nothing hidden and it was all done above board. The development is classified as in the national interest because it is above 50MW so votes in Inverness count as valid as those from Shebster. That is what this democracy has come up with so there is no point in gurning about it if things don't go the way you like. 
> 
> *The supporters had their say, the objectors had theirs and the latter lost.*


 
You rejoice because you're a supporter of wind farming; democracy in action. Yet in another thread where it was revealed a woman received compensation because she was affected by turbines you doubted her honesty! You can't have it both ways, you either support democracy or you don't, regardless of the ruling of the court.

----------


## sevenfortyseven

I think anything that boosts the local economy in a time like this and gives a bit back to the community is a good thing. Just my two cents!

----------


## roadbowler

rheghead is wrong about the appeal. Yes,, an aggrieved party or parties can appeal to the court of session. But, the court of session cannot change the decision. You cannot appeal based on the fact that the reporter made the "wrong" decision either. Court of session will only decide if a decision was not within statuatory powers or that the interests of the challenger have been substantially prejudiced by a failure to comply with any of the relevant requirements in relation to that action. If the challenger wins on either ground it still does not change the decision of the reporter, they merely ask the reporter to review their decision and reissue one which can be the same as the initial decision. However, in this case, an appeal to the c of s would cost hundreds of thousands to challenge and would risk havig to pay expenses if they lost the case. There is democracy for the wee people for ya!!

----------


## olivia

> I'm glad to comment upon that. We do live in a democracy and that democracy has come up with a procedure whereby there is a right of appeal, I wouldn't accept any other draconian final decision if truth be known. The developer followed his right of appeal and the ministers came down on his side after a lengthy appeal hearing where both sides were given their equal chance to represent their views. I can't see how the democratic process has been trampled upon here, there is nothing hidden and it was all done above board. The development is classified as in the national interest because it is above 50MW so votes in Inverness count as valid as those from Shebster. That is what this democracy has come up with so there is no point in gurning about it if things don't go the way you like. 
> 
> The supporters had their say, the objectors had theirs and the latter lost.


Right, the local community didn't want it (except one or two who are to make loads of money), the community council who balloted the community didn't want it, the councillors who represent us all didn't want it, RSPB didn't want it and loads of other local people also didn't want it yet its OK, by your reckoning, because a load of people from Inverness and much further afield like Australia (who probably have no idea where Baillie windfarm will be or who it will affect) signed some piece of paper supporting renewable energy?

Incidentally Rupert has asked why a three turbine development can be turned down but a 21 turbine development is OK regarding visual and cumulative impact. Explain that one.

What a load of rubbish - it was a fix - how convenient a few days after approving Beauly/Denny the Scottish Government can now justify that decision with yet another windfarm from the north supplying homes down south.

I'm sure there is not one person over Shebster/Westfield way who is rejoicing over this decision except the developers and their hangers-on. So much for Scottish Government planning policy protecting residential amenity!

----------


## Rheghead

> - it was a fix - how convenient a few days after approving Beauly/Denny the Scottish Government can now justify that decision with yet another windfarm from the north supplying homes down south.


It wasn't a fix, it is just that our councillors may be out of touch with the greater needs of the country.  Caithness has taken much in terms of goods and services from the rest of Scotland, now that Scotland is knocking on our door for help it is only right that we repay the debt.

----------


## Tubthumper

So there you have it. There is absolutely no point in any small community in Scotland registering opposition to any proposal that Rheghead and his like decree as in the greater interest of the Country. Nothing that we value can be close to our hearts because apparently we have received so much in the past without contributing. That's good to know; no more taxpayers money need be spent on enquiries and we needn't bother with opinion polls. Caithness is pretty well stuffed.
Windpower developers make much of the jobs to be created and the cash to be paid to community funds. Could the Prince of Wind tell us how many full-time jobs are sustained by the existing installations, and how much cash has been contributed to local funds. 
But then now that permission's been granted, who cares?

----------


## Rheghead

> So there you have it. There is absolutely no point in any small community in Scotland registering opposition to any proposal that Rheghead and his like decree as in the greater interest of the Country. Nothing that we value can be close to our hearts because apparently we have received so much in the past without contributing. That's good to know; no more taxpayers money need be spent on enquiries and we needn't bother with opinion polls. Caithness is pretty well stuffed.


I also value the countryside.  Scientists tell us that if the carbon dioxide levels double from pre-industrial levels then we will see a 3°C rise in global temperatures which will spell global disaster.  We will achieve that level of increase near to the end of this century if we carry on business-as-usual.  Baillie windfarm is just a small part of the intervention measures that we need to take to stop the Highlands becoming changed beyond all recognition.  In other words there won't be a Highlands as we know it unless we learn to start saying yes to projects like Baillie.

----------


## jaykay

Could it now be possible that same developer will get the go ahead for another 30 windmills on Spittal Hill?  Anyone willing to bet against it?

----------


## bekisman

Prince of wind :Wink: , opps sorry, Reggy:_ "I also value the countryside. Scientists tell us that if the carbon dioxide levels double from pre-industrial levels then we will see a 3°C rise in global temperatures which will spell global disaster. We will achieve that level of increase near to the end of this century if we carry on business-as-usual. Baillie windfarm is just a small part of the intervention measures that we need to take to stop the Highlands becoming changed beyond all recognition. In other words there won't be a Highlands as we know it unless we learn to start saying yes to projects like Baillie."_

Might be a bit obtuse here, but for the benefit of us slag's, I presume 'regular' power stations, i.e. coal fired, like these here: http://www.ukqaa.org.uk/PowerStation.html will be switched off so that the CO2 saved by wind farms will then be huge. Surely they won't keep these conventional power stations going, will they? as even ticking over they are producing CO2, so this fanfare "tons of CO2 saved" is baloney. 
If the close em down, what about job losses? it's terrible. Get 'em building Nuclear Power Stations now, THAT is CO2 free

And this is really beyond me:[my emphasis] "_Baillie windfarm is just a small part of the intervention measures that we need to take to stop the Highlands becoming changed beyond all recognition. In other words there won't be a Highlands as we know it unless we learn to start saying yes to projects like Baillie."_ eh? so you are telling us slag's that the Highlands [beauty, solitude] won't be changed by wind farms?
Hmm..

----------


## Tilter

> 61. This highlights that there is only one person who signed the petition that lives near (within 5km) the proposed Wind Farm. 
> [SIZE=2]65.


That person is to receive money from the developer.  Fact.  (And it's not me I hasten to add.)

I was so shocked when I just now read Baillie had gone through.  Beauly-Denny approved so obviously any old development will go through now regardless of what locals want.  I honestly had thought the government would see sense eventually re on-shore wind and pay due regard to latest thinking on renewables, but apparently not.

----------


## Rheghead

> as even ticking over they are producing CO2, so this fanfare "tons of CO2 saved" is baloney.


That depends upon the magnitude of the CO2.  Of course if they emit the same amount of CO2 whilst they are in standby as they do when being used during generation then it would be baloney.  From what I understand then they emit about 0.1% of the amount of in-service CO2 whilst in warm standby.

Of course if you can convince me that I am wrong by referring me to a reputable source of information then I'd be very willing to join forces with the anti-wind farm brigade over this issue alone.  I'll even donate £50 to CWIF as a goodwill gesture to fight their next wind farm development.

----------


## rupert

> Could it now be possible that same developer will get the go ahead for another 30 windmills on Spittal Hill? Anyone willing to bet against it?


If they had any scruples they would withdraw their application as they know the local community are dead against it - but hey what am I talking about we all know they won't - too much money involved. Its nothing but sheer greed.

----------


## bekisman

Reggy: "From what I understand then they emit about 0.1% of the amount of in-service CO2 whilst in warm standby."

Could you give me the link to this? ta

----------


## Tubthumper

> I think anything that boosts the local economy in a time like this and gives a bit back to the community is a good thing. Just my two cents!


