# General > General >  Just announced, Strathy North Wind Farm

## ywindythesecond

Strathy North Windfarm Planning Application details are now lodged in Thurso Library

It is for 35 turbines of total height 110 metres. Causeymire ones are just under 100m. Forss ones are 75m. Latheron ones are 68m.

There are 35 of them. The total connected output is 81MB. The claim is that this will provide power to 40,000 homes (about, I can't remember the exact number)
We already have windfarms providing more than enough for our needs when the wind blows. We don't need more windfarms to provide more than we need.
Is there any good reason for Caithness or the Highlands to carry the burden of power generation for consumption in the more densely populated areas?
The wind also blows there, perhaps not as much but it doesn't need to be sent hundreds of miles to the consumer.

----------


## Bill Fernie

I still fail to see where you are coming from with this "We already have enough for our needs argument."

Surely the needs are for the whole of the UK. 

Anything we manaufacture will normally be for a much greater area than the local one otherwise it would not be cost effective to produce. 

By your logic fishing boats in Scotland should only catch enough fish for Scotland and not export any to England or other parts of Europe.

You need to find other arguments than this one to oppose wind farms. 

The motive for most endeavours is profit and it certainly looks like wind farms are highly profitable for the landowner, the company owning them, the manufacturers and in some cases the local community via community benefits.

In addition the governments targets for production of alternative sources of energy are driving the process forward.  We are going to have many more wind farms and since the far north appears to have the best wind conditions we are likely to have many more.

Some may be placed at sea especially if the two in the Moray Firth are proved to work successfully.  It remains to be seen if people will accept two hundred off the Caithness coast any more easily than they might want wind farms.

Since the market has been set by the government and the wind farms look to be almost guaranteed to make profits you will need to find extremely good ideas to stop them being built.

It is possible that developments for other forms of energy production from say the Pentland Firth might be a way forward  but that needs some time to develop.  If some form of energy from tidal sources does get going in say five years that may start to slow the wind farm developments.  By that time however there will be many more in place.

As I say I am still somewhat unsure how your argument that we already have enough output from wind turbines for our own local use does anything to support the slowdown of further developments.  It looks like a dead end argument although I am always open to other suggestions to support the theory.

----------


## Rheghead

> We already have windfarms providing more than enough for our needs when the wind blows. We don't need more windfarms to provide more than we need.


The last time I checked, Caithnessians were Scottish, Caithness was connected to Scotland and Strathy is in Sutherland...

----------


## emb123

> The last time I checked, Caithnessians were Scottish, Caithness was connected to Scotland and Strathy is in Sutherland...


An eyesore in a beauty spot.  Whoopie-do!

Generating around 70-80 Megawatts - occasionally, on a really windy day.

Really holds a candle to the 4000 megawatts and 8000 megawatts from conventional power stations.  And what a great way to fool people into thinking that the UK has chosen the best technology, and sited it in the best place. NOT.

It's an antique renewable energy generation method that is unreliable at best, costly to install and almost worthless other than for the purposes of pretending to be doing something about working towards the required quota for energy coming from renewable sources.  Wave power would be much less obtrusive - beauty spot or not - and it generates a whole lot more electricity - even when the wind isn't blowing.

----------


## rambler

> It's an antique renewable energy generation method that is unreliable at best, costly to install and almost worthless other than for the purposes of pretending to be doing something about working towards the required quota for energy coming from renewable sources. Wave power would be much less obtrusive - beauty spot or not - and it generates a whole lot more electricity - even when the wind isn't blowing.


Although the concept of utilising wind energy might be antique, the modern wind turbines are certainly not. The improvements that were made in turbine and blade technology over the last decade have resultet in state-of-the-art machines that are as different to the ancient windmills as a racing car is to a horse cart.
Wave power still needs to be developed to be commercially viable, at the moment it generates (unfortunately) hardly any electricity. 

Where do the waves come from when the wind is not blowing?

----------


## emb123

> Although the concept of utilising wind energy might be antique, the modern wind turbines are certainly not. The improvements that were made in turbine and blade technology over the last decade have resultet in state-of-the-art machines that are as different to the ancient windmills as a racing car is to a horse cart.
> Wave power still needs to be developed to be commercially viable, at the moment it generates (unfortunately) hardly any electricity. 
> 
> Where do the waves come from when the wind is not blowing?


I agree that they are a vast improvement on early designs but they are still an eyesore (sure - that's a matter of opinion, you either like them or you don't) and the last I read, wave power technology was similarly coming on by leaps and bounds.

Obviously I appreciate you'll get *bigger* waves when the wind is blowing.  But absence of wind in one locality doesn't seem to cause the sea or ocean (Strathy head being roughly where the Atlantic Ocean meets the North Sea) to resemble a still pond.  Just makes it less choppy.

It might not be quite so bad (except for despoiling the landscape of course) if nearby residents who had these things within sight and sound of where they live got free electricity as an incentive to be a bit more tolerant 
of them, but I just don't see that kind of offer being laid on the table anytime this century.

----------


## Bill Fernie

Whilst wave power is one possible source of power it remains to be seen whether the technology can withstand the powerful waves of the Pentland Firth.  The major power in that waterway would seem to be tidal and current.  Whilst turbines are operating on a test basis in thew south and appear to work it will require full scale machinery and no doubt something extremely robust to stand up to the forces in the Petnalnd firth. Some estimates usgggest that if the power could be harness up to at least 50% of allof the UK's power requirements might come from there.  Even if that is beyond what might be done and it was only say 25% the investment required would be considerable and take several years to develop.

Would we only invest to supply enough power from the Pentland firth for Caithness and Sutherland.  Of course not.  

Then there are follow on consequences if the Pentland firth was to be ver ys uccessful as power source supplying the UK.   For example would even the new proposals for the Beauly Denny and up to Dounreay even be enough to carry the power out or would yet another massive power line be required.

There would also require to be a huge amount of research carried out to predict some of the consequences of taking power from the Pentland Firth.  I am not an engineer but in all probability my guess would be that taking out energy from a particular point in the firth will havce cponsequnces eventually somewhere past the point where the turbines , dams or whatever are located.  for example will the current be slowed down or will the tidal race be mitigated as energy is extracted on a massive scale.  At what level can power be extracted with no effect further on in the firth or into the North Sea.  If the water flow is slowed down will there be negative effects that some over the years.  the current etc may have been flwoing for hundereds of thousands of years and we will alter it.  We need to have some idea of what wil happen down the line.  After all most rivers that are blocked by a dam have a consequence when the river no longer flows as previously.  I look at the Aswan Dam in Egypt that was hailed as massive succes when built and now the consequences are coming home to roost they are not so sure.  Yes they have the power supply but there are many environmental and ecological consequences that appear to be mainly negative and still getting worse.  

If we are to keep suggesting the Pentland Firth as an alternative to wind power we must bear in mind that it is still a long way off and even if a start was made tomorrow we would not see the reults for a few years whereas the wond farms are here and now.  It could be that if the firth projects were successful that in 20 or 30 years the wind farms would be taken down when they reached the end of their usefulness.  It would appear to be much cheaper to remove a series of wind turbines than to deal with decommissioning nuclear plants albeit that might be much cheaper for future ones than the previous generation that were not designed with decommissioning in mind.

With plans to have several hundred wind turbines in the Western Isles and in the Shetland Isles still moving forward and with small island communities and many mainland communities looking at how they can get their own wind turbines it would seem that many folk see them as an asset for their area despite the opposition they create.

Certainly each proposal needs to be examined carefully and the Highland Council strategy has attempted to bring some suggestions as to how to manage future developments and not allow completely piecemeal development all over the place.  It remains to be seen if that will be successful as many developments will be dealt with in Edinburgh.

----------


## fred

> Where do the waves come from when the wind is not blowing?


The gravitational pull of the moon.

----------


## johno

Sorry Bill i cant relate to your arguement about the fishing boats. 
they dont spoil the look of the ocean as turbines do to the surrounding countryside. Im sure that the wind do,es blow just as strong in the more dense,ly populated areas,[ it cerainly is doing that right now].
 The same can be said for Dounereay, would that have been built in, say the area surrounding London, No i dont think so. But at least that gave a lot of benefit to the local area where i cant see how wind turbines will benefit anyone but the land owner,s & the comany running them.
 ::

----------


## Bill Fernie

Johno - I don't think I mentioned fishing boats.  But yes there mitght be affects on the fishing industry if changes were made to tidal flows and currents.

----------


## golach

> There are 35 of them. The total connected output is 81MB. The claim is that this will provide power to 40,000 homes (about, I can't remember the exact number)
> We already have windfarms providing more than enough for our needs when the wind blows. We don't need more windfarms to provide more than we need.


I am sorry but I think your protests are a bit NIMBY'ish.
The point of Wind Power, Wave Power even Solar panels, is to try and *save our Planet*. That is the main reason for all this, so IMO by your protests, you dont care about global warming, weather changes, holes in the Ozone Layer, the Ice Caps melting.
If the surplus power produced by the Kaitness Wind Farms lights my energy saving lamps in my little apartment in Edinburgh and maybe powers the Air-Conditioning in our Scottish Parliament, I will be very grateful to the county of my birth.
These Wind Farms are not being constructed on arable land, but on land that in the main cannot be used to produce food or timber, so why not let it be used for the benifit of our grand children.

----------


## fred

> I am sorry but I think your protests are a bit NIMBY'ish.
> The point of Wind Power, Wave Power even Solar panels, is to *save our Planet*.


Windmills arn't going to save our planet.

Only people can save our planet and the only way they can do that is to stop confusing needs with wants.

If we just build a load of windmills and screw in a few energy saving lightbulbs then slap each other on the backs glowing with pride in the sacrifices we are making for mankind then the world is doomed.

The modern consumer world is a scam, it works on the same principal as a chain letter or pyramid selling, seems to work in theory, for a while a few people do very well out of it but it can't last for ever and when it crashes everyone loses.

The windmills are being driven by greed, their effect on the environment will be zilch and they perpetuate a system which makes it nigh on impossible for anyone to make a real difference.

----------


## Rheghead

> Really holds a candle to the 4000 megawatts and 8000 megawatts from conventional power stations.  And what a great way to fool people into thinking that the UK has chosen the best technology, and sited it in the best place. NOT..


Can you give any examples of 4000-8000MW power stations please?

----------


## johno

> Johno - I don't think I mentioned fishing boats. But yes there mitght be affects on the fishing industry if changes were made to tidal flows and currents.


[fishing boats  should only catch fish for scotland and not export to england]
 your words . but i get your point. my point is that wind farms would not be tolerated in the most scenic parts of england so why should they mar the beautiful country side of scotland

----------


## rambler

> The gravitational pull of the moon.


Well ok. We get a tidal flood wave about every 12 hours. Although it will be possible to harvest the tidal flow in that wave it is more difficult to harvest the wave element from the tidal waves caused by the gravitational part of the moon.
Wave energy technology tries to capture energy from the swell caused by wind. Swell can travel a long distance, so even if the wind blows somewhere between Greenland and the Azores and not in Scotland, there still might be swell at Strathy Point.

----------


## Rheghead

> Windmills arn't going to save our planet.


Wind turbines are only one part of a multi-discipline strategy to save the planet from climate change.  Hopefully we can derive 20% of our electrical power from them.  Energy generation is currently responsible for ~30% of the UK's emissions of CO2, 20% of that is 6%, that to me that is a valid reason to invest in Windfarm technology on a macro scale.

Not all countries are best placed for windfarms but collectively the world's community can fight climate change.

The fact that statements are being made like the above just demonstrates how one-sided people have become on this issue...

----------


## Rheghead

> my point is that wind farms would not be tolerated in the most scenic parts of england so why should they mar the beautiful country side of scotland


I think you should take a closer look at the efforts to stop windfarm proliferation in England and see where they are situated.  I used to live near one of the first windfarms in England which was on the border of the English Lake District and could be seen from large parts of it.  

Your statement exposes a prejudice which is outwith the subject of Wind energy.

----------


## emb123

> Can you give any examples of 4000-8000MW power stations please?


No. Sorry can't take time out to do that (shouldn't be sitting at the computer at all really), I did a google search a couple of weeks ago and came up with what I seem to remember were those kind of figures), I tried one now and it's like pulling teeth trying to extract meaningful results out of google.  Could be my memory is wrong - fair enough - I bow to superior information and being corrected.  What I can find now without taking the time necessary to find the link I did previously seems to suggest 1500 megawatt to anything up to 4000 depending on the size and technology used would be more approriate figures.

Sorry for confusion.

----------


## fred

> Wind turbines are only one part of a multi-discipline strategy to save the planet from climate change.


A stratergy which includes China increasing their carbon output by over a third every 10 years and India over a half?

If we closed down every powerstation in Britain they would make up the difference in a matter of months not years.

Scotland needs about 6 or 7GW generating capacity and has 9 already, much of the surplus is exported. There are plans for another 20GW from wind power in the Highlands. The power stations are there to make money and they only make money if they are running at near capacity. If the owners of the power stations have to run the generators down to tickover everytime the wind blows they will go broke in no time.

What if in 20 years time the conventional powerstations are still working near capacity, people are making fortunes from new industries fed by the extra power from wind turbines and the government is saying "half our electricity comes from renewables, we did our bit"?

----------


## Bill Fernie

First  apologies to John  - Forgot about my fishing reference.

Here is a link to some "Interesting Figures" about which i make no comment at the moment -
http://www.esru.strath.ac.uk/EandE/W...nteresting.htm

Also a list of all of the UK power stations and output capacity might be useful for reference.  See this link - 
http://www.powerstationeffects.co.uk...ntsMay2004.pdf

----------


## Bill Fernie

First  apologies to John  - Forgot about my fishing reference.

Here is a link to some "Interesting Figures" about which i make no comment at the moment -
http://www.esru.strath.ac.uk/EandE/W...nteresting.htm

The DTI provides plenty of useful figures and information about production from all energy sources - See this link
http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/statist...page18527.html

----------


## KittyMay

Im getting weary of being labelled a NIMBY for not fully believing that the uncontrolled growth of the wind industry is the answer to climate change and security of supply. (Please dont come back saying that its one of the answers - currently its the only commercial renewable technology available)

Folk support wind energy for all number of reasons  reasons they believe to be valid and genuine at that. What if they are being misled? 

What if wind energy will do nothing to save the planet? 
What if wind energy can never provide a secure supply of electricity? 
What if wind energy can never replace our dependence on traditional generators?

Are wind turbines still so attractive? 
Is the industrialisation of the countryside quite so acceptable?

Government set a target to reduce carbon emissions. How to achieve this? The Energy White Paper held the key but -

They couldnt touch transport - too controversial. 
They couldnt enforce reduction/conservation of energy  again, too controversial. 
They couldnt suggest additional nuclear plants  the most controversial of them all (and the most effective carbon reducing planet saving measure)

Got it  force power companies into supplying a percentage of electricity using renewable resources. 

This course of action ruled out the huge benefits in carbon reduction to be gained by developing clean coal technology, carbon capture, CHP, CCGT etc as these technologies werent renewable.

It wont actually be awfully beneficial but who cares it looks good.

Bill pointed out that government have set targets for the production of renewable energy  BUT - it has never been suggested by government, or anyone else for that matter, that this target be met solely through the development of wind energy.