I agree. But the only things I've ever seen regarding what goes into the local economy are the promotional bits while they're desparately trying to get permission. You never hear about the benefits after they're working.
So here's a question: *How many people are actually employed on the 6-turbine Forss installation?*
I think it's one person part-time on janitorial duties, with the 'real' maintenance carried out by supplier specialists from elsewhere. Which is hardly making a major contribution to our economy.
Anyone care to argue or clarify?

----------


## bekisman

Rupert: _"If they had any scruples they would withdraw their application as they know the local community are dead against it - but hey what am I talking about we all know they won't - too much money involved. Its nothing but sheer greed. "_

Don't be silly Rupert, Money is GOD.. they don't give a toss for aesthetics (that's dealing with the nature of beauty art, and taste, and with the creation and appreciation of beauty by the way)  - Neighbours? Nah..

'The decision has been warmly welcomed by local farmer Tom Pottinger Mr Pottinger, who farms at Baillie, said: "We're obviously very pleased with the decision, especially given all the effort, hard work and time we have put into it'

Interesting this:..'Here, whilst identifying that the proposed wind farm would not be wholly consistent with Perth and Kinross Structure Plan and would be contrary to the Councils Wind Energy Policy Guidelines, Mr David Russell nevertheless considered that there were no unacceptable environmental effects apart from "_the significant adverse visual effect of the southern array of turbines on Glen Quaich and Loch Freuchie"._ Although the Reporter recommended at 13.24 that consent be granted, subject to a range of conditions including the removal of turbines 1  14, as I have noted, the Scottish Ministers ultimately refused consent..'. 

Seems to me our 'Mr David Russell' the Reporter, loves em, nuff said?

http://www.pkc.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/5973D521-B6A6-4F2B-A07E-2A0F967960BE/0/LindseyGuthrieSLRlandscapeandvisual.PDF

----------


## Rheghead

> Reggy: "From what I understand then they emit about 0.1% of the amount of in-service CO2 whilst in warm standby."
> 
> Could you give me the link to this? ta


Renewable electricity and the grid: the challenge of variability
 By Godfrey Boyle p144-145

You may be able to get a preview on google books.

----------


## bekisman

Renewable electricity and the grid: the challenge of variability
By Godfrey Boyle p144-145

You may be able to get a preview on Google books. 


Come on Reggy, that's a link? - most of us give a link to a pdf or something.. I could say that my reference is 'European Strategy on Standby for Coal-Fired Provision
By James Hansen p123-125.. but then I'd be waffling..

What's the ISBN of your book?

----------


## Rheghead

> Renewable electricity and the grid: the challenge of variability
> By Godfrey Boyle p144-145
> 
> You may be able to get a preview on Google books. 
> 
> 
> Come on Reggy, that's a link? - most of us give a link to a pdf or something.. I could say that my reference is 'European Strategy on Standby for Coal-Fired Provision
> By James Hansen p123-125.. but then I'd be waffling..
> 
> What's the ISBN of your book?


Not everything is on the internet, especially if it is of a business confidential nature.  You can get a copy from Amazon.

Failing that, you model yourself on the investigative journalist, do some research of your own and I'll be happy to see what you come up with. :Wink: 

I will honour my pledge if you convince me I'm wrong.

----------


## bekisman

I'd like to ask where you obtained this 'Private' information, considering confidentiality to Org members - remember this IS an open forum.. I am unhappy with this..

----------


## Rheghead

> I'd like to ask where you obtained this 'Private' information, considering confidentiality to Org members - remember this IS an open forum.. I am unhappy with this..


erm your profile page?




> About bekisman 
> Location 
> Strathy 
> Occupation 
> + Freelance investigative Journalist

----------


## joxville

> Renewable electricity and the grid: the challenge of variability
> By Godfrey Boyle p144-145
> 
> You may be able to get a preview on google books.


95 quid for the hardback and 30 quid paperback  :: 

http://www.earthscan.co.uk/?tabid=1159

It's not just the windfarm developers that are making money out of the scare-mongering.  ::

----------


## joxville

> I'd like to ask where you obtained this 'Private' information, considering confidentiality to Org members - remember this IS an open forum.. I am unhappy with this..





> erm your profile page?


Looks like Rheg got you there bekisman.  ::

----------


## Rheghead

> Looks like Rheg got you there bekisman.


I've lost count of the number of times actually.  :Wink:

----------


## Tubthumper

Rheg, you're a font of info on wind turbines. What kind of jobs have been created from the wind turbines that have been installed in Caithness? I want to know so I can start gaining the qualifications & knowledge to apply for one.
All the applications have claimed that new jobs will be created. If there aren't any new jobs, I wonder what will happen.

----------


## scottygirl

ok, I live within 5km of this and I am outraged. I am now going to have to look out the majority of the windows in my house and see these things, I have to listen to them if the wind is in the wrong direction whilst "enjoying" the outdoors in my own back garden.
Did I object? yes. Was it any good? obviously not.
Blot on the landscape, most certainly in my opinion.
Not a happy person!!!!!

----------


## Metalattakk

> ok, I live within 5km of this and I am outraged. I am now going to have to look out the majority of the windows in my house and see these things, I have to listen to them if the wind is in the wrong direction whilst "enjoying" the outdoors in my own back garden.
> Did I object? yes. Was it any good? obviously not.
> Blot on the landscape, most certainly in my opinion.
> Not a happy person!!!!!


I understand your despair, but in the grand scheme of things (according to Rheghead, our own lauded Prince of Wind and Pish) you have to accept your unwanted, undeserved and utterly unwarranted situation, for the benefit of others.

For those about to lose scenic views, house values and respect for the process of democracy, I salute thee. Please forgive them for your losses, they know not  what they do.

----------


## Mrs Bucket

> I understand your despair, but in the grand scheme of things (according to Rheghead, our own lauded Prince of Wind and Pish) you have to accept your unwanted, undeserved and utterly unwarranted situation, for the benefit of others.
> 
> For those about to lose scenic views, house values and respect for the process of democracy, I salute thee. Please forgive them for your losses, they know not what they do.


like the apt princely tltle but some might find it offensive

----------


## ywindythesecond

> Reggy: "From what I understand then they emit about 0.1% of the amount of in-service CO2 whilst in warm standby."
> 
> Could you give me the link to this? ta


 I asked the same question on another thread. I haven't got an answer yet.

----------


## ywindythesecond

> I'd like to be able to look out my window and see several majestic white skyscrapers turning effortlessly in the winter breeze, generating clean energy for everyone.


This is how much good it would be as at 10.30am today.

----------


## Rheghead

> I asked the same question on another thread. I haven't got an answer yet.


It seems a pointless question to answer, firstly because no matter what you think about wind farms and renewable energy, if the generation in this country was composed of primarily nuclear to provide the bulk of baseload and coal and gas to meet the rest of variable demand, you will still need generators in standby to meet variable demand.  Nuke doesn't seem to be variable to meet demand.

As I said, hopefully you can prove me wrong because I really do hope what you say can be substantiated.  I keep repeating this but you don't seem to want to take me on.

Fact is, you can't...

----------


## ywindythesecond

> It seems a pointless question to answer, firstly because no matter what you think about wind farms and renewable energy, if the generation in this country was composed of primarily nuclear to provide the bulk of baseload and coal and gas to meet the rest of variable demand, you will still need generators in standby to meet variable demand. Nuke doesn't seem to be variable to meet demand.
> 
> As I said, hopefully you can prove me wrong because I really do hope what you say can be substantiated. I keep repeating this but you don't seem to want to take me on.
> 
> Fact is, you can't...


It is not me that is not answering.This is the quetion which was the subjet of my post:
Originally Posted by *bekisman*  
_Reggy: "From what I understand then they emit about 0.1% of the amount of in-service CO2 whilst in warm standby."

Could you give me the link to this? ta_

 Please humour Bekisman and me and answer it.

----------


## Rheghead

> It is not me that is not answering.This is the quetion which was the subjet of my post:
> Originally Posted by *bekisman*  
> _Reggy: "From what I understand then they emit about 0.1% of the amount of in-service CO2 whilst in warm standby."
> 
> Could you give me the link to this? ta_
> 
>  Please humour Bekisman and me and answer it.


I stand by my statement.

Reggy: "From what I understand then they emit about 0.1% of the amount of in-service CO2 whilst in warm standby."

The onus is on you to prove me wrong since I provided a reference for my opinion.

----------


## Tubthumper

Sorry to bang on about jobs, but I would hate to think that development licences were being granted based flawed claims.
3-4 new jobs to be created at Baillie. Based on 3 maintenance jobs for 21 turbines (make the 4th job the administration role) and a fairly relaxed 200 man-day year, each individual turbine must require something like 28 working days of attention each year. That seems a bit unlikely. Either that or there's an awful lot of gardening to be done.
Also there appear to be no occupied control room or employee welfare facilities at Caithness wind farms. Where do the workers go for tea and poops?

----------


## Tubthumper

Sorry to bang on about jobs, but I would hate to think that development licences were being granted based on flawed claims.
3-4 new jobs to be created at Baillie. Based on 3 maintenance jobs for 21 turbines (make the 4th job the administration role) and a fairly relaxed 200 man-day year, each individual turbine must require something like 28 working days of attention each year. That seems a bit unlikely. Either that or there's an awful lot of gardening to be done.
Also there appear to be no occupied control room or employee welfare facilities at Caithness wind farms. Where do the workers go for tea and poops?

----------


## olivia

> Also there appear to be no occupied control room or employee welfare facilities at Caithness wind farms. Where do the workers go for tea and poops?


No need, they're there for so little time.  3 - 4 full time jobs, don't make me laugh.  Yet another triumph for spin over substance!

----------


## roadbowler

> Sorry to bang on about jobs, but I would hate to think that development licences were being granted based on flawed claims.
> 3-4 new jobs to be created at Baillie. Based on 3 maintenance jobs for 21 turbines (make the 4th job the administration role) and a fairly relaxed 200 man-day year, each individual turbine must require something like 28 working days of attention each year. That seems a bit unlikely. Either that or there's an awful lot of gardening to be done.
> Also there appear to be no occupied control room or employee welfare facilities at Caithness wind farms. Where do the workers go for tea and poops?


 i would say fraudulent rather than flawed.

----------


## Tubthumper

‘Where do the workers go for poops?’
  My little son asked me
  ‘And daddy, while were at it tell me,
  Where do they have tea?’
  I paused and took a big deep breath 
  And looked him in the eye
  Reflected there were wind turbines
  A-filling up the sky….

_I think you’ll find they have to go_
_To toilet in the field_
_For lavvies have no place up here_
_Though turds must be concealed_
_The planning application said_
_Community would gain_
_Some jobbies would be gi’ed to us_
_To ease the visual pain_

  'But daddy, surely such a place
  Technology impressive
  Must need a lot of chaps to fix
  Big engineers, aggressive
  They stand up there all day in wind
  These towers sure do toil
  There must be, every hour a need
  To add a spot of oil…'

_Indeed my son, they work so hard_
_Electric generation_
_A-making volts to send off to_
_The big Denny sub-station_
_But as for us who live right here_
_In small community_
_We have no right to gripe and whine_
_It’s for the Nation, see_

  ‘Oh daddy, what on earth is this
  I simply cannot see
  How there is any semblance of
  Our Scots democracy.
  The little people do not need
  What’s wanted by the state
  But by the time the truth gets out
  It’s always far too late!’

_Son, just see the bigger picture_
_Here we’ve always taken_
_The handouts that the Nation’s gi’ed_
_Our land far flung, forsaken_
_A nuclear bonus fills our coast_
_Which could have gone off bang_
_As long as it was far away_
_The folk up here could hang_

  ‘So what you’re saying daddy is
  A poll must count for naught
  And no-one checks once green light’s on
  So fibbers don’t get caught
  Such things are needed, sure they are
  For future generation
  But absence of a tea room speaks
  Of job exaggeration!’

_Well laddie, never mind the hype_
_For future sake of you_
_We just imagine men at work_
_Drink tea and have a poo_
_Disposing of such waste is easy_
_Once he’s done, each man_
_Throws turd at turbine, watch to see_
_The poop that hits the fan_

----------


## roadbowler

bravo!  ::

----------


## annemarie482

> Ah but how much will the landowner be getting



i believe its 10 thousand a windmill a year. roughly.

----------


## northener

> i believe its 10 thousand a windmill a year. roughly.


Don't even think about it, AnneMarie... :Wink:  :: 

Do you remember when Manny moved into the village and I told everyone in the pub he was an engineering surveyor for a windfarm project on Sinclair Bay dunes?

I nearly got the poor  lynched. ::

----------


## gleeber

The construction phase of these turbines will provide work for dozens of men in the construction industry at a time when those of us in the building trade in caithness are finding the going tough. Considering most men will have a wife and children it doesnt take a genuis to be aware of the good a scheme like this will bring to Caithness in the short term. 
 At a guess I would say theres a ninimum of 6 months work there for dozens of local men. As for your concerns about the toiletry habits of these workmen have no fear. During construction there are portable toilets on site and after the job is finished there is a purpose built building to contain the technology required for such a scheme as well as a toilet, wash facilities and eating area contained in the same building.

----------


## annemarie482

> Don't even think about it, AnneMarie...
> 
> Do you remember when Manny moved into the village and I told everyone in the pub he was an engineering surveyor for a windfarm project on Sinclair Bay dunes?
> 
> I nearly got the poor  lynched.



no danger i value my life! lol
could fill my garden though!  :: 
(only joking before i start a riot!)

----------


## Tubthumper

> ... after the job is finished there is a purpose built building to contain the technology required for such a scheme as well as a toilet, wash facilities and eating area contained in the same building.


What is it that the three wise men spend their time doing when they're not having tea or poops?
And the service building on the Causewaymire windfarm looks awful small. It's always locked up whenever I go past. Do they have to lock themselves in?

----------


## Tubthumper

> Do you remember when Manny moved into the village and I told everyone in the pub he was an engineering surveyor for a windfarm project on Sinclair Bay dunes? I nearly got the poor  lynched.


What, did the local community have misgivings about such a scheme?

----------


## scoobyc

6 months work for 12 workers traded for 15 years (at a guess) of an eye sore for virtually everybody, not a very good deal imho ::

----------


## Tubthumper

Don't forget more than £100 000 every year for the community fund. No-one doubts that is a good deal.

----------


## roadbowler

so, it's official, roundabouts 2013, there will be more wind turbines than trees visible from every caithness residents' windows. Contract now in place for 25 gw and possibly 25 more for the moray firth. ::

----------


## redeyedtreefrog

> so, it's official, roundabouts 2013, there will be more wind turbines than trees visible from every caithness residents' windows.


True, we could do with more trees.

----------


## olivia

Well if you don't want anymore of these monstrosities blotting the Caithness landscape then help us to stop their other carbuncle they want to put on Spittal Hill by objecting at

www.spittalwindfarmopposition.co.uk

many thanks

----------


## golach

I get a beeg laugh when I see all these hate the wind farm crowd protesting on here, ask yourselves and your parents did they complain about something that will be a blot on Caithness for hundreds of years.......Dounreay Fast Breeder Reactor, even now its shut down, you will live with its legacy

----------


## Bobinovich

Ah, but look how many jobs have been created over the years since Dounreay's arrival - something worthwhile for the wider Caithness & Sutherland community. Will we really be able to say that for windfarms? I doubt it  :: 

Likewise how many visitors to the county have been through the Dounreay Exhibition?  Will Turbine Tourism have the same effect?  Once again I doubt it...