So we continue to fund wind power to the detriment of all other technologies, smother Caithness (and other parts of the country) in wind farms and buy government a little extra time to convert the masses (those in the big towns and cities) into accepting the more controversial solutions.

Bill, be honest, would you continue to be as generous with our county if community benefit was eradicated from the equation?

----------


## whatsherface

The residents in Strathy have known for some time so this is hardly breaking news. The main objectors do not belong from Strathy and would probably object wherever the windfarms were to be built. The windfarm is not being built anywhere near Strathy Point but far up in the hills in land that is used as common grazing.

----------


## whatsherface

I forgot to add Strathy is definitely not in Caithness, it was for a very short time about 30 years ago.  It is now definitely back in Sutherland.

----------


## Rheghead

> A stratergy which includes China increasing their carbon output by over a third every 10 years and India over a half?
> 
> If we closed down every powerstation in Britain they would make up the difference in a matter of months not years.


What they do is their responsibility, what we do is ours, if we don't make the effort then I'm sure they won't.  As the UK is the leader in pressurising other countries to make climate change on the international political agenda then putting up more windfarms will be all the more important.




> The power stations are there to make money and they only make money if they are running at near capacity. If the owners of the power stations have to run the generators down to tickover everytime the wind blows they will go broke in no time.


The economics of energy generation applies to any type of generator.




> What if in 20 years time the conventional powerstations are still working near capacity, people are making fortunes from new industries fed by the extra power from wind turbines and the government is saying "half our electricity comes from renewables, we did our bit"?


As I said, windfarms are only part of the strategy, energy consumption cuts will make wind energy more effective at achieving the UK's obligation under Kyoto.

----------


## fred

> What they do is their responsibility, what we do is ours, if we don't make the effort then I'm sure they won't.  As the UK is the leader in pressurising other countries to make climate change on the international political agenda then putting up more windfarms will be all the more important.


Yeh, I'm sure sticking a load of windfarms in Caithness is going to persuade India and China to halt their economic growth.




> As I said, windfarms are only part of the strategy, energy consumption cuts will make wind energy more effective at achieving the UK's obligation under Kyoto.


What energy consumption cuts? All the government forecasts I've seen predict a steady increase in electricity consumption over the next 15 years.

----------


## Stumurf

> What energy consumption cuts? All the government forecasts I've seen predict a steady increase in electricity consumption over the next 15 years.


he didnt say there were cuts... 

what i believe he was saying is...

if the public act more responsibly therefore creating the cuts.. that in turn will help renewable sources become more effective at producing the nations needs.

and as for your earler addition with reagrds to us doing our bit when the future becomes the past, i for one think it will a lot more beneficial to the overall outcome than not doing anything at all...

----------


## johno

> I think you should take a closer look at the efforts to stop windfarm proliferation in England and see where they are situated. I used to live near one of the first windfarms in England which was on the border of the English Lake District and could be seen from large parts of it. 
> 
> Your statement exposes a prejudice which is outwith the subject of Wind energy.


 exactly the the english folk make more of a stand against it where we scots more or less sit back and take it. it is the government i was hitting on & not the english welsh irish or whatever else you got. i can see why you thought that there was predudice there, i just did nt make my point properly.
 we are more complacent in scotland.

----------


## Stumurf

or (unlikely) that more people want the windfarms than those who do not (wishful thinking on my part)... but the amount of people that (don't) contribute to the political developments in the UK is appalling...

----------


## Errogie

Without going back over the pros and cons of wind farms and any other alternative energy developments my biggest gripe about the present scenario is:

1. The area that hosts them is likely to be subjected to a visual and amenity effect that may discourage local tourism which is sometimes all these locations have going for them. Tourists are not flocking to see wind farms. It something you only do once. They are now so plentiful the novelty value has long worn off. In a very short time areas without wind turbine landscapes will be advertised as a bonus rather like the cachet which presently attaches to National Park locations. 

2. Community benefit is chicken feed compared to the profits which are likely to be made by the developer and landowner and if a locality builds a new hall or swimming pool for itself it just means the Council is let of the hook and comtinues to levy council tax at the going rate in the locality.

3. Wind farms pay substantial rates which Highland Council collects for and then hands over to the Scottish Executive. A nice little earner! So how can the Executive determine a plus 50 megawatt wind farm (the threshold for a planning permission decision by the Council) or deliver a public local inquiry decision on a sub 50 megawatt application when it has such a strong vested interest in harvesting this annual income from the development?

4. Finally, why aren't more efforts being made to add value to yet another raw resource before shipping it out over the Ord. Shouldn't Caithness be looking at the Shetland idea of hydrogen fuel production sending it out by tanker or pipeline instead of stringing wire on more pylons alongside the A9?

----------


## fred

> he didnt say there were cuts... 
> 
> what i believe he was saying is...
> 
> if the public act more responsibly therefore creating the cuts.. that in turn will help renewable sources become more effective at producing the nations needs.
> 
> and as for your earler addition with reagrds to us doing our bit when the future becomes the past, i for one think it will a lot more beneficial to the overall outcome than not doing anything at all...


When the past was present and they had a surplus of energy they built industries to use it, factories were built using power and needing heating and lighting, people moved into bigger houses and could afford more heating and lighting, they could afford first one car then two and first one holiday abroad then two. Shops sprang up, giant shopping malls needing heating and lighting and night time turned into day as the killowatts burned away.

How many people in Caithness have installed outside lights left on all night in the last few years? I can see four from my house. What are these Patio Heater things they sell in Lidls? We didn't have things like that a few years ago. How much electricity does it take to heat and light all these new stores that are springing up in Caithness?

I'm all for people doing their bit I just think that the windmills are an excuse not to.

----------


## ywindythesecond

> I am sorry but I think your protests are a bit NIMBY'ish.
> The point of Wind Power, Wave Power even Solar panels, is to try and *save our Planet*. That is the main reason for all this, so IMO by your protests, you dont care about global warming, weather changes, holes in the Ozone Layer, the Ice Caps melting.
> If the surplus power produced by the Kaitness Wind Farms lights my energy saving lamps in my little apartment in Edinburgh and maybe powers the Air-Conditioning in our Scottish Parliament, I will be very grateful to the county of my birth.
> These Wind Farms are not being constructed on arable land, but on land that in the main cannot be used to produce food or timber, so why not let it be used for the benifit of our grand children.


 
Golach, I couldn't believe you posted this;

"I am sorry but I think your protests are a bit NIMBY'ish." 

"If the surplus power produced by the Kaitness Wind Farms lights my energy saving lamps in my little apartment in Edinburgh ...." 

Selfish, or what!

The Strathy North Windfarm is to be built in a forested area. It will require the destruction of a truly renewable source of energy, and of carbon sequestration.

----------


## George Brims

> The gravitational pull of the moon.


No Fred, the waves come from the wind blowing, possibly somewhere quite far away. The famous big surf on the North Shore in Oahu, Hawaii, comes from winter storms up around Alaska for example. 

The moon (and to a lesser extent the sun) makes the tides rise and fall.

----------


## George Brims

> Really holds a candle to the 4000 megawatts and 8000 megawatts from conventional power stations.


Ooh I don't think 4000 to 8000MW power stations are very common. For instance the largest nuclear plant in the USA has three reactors at 1250MW each, giving it higher capacity than any other plant of any type. 

A lot of hydro-electric stations around the Highlands have only a few tens of MW capacity (but they are hugely valuable for their flexibility and consequent ability to load-level when demand fluctuates).

----------


## Rheghead

> I'm all for people doing their bit I just think that the windmills are an excuse not to.


I feel quite the contrary, because I don't want windturbines all over the place, I think it is excellent that we try to cut down on our energy needs.  Less energy, less wind turbines!

----------


## Rheghead

> The Strathy North Windfarm is to be built in a forested area. It will require the destruction of a truly renewable source of energy, and of carbon sequestration.


I'm not a botanist but I do know that a lot of trees out that way are scheduled to be cut down because of poor growth rates as they were grown on bad soil/peat.  I do know that a windfarm will mitigate many thousands of tonnes of CO2 per year that would have been generated by coal etc.  

Perhaps it is best that this wood be used in the CHaP scheme and the land is freed up for a windfarm? ::

----------


## Rheghead

> Yeh, I'm sure sticking a load of windfarms in Caithness is going to persuade India and China to halt their economic growth.


I believe that if the UK makes a determined stand on climate change then we will persuade the major developing nations that economic growth will not be compromised with the use of renewable energy.

----------


## fred

> No Fred, the waves come from the wind blowing, possibly somewhere quite far away. The famous big surf on the North Shore in Oahu, Hawaii, comes from winter storms up around Alaska for example. 
> 
> The moon (and to a lesser extent the sun) makes the tides rise and fall.


The tide rising and falling is just one big wave and where you get a big wave you get a lot of smaller waves, that's called harmonics.

Throw a pebble in the loch, it only hits the water once but you get a lot of ripples.

----------


## fred

> I believe that if the UK makes a determined stand on climate change then we will persuade the major developing nations that economic growth will not be compromised with the use of renewable energy.


I don't think there is a cat in hells chance. We can't even persuade America to cut greenhouse emissions and they don't have the excuse of being a developing nation. While Britain has managed a slight reduction on 1992 levels and Europe a slight increase they are still increasing at an alarming rate and they were already the worst culprit.

----------


## golach

> I don't think there is a cat in hells chance. We can't even persuade America to cut greenhouse emissions and they don't have the excuse of being a developing nation. While Britain has managed a slight reduction on 1992 levels and Europe a slight increase they are still increasing at an alarming rate and they were already the worst culprit.


Where is the UK on your graph?

----------


## fred

> Where is the UK on your graph?


Insignificant.

----------


## Rheghead

> I don't think there is a cat in hells chance. We can't even persuade America to cut greenhouse emissions and they don't have the excuse of being a developing nation. While Britain has managed a slight reduction on 1992 levels and Europe a slight increase they are still increasing at an alarming rate and they were already the worst culprit.


Perhaps you should research up about the Kyoto protocol? It allows developing nations to expand and contract their CO2 emissions to those of developed nations like us, who can afford to heavily invest in renewable energy.

Then perhaps you won't disingenuously present what China will do.  As for the US who you dislike, be prepared for a major shift in policy towards climate change in the coming few years.

----------


## fred

> Perhaps you should research up about the Kyoto protocol? It allows developing nations to expand and contract their CO2 emissions to those of developed nations like us, who can afford to heavily invest in renewable energy.


America is a developing nation?




> Then perhaps you won't disingenuously present what China will do.  As for the US who you dislike, be prepared for a major shift in policy towards climate change in the coming few years.


Yeh, the Wolf Crier in Chief says so so it must be true.

"When the grocer puts sand in the sugar,
When the milkman makes milk out of chalk,
When the boys stay at home with their mothers,
And the girls they forget how to talk..."

----------


## KittyMay

> Without going back over the pros and cons of wind farms and any other alternative energy developments my biggest gripe about the present scenario is:
> 
> 1. The area that hosts them is likely to be subjected to a visual and amenity effect that may discourage local tourism which is sometimes all these locations have going for them. Tourists are not flocking to see wind farms. It something you only do once. They are now so plentiful the novelty value has long worn off. In a very short time areas without wind turbine landscapes will be advertised as a bonus rather like the cachet which presently attaches to National Park locations. 
> 
> 2. Community benefit is chicken feed compared to the profits which are likely to be made by the developer and landowner and if a locality builds a new hall or swimming pool for itself it just means the Council is let of the hook and comtinues to levy council tax at the going rate in the locality.
> 
> 3. Wind farms pay substantial rates which Highland Council collects for and then hands over to the Scottish Executive. A nice little earner! So how can the Executive determine a plus 50 megawatt wind farm (the threshold for a planning permission decision by the Council) or deliver a public local inquiry decision on a sub 50 megawatt application when it has such a strong vested interest in harvesting this annual income from the development?
> 
> 4. Finally, why aren't more efforts being made to add value to yet another raw resource before shipping it out over the Ord. Shouldn't Caithness be looking at the Shetland idea of hydrogen fuel production sending it out by tanker or pipeline instead of stringing wire on more pylons alongside the A9?


Completely agree.

How about this for No. 5

5. If a group of energy experts had been tasked with looking at the UK's electricity production and identifying the LEAST effective way of reducing carbon emissions they would have come up with windfarms.

----------


## KittyMay

> I feel quite the contrary, because I don't want windturbines all over the place, I think it is excellent that we try to cut down on our energy needs. Less energy, less wind turbines!


Gracious me!! I'm with you 100% on this particular point.

Two tiny problems though. 

How do we persuade the masses to reduce consumption?

How can the government meet their renewable target if we reduce consumption thus reducing our requirement for wind turbines?

----------


## Rheghead

> America is a developing nation?


No it isn't, but China is and it is a signatory of the Kyoto protocol whereas (as you fully know) the USA isn't.

----------


## Rheghead

> How do we persuade the masses to reduce consumption?


Not so much persuasion but more blind coercion(sp) without us being too conciesce about it, eg redesigning tvs etc so that they do not need to be left on standby so that the clock doesn't need to be reset all the time, computers which use energy saving screens, outpricing conventional type light bulbs, making solar panels and ground source heating more affordable.

Plenty more options if we look hard enough.




> How can the government meet their renewable target if we reduce consumption thus reducing our requirement for wind turbines?


I believe we would be able to meet them easier if we reduced consumption.

----------


## fred

> No it isn't, but China is and it is a signatory of the Kyoto protocol whereas (as you fully know) the USA isn't.


No I didn't know that because it isn't true.

The Kyoto protocol was signed on behalf of the United Stated of America on November 12th 1998 by Vice President Al Gore.

----------


## KittyMay

> Not so much persuasion but more blind coercion(sp) without us being too conciesce about it, eg redesigning tvs etc so that they do not need to be left on standby so that the clock doesn't need to be reset all the time, computers which use energy saving screens, outpricing conventional type light bulbs, making solar panels and ground source heating more affordable.
> 
> Ah, excellent suggestions but there would have to be the political will behind this - and there's none.
> 
> Plenty more options if we look hard enough.
> 
> This is getting ridiculous but I agree with you again. However, if it doesn't stand 400ft tall and have blades it's disregarded. Fred is quite right - it allows us to believe the planet is being saved and we can puff out our chests in pride at our fantastic achievement.
> 
> I believe we would be able to meet them easier if we reduced consumption.
> ...


Your original point was that by reducing consumption we could do away with the need to have turbines all over the place. The renewable target is a long way from being met and reduction in emissions from other measures don't count towards the renewable target.

It looks like you're wrong Rheghead - I foresee wind turbines all over the place? 
And all because Government made a very bad call that they can't get out of.

----------


## scotsboy

> The tide rising and falling is just one big wave and where you get a big wave you get a lot of smaller waves, that's called harmonics.
> 
> Throw a pebble in the loch, it only hits the water once but you get a lot of ripples.


OK Fred, if the tide rising and falling is just one big wave, can you tell me what the wavelenght will be?

Also I dont get the analogy with the pebble in a loch as you are looking at a single event, where gravity is (or can be considered) constant........no?

Waves are caused by wind. Tides by gravitational pull.

----------


## fred

> OK Fred, if the tide rising and falling is just one big wave, can you tell me what the wavelenght will be?


Long.




> Also I dont get the analogy with the pebble in a loch as you are looking at a single event, where gravity is (or can be considered) constant........no?


No the gravitational effect of the moon is not constant in any one place on earth. When you throw a pebble into the loch the displacement causes the water around it to rise then the earth's gravity causes it to fall again but it doesn't stop there, it falls below the surface level before starting to rise again then it rises above the surface level before falling again. This causes not one wave but a series of ripples.

It's just the same with the tides, as the moon moves overhead its gravity lifts the water in the sea then as it moves away the water falls but it doesn't end there, the water continues to bounce up and down, the duration of the bounces and wavelength of the waves getting shorter and shorter with time.




> Waves are caused by wind. Tides by gravitational pull.


No, there would still be waves lapping on the beach even if there was no wind anywhere in the world and waves will always travel towards the shore as which way the wind is blowing, never seen a wind that could blow the waves back out to sea yet.

----------


## Rheghead

> Your original point was that by reducing consumption we could do away with the need to have turbines all over the place.


I think you have misunderstood.  I accept that windfarms will be part of the generating mix of this country as they are the most cost effective form of renewable energy available.  Simply reducing energy consumption will reduce the need for all forms of power generation not just windfarms.

----------


## Rheghead

> No I didn't know that because it isn't true.
> 
> The Kyoto protocol was signed on behalf of the United Stated of America on November 12th 1998 by Vice President Al Gore.


Ah yes, the difference between a ratifier and a signatory, well split haired, you knew what I meant.

----------


## fred

> Ah yes, the difference between a ratifier and a signatory, well split haired, you knew what I meant.


Ah yes, the rat went and welched on the deal, well and truly ratified.

----------


## ywindythesecond

> I do know that a windfarm will mitigate many thousands of tonnes of CO2 per year that would have been generated by coal etc.


How do you *know* this Rheghead? What are your sources? Have you put all considerations into the equation? Did you include the Beauly to Denny grid upgrade? What size of windfarm were you talking about anyway?

Please answer with hard facts, not obfuscation.

ywindythesecond

----------


## KittyMay

> I think you have misunderstood. I accept that windfarms will be part of the generating mix of this country as they are the most cost effective form of renewable energy available. Simply reducing energy consumption will reduce the need for all forms of power generation not just windfarms.


Is there room for one more on your planet? I could do with a break from reality too.

----------


## Rheghead

> Is there room for one more on your planet? I could do with a break from reality too.


They wouldn't be putting them all over the place if they weren't good at their job

----------


## Rheghead

> How do you *know* this Rheghead? What are your sources? Have you put all considerations into the equation? Did you include the Beauly to Denny grid upgrade? What size of windfarm were you talking about anyway?
> 
> Please answer with hard facts, not obfuscation.
> 
> ywindythesecond


Now that you agree that they are generating electricity and supplying the Grid then it is a simple step to work out that they are mitigating lots of coal and gas.

And what has the Beauly to Denny upgrade got to do with it?

Anyway, all you got to do is calculate the amount of energy in kWh that a windfarm will produce then tap the result in this  converter then find out how much coal and gas you are mitigating by its use, simple really.  I'm sure I don't need to go through the maffs with you.

----------


## scotsboy

Whilst gravity provides a factor in the production of waves the main contribution comes from wind, except in the case of a Tsunami which is caused by tectonic movement.

http://www.angelfire.com/crazy2/nur_...new_page_2.htm
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/sub...an/Waves.shtml
http://science.enotes.com/science-fa...es-waves-ocean
http://www.sosforkids.com/80.html
http://www.highlightskids.com/Scienc...ausesWaves.asp
http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/...ence_fun/74467
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_surface_wave

----------


## fred

> Whilst gravity provides a factor in the production of waves the main contribution comes from wind, except in the case of a Tsunami which is caused by tectonic movement.


So if you look back at the original question.




> Where do the waves come from when the wind is not blowing?


You will see my answer was correct.

----------


## KittyMay

> They wouldn't be putting them all over the place if they weren't good at their job


The thing is I don't have the same faith in 'they' as you appear to have.

A few years ago Government set a target to double the countries CHP capacity as part of its climate change programme. This would have resulted in very meaningful reductions in carbon emissions (far in excess of anything turbines can achieve). Round about the same time they introduced ROC's for wind energy. 'They' made the decision to abandon CHP to reap the benefits of ROC's instead. The 2010 target for CHP? Do 'they' care about whether wind is good.

You questioned what the Beauly to Denny line had to do with carbon reduction as a result of wind energy. There would be no requirement to upgrade this line if the growth of wind energy in the north was controlled.

----------


## Rheghead

> Is there room for one more on your planet?


There might not be as there is plenty on it but we are a welcoming lot.  Mind you, the people of the IPCC, the National grid and the growing numbers of people who are finally realising the truth do take up a lot of room now.

We keep send messages to those on dying planets but the message doesn't seem to sink in...

----------


## Rheghead

> There would be no requirement to upgrade this line if the growth of wind energy in the north was *controlled.*


All the more reason for it to be built in my book but I grant you that it should be built underground to preserve the natural beauty of the nicest parts of Scotland.

Controlled?

And what is wrong with the ROC system?

----------


## Bill Fernie

It might be useful to any interested to look at
Beauly to Denny 400kV Overhead Transmission Line Public Inquiry due to conclude in July 2007
see http://www.highland.gov.uk/yourenvir...publicinquiry/
There is 29 page report setting out the case.

A Scottish Renewables Briefing from December 2005 takes a different stance
See http://www.scottishrenewables.com/da...d_briefing.pdf

----------


## Bill Fernie

Although still in its early days an interesting project to watch is the Pure project in Unst, Shetland http://www.pure.shetland.co.uk/

This project shows thatt wind power can be used locally and perhaps there would be less neeed for so much transmission to places far away.  It also shows that the wind energy can be stored as Hydrogen and used when the wind is not blowing.  It also creates a replacement for petrol/diesel.  

I have not yet seen any assessment of how the costs stack up but have now spoken to several people who have visitied the project including Louise Smith ther project worker for the Ornlie renewables scheme.  Everyone I have heard from is impressed with the ideas.  It remains to be seen if it can be scaled up to be really commercial.

If we are talking power for transport from wind power then the possibilities would appear to in crease the potential demand for more wind farms espcially if petrol/diesel prices continue to rise over time and the comparative cost differential gets closer.  Depending on economic, politics etc around the world another source of fuel for vehicles woudl seem to be a very attractive possibility.  

From the back of the hydrogen car the waste product is water so that perhpas everyone would be happier with the enviromental outcomes that would produce and they might even be prepared to have higher cost if the end benefits were as pronounced as no carbon emissions.  Alternatively the government might just set targets for a transition to this new source. If other countris are developing anything along these lines should we not also be moving to be up with the technology rather than have to buy it from other suppliers at a higher cost.

None of this is to advocate the use of wind power but merely to point out that there are many reasons why it is being pushed ahead at the rate it is.

----------


## KittyMay

> All the more reason for it to be built in my book but I grant you that it should be built underground to preserve the natural beauty of the nicest parts of Scotland.


Dear me. How insulting. You consider Caithness (etc) worthy only of trashing do you? You don't consider Caithness deserves to have its natural beauty preserved. Caithness IS one of the nicest parts of Scotland.

You were only joking, right?

----------


## KittyMay

> Although still in its early days an interesting project to watch is the Pure project in Unst, Shetland http://www.pure.shetland.co.uk/
> 
> This project shows thatt wind power can be used locally and perhaps there would be less neeed for so much transmission to places far away. It also shows that the wind energy can be stored as Hydrogen and used when the wind is not blowing. It also creates a replacement for petrol/diesel. 
> 
> I have not yet seen any assessment of how the costs stack up but have now spoken to several people who have visitied the project including Louise Smith ther project worker for the Ornlie renewables scheme. Everyone I have heard from is impressed with the ideas. It remains to be seen if it can be scaled up to be really commercial.
> 
> If we are talking power for transport from wind power then the possibilities would appear to in crease the potential demand for more wind farms espcially if petrol/diesel prices continue to rise over time and the comparative cost differential gets closer. Depending on economic, politics etc around the world another source of fuel for vehicles woudl seem to be a very attractive possibility. 
> 
> From the back of the hydrogen car the waste product is water so that perhpas everyone would be happier with the enviromental outcomes that would produce and they might even be prepared to have higher cost if the end benefits were as pronounced as no carbon emissions. Alternatively the government might just set targets for a transition to this new source. If other countris are developing anything along these lines should we not also be moving to be up with the technology rather than have to buy it from other suppliers at a higher cost.
> ...


I agree the PURE project is very interesting and we should certainly be investing in this technology. 

What I don't understand is why, as you seem to be suggesting, we race on with wind power with only a hope and prayer that the future will bring us commercial hydrogen storage - either for electricity or transport. As far as I'm aware we're not even close to developing this on a large scale - many people consider it impossible. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.

We've also got absolutely no idea what the future energy policy of this country is therefore we've even less idea of how well (or how much) wind energy will fit into it.

Should we not be a little cautious? Slow down, take stock. If in 10, 15, 20 years the technology is available surely then is the time to build the necessary windfarms. Not now, before they know if it's even possible. We're not going to forget how to build a turbine.

I can't imagine any other industry embarking on this course of action. A car manufacturer is hardly going to run a million cars off the production line all needing a particular, undeveloped engine - in the hope that someone will someday maybe develop one.

Would you not have to be barking mad.

----------


## ywindythesecond

> Now that you agree that they are generating electricity and supplying the Grid then it is a simple step to work out that they are mitigating lots of coal and gas.
> 
> And what has the Beauly to Denny upgrade got to do with it?
> 
> Anyway, all you got to do is calculate the amount of energy in kWh that a windfarm will produce then tap the result in this converter then find out how much coal and gas you are mitigating by its use, simple really. I'm sure I don't need to go through the maffs with you.


Rheghead, I am going to stop asking you questions because you never answer them. 

However- I am grateful that coal and gas etc power stations are there because they supply my electricity *most* of the time. 

What really brasses me off is that I have to pay for them *all* of the time, because they have to keep working all of the time to step in when the wind drops. 

AND I get the priviledge of paying for wind generated power when it is randomly available, because the grid has to take it, at about three times the nett cost of conventional.

Beauly to Denny grid upgrade is only necessary to accomodate wall to wall windmills. It produces nothing. It has a huge cash cost, and a huge carbon cost. Needs to be taken into account as well as Caithness to Beauly upgrades.

Forget fancy calculators, try logic.
ywindythesecond

PS Estimated cost of the Beauly Denny upgrade is around £400 million. Anyone think it will come in on budget?
PPS Forgot about the Ullapool to Beauly upgrade.
PPPS Forgot about the subsea cable from Lewis to Ullapool.
PPPPs Forgot about the Scotland to England interconnector.
PPPPPs Forgot what life was like before our government relinquished the responsibility of Government and handed over Energy Policy to the Stock Exchange.

----------


## Rheghead

> Rheghead, I am going to stop asking you questions because you never answer them.
> 
> Forget fancy calculators, try logic.
> ywindythesecond
> 
> .


Windfarms produce electricity, without them, fossil fuels would have to be used to make that electricity, now, how will I get you to understand that windfarms do mitigate fossil fuels from that?

----------


## Rheghead

> Caithness IS one of the nicest parts of Scotland.


Never said it was, never said it wasn't.

----------


## Rheghead

> What really brasses me off is that I have to pay for them *all* of the time, because they have to keep working all of the time to step in when the wind drops. 
> 
> Beauly to Denny grid upgrade is only necessary to accomodate wall to wall windmills. It produces nothing. It has a huge cash cost, and a huge carbon cost. Needs to be taken into account as well as Caithness to Beauly upgrades.


Why does it brass you off that wind generation is random/intermittent?  As an end user, you won't notice any difference, as with any 'random renewable generator) like solar, wave, wind, tidal etc.

As for Beauly-Denny, you mentioned logic, logic requires reason rather than supposition.  Have you any evidence that the carbon cost of the upgrade will outweigh the environmental benefits of reaping the wind energy of the north?

----------


## Bill Fernie

> I agree the PURE project is very interesting and we should certainly be investing in this technology. 
> 
> What I don't understand is why, as you seem to be suggesting, we race on with wind power with only a hope and prayer that the future will bring us commercial hydrogen storage - either for electricity or transport. As far as I'm aware we're not even close to developing this on a large scale - many people consider it impossible. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.
> 
> We've also got absolutely no idea what the future energy policy of this country is therefore we've even less idea of how well (or how much) wind energy will fit into it.
> 
> Should we not be a little cautious? Slow down, take stock. If in 10, 15, 20 years the technology is available surely then is the time to build the necessary windfarms. Not now, before they know if it's even possible. We're not going to forget how to build a turbine.
> 
> I can't imagine any other industry embarking on this course of action. A car manufacturer is hardly going to run a million cars off the production line all needing a particular, undeveloped engine - in the hope that someone will someday maybe develop one.
> ...


I am not suggesting we race on although the companies constructing them certainly are.  Perhaps as a country we are not near to hydrogen storage for mass usage but perhaps small communities may be able to use it in the short term.  However since the name of the game for the companies involved in Wind Farms is profits they already have that particular problem solved.  the government has set the market in their favour and they are doing what the government wanted and they are making money - that's what business is mainly about.  Make profits or go bust.

Industrialisation of the countryside began hundreds of years ago.  The ranks of fir trees have often been viewed as very bad thing from an environmental point of view and look anything but natural. However it now seem that that form of industrialisation is more acceptable for some than the latest one.

The landscape empty of trees in most of Britain was the result of clearance for farming and the disppearance of small fields surrounded by hedgerows to be replaced by huge grain fields is another part of that process in many parts of the country.  Government/European funding may have ben responsible combined with improved machinery and then they partly backtracked as it was too successful - eg set-a-side etc.

Perhaps in 20 years we might see another backtrack if the current policy is too successful and there is too much production from wind farms.

On the fact that they lie idle when the wind does not blow I wonder if they are ain most parts of the country if some would be turning when others were at rest.  Today for example there was not too much wind in Caithness but in the far south they were getting 99 mile an hour gusts and high winds all day.  Might this not be an oposrutnity for evening out the power from all of them if they feed into the one grid system.  A speculation and perhaps someone has a better idea if this would be the case.

I agree a car manufacturer might not produce millions of cars based on an undeveloped engine but the wind farms do not need this storage as they already have a guaranteed customer for all they can produce.  the wind farms are not being built with hydrogen storage in mind.  I only pointed this out as there are other possibilities being looked at.

Having been brought up living directly opposite railway shunting yard up to the age of 10 in the centre of Edinburgh and compare this to the noisy environments that many people live in.  In the Highlands noise is not likely to be the main problem with most wind farms.  The views are the main problem for some people and there are wide differences in what one person perceives as a problem and what another sees as an advantage even if it is not to them personally.

One of the problems for eveyone has perhaps been the planning system where a particular application for site can be looked at in the various process for a very long time creating extremely time consuming and costly processes for both the applicant and those opposed. A new planning regime will be in place next year and it remains to be seen whether the new rules will streamline and speed things up as they are intended to do. The Caithness Planning commitee along with the Caithness Area Committee comes to an end at the elections in May and thereafter the decisions will all be taken in Inverness or Edinburgh.  

This means that much more travelling will be required from anyone who objects to a planning application and wants to attend the planning meetings in person.  It is expected that there will be more appeals due to the fact that planning officers and not planning committees will make many more decisions.  An appeals committee will deal with appeals.