----------


## Rheghead

> Ah, but look how many jobs have been created over the years since Dounreay's arrival - something worthwhile for the wider Caithness & Sutherland community. Will we really be able to say that for windfarms? I doubt it


I've been reading about typical employment levels in gas fired generators and it seems that they have a rated output of 10-15MW per person employed, coincidentally that was the same ratio which will be  likely to be employed on wind farms locally.

----------


## scottygirl

> The construction phase of these turbines will provide work for dozens of men in the construction industry at a time when those of us in the building trade in caithness are finding the going tough. Considering most men will have a wife and children it doesnt take a genuis to be aware of the good a scheme like this will bring to Caithness in the short term. 
> At a guess I would say theres a ninimum of 6 months work there for dozens of local men. As for your concerns about the toiletry habits of these workmen have no fear. During construction there are portable toilets on site and after the job is finished there is a purpose built building to contain the technology required for such a scheme as well as a toilet, wash facilities and eating area contained in the same building.


 
Yes, but do you really believe that it will be "local" men who get these jobs, or will they bring guys in from south????  I would think the latter........

----------


## scottygirl

> Don't forget more than £100 000 every year for the community fund. No-one doubts that is a good deal.


I will believe that when I see it, granted that leuiray hall could do with a revamp but at what cost!!!

Meanwhile, what are the chances of me getting a good price for my house now that a wind farm is going up in full view within 5km???  Hmm, I think not so good......

----------


## Tubthumper

> I've been reading about typical employment levels in gas fired generators and it seems that they have a rated output of 10-15MW per person employed, coincidentally that was the same ratio which will be  likely to be employed on wind farms locally.


Is that 'virtual' or 'actual' jobs. The vehicular access gates to the Causeywaymire windfarm are actually locked most of the time. How do the workers get in and out for their full-time jobs?
Because they're virtual workers, that's how. The monitoring & control is carried out far away and the devices are designed to be low-maintenance.  So claiming the jobs benefit for the community is a bit pants.
I'm not a NIMBY, I'm not against turbines. I'm simply scornful of developers who have to exaggerate, and politicians who are gormless enough to believe the hype. And spend our money on pointless 'democratic' processes. And Rheghead of course.

----------


## Green_not_greed

> Don't forget more than £100 000 every year for the community fund. No-one doubts that is a good deal.


If you read the report and decision letter you'll see that there is absolutely no obligation on the developers to pay one penny to any community fund.  It is purely voluntary.  What they said to get permission may well be forgotten now they have it - that is the nature of modern politics!   

The Dunbeath turbines don't pay one penny into any community fund.  The Causeymire and Forss do, though its pretty paltry compared to the vast profits they are making.  The problem with community funds is that there seems little planning or organisation on what to do with it.

I would suggest that the Shebster and Forss communiuties get organised and approach the Baillie developers with their own list of what they want - after all, they are the ones who will suffer the most.   I for one would insist on a fund to pay for insulation and electricity for every house within a nominal radius - say 2km, as advised by Scottish Ministers.

----------


## ywindythesecond

> I will believe that when I see it, granted that leuiray hall could do with a revamp but at what cost!!!
> 
> Meanwhile, what are the chances of me getting a good price for my house now that a wind farm is going up in full view within 5km??? Hmm, I think not so good......


Baillie developers should be able to compensate you scottygirl, after all, between opening in 2006 and the end of 2008, Causeymire earned 336,050 ROCs and at an average value of £48 that is £16,130,400. It will have added about £5,760,000 during 2009. 
At one time I know that Causeymire had three employees, but they were sorting out gearing noise at the time. Even if they still had three employees that would work out at a public subsidy of about £1,920,000 per job. 

Oh, and of course it will have earned about one third again thrugh generating Electricity!

----------


## bekisman

Been away, come back to see Reggy has still not answered this:
(#57 "Gosh!! Baillie windfarm")  _Reggy: Renewable electricity and the grid: the challenge of variability By Godfrey Boyle p144-145 You may be able to get a preview on Google books._ 
_Me: Come on Reggy, that's a link? - most of us give a link to a pdf or something.. I could say that my reference is 'European Strategy on Standby for Coal-Fired Provision, By James Hansen p123-125.. but then I'd be waffling.. What's the ISBN of your book?_


So unable to answer he flusters (as is so very usual with Reggy) and discloses profile information which is for Org members only and not available to the vast number of surfers who look in on the site. Quote: "Failing that, you model yourself on the investigative journalist, so some research of your own" (Come on Joxville, with your 'you caught him there Reggy' - you did not honestly believe I did not know where he got it from? - but thanks for the link when Reggy could not) - Anyway I've no objection to anyone knowing I'm a freelance investigative journalist, so seeing that it's 'open season' Rhegheads bit's: "I am meek and mild in real life, Reay, Caithness, Birdwatching, metal detecting, cycling, camping, outdoor stuff, Environmental consultant for Local Government" - no probs there, confirmation of his blinkers pertaining to wind farms as he is an Environmental consultant for Local Government..

So Reggy others are asking, please show us the actual figure, ref the above and no, the onus is not on us, it's you who said it, prove it..

Yes I'm sorry if I'm one of those wind farm haters who don't like to see the highlands ruined by hundreds/ possibly 1000's of 300 metre tall pointless turbines, shovelling vast amounts into developers pockets, increasing the cost of electricity and doing absolutely nothing for 'saving the planet' as conventional power stations are standing by, but do not object to Dounreay.. 
Wind Farms: a few paltry caretaking jobs, Dounreay; Thousands since the 50's .. Never mind when the SNP gets kicked into touch next election the incoming Scottish government will repeal this 'no nuclear' nonsense for Scotland and we'll save ourselves a bomb (i.e. not having to purchase power from the other parts of the UK, who were not so short-sighted) 

Remember the squeals from the NIMBY's when Calton Hill Energy has applied to Edinburgh City Council for permission to carry out tests at the proposed wind farm site on Salisbury Crags.. what happened to that?..
Never mind, Pottinger (you know, one of those brothers wanting Spital Hill wind Farm and who've got Baillie lives down in Edinburgh, so that's nice for him. He'd forsooth, be first to object re Calton Hill Energy me thinks?
So come on Reggy where is p144-145?

Good to be back.

----------


## redeyedtreefrog

bekisman, what about tidal?  Would you object to a massive tidal project in the Pentland Firth?

----------


## bekisman

bekisman, what about tidal? Would you object to a massive tidal project in the Pentland Firth? 

Nope - below the surface. Or nuclear..

----------


## Rheghead

> So Reggy others are asking, please show us the actual figure, ref the above and no, the onus is not on us, it's you who said it, prove it...




pop in and I'll gladly show you the book.

----------


## Tubthumper

What's your thoughts on a consultation exercise for nuclear waste storage?

----------


## olivia

> Of course bekisman and Olivia are right but I dont think were ever going to be allowed to know the origins of any of the letters. If the rest of the country wants to cover Caithness with wind turbines I doubt theres much we can do about it!


Sorry Gronnuck, I keep meaning to reply to this and then forgetting (getting old!). You can ask to see all of the letters of representations both for and against, they are in the public domain (except the few that have asked for confidentiality). I don't know the exact breakdown, maybe someone else can enlighten us, but I think at least 500+ of the letters of support were from people outside the county. 

Oh and of course they duplicated them to also support Spittal windfarm as well, good trick eh?

www.spittalwindfarmopposition.co.uk please object now.

----------


## bekisman

Tubthumper _"What's your thoughts on a consultation exercise for nuclear waste storage?"_  
Was that a general question or for me? if me, the French seem to do alright with all their Nuclear.. but hang on - thought this was ref wind farms don't want 'him' starting up, do we?




http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0411.shtml
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/nucl...lear-wasteland
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=31466
http://cleantech.com/news/2162/frenc...red-in-the-u-s

----------


## Green_not_greed

Here is a detailed breakdown of the history of public opinion on Baillie.  Without the WCCC poll which is a separate matter.  Source of info is the Public Inquiry precognitions and a database of the supporter and objectors names, addresses and postcodes.  The info below is already available to the public so I see no issue in posting it here.