----------


## ywindythesecond

> On the fact that they lie idle when the wind does not blow I wonder if they are ain most parts of the country if some would be turning when others were at rest. Today for example there was not too much wind in Caithness but in the far south they were getting 99 mile an hour gusts and high winds all day. Might this not be an oposrutnity for evening out the power from all of them if they feed into the one grid system. A speculation and perhaps someone has a better idea if this would be the case.


Spot on Bill. The more diversity of location of windfarms there is, the less unreliable the wind contribution becomes. So the way to get the best from wind generation is to spread it out, scientifically and statistically calculated, across the whole of the UK. 

Take Strathy North. It is not far from Causeymire, Forss, or Buolfruich. 

Although there are considerable local variations, on balance, these existing windfarms will generally produce electricity all at the same time and on balance they will generally not produce electricity all at the same time.

Is there a good reason for Strathy North to be added to our local contribution without a balancing contribution from another part of the country?

There also needs to be a calculation in each case of the cost of transmission to the point of use. Electricity needs to be used close to where it is made to be economical.

By the way Bill, gusts and high winds are just about as big a problem for wind turbines as no wind is.

----------


## MadPict

> Today for example there was not too much wind in Caithness but in the far south they were getting 99 mile an hour gusts and high winds all day. Might this not be an oposrutnity for evening out the power from all of them if they feed into the one grid system. A speculation and perhaps someone has a better idea if this would be the case.


Bill, 
"At very high wind speeds, i.e. gale force winds, (25 metres/second, 50+ miles/hour) wind turbines shut down."*

So for the last day or two most wind turbines will have been idle. Lot of good there eh?....


*http://www.bwea.com/ref/faq.html#blow

----------


## KittyMay

Bill

Many people have been using the possible storage of wind power in the future as an argument in favour of windfarms now. A senseless argument that drives me to distraction. In any event, it's likely that by the time they develop a method to store electricity (be it hydrogen or other methods) - we will have moved on to far more efficient generators and windfarms will be redundant.

At least we've got that particular argument out of the way.

Spatial distribution of wind power is another very grey area - as has been pointed out in previous posts. We'll leave that one for now, me thinks.

As for the tree debacle. Another failed government scheme. I don't believe two wrongs make a right and I'd hope we've moved on a bit, understood our mistakes and realised the importance of preserving that which is unique and worth preserving unless absolutely necessary. Farming went the way of the trees and the turbines (for some, not all) but more and more it's going back to the old ways. Knowledgable stewardship of the land has been recognised as having value. Those who know and respect their land treat it well and don't abuse it.

I would accept the industrialisation of the countryside if I believed it was necessary and there were no alternatives. As yet, I am not convinced.

You wouldn't happen to know where I can lay my mitts on reports detailing the actual/real reduction in fossil fuel generated/consumed electricity as a direct result of displacement by wind energy. I can only find quarterly snapshots that seem to suggest that coal fired generation has increased and nuclear, hydro and gas decreased but over different periods of time.

Now if the claims made by the wind industry could be substantiated and wind power was in fact replacing only fossil fuel generators with the resultant carbon reductions - I might have to shut up or at least quieten down a fraction.

In order to be completely silenced I need to see a UK energy policy for the next 20 years and more. If wind slips in there favourably as a major contributor my lips are sealed.

----------


## Rheghead

> In order to be completely silenced I need to see a UK energy policy for the next 20 years and more. If wind slips in there favourably as a major contributor my lips are sealed.


In that case, my words of advice is for you is to warmly grasp the nettle...

----------


## Bill Fernie

Following up the reference by MadPict above the same web site has many other information sheets and one issued in December 2006 http://www.bwea.com/media/news/061220.html sets out how the industry is growing and aiming to beat the governments target of 20% renewable energy target by 2020.

The British Wind Energy Association has over 300 companies as members and is still growing.  Undoubtedly any big industry needs to be watched carefully but it cannot be denied that collectively they are doing what the government asked them to do.  It could be said from one viewpoint that it is one of the most successful government initiatives - it set targets, set the rules (including of course the fact that we the consumer will pay) and the targets are being met.

Whether in the long run the overall aims will prove to be succcesful depends on what aspirations you have for present and future energy needs and use. Year on years our collective demand for energy keeps increasing and it also runs along with a busy economy.  Lower energy use will probably run alongside a stagnating economy.  The plus side of a slower economy might well be that we use less carbon producing fuels but the down side might be high unemployment, repossessed home sand so on.

There are few if any sources of energy that do not have down side whether ti be from the extraction side of the industry - eg coal mines, bings etc, nuclear waste etc, gas running out  - at least in the North Sea making it necessary to import at whatever price other countries are willing to sell or that world markets demand and at the whims of political or terrorist probelms in the future.

In addition to the ecological and economic arguemnts for or against wind power there could also once it begins to make large contributiuon a strategic argument for having another energy source based within the control of companies and government (via taxation, subsidies ROCS etc).  The strategic reasons for government doing anything are in the realms of crystal ball gazing in some respects.  Governments might decide to keep reserves of almost anything cased on their perceptions of the risk to that particular thing running out or the need to have it readily available at all times for the smooth running of the country or for national security.  The policies need to be kept under review at all times and the arguments can go one way or the other in almost every situation depending on how you evaluate risk.

At times government gets it wrong eg for years after world wars there was tendency to keep vast stocks of everything needed to fight awar or for possible civil contingencies.  Many years later it was decided that keeping vast stocks of say horse equipment for the army was a complete waste of money when mottor transport had taken over.

In a similar light although it does not seem to be discussed much there could be a reason in the interests of economic security a need to ensure we have some basic energy resources within our own control even if it is more expensive at the moment.  As we have seen with oil prices they go up and they go down but over time the tendency is likely up. 

Although we are not there yet the fact that our nuclear plants are heading towards the end of their life and it might take 10 years to build new ones if we start tomorrow and that gas is running out even the somewhat intermittent supply from wind might for some years make the difference in having the lights(and computers) on or not.  I do not see any taste for using less only for reducing bills if at all possible. So unless people change their habits (switch off, throw out the electrical items and so on) we look as if our demands for energy are going to keep on rising.  something must give and as we can see it is energy prices and as they rise they make the viability of wind power better.

Of course it is worth trying to win the huge prize of tidal, wave and other forms of energy that are less intrusive than wind turbines but we are not there yet.  We are tickling at the edges but agai it is probably 20 years awya before we will see a huge contributions from those sources as they will take time to reseach, build and operate in sufficient numbers.  They will all have their problems and hopefully many answers will be found.

----------


## Rheghead

> Of course it is worth trying to win the huge prize of tidal, wave and other forms of energy that are less intrusive than wind turbines but we are not there yet.


Let us be mindful that as with all renewable energy schemes there is a downfall, none are a golden bullet.  Tidal schemes (as well as visual disruption) will play havoc with local wildlife and hydroschemes will also but will also create other harmful effects etc.  Wind is harmful to birds cf white tailed eagles in Skye and Norway as well as other raptors. All are intermittent. It is all about striking a balance where these schemes can fit into the local area.  A blanket no to either is neither constructive to the economy or to the impending effects of climate change.

----------


## fred

> Following up the reference by MadPict above the same web site has many other information sheets and one issued in December 2006 http://www.bwea.com/media/news/061220.html sets out how the industry is growing and aiming to beat the governments target of 20% renewable energy target by 2020.


Yet our CO2 emissions are still rising.

We made gains in the early 90s by buying cheap goods made in developing countries so the CO2 produced went on their books and the added transport made global figures worse but since 1997 our CO2 output has risen steadily every year.

A colour TV used to cost 6 months wages, a home only had one and if it broke you got it mended. Now homes have one in every room and if it breaks it's cheaper to throw it in the bin and buy another. Good cars are going to the crusher every day, little rust and good engines but the surplus of second hand cars on the market and the huge cost of even minor repairs or an MOT makes it cheaper to just buy another. A wife used to get a new kitchen once in a lifetime if she was lucky now they can be renewed every 5 years. Most people lived and died never setting foot on an airplane now people think nothing of jetting off to Florida to visit Disney World or Spain to get drunk on the cheap.

These are the problems which need addressing if we are to save the world. Taking a holiday in America can do as much harm to the environment as driving a car for a year, planes account for 11% of UK CO2 emissions but that doesn't go on the books. They are busy building new airports and extending runways as the business booms, building new roads to take ever more cars and covering Caithness with windmills as window dressing.

And let's not forget the huge impact on the environment war has, all those military vehicles, ships and planes, the bombs, the rebuilding of a countries demolished infrastructure. Do you really think a politician who can do so much damage to the environment and humanity at the drop of a hat time after time actually gives a hoot about global warming or are they just trying to make fortunes for their friends and get the green vote?

----------


## Bill Fernie

Here is something that was on the BBC TV News today and see it at 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/...st/6277049.stm

Shetland council are supporting a community wind farm - the biggest in the world with 200 turbines (to produce 600MW) which if it goes ahead and gets sea cable might supply a quarter of all of the homes in the UK and put £20 million a yearinto the local community.

Maybe in the light of this announcement the local Caithness community groups looking at setting up community wionf farms will be thinking about upping their ideas for one or two turbines.  A 200 turbine community wind farm in Caithness would certainly set this column alight for a few weeks at least.

----------


## j4bberw0ck

Ey-oop, here we go again.  200 turbines "will produce" 600MW which "will produce" £20mio a year for the local community.  So if we accept the 30% efficiency statement, then either they've discovered something fundamental about wind turbine design and these things are 9MW each (unlikely) or there's more spin (pun not intended, but it'll do) going on....... I hope they don't spend their £20mio until they've got it in the bank.

There's a figure doing the rounds of £1bn being paid by the Government each year to wind farm developers through the ROC system, and wind farms generate 4% of the UK's power.  The Commons public accounts committee estimate the total cost of subsidies paid to renewable energy suppliers could reach £5bn by 2010. (Source of figures: Google, with absolutely no apology at all, to anyone).

It's a shame they can't pump half of that into nuclear fusion with a goal of having a feasible, working fusion reactor within say 15 years.  Public funding of UK fusion research is about £14mio a year, and the UK pays another £23mio to EU fusion research - multiply the UK funding by 178 times and I suspect we'd become the world centre of excellence within a couple of years, with the best brains in the technology queuing up to move to the UK, and with all the economic and technological spinoff just waiting to be exploited.

The UK screwed up with the jet engine, the computer CPU, computers themselves and dozens of other technologies invented here and exploited elsewhere.  Be nice to think of the boot on the other foot for a change.

Just a thought....  ::

----------


## Rheghead

> Yet our CO2 emissions are still rising.
> 
> We made gains in the early 90s by buying cheap goods made in developing countries so the CO2 produced went on their books and the added transport made global figures worse but since 1997 our CO2 output has risen steadily every year.
> 
> A colour TV used to cost 6 months wages, a home only had one and if it broke you got it mended. Now homes have one in every room and if it breaks it's cheaper to throw it in the bin and buy another. Good cars are going to the crusher every day, little rust and good engines but the surplus of second hand cars on the market and the huge cost of even minor repairs or an MOT makes it cheaper to just buy another. A wife used to get a new kitchen once in a lifetime if she was lucky now they can be renewed every 5 years. Most people lived and died never setting foot on an airplane now people think nothing of jetting off to Florida to visit Disney World or Spain to get drunk on the cheap.
> 
> These are the problems which need addressing if we are to save the world. Taking a holiday in America can do as much harm to the environment as driving a car for a year, planes account for 11% of UK CO2 emissions but that doesn't go on the books. They are busy building new airports and extending runways as the business booms, building new roads to take ever more cars and covering Caithness with windmills as window dressing.
> 
> And let's not forget the huge impact on the environment war has, all those military vehicles, ships and planes, the bombs, the rebuilding of a countries demolished infrastructure. Do you really think a politician who can do so much damage to the environment and humanity at the drop of a hat time after time actually gives a hoot about global warming or are they just trying to make fortunes for their friends and get the green vote?


A lot of truth there, one of the biggest reasons for the throwaway culture is cheap imports.  Ban cheap imports and you get international tension, with international tension we might just need those planes and bombs that you don't like, lol.

Well and truly off topic bwth?

----------


## ywindythesecond

> There's a figure doing the rounds of £1bn being paid by the Government each year to wind farm developers through the ROC system,


Sorry Jabberwock, government doesn't pay. The Roc system is paid for directly by us through our electricity bills. Clever way of cutting out the middleman though.

Re Shetland wind agreement, there is something wrong with the sums reported on BBC. 

Not a great idea to compare wind power with oil power. You can burn oil when you need it and turn it off when you don't.

----------


## j4bberw0ck

Fair comment, but the Government does set the rules which require generators to buy a percentage of their power from renewables and through Ofgen they set the rules for generating companies.  What is there that would mean they couldn't allocate part of the ROC funding (direct and through the ROC market) to fusion R&D?

Either way up, it's a tax and it's the Government's job to disburse tax revenues.

----------


## Bill Fernie

Re percentage of efficiency. I did hear one person say that in Shetland the wind turbines can reach 50% efficiency  - the highest in the UK.  No doubt a factor in the company looking at a £1 billion investment.  A long way to go with the need for half a Billion to be spent on an undersea cable.  Don't bet agsints the shetalnders after the way they beat the oil companies in courts over a ten year period.

----------


## ywindythesecond

[quote=Bill Fernie;183271] A long way to go with the need for half a Billion to be spent on an undersea cable. Don't bet agsints the shetalnders after the way they beat the oil companies in courts over a ten year period.[/quote

Bill, 

Who would pay for the undersea cable? 

Where would it land? 

Where would it go from there? 

Who would pay for the overland cable from wherever it landed to wherever it went? 

How would it get to Beauly?

Why don't they build giant windfarms near where they need the electricity?

ANSWERS
Us
Melvich
Beauly
Us
Giant Pylons
Beats me.
ywindythesecond

----------


## Bill Fernie

[QUOTE=ywindythesecond;183290]


> A long way to go with the need for half a Billion to be spent on an undersea cable. Don't bet agsints the shetalnders after the way they beat the oil companies in courts over a ten year period.[/quote
> 
> Bill, 
> 
> Who would pay for the undersea cable? 
> 
> Where would it land? 
> 
> Where would it go from there? 
> ...


Taking the answers
Us
It always is us who pay for energy use whether its coal, oil, gas or wind and for all of the infrastructure requiredot get it to US.

Melvich
Quite possibly somewhere on the north coast as the nearest point to Shetland - the nearer the cheaper.  Still a hefty half £billion and the sums will need tobe good for that investment.

Beauly
Yes if the Beauly Denny link is in.
Possibilities are also from around Dounreay to Beauly for another big link or as suggested elsewhere double string the existing pylons.  Or if that is not large enough build a similar size set of pyulons as proposed for Beauly Denny (not saying that is the right way to go just stating what might be possible)

Us
Yes agree  - same reason as above.  We always pay as energy users or taxpayers - nothing very unusal or diffferent there.

Giant Pylons
Possibly or as above double string the existing ones.  That however might not be enough especially if power is ever envisaged to come from the Pentland Firth in addition to or as alternative to wind.  Once all the engineers have done the calculations and taking into consideration future needs of the whole of the UK it might be considered that we ned to go for the biggest link we can aford in one go in order not to have to revisit the whole exercise again within 30 years - just my own thoughts - perhaps someone else has a differentthought on how the power created can be shifted assuming undergrounding is discounted on cost grounds.

Beats Me
It wil continue to beat you if you continue to repeat the same mantra on havinghte power near where it is used without saying hwo that can be achieved.  As far as I can tell speaking to people who have been involved in building power stations etc they woudl prefer to have it as close to where it is ued as possible to reduce the losses.  Unfortunately many constraints come into the equation and they must settle for a compromise.  Cost will often be involved and we are talking very long term planning here.  Since we have enjoyed for the most part electricty with interuption or outages for over 60 years with a few exceptions like the miners strike people are used to this situation and I do not thing individuals, businesses or public institutions  - hhospitals, schools etc would look too kindly on anything that woudl cause reductions or interuptions in supply.  More than ever our lifestyle, our jobs, our education , our medical operations and just about everything else depends on guaranteed supplies of electricity.  The government of whatever persuasion will almost certainly be booted out if they do not keep the lights, TV and computers etc on.  If power supplies do not continue to match demand we will be faced with power cuts  - and long term business closures, job cuts and worse - a poorer society.  Right or wrong we ahve built our world on ever expanding availability of power.  Can we reduce the usage.  Apparently not based on what we can see so far.  All the home insulation, double glazgin and so on has done nothing expet allow us to live in warmer homes - great but no reduciton in energy use is apparent as other demands have overtaken any benefits.  Still worthwhile bu where will the energy for our children and grand children come from

----------


## Rheghead

> Why don't they build giant windfarms near where they need the electricity?


Just thank yourself lucky that they don't build the 'need' near to where they build the windfarms...

----------


## Bill Fernie

> Just thank yourself lucky that they don't build the 'need' near to where they build the windfarms...


Ah finally a different slant on the topic.

Short but very to the point.  Plenty of minds are bending to think of ways of doing just what you suggest.

For example are there industries that could be located in the far north to replace the jobs that will dispappear due to decommissioning. Once you begin to think along those lines and add to the pot the electrity being created and you want to locate nearer to it as suggested in arguments agasint locating wind farms in the north then you get to a different perspective on the issue of electricty production in the north or the islands.

If that all sounds far fetched I would point ot the way the the wind is changing in other respects that might point towards the possibilities that this might come about.  Once again this is not my idea but justlooking at what is already being suggested.  Here are some that migth change the industrial landscape of the Highlands and Caithness - 

Scapa Flow Container Terminal
A proposal to build Europes biggest container terminal in Scapa Flow to take advantage of the deep water and calm area to build a huge port with facilties for the transhipment of goods.  This would create a huge affect on the north end perhaps encourage other industries to locate in say Caithness to take advantage of the electricity available and the new container port for shipment around the globe. To get an idea what the port area would be like think of someting bigger than the Rotterdam port eventually. Although in Scapa Flow it is likely to create jobs in Caithness as well as Orkney and if industries moved or set up to take advantage of the facility. Add a small reduction in the cost of electricity for say 10 years by the government to entice them to come and the rush might be on.  the scenario might be factories setting up around Wick and Scrabster/Thurso totake advantageof the conenctions from the ports to Scapa Flow.

The Timber Processing Plant For Delny Near Invergordon
This is £1 Billion proposal to build maassive proecessing plant for timebr plus chemical works.  If it goes ahead it will take three years to construct and emply one quarter of all of the construction workers currently in Highland with 500 to 600 jopbs following completion.  It will use timber from evey part of Highland with massive numbers of tricks moving trees to take it to Invergordon plus logs from all of the Scandinavian countries. It will have a huge power requirement in the production process.  Many forests in the Highlands are reaching maturity and time for felling has come and will extend over the next couple of decades. This will also create new jobs in replanting if the timber production is to carry on.

There are two possibilities that will have knock on affects on a huge scale with the possibilities of bringing in subsidiary industries and of course adding to the demands for more housing and services and increasing the demands for energy in the area.   You might say that this is all pie in the sky and it is at the moment but an awful lot of money has been spent looking at the possibility.  As it is private money it might have more chance of happening than if it were just a government exercise.  Of course there are hurdle to get past and the planning process will be one of them.

As Rheghead infers there could be a lot more to come once the wind farms are up and proved to work.  If tidal etc is added to the mix and the supply of power is stable and if the government offers inducements to come north.  This could take the form of an area with tax breaks for a number of years or perhaps a lower energy bill.  This might be funded via the fact that if an industry was located near to the energy source they would save the power loss and that might fund the subsidy.  That is just my speculation but if you really want to move an industry it appears that a subsidy works more often than not these days.

Many people would like to know that jobs were to come to the area and if the fact that the energy source was nearby might do that then they might be even more in favour.  The Shetland crofter I heard on TV just the other day when asked about the biggest wind farm in the world to be placed opposite his croft seemed to be totally in favour of it and he listed jobs and community benefit and the good of Shetland as his reasons.

----------


## fred

> Ah finally a different slant on the topic.
> 
> Short but very to the point.  Plenty of minds are bending to think of ways of doing just what you suggest.
> 
> For example are there industries that could be located in the far north to replace the jobs that will dispappear due to decommissioning. Once you begin to think along those lines and add to the pot the electrity being created and you want to locate nearer to it as suggested in arguments agasint locating wind farms in the north then you get to a different perspective on the issue of electricty production in the north or the islands.


Not a different slant on the topic, what I've been saying all along.

With power comes industry, with industry comes jobs and with jobs comes people, lots and lots of people, whoever will work for the lowest wages.

The electricity from the windmills isn't to replace conventionally generated electricity it is to create new industry creating more goods to be transported, used and thrown away, it is to feed the cancer not cure it.

We'll at least the shopkeepers of Caithness can expect to do well from the boom, if there are any left when it arrives.

----------


## Bill Fernie

> Not a different slant on the topic, what I've been saying all along.
> 
> With power comes industry, with industry comes jobs and with jobs comes people, lots and lots of people, whoever will work for the lowest wages.
> 
> The electricity from the windmills isn't to replace conventionally generated electricity it is to create new industry creating more goods to be transported, used and thrown away, it is to feed the cancer not cure it.
> 
> We'll at least the shopkeepers of Caithness can expect to do well from the boom, if there are any left when it arrives.


More jobs is what everyone is trying to make happen in the highland espcially in Caithness faced with the decommissioning of Dounreay.  If we are to find at least 2000 replacement jobs jus to keep where we are is it not possible that the above  suggestions might be part of that solution.

Many parts of the Highlands face probelms of an ageing population and some parts a real threat of population reduction exacerbating the aging problem.  Many incomers to the area tend to be folk looking to retire adding to the age problem with demands for social services etc increasing and projected to grow faster than the average for the country as whole.  New jobs might help to balance this with younger families coming in to take up the jobs.  Whether new industries would be large enough to increase the demand for power is another questions.  But if the fact that increased energy sources are available at competitive prices might not that attract the industry and bring the jobs and families the area needs.

If we do not come up with some thing new then decline will follow.  We know Dounreay is going over the next 30 years and even the story in Fridays paper makes it look as if things could start to reduce much earlier than anticipated.

Many folk would like to see a boom but hopefully a planned and phased transition from the nuclear industry to other things can take place.  The boom might happen only if the new industries appear before Dounreay reductions begin to bite.  In some repsects we have seen mini boom in the last couple of years if you consider hwo busy the building industry in Highland is and how prices have risen for building costs.  With the number of building projects now being undertaken and already forecast fo the next few years there would appear to be a good future for the next few years.  Additional industries might well need to import more labour.

Highland still has a lower income level than the the Scottish and UK average but it is rising. It is not that many years ago since Highland was almost seen as the basket case of Scotland.  The last 10 to 15 years have seen remarkable changes and Inverness is one of the fastest gorwing towns in Europe.  Spinning some of that success out to the peripheral areas is what must happen if the fringe is to become more prosperous and for uus to reduce our unemployment levels.  Wick still has one of the highest levels of unemployment in Highland albeit reduced over the past couple of years. Inevitably doing something about that means more investment and part of that will be addtional industries. Local Enterprise Companies and Highland Council and the Scottish Executive continually look for ways to make that happen. 

Wind energy will only be part of it but depending how it is handled it might paly an increasing part.

----------


## Ricco

> An eyesore in a beauty spot. Whoopie-do!
> 
> Generating around 70-80 Megawatts - occasionally, on a really windy day.
> 
> Really holds a candle to the 4000 megawatts and 8000 megawatts from conventional power stations. And what a great way to fool people into thinking that the UK has chosen the best technology, and sited it in the best place. NOT.
> 
> It's an antique renewable energy generation method that is unreliable at best, costly to install and almost worthless other than for the purposes of pretending to be doing something about working towards the required quota for energy coming from renewable sources. Wave power would be much less obtrusive - beauty spot or not - and it generates a whole lot more electricity - even when the wind isn't blowing.


Actually, I quite like them.  They have a serene and photogenic beauty about them; and that hypnotic whirring as the blades go round - very restful.  I would rather have the view on the left than the one on the right, any day!

----------


## golach

The Zetlanders must be laughing their heads off and laughing all the way to the bank, at all these Caithness protests
http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=102142007

----------


## rambler

> Ey-oop, here we go again. 200 turbines "will produce" 600MW which "will produce" £20mio a year for the local community.


They will produce 600MW as peak output. Based on a 30% efficiency they will still produce 1,752,000,000kWh per annum. Nothing wrong with the "£20mio a year" claim then. And it is very likely that the efficiency in Shetland will be better than 30%.

----------


## fred

> The Zetlanders must be laughing their heads off and laughing all the way to the bank, at all these Caithness protests
> http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=102142007


Matthew 16:26

----------


## golach

> Matthew 16:26


Fred, your quote I asume is biblical, as an Agnostic I do not have a bible in the house, as I am a non believer, can you please explain, but I may not believe your quote anyway. ::

----------


## fred

> More jobs is what everyone is trying to make happen in the highland espcially in Caithness faced with the decommissioning of Dounreay.  If we are to find at least 2000 replacement jobs jus to keep where we are is it not possible that the above  suggestions might be part of that solution.


Anything in moderation Bill but the plans I've heard go way beyond that. When gold fever sets in we could be talking over 2,000 turbines in Caithness alone and the power from offshore, Orkney and Shetland landing here as well.

You talking about Orkney building a Container Port bigger than the heroin capital of Europe doesn't help any either.

----------


## Bill Fernie

> Matthew 16:26


Hmm...
We could be side tracked here
However I offer Mathew 25:29
To save you all Googling  - 
For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. 

And Fred's Mathew 16:26 
For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul? 

The heroin side of Rotterdam could be thrown at many places and does nto really help the argument for or against development.  

I agree that talk of large container port does not really help the case for no development but I think it does help the case for future development in the far north.  The social problems that are caused by higher incomes and jobs available to more people are an issue that all societies need to deal with and I agree few places have found the final answer.  But that does not mean that we should stop trying to improve the life chances of people in our society.  All developments have a price to be paid and mitigating the down side is what the vast array of legislation and government are about.  Compromises are always made in everything we do. 

In every development there will be people for them and others against.  The accusations in the past have been that government of all persuasions local and national have not done enough to boost the Highland economy. Are we now to change the argument and ask for developments to be stopped when so many are on the brink of happening.

For now I would leave the bible quotes to another thread. It would be interesting to hear from more folk on views on more developments for Caithness, Sutherland and Orkney/Shetland at this critical time when we face losing so many jobs as decommissioning begins to bite harder each year.  We may have a small window of opportunity in the next four or five years.  Do we exploit it to the hilt and create as many new jobs as possible and therefor ensure many families are able to sustain themselves in the area or do we try to pick and choose only those that create absolutely no inconvenience or changes whatsoever to the landscape.

Surely we can try to develop new industries and still look at ways of harmonising wherever possible how it might all fit with what is here.  It remains to be seen how the Shetlanders will face up to the challenge now being presented to them but it looks to me that they are going to grab any chance they can get having already signed an understanding with the power company. If they manage to bring off what they say they may yet grasp a new future for the people in the islands.  Should we do less here?

----------


## fred

> For now I would leave the bible quotes to another thread.


I wouldn't dismiss it because it is in the bible, Caithness does have a soul and is in danger of losing it. Who hasn't noticed the difference as you get past Dornoch? Who hasn't breathed a sigh of relief as they cross the Ord on their journey home?

If you can limit the developments to be in charachter with and benefit the entire community then that is good but if the county is taken over by corporate greed then Caithness will lose its soul and a lot more besides. I've seen more poverty and misery in the wealthy industrial south than I've ever seen in Caithness.




> " I set to work to read the Act of Parliament by which the Bank of England was created in 1694. The inventors knew well what they were about. Their design was to mortgage by degrees the whole of the country, all the lands, all the houses, and all other property, and even all labor, to those who would lend their money to the State-the scheme, the crafty, the cunning, the deep scheme has produced what the world never saw before-starvation in the midst of plenty."
> 
>  WN. Cobbett

----------


## ywindythesecond

Aluminium production went to Lochaber because there was high rainfall and the ability to store the water to generate electricity to power the plants so the plants could work at the times needed.

No major industry will come to Caithness just because we have enough wind on average to power an industrial undertaking. 

Industry perversely wants electricity when it is needed, not just when it is available.

----------


## Tilter

I've just read this whole thread and boy have you guys have come a long way from "Just Announced Strathy North Windfarm."  I've decided I'm a big fan of Fred, especially with regard to his last post:  "I have seen more poverty and misery in the wealthy industrialised south than I have ever seen in Caithness."  So have I, Fred.  So have I.  And also in our No. 1 Superpower, the good ole US of A.  I know I'm in a minority, but my almost 60 years' experience of living on this planet, going, atypically, from poor to quite-well-off, back to poor and back again, have proven to me that the best times of my life have not necessarily coincided with my wealthiest periods.  The reverse, in fact.  

No, I don't like wind turbines.  They're not value for money.  Why can't we take the easy option and build new nuclear in the short-term?  And crack fusion in the (hopefully not so) long-term (by chucking loads of money at it)?  Nuclear has some risks (like anything else) that we have to take to save ourselves.  Chernobyl may be devoid of humans, but it's become a fantastic wild life sanctuary.

Mr Fernie, you have a big developed vision for Caithness.  Lots of energy will bring lots of money.  (See my first paragraph re money being but one factor out of many for humankind's well-being.)  Umm - what about a bit of work on transport to bring this vision about?  Yesterday's Groat was a bit doom and gloom on Caithness' future in transport.  Lord, I can't even get a decent rail service to improve my carbon footprint.  So God knows how booming businesses will continue to boom here.  And what about cutting down a bit?  Light pollution for a start (yup, separate thread).

Please let's put windfarms in perspective.  E.g., why are we chopping down a forest at Strathy to inject a lot of concrete?  Why are we destroying a good carbon sink (peat) at Burn of Whilk (aka Yarrows) to inject a lot of concrete?  Can someone give me some figures proving wind turbines over 25 years will reduce CO2 and not just cancel out the reduction in forestry and peat?  I'm too thick to cope with the math.

----------


## Bill Fernie

Don't forget the power can flow back up the country as well as down.

----------


## Rheghead

> Can someone give me some figures proving wind turbines over 25 years will reduce CO2 and not just cancel out the reduction in forestry and peat?  I'm too thick to cope with the math.


Pray tell what would convince you?