*Environmental Statement 2004* 

In July 2004 a consultation was started by the Scottish Executive for a 75 MW wind farm comprising 25 turbines at Baillie.  According to information received from the Scottish Government Energy Consents Unit (ECU), following consultation there were 162 objectors and zero supporters. It highlights that 73 (45%) of these objectors lived closer than 5km to the site. 

*Environmental Statement 2006* 

In early 2006 a further consultation was initiated when Baillie submitted an addendum to their original Environmental Statement. This document makes no mention of taking on board the public objections already received – only statutory consultees were mentioned. This is blatantly ignoring one of the fundamental principles of planning policy. 

Further objections were received. Some of these objections were from the original objectors and there were additional members of the public objecting. Removing duplicates to the 2004 objectors, a further 71 people added their names to those opposing the development.  

By the time the deadline of the 10th March 2006 for the consultation period was complete there were still no letters of support. 

*Supporters after the Close of Consultation of the ES addendum* 

The consultation period closed in March. From April to November 2006 there were a total of 12 supporter letters received by the ECU. The majority of the supporters have a business interest, a financial interest or are a stakeholder in the development. 

In June 2007, over a year after the consultation closed, a petition was received with 830 names. ECU data in Feb 2009 shows a total of 811 petition letters. The petition letter was very generic in support of renewable energy. The signatories were obtained by members of a group called the Sustainable Energy Alliance – a group who state “that renewable forms of energy and especially that of wind power, should be adopted as soon as possible”. They canvassed for "support" in Wick, Thurso and Inverness. 

One “supporter” who became aware that her name was being used to support this development thought that she had signed a sheet supporting renewable energy in general and not to support the Baillie Wind Farm.   She requested that her name was removed from the supporters list.

Analysis of the petition signatories show that 267 lived in Caithness and north Sutherland (KW postcode).  142 of those lived on the East Caithness coastal area (Wick, Lybster, Latheron) and would not be affected by Baillie windfarm.  90 lived in Thurso.  Only one person who signed the petition lives within 5km of the proposed Wind Farm. 

The ECU database shows that 15 further support letters were received much later – from October 2008 to January 2009. However, these include a letter from the developer, two are additional comments from stakeholders that previously submitted letters of support, three of were from people with a financial interest or are tenants of the landowner, the others have business interests either during construction or in expansion of the windfarm.

*Objections after closure of the consultations*

A further 200 objections were received after the 2006 consultation closed, taking the total to 433.  The vast majority were individual letters from genuinely concerned people.

----------


## ywindythesecond

> Here is a detailed breakdown of the history of public opinion on Baillie. Without the WCCC poll which is a separate matter. Source of info is the Public Inquiry precognitions and a database of the supporter and objectors names, addresses and postcodes. The info below is already available to the public so I see no issue in posting it here.
> 
> *Environmental Statement 2004* 
> 
> In July 2004 a consultation was started by the Scottish Executive for a 75 MW wind farm comprising 25 turbines at Baillie. According to information received from the Scottish Government Energy Consents Unit (ECU), following consultation there were 162 objectors and zero supporters. It highlights that 73 (45%) of these objectors lived closer than 5km to the site. 
> 
> *Environmental Statement 2006* 
> 
> In early 2006 a further consultation was initiated when Baillie submitted an addendum to their original Environmental Statement. This document makes no mention of taking on board the public objections already received  only statutory consultees were mentioned. This is blatantly ignoring one of the fundamental principles of planning policy. 
> ...


 Thanks GNG, that is a good bit of work. Do you know specifically what the canvassed objectors were asked?

----------


## Green_not_greed

This is what people were asked to sign.



As you can see, two of the bullet points are flawed - (1) new pylons ARE required as it depended on Beauly-Denny, and (2) the CO2 savings are vastly over-exaggerated (real figure around 60,000 Te).

This is the "flawed question" referred to by the Reporter, and not the one asked by WCCC (as the report refers).

----------


## scoobyc

> Ah, but look how many jobs have been created over the years since Dounreay's arrival - something worthwhile for the wider Caithness & Sutherland community. Will we really be able to say that for windfarms? I doubt it


 replied with and quoted



> I've been reading about typical employment levels in gas fired generators and it seems that they have a rated output of 10-15MW per person employed, coincidentally that was the same ratio which will be likely to be employed on wind farms locally.


what does that have to do with how many dounreay employed? Didn't know there was a gas fired generator there ::  Surely thats only of any interest if you state the expected MW output?

----------


## bekisman

Re #104 #105

Sustainable Energy Alliance, oh that would Jonathan Lincoln down there in Blaenau Ffestiniog of course, local chap...

----------


## redeyedtreefrog

> This is what people were asked to sign.
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see, two of the bullet points are flawed - (1) new pylons ARE required as it depended on Beauly-Denny, and (2) the CO2 savings are vastly over-exaggerated (real figure around 60,000 Te).
> 
> This is the "flawed question" referred to by the Reporter, and not the one asked by WCCC (as the report refers).


Even if those points are wrong, the others are pretty significant and the only downside is a slight blot on the landscape for not-many people.

----------


## olivia

Got to get one of these great T-shirts they are selling -





Just shows what sort of trash was employed to do their dirty work!

----------


## Green_not_greed

> Even if those points are wrong, the others are pretty significant and the only downside is a slight blot on the landscape for not-many people.


Its a little more that a slight blot on the landscape for those living nearby - 60 houses within 2km.  Their lives will be ruined and they will be unable to sell up and move away as their homes are now nowhere near the value they were before the decision was taken.  I agree that some points are significant - and worth doing something about - but why shoehorn turbines in so close to homes when there are vast areas where no-one lives?

----------


## redeyedtreefrog

> Its a little more that a slight blot on the landscape for those living nearby - 160 houses within 2km.  Their lives will be ruined...


Somehow I doubt their entire lives will be ruined by a few wind turbines

----------


## Rheghead

> Its a little more that a slight blot on the landscape for those living nearby - 160 houses within 2km.


Another exaggeration unless the reporter in his report erred when he says there are only just over 60 houses within 2km of the development.

----------


## Green_not_greed

> Another exaggeration unless the reporter in his report erred when he says there are only just over 60 houses within 2km of the development.


A typo - there are 61 homes within 2km.  Its OK to destroy everything the occupants have worked for throughout their lives then?  Unable to sell up and move?  

There is a new class system in Britain.  The upper class are the ones with the windfarms, making millions.  The middle class are those supporting the upper class, aspiring to be like them.  The peasants are those who's lives aren't worth considering because they get in the way.  Of profits and targets.

----------


## scottygirl

> Somehow I doubt their entire lives will be ruined by a few wind turbines


Really, would you like to live next to them?  I will be, and I think it will have a huge impact on my life!

----------


## scottygirl

> Its a little more that a slight blot on the landscape for those living nearby - 60 houses within 2km. Their lives will be ruined and they will be unable to sell up and move away as their homes are now nowhere near the value they were before the decision was taken. I agree that some points are significant - and worth doing something about - but why shoehorn turbines in so close to homes when there are vast areas where no-one lives?


I entirely agree.  The highlands are huge, there are so many open spaces, with no homes nearby, why build so close to folks homes?  I guess that's easy to answer - Money. 
I worked long and hard to be able to afford to buy what I thought was my ideal house in the countryside and what do I now find? That that house has just been devalued considerably.  I am considering having it re-valued to see just what the impact actually is.......
I know I won't be happy about the result.
My ideal house is quickly becoming a nightmare........

----------


## scoobyc

Rheghead please answer my question in post #107 as i see no relevance in your previous post.

----------


## Rheghead

> Rheghead please answer my question in post #107 as i see no relevance in your previous post.


I wasn't picking up on the point made about Dounreay, I was responding to the general point of employment in wind and comparing with other types of generation.