I mean, if you are an anti-windy, any information that the wind industry puts out you will likely dismiss as propaganda, anything that I will provide you will likely dismiss as a fag packet calculation, anything that has been recently and independently researched,  you will likely dismiss as not having enough sampling time to really matter statistically.

Now define your parameters and I will look into it...because messages from God are thin on the ground for me.

 ::

----------


## KittyMay

> Whether in the long run the overall aims will prove to be succcesful depends on what aspirations you have for present and future energy needs and use. Year on years our collective demand for energy keeps increasing and it also runs along with a busy economy. Lower energy use will probably run alongside a stagnating economy. The plus side of a slower economy might well be that we use less carbon producing fuels but the down side might be high unemployment, repossessed home sand so on.
> 
> How do you conclude that being more energy efficient and less wasteful with energy will lead to stagnation of the economy? There would be major economic spin off for new industry in developing energy efficient products - and the market is ripe. Your arguments confuse me - is your main priority economic growth or concern for the planet? 
> 
> There are few if any sources of energy that do not have down side whether ti be from the extraction side of the industry - eg coal mines, bings etc, nuclear waste etc, gas running out - at least in the North Sea making it necessary to import at whatever price other countries are willing to sell or that world markets demand and at the whims of political or terrorist probelms in the future.
> 
> In addition to the ecological and economic arguemnts for or against wind power there could also once it begins to make large contributiuon a strategic argument for having another energy source based within the control of companies and government (via taxation, subsidies ROCS etc). The strategic reasons for government doing anything are in the realms of crystal ball gazing in some respects. Governments might decide to keep reserves of almost anything cased on their perceptions of the risk to that particular thing running out or the need to have it readily available at all times for the smooth running of the country or for national security. The policies need to be kept under review at all times and the arguments can go one way or the other in almost every situation depending on how you evaluate risk.
> 
> Readily available - wind power?
> ...


Are you really suggesting that we believe the simple little wind turbine is the saviour of the planet, a means of securing our electricity supply for the next 20 years and the provider of a major economic boom.

----------


## rambler

> Are you really suggesting that we believe the simple little wind turbine is the saviour of the planet, a means of securing our electricity supply for the next 20 years and the provider of a major economic boom.


Nobody claims that "the simple little wind turbine is the saviour of the planet". 

I think the offshore renewables opportunity that is curently investigated by Itienergy gives a good idea of a possible economic boom.

10,000 jobs could be created in the north of Scotland if the development of the hybrid floating barge goes ahead. 

More information on this: http://www.itienergy.com/uploads/doc...wsletter_8.pdf

----------


## KittyMay

> Ah finally a different slant on the topic.
> 
> For example are there industries that could be located in the far north to replace the jobs that will dispappear due to decommissioning. Once you begin to think along those lines and add to the pot the electrity being created and you want to locate nearer to it as suggested in arguments agasint locating wind farms in the north then you get to a different perspective on the issue of electricty production in the north or the islands.


Am having another blonde moment. I gather industry is enticed to an area (not normally considered suitable) if there is a power plant nearby. I must admit I wasn't aware that was a factor. How does that work?

----------


## KittyMay

> Nobody claims that "the simple little wind turbine is the saviour of the planet". 
> 
> I think the offshore renewables opportunity that is curently investigated by Itienergy gives a good idea of a possible economic boom.
> 
> 10,000 jobs could be created in the north of Scotland if the development of the hybrid floating barge goes ahead. 
> 
> More information on this: http://www.itienergy.com/uploads/doc...wsletter_8.pdf


That's a lot of jobs! We're going to need a goodly number of turbines to keep that lot in full-time employment.

So, would you say that the priority is not the reduction of carbon emissions as we're led to believe by the wind industry, the government and 'they'.

I'll just google 'Ask Rheghead' - coz he knows evryfing.

----------


## KittyMay

> Pray tell what would convince you?


The truth would be a good starting point.

----------


## Rheghead

> The truth would be a good starting point.


Well here is a challenge, give me a link to one bit of misinformation given out by the wind industry and we will discuss it.

----------


## Rheghead

> I'll just google 'Ask Rheghead' - coz he knows evryfing.


You honour me far too greatly.

Well I don't know everthing but I do have a degree in chemistry and the environment and I did my dissertation on the role of wind energy in the UK's energy mix.


Of course, having a degree means nothing to those who are opposed to the field in which one has got one. ::

----------


## rich

Bill, you have certainly mastered the windfarm portfolio.
But I am still - illogicaly perhaps - unconvinced.
I know there is widespread enthusiasm for the idea but would it be too cynical of me to suggest that wind power is the perfect cop-out for governments seeking in vain for some "green" policy that will not offend the forces of industrial capitalism.
 I am thinking here of the automobile industry but we can all pick our favorite targets. For another example, the computer industry manages to generate an enormous quantity of rubbish (I am talking here of industrial waste and not the outporings of my fellow orgers!)
So I would propose a programme of reduction - as one poster already recommended - of consuming less. Possibly doing away with the privately owned automobile! 
I have in front if me a wonderful photograph of rush hour in Grafton St. in Dublin in 1910 - hundreds of bicycles, a horse-drawn tram and not an automobile to be seen! I bet the cholesterol levels and body weight mass index of those 1910 cyclists would be the envy of today's corpulent citizenry.
If we regulated the electrical system more closely, or added gas to the mix, we might be able to  end light pollution and look up at the heavens and actually see the stars.
Remember our intense use of fossil fuels is a mere 200 years old!
Finally, who is paying for the wind power.? Well, we are. It sounds to me a lot like a pig in a poke or to quote a  well known thinker (me!) "bribing the electorate with their own money is always a good beginning." Except in this case I suspect tax payers' are willing to see their money burned to assuage their guilty consciences for having devestated the environment.
The way I see things is  we should be going to nuclear energy. I didn't believe that a year ago but now I do.
As for wind power - I think it is a scam concoted in no 10 Downing Street.
PS What is the state of the Swedish stats? They were supposed to be generating some amazing quantity of wind-powered electricity but I gather that has been substantially revised downwards.

----------


## Bill Fernie

Rich
I would not say I have mastered it all although I do try to read as much as I can on the topic.  Mainly I have been reiterating information that is already out there by way of reminders as to what is happening.  that is not to say that I necessarily agree that what is happening is the right way forward - more that it is fact that wind farms are there and many more will appear in the landscape based on the fact that they are already passed the planning process and that government/Scottish Executive have targets to reach.

I agree that it is the consumer that will pay and is already paying but that is now new as we as consumers of energy always pay for both the capital aspects and the use of energy day to day at whatever cost it is sold at.  If our energy bills get too high then industry will suffer and they will not be cometitive and our whole economy will suffer or at least that woudl be the expected scenario.  However prices have risen very sharply recently for petrol and electricity buit there is as yet little sign  of a fall in demand.  Just how elesstic the demand is remains to be seen.  Let's hope it does not end in a burst and a collapse in demand or we will be oion the slippery part of the economic cycle.  Some might suggest that increases in interest rates, rising mortgages etc are the start with energy prices begining to push inflation upwards.

There may be more support in this area for your suggestion of going to the nuclear industry for an answer to the problem in the near future.  Certainly if as figures suggest we would need thousands of wind turbines running in Caithness then it would seem unworkable.  The number of windfarms in the list we carry at http://www.caithness.org/windfarms/W...List%20Oct.doc shows there is some way to go and companies appear to be still advancing more projects to add to the list. 

Wind is not going to be the whole answer although it will for god or ill be larger one than it now until it reaches the government target of 20%.  The wind industry is confidently predicting they will beat the target by 2020 and they may be right if as last year they keep doubling the numbers each year.
the far north might be more of a target area than other places due to the better wind conditions.  

I do not have any data on Scandincavian countries but no doubt it can be found.

----------


## ywindythesecond

> Well here is a challenge, give me a link to one bit of misinformation given out by the wind industry and we will discuss it.


Rheghead
Here is an extract from Spittal Hill Windfarm website at

http://www.spittalwindfarm.co.uk/proposal.html

It includes the following statement:-

"The current proposal has 31 turbines with an installed capacity of up to 85 megawatts (MW) of renewable electricity. With a capacity of this size in such a windy part of Scotland,  the project will meet the average needs of some 46,000 households and offset the annual release of over 190,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas contributing to climate change, which would otherwise come from power stations burning fossil fuels."

Quite a lot of misinformation there I would say. Lets keep it simple.

Please explain "average needs of some 46,000 households" in relation to a capacity of "up to 85 megawatts" and convince us that this is not misinformation. 

Save you doing the sum, 85,000,000 watts/46,000 homes = 1.848kw per hour, or about say 45kw per day. But you use more in daytime than at night, 
say 30kw in the daytime, and 15kw at night.
So again keep it simple, for 12 hours of the day,a home needs 2.5 kw per hour, but Spittal Hill can only provide two thirds of it, and for twelve hours of the night, a home needs 1.25 kw per hour and about one third is surplus to requirement.

But this is only true if the wind blows at maximum efficiency all day and every day. And even here in windy Caithness it doesn't.

How will the project "meet the average needs"?

ywindythesecond

----------


## Rheghead

> Rheghead
> Here is an extract from Spittal Hill Windfarm website at
> 
> http://www.spittalwindfarm.co.uk/proposal.html
> 
> It includes the following statement:-
> 
> "The current proposal has 31 turbines with an installed capacity of up to 85 megawatts (MW) of renewable electricity. With a capacity of this size in such a windy part of Scotland,  the project will meet the average needs of some 46,000 households and offset the annual release of over 190,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas contributing to climate change, which would otherwise come from power stations burning fossil fuels."
> 
> ...


Talking about misinformation, you have completely got your units in a muddle.    45kw per day?, rubbish.  A kw is a unit of power, a household will need an national average of 1.8kW, which is a day/night time average, but it will be more accurate to say that the national daily energy needs of an average house would be 24h X 1.8kw=43kWh.  But don't forget that this 'home' is the homes energy requirement in the home and when the people go to work, ie, it includes the factories as well as public services like street lighting, hospitals etc etc as well.

I seem to remember another orger having the same problems about 2 years ago and he sheepishly had to backtrack all his sums. ::

----------


## KittyMay

> You honour me far too greatly.
> 
> Well I don't know everthing but I do have a degree in chemistry and the environment and I did my dissertation on the role of wind energy in the UK's energy mix.
> 
> 
> Of course, having a degree means nothing to those who are opposed to the field in which one has got one.


Rheghead - you just don't get it, do you? Deep down you just can't get past the idea that anti wind is nothing more than nimbyism/protection of a view. You are soooooo wrong. It's not even a blanket 'anti' situation either. It's about the lack of framework, the disjointed thinking, the exaggeration, the misinformation, I could go on and on. 

If we were talking new nuclear build would it be left to landowners to drive nuclear policy forward?

So let's talk about the role of wind energy in the UK's energy mix. How about looking at the energy mix today and that projected for 2020. What levels of wind penetration were you looking at now and then?

----------


## Rheghead

> Rheghead - you just don't get it, do you? Deep down you just can't get past the idea that anti wind is nothing more than nimbyism/protection of a view. You are soooooo wrong. It's not even a blanket 'anti' situation either. It's about the lack of framework, the disjointed thinking, the exaggeration, the misinformation, I could go on and on. 
> 
> If we were talking new nuclear build would it be left to landowners to drive nuclear policy forward?
> 
> So let's talk about the role of wind energy in the UK's energy mix. How about looking at the energy mix today and that projected for 2020. What levels of wind penetration were you looking at now and then?


Yes, I do think that anti-windfarm _is_ about nimbyism and protection of a view because if folks didn't think that windfarms spoilt the view then there wouldn't be any anti-wind farm movement!!  ::  

Secondly, on the subject of the lack of framework, the government has stipulated its targets to generate 60% of its energy from renewable sources by 2050 with other milestones in between then.  That is a basic framework that even the simplest minded can get his head around.

To assist those goals and from political pressure, the Highland council made a draught proposal of a strategy which would have made those goals to be achievable, it was rejected I believe by the efforts of the anti-wind brigade who ironically wanted some form of framework in the first place!!  ::  .  So a lack of framework is not due to the efforts of those that want to reduce fossil fuel useage but by those that want to be nimbys and those that have been brain washed by the most eloquent.

Lets have some examples of disjointed thinking, exaggeration and misinformation please from the wind industry.  I'm still waiting...

----------


## fred

> Yes, I do think that anti-windfarm _is_ about nimbyism and protection of a view because if folks didn't think that windfarms spoilt the view then there wouldn't be any anti-wind farm movement!!


Then people who are opposed to nuclear or coal/oil/gas powered generation are guilty of nimbyism too?

----------


## Rheghead

> Then people who are opposed to nuclear or coal/oil/gas powered generation are guilty of nimbyism too?


I am not prepared to answer that as it could lead to a straw man arguement.

----------


## ywindythesecond

> Talking about misinformation, you have completely got your units in a muddle. 45kw per day?, rubbish. A kw is a unit of power, a household will need an national average of 1.8kW, which is a day/night time average, but it will be more accurate to say that the national daily energy needs of an average house would be 24h X 1.8kw=43kWh. But don't forget that this 'home' is the homes energy requirement in the home and when the people go to work, ie, it includes the factories as well as public services like street lighting, hospitals etc etc as well.
> 
> I seem to remember another orger having the same problems about 2 years ago and he sheepishly had to backtrack all his sums.


Didn't answer the question Reggy, and you made the same derisible mistake in units that I did. Go back, read the question, and answer it.

----------


## Rheghead

> Didn't answer the question Reggy, and you made the same derisible mistake in units that I did. Go back, read the question, and answer it.


No , I haven't.

I'm sorry but there was the accusation tabled that the wind industry was spreading misinformation, you came back and said that houses require 45kW per day.  That is misinformation no matter how you look at it.  

If you come back with a genuine example of misinformation passed around by the wind industry then I will be happy to discuss it on this forum.  So far you have failed.  

I am still waiting...

----------


## Rheghead

On the subject of the Spittal windfarm, where is the misinformation?

I don't see any.  85MW _will_ supply the needs of 46,000 average homes.  You can work out this from information in the 'Energy in Brief' review which is published by the DTI.  

The Spittal windfarm has quoted the installed capacity of the proposal and quite rightly stated that 85MW will do this.  This would be no different if a new proposed 1300MW nuclear reactor is to be built.  The same sort of statement would also be claimed.  But no energy generator can or does run at full capacity for safety, technical and commercial reasons so there is always a 'load factor' with any type of generator, especially solar, tidal and wave!!  So if you call this misinformation then it is misinformation that all proposals will spread, hardly unique to the wind industry.  They can't quote an actual supply as there isn't one due to environmental and commercial constraints, they can only base their statements on the installed capacity.

This principle is hardly a secret, it is widely mooted by the wind industry, is this all you have? ::

----------


## fred

> I am not prepared to answer that as it could lead to a straw man arguement.


Don't see how.

Either you're arguing that objecting to any power station is nimbyism or you're arguing that there is a difference between objecting to wind power and objecting to conventional power stations.

Just trying to ascertain whether your argument is genuine or if you are following usual forum practice of sticking a label on those who don't agree with you so you can discount anything they say. Trying to discredit the reasons for the opinion so you don't have to argue the facts.

I mean it's a lot easier to brand someone antisemetic than admit that Zionists are guilty of ethnic clensing and it's a lot easier to brand someone a conspiracy theorist than to explain how 9/11 could have been possible without inside help. I'm just trying to decide if you are using the same tactics here.

----------


## golach

> I mean it's a lot easier to brand someone antisemetic than admit that Zionists are guilty of ethnic clensing and it's a lot easier to brand someone a conspiracy theorist than to explain how 9/11 could have been possible without inside help. I'm just trying to decide if you are using the same tactics here.


What has this got to do with Wind farms in Caithness ar Wind farms anywhere else I never saw Rheghead mention any of your favourite but boring rants. Fred you are becoming a little repetative.

----------


## KittyMay

> Yes, I do think that anti-windfarm _is_ about nimbyism and protection of a view because if folks didn't think that windfarms spoilt the view then there wouldn't be any anti-wind farm movement!!  
> 
> Secondly, on the subject of the lack of framework, the government has stipulated its targets to generate 60% of its energy from renewable sources by 2050 with other milestones in between then. That is a basic framework that even the simplest minded can get his head around.
> 
> To assist those goals and from political pressure, the Highland council made a draught proposal of a strategy which would have made those goals to be achievable, it was rejected I believe by the efforts of the anti-wind brigade who ironically wanted some form of framework in the first place!!  . So a lack of framework is not due to the efforts of those that want to reduce fossil fuel useage but by those that want to be nimbys and those that have been brain washed by the most eloquent.
> 
> Lets have some examples of disjointed thinking, exaggeration and misinformation please from the wind industry. I'm still waiting...


Wow o wee!! Your devotion to the wind industry is commendable. 

So we're simple minded and brain washed as well as nimby. 

BTW - the HRES is only supplementary guidance so you must not worry yourself that it'll prevent the march of your idols. No-one, including the council attach too much credence to it anyway. So calm down.

I'm open to having my brain washing reversed - can you say the same?

Would a good starting point be the UK energy mix now and that projected for 2020?

----------


## fred

> What has this got to do with Wind farms in Caithness ar Wind farms anywhere else I never saw Rheghead mention any of your favourite but boring rants. Fred you are becoming a little repetative.


Do pay attention golach whether rheghead's accusations of nimbyism are genuine or not is entirely relevant to the argument.

Your post however wasn't.

----------


## Rheghead

> Wow o wee!! Your devotion to the wind industry is commendable.


No, my devotion lies with the welfare of this planet and what our descendants will inherit.  You are only devoted to your idea of what the countryside should look like.

----------


## KittyMay

> No, my devotion lies with the welfare of this planet and what our descendants will inherit. You are only devoted to your idea of what the countryside should look like.


Take that back, it's not true -I'm also devoted to my other half (for a limited period only) for just this minute cleaning up the revolting mess the cat made in the bathroom. Play fair!

Interesting though - the welfare of the planet is also top of my list of priorities - but I'm a great deal less convinced by the mystical healing powers of the turbine than you.

I've got enormous regard for the countryside. I honestly can't help myself and I don't apologise for this deep rooted respect for what's natural. It's the way I was brought up - blame my ancestors. I just don't get the same kick out of carbon emitting manufactured attractions. 

We've got local plans, structure plans etc all put in place to protect certain areas from development of one kind or another. Why? Is everyone nimbys? Why are there areas where no housing can be built? Why do we care how new housing estates are laid out. Why must we only build single storey houses in some areas? What's the problem with building supermarkets willy nilly?

More importantly - I'd still like to talk UK energy policy - you've ignored this 3 times now.

----------


## ywindythesecond

[quote=Rheghead;184905]No , I haven't.

I'm sorry but there was the accusation tabled that the wind industry was spreading misinformation, you came back and said that houses require 45kW per day. 

A kw is a unit of power, a household will need an national average of 1.8kW,
 that is what you said Rheghead. Is this technically correct?

I concede, you are the master of non answer. This is my final attempt to get you to answer a question.

----------


## ywindythesecond

[quote=Rheghead;184864]

To assist those goals and from political pressure, the Highland council made a draught proposal of a strategy which would have made those goals to be achievable, it was rejected I believe by the efforts of the anti-wind brigade who ironically wanted some form of framework in the first place!!  ::  . 

Appalling spelling, but what are you referring to here?

----------


## Rheghead

[QUOTE=ywindythesecond;185209]


> To assist those goals and from political pressure, the Highland council made a draught proposal of a strategy which would have made those goals to be achievable, it was rejected I believe by the efforts of the anti-wind brigade who ironically wanted some form of framework in the first place!!  . 
> 
> Appalling spelling, but what are you referring to here?


HaHa, if thats all you got but to pull me up on my spelling then forget it mate, if you want to be the spokesperson of the anti-windfarm movement then Wind developers have nothing to fear...

Must do better!

----------


## Rheghead

> More importantly - I'd still like to talk UK energy policy - you've ignored this 3 times now.


I've ignored what?  You have brought nothing to the the debate floor so how can I ignore it?

Talk in facts and figures that mean something.!

----------


## Rheghead

> A kw is a unit of power, a household will need an national average of 1.8kW,
>  that is what you said Rheghead. Is this technically correct?
> 
> I concede, you are the master of non answer. This is my final attempt to get you to answer a question.


I am still unsure of what you are getting at, pray tell for everyone's benefit!

Yes, 1.8kW is the average power that a household requires from the Grid.

----------


## Rheghead

> Interesting though - the welfare of the planet is also top of my list of priorities - but I'm a great deal less convinced by the mystical healing powers of the turbine than you.


1.  The National Grid states that they can accomodate 20% intrusion into the UK energy market from windfarms.   

2. Climate scientists assure us that carbon dioxide is the major contributor to the effects of climate change.

3. Energy generation is responsible to ~33% of the UK's carbon emissions

4. Wind energy will mitigate fossil fuel use.

What can be simpler? ::   ::

----------


## KittyMay

> 1. The National Grid states that they can accomodate 20% intrusion into the UK energy market from windfarms. 
> 
> 2. Climate scientists assure us that carbon dioxide is the major contributor to the effects of climate change.
> 
> 3. Energy generation is responsible to ~33% of the UK's carbon emissions
> 
> 4. Wind energy will mitigate fossil fuel use.
> 
> What can be simpler?


OK. You say it's simple and have listed above what appear to be statements of fact. You've undertaken research on this subject and you believe that wind energy solves the carbon problem and the security of supply problem.

As I had no background knowledge whatsoever I've had to read literally hundreds of reports in order to try and understand the arguments for and against. I wanted to be convinced that wind energy was the answer. But for every argument I found in favour of wind I found another against.

So maybe my 'simple mindedness' is preventing me from distinguishing fact from fiction. Unlike you, I've never claimed to be an authority on the subject and have admitted my confusion on numerous occasions. Opportunity for debate disintegrates rapidly into silly name calling.

For example - is the attached report (along with the reference documents) fact, fiction or a mix of the two. Should we pay heed to some of the points made or ignore them as myths created by nimbys? 
http://www.countryguardian.net/halke...actfiction.pdf

----------


## spurtle

> OK.  
> For example - is the attached report (along with the reference documents) fact, fiction or a mix of the two. Should we pay heed to some of the points made or ignore them as myths created by nimbys? 
> http://www.countryguardian.net/halke...actfiction.pdf


Nimby is a word that is constantly being bandied about in a pejorative sense.  I would take the view that if you don't care about your back yard, no-one else is going to.  
A great deal of the Caithness countryside is of national importance, and recognition is given to this in the Highland Council Structure Plan, by SNH, Historic Scotland, and many other bodies concerned with the natural and built environment.
In this sense, many of the areas threatened by industrial development on the scale of some of these windfarms, are everyone's back yard, and we who live here have some responsibilty to look after it.

If wind farms had any decent track record in producing what the developers claim, then we would not have much of a leg to stand on - but this is simply not the case.

----------


## golach

> OK. You say it's simple and have listed above what appear to be statements of fact. You've undertaken research on this subject and you believe that wind energy solves the carbon problem and the security of supply problem.
> 
> As I had no background knowledge whatsoever I've had to read literally hundreds of reports in order to try and understand the arguments for and against. I wanted to be convinced that wind energy was the answer. But for every argument I found in favour of wind I found another against.
> 
> So maybe my 'simple mindedness' is preventing me from distinguishing fact from fiction. Unlike you, I've never claimed to be an authority on the subject and have admitted my confusion on numerous occasions. Opportunity for debate disintegrates rapidly into silly name calling.
> 
> For example - is the attached report (along with the reference documents) fact, fiction or a mix of the two. Should we pay heed to some of the points made or ignore them as myths created by nimbys? 
> http://www.countryguardian.net/halke...actfiction.pdf


Maybe this is the way you want to go Kitty, you are creating enough bull in here to fuel this new enterprise ::  

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm...name_page.html

----------


## KittyMay

> Maybe this is the way you want to go Kitty, you are creating enough bull in here to fuel this new enterprise 
> 
> http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/tm...name_page.html


Is that the sum total of your input into this debate? Or is there more?

----------


## Rheghead

> http://www.countryguardian.net/halke...actfiction.pdf


Well the guy doesn't know what he is on about.  How can we have wind energy without wind power?  LOL!!

----------


## KittyMay

> Well the guy doesn't know what he is on about. How can we have wind energy without wind power? LOL!!


Come on Rheghead. Is this guy talking fact or fiction? 

Are we going in the right direction with wind energy - priority 1 reducing carbon emissions and priority 2 securing our electricity supply? 

Mr Halkema doesn't appear to believe it (and he's got a degree). 

I've got loadsa reports similar to these if you want me to bring them to the floor for debate.

But first let's debate this one.

----------


## Rheghead

> Come on Rheghead. Is this guy talking fact or fiction? 
> 
> Are we going in the right direction with wind energy - priority 1 reducing carbon emissions and priority 2 securing our electricity supply? 
> 
> Mr Halkema doesn't appear to believe it (and he's got a degree). 
> 
> I've got loadsa reports similar to these if you want me to bring them to the floor for debate.
> 
> But first let's debate this one.


Well, to have energy without power then he is certainly talking fiction unless he has found a way to break the laws of thermodynamics.

One thing I do agree with is this, so if this is the reason for this treatise then I agree with him as no one is claiming it anyway, strawman?  So one conclusion is that he is just putting the tone to be anti-windfarm which is his prerogative.




> Thus, the purpose of this treatise is certainly not to slate all wind turbine applications, but to expose the fallacy that wind turbines are a blanket solution to the planet’s energy problems.

----------


## Bobbyian

> Well the guy doesn't know what he is on about.  How can we have wind energy without wind power?  LOL!!


Rheghead I´m pretty sure you know what you are debating having read this report  and looked up the German equivelent and I may be wrong but as i understand it there is the problem that there can be either too much wind velocity or too little which leads to an unstable electric energy source which can not sustain our energy consuming society if we should endeavor to trust wind to our sole supplier It just cannot do it even if we plastered the whole of the UK with windturbines there would be some one warm day when there was no wind and Then what   you wouldn`t be able to use your PC  ok my be you have a Laptop  but what I´m getting at is .. is there a way of stabalising the wind - to - energy pattern or even better to store it in some way  can you explain or point me in the right direction to read


by ther way thanks for PDF info  `kittymay

----------


## KittyMay

> Rheghead I´m pretty sure you know what you are debating having read this report and looked up the German equivelent and I may be wrong but as i understand it there is the problem that there can be either too much wind velocity or too little which leads to an unstable electric energy source which can not sustain our energy consuming society if we should endeavor to trust wind to our sole supplier It just cannot do it even if we plastered the whole of the UK with windturbines there would be some one warm day when there was no wind and Then what you wouldn`t be able to use your PC ok my be you have a Laptop but what I´m getting at is .. is there a way of stabalising the wind - to - energy pattern or even better to store it in some way can you explain or point me in the right direction to read
> 
> 
> by ther way thanks for PDF info `kittymay


No problem Bobbyian. If you do happen to come across any info re. improvements on wind to energy/storage solutions etc could you let me know. I've been unsuccessful so far.

----------


## Rheghead

> Rheghead I´m pretty sure you know what you are debating having read this report  and looked up the German equivelent and I may be wrong but as i understand it there is the problem that there can be either too much wind velocity or too little which leads to an unstable electric energy source which can not sustain our energy consuming society if we should endeavor to trust wind to our sole supplier It just cannot do it even if we plastered the whole of the UK with windturbines there would be some one warm day when there was no wind and Then what   you wouldn`t be able to use your PC  ok my be you have a Laptop  but what I´m getting at is .. is there a way of stabalising the wind - to - energy pattern or even better to store it in some way  can you explain or point me in the right direction to read
> 
> 
> by ther way thanks for PDF info  `kittymay


I agree. Nobody is saying that we can get all our energy from windfarms, nobody is saying that windfarms are the be all and end all of the strategy to find energy for the UK and to fight climate change.  But they are a viable option to supply 20% of our energy needs on the current level of technology.  Which makes all the issues of intermittence irrelevent until such time when  we do get 20% of our electrical energy from wind. Currently it stands at ~3%, a long way to go.

----------


## Rheghead

> No problem Bobbyian. If you do happen to come across any info re. improvements on wind to energy/storage solutions etc could you let me know. I've been unsuccessful so far.


Check the newscientist and the article relating to vanadium flow batteries.  There are two working prototypes in Ireland and Australia.

----------


## KittyMay

> Well, to have energy without power then he is certainly talking fiction unless he has found a way to break the laws of thermodynamics.
> 
> One thing I do agree with is this, so if this is the reason for this treatise then I agree with him as no one is claiming it anyway, strawman? So one conclusion is that he is just putting the tone to be anti-windfarm which is his prerogative.


Very disappointing. So you're a wind-up merchant who doesn't actually give a toss. That's your perogative, I suppose.

----------


## Rheghead

I think I will draw an end on this thread thanks.

----------


## webmannie

> I think I will draw an end on this thread thanks.


something confuses me Rheghead, how do you post without logging in?

----------


## KittyMay

> I think I will draw an end on this thread thanks.


Just in case you take a wee look. Thanks for the info on vanadium flow batteries. I see the nuclear industry are very interested in the storage potential of these but there's a long way to go before we see them in production.

I think the point made by Mr Halkema was that we can never supply 20% of our electricity from wind energy. We can build installed capacity 3 times greater than the projected output but we can never guarantee 20% delivery - ever, no matter how many we build. He explained why and offered realistic alternatives.

----------


## Bobbyian

Thanks Reghead and Kittymay for infor and just for think sideways whats their opinion if we went and made the households the storage point so that in the house there were the `Batteries' and the household was designed for a lowervoltage energy components (LED Lighting and practially all electronics devises are basically low voltage with each their own chargeing/supplyunit) couldn`t we efectively lower the load on the the grid because we could also include local recharging through wind and solar

----------


## KittyMay

> Thanks Reghead and Kittymay for infor and just for think sideways whats their opinion if we went and made the households the storage point so that in the house there were the `Batteries' and the household was designed for a lowervoltage energy components (LED Lighting and practially all electronics devises are basically low voltage with each their own chargeing/supplyunit) couldn`t we efectively lower the load on the the grid because we could also include local recharging through wind and solar


I like that idea. Is it realistic, I don't have enough grasp of the subject to know. Most of the renewable options are much more suitable for local (small scale) use. The powers that be are looking carefully at distributed generation as the way forward especially in the more remote areas. 