----------


## scoobyc

Fair enough but you used it as defence against another point with no relevance imho. And again surely without the total MW output your point holds no weight with regards employment. If the output is only expected to be about 45MW then that would only be 3 people employed in a year (or are your figures for the lifetime of a plant?) and hardly a boost to the local economy, except for the people at colleges etc who sell courses on the benefits of wind farms and the like :Wink:

----------


## Rheghead

> Fair enough but you used it as defence against another point with no relevance imho. And again surely without the total MW output your point holds no weight with regards employment. If the output is only expected to be about 45MW then that would only be 3 people employed in a year (or are your figures for the lifetime of a plant?) and hardly a boost to the local economy, except for the people at colleges etc who sell courses on the benefits of wind farms and the like


Since our renewable energy targets are arbitrary levels and load factors of wind farms are lower than other conventional generators, then employment levels in the wind industry to reach those targets will be much higher per watthour than for other technologies.

----------


## scoobyc

yes but its not going to help employment in any significant way so how can it be sold in this way?

----------


## scoobyc

> It seems a pointless question to answer, firstly because no matter what you think about wind farms and renewable energy, if the generation in this country was composed of primarily nuclear to provide the bulk of baseload and coal and gas to meet the rest of variable demand, you will still need generators in standby to meet variable demand. Nuke doesn't seem to be variable to meet demand.
> 
> As I said, hopefully you can prove me wrong because I really do hope what you say can be substantiated. I keep repeating this but you don't seem to want to take me on.
> 
> Fact is, you can't...


I didn't realise we can control the wind now, but if I interpretated your posts correctly you believe wind power can provide the energy when needed and almost be in standby for nuclear power when the load is increased? So we can presumably up the wind in caithness when there is an increase in load demand? Or are you going to store the energy they are producing in which case why not just store the excess power from the nuclear plants when the demands are lower? Or maybe there are nuclear power plants that can vary their demand, surely not that difficult as its been proven in various marine plants eg nuclear powered boats and submarines where changes in demand must be catered for quite readily

----------


## Rheghead

> I didn't realise we can control the wind now, but if I interpretated your posts correctly you believe wind power can provide the energy when needed and almost be in standby for nuclear power when the load is increased? So we can presumably up the wind in caithness when there is an increase in load demand? Or are you going to store the energy they are producing in which case why not just store the excess power from the nuclear plants when the demands are lower? Or maybe there are nuclear power plants that can vary their demand, surely not that difficult as its been proven in various marine plants eg nuclear powered boats and submarines where changes in demand must be catered for quite readily


I didn't refer to wind in that post.

----------


## ywindythesecond

> I didn't realise we can control the wind now, but if I interpretated your posts correctly you believe wind power can provide the energy when needed and almost be in standby for nuclear power when the load is increased? So we can presumably up the wind in caithness when there is an increase in load demand? Or are you going to store the energy they are producing in which case why not just store the excess power from the nuclear plants when the demands are lower? Or maybe there are nuclear power plants that can vary their demand, surely not that difficult as its been proven in various marine plants eg nuclear powered boats and submarines where changes in demand must be catered for quite readily


scoobyc, this is how flexible a nuclear plant would have to be to back up wind

It is worth noting that over the past 24 hours or so wind production has been low at periods of peak demand and high at periods of least demand, and that the forecast wind has been significantly overestimated for the whole of the period shown by up to almost 40% of connected wind capacity. ( The numbers along the bottom are half hour periods, therefore 21 is 1030am)
http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm

----------


## bekisman

Reggy: _'Nuke doesn't seem to be variable to meet demand.'_

Come on Reggy, and you a something working at something and it's association with something?

Anyway, here tiz:
*Operation principle*

Control rods are usually combined into control rod assemblies — typically 20 rods for a commercial PWR assembly — and inserted into guide tubes within a fuel element. A control rod is removed from or inserted into the central core of a nuclear reactor in order to control the neutron flux — increase or decrease the number of neutrons which will split further uranium atoms. This in turn affects the thermal power of the reactor, the amount of steam produced, and hence the electricity generated.

----------


## scoobyc

> scoobyc, this is how flexible a nuclear plant would have to be to back up wind
> 
> It is worth noting that over the past 24 hours or so wind production has been low at periods of peak demand and high at periods of least demand, and that the forecast wind has been significantly overestimated for the whole of the period shown by up to almost 40% of connected wind capacity. ( The numbers along the bottom are half hour periods, therefore 21 is 1030am)
> http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm


 your either missing my point or reitterating it! We have no control over the wind yet we have control over a nuclear plant, which are capable of being load following and self controlling as in my marine example. You say the wind doesn't match demand for today and yet we have no control over that. I'd imagine demand has been huge over the last few weeks with extra heaters etc yet we have had virtually no wind to meet this. Today we have lots of wind yet it is milder so slightly less load but it is probably too windy for the turbines with the gusts we are having. We aren't doing anything to store this excess energy as far as i'm aware and so effectively the windmills are doing very little for us over this period. So therfore why not run a nuclear plant slightly above expected demand and reuse the excess power/steam for some form of regeneration or dump it and waste it like the windmills at present :Grin:

----------


## crayola

> Not everything is on the internet, especially if it is of a business confidential nature. You can get a copy from Amazon.
> 
> Failing that, you model yourself on the investigative journalist, do some research of your own and I'll be happy to see what you come up with.
> 
> I will honour my pledge if you convince me I'm wrong.





> I'd like to ask where you obtained this 'Private' information, considering confidentiality to Org members - remember this IS an open forum.. I am unhappy with this..





> Come on Reggy, and you ....................?


Is it ok if I post your occupation and your place of work?  ::

----------


## bekisman

Crayola, was that for me? if so you're a bit late.
I've no objection what you write about me, look through the posts and you will read I'm disabled, was in the Army and then invalidid out of the Fire service - see below where I live and what I do... trawl through a few thousand postings and you'll find a lot of things.

#97 So unable to answer he flusters (as is so very usual with Reggy) and discloses profile information which is for Org members only and not available to the vast number of surfers who look in on the site. Quote: "Failing that, you model yourself on the investigative journalist, so some research of your own" (Come on Joxville, with your 'you caught him there Reggy' - you did not honestly believe I did not know where he got it from? - but thanks for the link when Reggy could not) - Anyway I've no objection to anyone knowing I'm a *freelance investigative journalist*, [and I *live in Strathy*] so seeing that it's 'open season' Rhegheads bit's: "I am meek and mild in real life, Reay, Caithness, Birdwatching, metal detecting, cycling, camping, outdoor stuff, Environmental consultant for Local Government" - no probs there, confirmation of his blinkers pertaining to wind farms as he is an Environmental consultant for Local Government

----------


## bekisman

Bit more: (08-Feb-07, 17:49) Welcome oldchemist! (from a chemist getting older )..

----------


## redeyedtreefrog

> Really, would you like to live next to them?  I will be, and I think it will have a huge impact on my life!


Yeah I wouldn't mind, they're not that noisy unless there's practically a hurricane going on and I quite like the look of them.

----------


## bekisman

Ref wind farm objections, is it correct (or not) that if a potential wind farm is over 50mw, then anyone can support it - no matter where they live? 

Just wondered what reasoning is behind the possibility that supporters who live hours away can give support, whilst those in the wind farm locality - who are against it - are ignored?

redeyedtreefrog; just wondered if you were one of the above?

----------


## crayola

> Crayola, was that for me? if so you're a bit late.
> I've no objection what you write about me, look through the posts and you will read I'm disabled, was in the Army and then invalidid out of the Fire service - see below where I live and what I do... trawl through a few thousand postings and you'll find a lot of things.
> 
> #97 So unable to answer he flusters (as is so very usual with Reggy) and discloses profile information which is for Org members only and not available to the vast number of surfers who look in on the site. Quote: "Failing that, you model yourself on the investigative journalist, so some research of your own" (Come on Joxville, with your 'you caught him there Reggy' - you did not honestly believe I did not know where he got it from? - but thanks for the link when Reggy could not) - Anyway I've no objection to anyone knowing I'm a *freelance investigative journalist*, [and I *live in Strathy*] so seeing that it's 'open season' Rhegheads bit's: "I am meek and mild in real life, Reay, Caithness, Birdwatching, metal detecting, cycling, camping, outdoor stuff, Environmental consultant for Local Government" - no probs there, confirmation of his blinkers pertaining to wind farms as he is an Environmental consultant for Local Government


Yes it was meant for you. Your complaint seemed a tad hypocritical given your announcement of Rheg's occupation and place of work.

Are you really sure you'd be happy if I posted your occupation and your place of work? I'd do it if you want me to but I might get my wrists slapped for advertising.  :: 

I don't often read your long posts partly because you don't use the forum Quote facility and it's often some effort to work out who said what in them.  I know I could search back in the thread to find the post you're referring to, or track back to 'post 116' (or whatever) but the purpose of the Quote facility is to avoid having to do that.

----------


## redeyedtreefrog

> Ref wind farm objections, is it correct (or not) that if a potential wind farm is over 50mw, then anyone can support it - no matter where they live? 
> 
> Just wondered what reasoning is behind the possibility that supporters who live hours away can give support, whilst those in the wind farm locality - who are against it - are ignored?
> 
> redeyedtreefrog; just wondered if you were one of the above?


I live in Wick and I didnt know about this windfarm until this thread  ::

----------


## bekisman

Didn't know about it?

Just put in "Strathy north wind farm" and "Strathy South wind farm"; I live (as everyone now knows at Strathy) by the way it's not planned to have a measly 30 - 40 turbines, but - wait for it: 122!

----------


## bekisman

Crayola: _"Yes it was meant for you. Your complaint seemed a tad hypocritical given your announcement of Rheg's occupation and place of work._ 
_Are you really sure you'd be happy if I posted your occupation and your place of work?_ _I'd do it if you want me to but I might get my wrists slapped for advertising. _ 

_I don't often read your long posts partly because you don't use the forum Quote facility and it's often some effort to work out who said what in them. I know I could search back in the thread to find the post you're referring to, or track back to 'post 116' (or whatever) but the purpose of the Quote facility is to avoid having to do that. "_

Hi, so very sorry that I've not used the quote facility. I'm too thick I expect. 
Hmm, me thinks I've touched a raw nerve? I've edited Reggy's reference - suggest you do the same if you want. Although think Reggy is sufficiently capable of standing up for himself and can take the rough and tumble of the Org.  Additionally Reggy fully knows what my wife does in PM's to him last year - I also wrote "No Rheggy I've no animosity towards you, in fact respect". We might not agree, but as Voltaire/Hall? wrote;'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it'. 

My wife runs an award-winning B&B, in fact classed by the Good B&B Guide as one of the Top 20 in UK at one time. 
And now as 4 stars by the AA - actually I know for a fact that about 15 of the Org reading this very post know her B&B personally.. hmm now there's a thought. 

I in fact do not have a job, it might be a tad complicated, but it's called moral support. 
Being a cripple, I found that guests were a wee bit put out when I fell over and tipped their evening meal over 'em as me leg collapsed. Sorry if I sound a tad irritated but this silly "_I posted your [real] occupation and your place of work"_ by someone other than Reggy is, well.. work it out yourself.

Anyway shall we get back to the thread? Oh no, come on then Crayola, tell me all about yourself or shall I use my other hat?

Incidentally wife's B&B IS advertised on the Org..

----------


## ywindythesecond

> I live in Wick and I didnt know about this windfarm until this thread


RETF, is that for real? You didn't know about it? You probably didn't know about the rest of them either!

The windfarm areas shown are to scale. 
The numbers in circles indicate the approximate  location of more windfarms which are coming along but their layout is not yet known and the number of turbines indicated could change.
How many of the others have you heard about? I am really interested, because if you live in Wick and don't know about these things then chances are lots of people living in Wick don't know either. What do you know about Camster Windfarm?

----------


## ywindythesecond

> your either missing my point or reitterating it! We have no control over the wind yet we have control over a nuclear plant, which are capable of being load following and self controlling as in my marine example. You say the wind doesn't match demand for today and yet we have no control over that. I'd imagine demand has been huge over the last few weeks with extra heaters etc yet we have had virtually no wind to meet this. Today we have lots of wind yet it is milder so slightly less load but it is probably too windy for the turbines with the gusts we are having. We aren't doing anything to store this excess energy as far as i'm aware and so effectively the windmills are doing very little for us over this period. So therfore why not run a nuclear plant slightly above expected demand and reuse the excess power/steam for some form of regeneration or dump it and waste it like the windmills at present


 Come on scoobyc, you are confusing me with Reggy! I posted the graph to show what a ludicrous notion backing wind up with nuclear was. And you are right about high demand and low wind recently. Keep track of it yourself on http://www.bmreports.com/   Click General and explore the options. 
Fascinating hard irrefutable facts.

----------


## redeyedtreefrog

> How many of the others have you heard about? I am really interested, because if you live in Wick and don't know about these things then chances are lots of people living in Wick don't know either. What do you know about Camster Windfarm?


Not many to be honest, I dont keep up-to-date on windfarms.  But i know a few people who've mentioned these particular ones before though.

----------


## ywindythesecond

> Come on scoobyc, you are confusing me with Reggy! I posted the graph to show what a ludicrous notion backing wind up with nuclear was. And you are right about high demand and low wind recently. Keep track of it yourself on http://www.bmreports.com/ Click General and explore the options. 
> Fascinating hard irrefutable facts.


Having posted that I thought I would check up on what the wind is doing now and how good the predictions were............


Not great actually on both counts. The low point arrives 8 hours early. Just when the grid controller had planned to start to prepare for it coming.

----------


## crayola

> The low point arrives 8 hours early.


How do you get 'the low point arrives 8 hours early' from that picture?  ::

----------


## ywindythesecond

> Not many to be honest, I dont keep up-to-date on windfarms. But i know a few people who've mentioned these particular ones before though.


OK you have heard about them and you don't keep up to date, but you have voiced an opinion on how noisy they aren't. ( _Like Beki I have not mastered the quotes system and cannot post the quote here_)
What did you base that opinion on? 
And again please, what do you know about Camster Windfarm, apart from hearing of it. 
I am not being aggressive here, I am trying to find out what the perception of Caithness town dwellers is of rural windfarm development in Caithness.

----------


## Rheghead

> Yes it was meant for you. Your complaint seemed a tad hypocritical given your announcement of Rheg's occupation and place of work.


It's obvious Bekisman has a personal vendetta against me, he has been trawling through old threads and gathering personal information on me looking for some slur on my character for some time now.  I don't know what all this amounts to but it is really pathetic.  I'm retiring from wind farm/ global warming threads from now on if it causes such bitterness.  I think I'll be doing my homelife a great service tbh.

----------


## ywindythesecond

> How do you get 'the low point arrives 8 hours early' from that picture?


Actual low output at period 35 is the same as predicted low output at period 43. 

Period 35 is 17.30 (5.30pm), period 43 is 21.30 (9.30pm)

But you are right to query it. The periods are half hour periods and I should have said "the low point arrives 4 hours early".  

Sorry. Must be more careful.

----------


## redeyedtreefrog

> OK you have heard about them and you don't keep up to date, but you have voiced an opinion on how noisy they aren't. ( _Like Beki I have not mastered the quotes system and cannot post the quote here_)
> What did you base that opinion on? 
> And again please, what do you know about Camster Windfarm, apart from hearing of it. 
> I am not being aggressive here, I am trying to find out what the perception of Caithness town dwellers is of rural windfarm development in Caithness.


Well even though there's not a windfarm near my house i've still been near one, and if i wasn't looking at it i wouldnt know it was there.

I know that Camter Windfarm has planning consent and will have 25 turbines. (I think)

And you'll have to ask more town-dwellers about it to get more of a detailed scope

----------


## crayola

> Actual low output at period 35 is the same as predicted low output at period 43. 
> 
> Period 35 is 17.30 (5.30pm), period 43 is 21.30 (9.30pm)
> 
> But you are right to query it. The periods are half hour periods and I should have said "the low point arrives 4 hours early".  
> 
> Sorry. Must be more careful.


I thought you might have made the 'hour versus half hour' transcription error but I also thought you might have been looking at when actual output started dropping off steeply. Either way I couldn't see '8 hours early'.

Thanks for putting me out of my misery, now I can go and start making my dinner!

----------


## Cinderella's Shoe

> Yeah I wouldn't mind, they're not that noisy unless there's practically a hurricane going on and I quite like the look of them.


Froggy

All the Weekers I know can read and write - are you the exception?

Wind farms are one of the key issues debated here on the .org and in the local press.

Regarding your post above a hurricane would muffle any noise from wind turbines - you would hear the wind but not the turbines.  

They are noticeably noisy to neighbours when there is a light wind - enough to turn the turbines and carry the sound, but not enough to be heard downwind as a "windy" noise.  In those circumstances, the turbine noise dominates everything and will certainly be noticeable.

----------


## bekisman

Reggy: It's obvious Bekisman has a personal vendetta against me, he has been trawling through old threads and gathering personal information on me looking for some slur on my character for some time now. I don't know what all this amounts to but it is really pathetic. I'm retiring from wind farm/ global warming threads from now on. I think I'll be doing my homelife a great service tbh. 

Oh no I don't..Personal vendetta? I sent PM's to you ref friendly and personal helpful advice on your LEJOG cycle trip (As I've done it) . I've also let it be known publicly of a further PM I sent you: "No Rheggy I've no animosity towards you, in fact respect".(see #135 on this thread)..

Course I've been trawling through old threads - not just yours - 'cos some folks are contradictionary and I can't remember wot folks wrote years ago; can you?, nothing harmful about that whatsoever. Slur on your character? you're wrong there Reggy, no substance, again whatsoever.. 

OK so I have a bee in my bonnet about wind farms, I am not an expert - like the vast majority on here, but there are folks here who have been saddled with these things on their doorsteps, they have objected, the local council have objected, the Highland Council have objected.. my heart bleeds for them that some faceless  in Edinburgh overturns democracy and gives the go ahead - to the delight of others who have not had their lives blighted for ever. 

I try simply to do my bit, in my area we may well have another one hundred and twenty two turbines here, so also a personal interest. I am just a midge in the grand scale of things, I am accused that my postings are difficult to read, but then, that's me. 
On the Org we have a number of posters who are far, far more expert and better than I will ever be at getting their anti-wind farm and global warming ideals over, and I salute them.

No Reggy please don't defer from the wind farm/ global warming threads, we need a balance, and you are it. You go and it's one-sided, I go and it'll make not one jot of difference.

*To facilitate matters I will defer and this will be my last posting here on these subjects, unless reggy comes back soon* - please continue Reggy and stand up for your own beliefs against those far more expert than I am, don't let them believe you deferred because of their deeper knowledge..

Come on, lets get on with it..

----------


## joxville

Okay guys, time to sit back, relax, kick of the shoes and kick of the blues...perhaps have a glass or three. Both of you enjoy the cut and thrust of debate and it's helped make this thread interesting so I wouldn't like to see either of you depart from it. Have a couple of nights rest then come back. And if you don't behave I'll get Crayola to give you both a smack on the bum.  :Smile:

----------


## Tilter

> Ref wind farm objections, is it correct (or not) that if a potential wind farm is over 50mw, then anyone can support it - no matter where they live? 
> 
> Just wondered what reasoning is behind the possibility that supporters who live hours away can give support, whilst those in the wind farm locality - who are against it - are ignored?
> 
> redeyedtreefrog; just wondered if you were one of the above?


Its my understanding that anyone can object to or support any size windfarm regardless of where windfarm or objector/supporter is located.  When I asked my councillor about this, he said they look at postcodes and give much more weight to local objectors and supporters.  But for the big windfarms that are determined by the Executive, I would guess they think nationally and dont weight location of objectors/supporters as much as county councils, if at all.




> OK you have heard about them and you don't keep up to date, but you have voiced an opinion on how noisy they aren't. ( _Like Beki I have not mastered the quotes system and cannot post the quote here_)


Windy, if you mean you can't quote several orgers in one response, just click on quote as usual, edit it, then type your reply but don't post, just copy and past the whole thing into Word, go to next person you want to quote and repeat process.  Then copy and paste everything from Word into a new reply to the thread.  There's probably easier ways but haven't figured one out.

----------


## Green_not_greed

> It's obvious Bekisman has a personal vendetta against me, he has been trawling through old threads and gathering personal information on me looking for some slur on my character for some time now.  I don't know what all this amounts to but it is really pathetic.


You would have my sympathy if you'd not done it yourself.  You even passed on my personal information and PMs onto the Baillie legal team, for them to use against me.  Which they did.  Or at least tried to.




> I'm retiring from wind farm/ global warming threads from now on if it causes such bitterness.


I'll believe it when I see it.  You've made similar promises this before but always broken them.




> I think I'll be doing my homelife a great service tbh.


At 8000+ posts its probably about time you got a real life.  Try to enjoy it.

----------


## Bobinovich

> ...There's probably easier ways but haven't figured one out.


There certainly is!  I posted a thread a while back on how to use the multi-quote facility here.  Makes quoting multiple posts a lot easier  :Grin:

----------


## Margaret M.

> At 8000+ posts its probably about time you got a real life.  Try to enjoy it.


Why is Rheggie catching grief about his number of posts?  He averages 4.39 per day, I don't think that is excessive.  From what I have seen, his life seems to be very real already -- and well balanced.

----------


## joxville

> Why is Rheggie catching grief about his number of posts? He averages 4.39 per day, I don't think that is excessive. From what I have seen, his life seems to be very real already -- and well balanced.


Depending how you look at it mine is worse/better at 5.29 per day, and my life is hunky dory, thank you very much.  :Smile:

----------


## Margaret M.

> Depending how you look at it mine is worse/better at 5.29 per day, and my life is hunky dory, thank you very much.


Aye, and I'm waiting for a response on the weight watcher thread so don't use your quota up before you get to that one.   :Smile:

----------


## ywindythesecond

> Well even though there's not a windfarm near my house i've still been near one, and if i wasn't looking at it i wouldnt know it was there.
> 
> I know that Camter Windfarm has planning consent and will have 25 turbines. (I think)
> 
> And you'll have to ask more town-dwellers about it to get more of a detailed scope


You are right, Camster has planning consent and there are 25 turbines.
You can see a fuller picture of the future landscape from Tesco in Wick at www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk but here is Camster and Achairn from Tesco.

----------


## Tubthumper

Whichever way you look at windfarm proposals, there's no doubt that they're one of the most divisive issues facing rural Scotland today. 
It's hilarious when you think about it: Scots 'culture' is pretty much exclusively based on Highland or rural things (kilts, gaelic, Burns etc) and yet those who live in less than rural surroundings show no empathy with or knowledge of (or even interest in!) what goes on away from the streetlights. And I don't mean London or the Edinburgh/Glasgow conurbation: It manifests itself locally too, where those in Inverness care naught for Thurso, while those in Thurso are scornful of the concerns of those in Castletown, who in turn are uninterested in what goes on around Bower.
Rheghead (May his Org soul find the peace it seeks) has a vaild point; the needs of the many must take precedence over the lifestyles of the few. But that principle doesn't add up when one considers Scots measures supporting Gaelic and positive discrimination in favour of social minorities. 
Basically, those who live away from the streetlights, who pay the same taxes yet receive less benefits, are required to carry an additional burden on behalf of the majority. And that's that.
I wonder what Rabbie Burns would have to say about it?
By the way, by the time Pentland Firth tidal power generation starts to come online, the Beauly-Denny line will be full to capacity, carrying all the wind-generated output.

----------