A real worry is if they embark on massive and hugely expensive upgrades to the existing grid system the really useful alternatives will yet again be side stepped. The national grid don't have much choice in the matter of windfarms - when the applications have been approved they are obliged to provide a suitable transmission system ie upgrades. Is it likely that after spending billions on upgrades there'll be any incentive to reduce the load on the grid?

----------


## Bobbyian

Its not my main subject but Im interested enough to try to find answers not essentially what the industrial money makers are after but it may be the case  with the local variant is the problem with high power accessories Cooking,heating,etc. but I think that can also be catered for Im not sure if it viable in towns maybe but then we would have to look at the whole picture and that is where it usually gets bogged down in money matters  like a lot of good Ideas they just get caught up in the wheel of capitalism . I will try to follow the Idea through and if I get some time try pinpoint the main problems. Im sure there are enough people that will point things out to me  I have been reading through
http://www.hamburg-messe.de/Scripte/...m?Menu=Visitor

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/2001/ph162/l11.html

http://www.awea.org/faq/rsdntqa.html

http://www.iea.org/Textbase/work/2004/nea/winter.pdf

  may be there is something of interest there

----------


## Bobbyian

also found this page some very interesting reading  Initially in German but if you scroll down and click on the *Yellow highlighted* catigories there are some interesting  PDF´S referring to energy storage and or Renewables I think they are all in English if you have problems PM 

http://www.ea-nrw.de/_infopool/page.asp?InfoID=4468

----------


## golach

http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=145742007

Maybe the excess wind generated power from the Caithness Wind farms is needed for the rest of Scotland

----------


## spurtle

> http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=145742007
> 
> Maybe the excess wind generated power from the Caithness Wind farms is needed for the rest of Scotland


Not sure how AMEC's announcement that they prefer a subsea link to SW Scotland from their massive Hebridean project is going to affect projected N. of Scotland schemes.

----------


## Rheghead

> Not sure how AMEC's announcement that they prefer a subsea link to SW Scotland from their massive Hebridean project is going to affect projected N. of Scotland schemes.


What effects do you think are likely?

----------


## KittyMay

> Its not my main subject but Im interested enough to try to find answers not essentially what the industrial money makers are after but it may be the case with the local variant is the problem with high power accessories Cooking,heating,etc. but I think that can also be catered for Im not sure if it viable in towns maybe but then we would have to look at the whole picture and that is where it usually gets bogged down in money matters like a lot of good Ideas they just get caught up in the wheel of capitalism . I will try to follow the Idea through and if I get some time try pinpoint the main problems. Im sure there are enough people that will point things out to me I have been reading through
> http://www.hamburg-messe.de/Scripte/...m?Menu=Visitor
> 
> http://zebu.uoregon.edu/2001/ph162/l11.html
> 
> http://www.awea.org/faq/rsdntqa.html
> 
> http://www.iea.org/Textbase/work/2004/nea/winter.pdf
> 
> may be there is something of interest there


Thanks Bobbyian. Some very enlightening stuff there. My favourite was 
E.on Netz summary of their report on Windfarm Integration into the Transmission System (as follows) - 

The huge development of wind power in Germany leads to bottlenecks in the transmission system e.g. of E.ON.

In order to provide a reliable system performance in future, extensive improvements for the transmission system development are necessary. 


In addition, the control reserve capacity has to be increased rapidly.


Wind energy in Europe needs common activities to maintain system reliability.

Not very surprising but disappointing just the same, to read the following from the wind industry

Today, wind energy is used for generating electricity, onshore and offshore, which is fed into the public supply grid. In the medium and long term, however, there are other possibilities, too, such as using wind energy for water desalination, for saving fuel by integrating wind turbines in small diesel-electric grids, or for the production of hydrogen. In our survey, we therefore asked the companies when they would think that these applications could become interesting as additional market elements. In contrast to the earlier surveys, now all three areas of application are not considered to become important until after 2010. The reason for this statement could be the different marked situation today, which does not make it necessary to think about new areas of application because the order books are well-filled

Let's not hold our breaths on storage solutions then.

I tend to avoid reading anything produced by the wind industy and try to find independant reports but it pleases me when the industry itself backs up information given out by those with no vested interest.

----------


## ywindythesecond

> http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=145742007
> 
> Maybe the excess wind generated power from the Caithness Wind farms is needed for the rest of Scotland


 
Definitely food for thought Golach, but isn't the keyword  "reliable".

----------


## Rheghead

> Definitely food for thought Golach, but isn't the keyword  "reliable".


The keyword for the present moment is 'accomodate', the National Grid can accomodate intermittent sources of energy by upto 20% of the energy market. Wind energy is only providing a fraction of that.  So reliability is irrelevent.

----------


## KittyMay

> The keyword for the present moment is 'accomodate', the National Grid can accomodate intermittent sources of energy by upto 20% of the energy market. Wind energy is only providing a fraction of that. So reliability is irrelevent.


As a matter of interest - whose keyword is accommodate? 

It's a well known fact that the wind industry (and yourself, of course) consider the reliability of wind energy to be an irrelevence (confirmed in the links provided by Bobbyian).

I happen to believe that issues of reliability are not only relevant but crucial.

----------


## KittyMay

> Not sure how AMEC's announcement that they prefer a subsea link to SW Scotland from their massive Hebridean project is going to affect projected N. of Scotland schemes.


I'd guess that HC are cock-a-hoop at this announcement. All their plans for community benefit and for attracting carbon dirty industry (to cancel out the meagre reduction in carbon emissions achieved by covering the place in turbines) might have been scuppered if upgrades to the grid were tied up with electricity from Lewis.

----------


## Bobbyian

Talking about Reliability  ( stability of System)  I use my car realtively  not very often  but if it had a  reliabilty curve like the wind energy  power creation I think I would have sent it back  to the  makers. I mean the wind farms are going to be here  for good  for the future and our main interest must be to reduce excessive Carbon Contamination  but because the windfarms and other renewables sources are coming on line doens`t mean we can stop looking for alternative  methods 

releability isn`t irelevant    That sounds like some of the things we heard in the 50`s   that little bit of waste is irelevant  it can be dumped at sea.....

----------


## Rheghead

> releability isn`t irelevant    That sounds like some of the things we heard in the 50`s   that little bit of waste is irelevant  it can be dumped at sea.....


It is irrelevent for now, but as time goes on, the intermittence of renewable energy generators(of which wind farms are only one) will create instability problems as their contribution becomes stronger to the energy mix, that is why so much effort is being put in to find storage systems for the energy.

All these comments re _ROCs, intermittence, inefficiency, etc_ don't just apply to wind farms, they apply to all renewable generators not just windfarms.  

As for inefficiency, nuclear, coal and gas are the most inefficient, worse than the ~25% which is given for windfarms.  

So all the criticisms above just when put in relation to just windfarms amounts to misinformation when it isn't made clear that they apply to almost all generators.

----------


## KittyMay

> It is irrelevent for now, but as time goes on, the intermittence of renewable energy generators(of which wind farms are only one) will create instability problems as their contribution becomes stronger to the energy mix, that is why so much effort is being put in to find storage systems for the energy.
> 
> All these comments re _ROCs, intermittence, inefficiency, etc_ don't just apply to wind farms, they apply to all renewable generators not just windfarms. 
> 
> As for inefficiency, nuclear, coal and gas are the most inefficient, worse than the ~25% which is given for windfarms. 
> 
> So all the criticisms above just when put in relation to just windfarms amounts to misinformation when it isn't made clear that they apply to almost all generators.


According to the DTI, wind energy is bottom of the efficiency pile and you missed one very important and relevant point. 

Reliability - nuclear (baseload), coal (baseload and cranked up for peak demand, gas and hydro (peak demand) are *reliable*. (They are shut down for planned maintenance or in the event of a breakdown not according to the weather) 

As far as I'm aware these generators don't create the intermittency problem either - if I'm wrong I'm sure someone will correct me.

It's true that all the generators perform way below their capabilities for efficiency. Don't you think it's time we started the necessary work to improve that situation and stop the wastage.

----------


## Rheghead

> Reliability - nuclear (baseload), coal (baseload and cranked up for peak demand, gas and hydro (peak demand) are *reliable*. (They are shut down for planned maintenance or in the event of a breakdown not according to the weather).


Are they really?

Read recent news reports, the whole of Scotland's energy system has been put at risk because of an outage problem at two of the big generators ie long Gannet and Hunterston B.  Too many large eggs in one basket I think.  Small generators spread the risk of this happening.

Gas is hardly reliable when Russia is using their reserves and their twitchy hand on the stop-cock as a political weapon.

At least the wind is our own and we can rely on it to blow for _quite a lot of the time_.

how reliable are the fossil fuel reserves per se?  Can they see us into the next 50 years?

Poland is gathering political clout, how long are they to remain our friends?

Nuclear power, ooh, how much fuel is used to transport uranium to UK from Australia?  And if they continue to beat the England cricket side, do we really want to give them our custom?

----------


## Naefearjustbeer

We dig our own nuclear fuel up. I am sure there is a seam of it in Orkney. much closer to home.

----------


## Rheghead

> According to the DTI, wind energy is bottom of the efficiency pile and you missed one very important and relevant point.


Just one thing, the DTI quotes that the contribution of of energy by UK windfarms was 250,000 tonnes of oil equivalence, oil equivalence being a unit of energy of 45GJ.  But that oil equivalence is net energy calculated after all the thermal inefficiencies of fossil fuel operators, some being 30% the best being ~50%.  A fossil fuel generator with a thermal efficiency will have to burn a disproportionate amount of fossil fuels to get electrical power and wind farms will mitigate the gross fuel useage not just the net oil equivalence.

But lets not mistake thermal efficiency with operating capacity which is  quoted for windfarms eg~25%.  To calculate a thermal efficiency for a windfarm is meaningless as the fuel is free.  Though I understand the larger the area is swept then the efficiency does increase but that is beside the point, perhaps anti-windies should be calling for larger wind turbines?






> It's true that all the generators perform way below their capabilities for efficiency. Don't you think it's time we started the necessary work to improve that situation and stop the wastage.


That is a fair comment, improving fuel efficiency in all its forms will be desirable.  Carbon dioxide and nuclear waste are just two forms of waste that should be the top priority on all our lists...

----------


## fred

> As for inefficiency, nuclear, coal and gas are the most inefficient, worse than the ~25% which is given for windfarms.


Erm, you wouldn't be comparing the efficiency of a wind turbine expressed as average power output as a percentage of capacity with a conventional power station expressed as the power generated as a percentage of the theoretical energy contained in the fuel there would you?

----------


## KittyMay

> Are they really?
> 
> Yup, they certainly are, as you well know. 
> Read recent news reports, the whole of Scotland's energy system has been put at risk because of an outage problem at two of the big generators ie long Gannet and Hunterston B. Too many large eggs in one basket I think. Small generators spread the risk of this happening.
> 
> Yes, and had a third big generator broken down along with the two above we would have been in big trouble. I do hope you're not suggesting that we could have relied on our wind energy in this event. 
> I agree that smaller reliable generators are the way forward.
> 
> Gas is hardly reliable when Russia is using their reserves and their twitchy hand on the stop-cock as a political weapon.
> ...


I wish wind energy was the answer too.

----------


## KittyMay

> Erm, you wouldn't be comparing the efficiency of a wind turbine expressed as average power output as a percentage of capacity with a conventional power station expressed as the power generated as a percentage of the theoretical energy contained in the fuel there would you?


Fred - help please.

----------


## Rheghead

> Erm, you wouldn't be comparing the efficiency of a wind turbine expressed as average power output as a percentage of capacity with a conventional power station expressed as the power generated as a percentage of the theoretical energy contained in the fuel there would you?


No, but I think the point must be made that thermal efficiency in conventional power generators is a real environmental and commercial problem, a bit different  to windfarms where their thermal efficiency is irrelevent.  I fully accept that the capacity factor for conventional will be far better.

----------


## Rheghead

> we should stop mucking about with wind energy and start finding reliable replacements.


Well name one, you can forget wave, tidal, solar, hydro etc as they are all intermittent or _unreliable_ as you like to call it and they will all need to use these 'never attainable' energy storage systems, lol

Forget nuke because they can't be used for fast changes in demand, you will still have to rely on fossil fuels to do that, more akin to what the French are doing.




> I'd imagine nuclear would soon pay back the carbon cost of transporting uranium.


Exactly, but if I was totally denying or acknowledging what you had said then you would have the same job on your hands trying to persuade me that you are correct, a bit like me trying to convince you that windfarms mitigate fossil fuels.

----------


## fred

> No, but I think the point must be made that thermal efficiency in conventional power generators is a real environmental and commercial problem, a bit different  to windfarms where their thermal efficiency is irrelevent.  I fully accept that the capacity factor for conventional will be far better.


The capacity factor for conventional is controlled by demand. They have to have the capacity to deal with peak demand on the coldest day in winter that capacity isn't needed for the rest of the year. It has nothing to do with the means of generation.

----------


## fred

> Forget nuke because they can't be used for fast changes in demand, you will still have to rely on fossil fuels to do that, more akin to what the French are doing.


Small scale nuclear can, the sort that powers submarines and aircraft carriers. 

A 200MW aircraft carrier engine would replace around 300 windmills and could be sited near to demand leaving the grid to do what it was designed to do, transfer small amounts of electricity from area to area to balance out changes in demand, not transport huge amounts of electricity hundreds of miles.

----------


## Bobbyian

Hey that was some nice reading Reghead,Kittymay,fred  I like an intreresting exchange of Ideas but I did think you slided past the point after my comment about the car reghead...  but nevertheless are we at looking at  decentralisation of the energy (Electrical)  which I think looks promising..  and by the way I`m not against or for windfarms I`m for looking at all possible alternatives to make sure we get it right and not just rely on some one up front waving a stick and saying " this  is the way chaps "

----------


## Bobbyian

By the way  Came across this article on a Hamburg Site today  it is a bit old but it may be interesting.
*08 January 2007*



*Successful start to the new year: Nordex awarded contract for 48 MW wind farm in Scotland19 N90/2500 turbines to be installed by early 2008*



Hamburg, January 8, 2007. Nordex has gained a further major project from the British Isles in a contract worth approx. EUR 60 million. Falck Renewables Ltd. has ordered 19 N90/2500 HS (high-speed) multi-megawatt turbines for the Kilbraur wind farm in Scotland. The order includes a five-year service contract together with the provision of wind farm civil and electrical infrastructure. 

The wind farm is located in Strathbrora, north of Golspie in the northern of Scotland. Situated some 300 meters above sea level, the site has mean wind speeds of approx. 9.0 m/s at a tower height of 70 meters, thus offering ideal conditions for the strong-wind version of the N90/2500 turbine. Work is to commence on site in April 2007, with the 19 multi-megawatt turbines going live early 2008.

After Earlsburn (15 N80/2500 turbines) and Millenium (16 N90/2500 turbines), Kilbraur marks the third contract which Nordex has been awarded by Falck Renewables within the space of 12 months. The London-based subsidiary of the Italian Falck Group is currently working with local partners to assemble a portfolio of wind farms across Europe. Falck has 11 projects in operation or construction in the UK, Spain, Italy and France and over 1000 MW in development. 

For more information, please contact:

Nordex AG
Felix Losada
Telephone:  040 / 500 98 - 100, Telefax:    – 333
E-mail: flosada@nordex-online.com
Internet: http://www.nordex-online.com

----------


## rambler

> Small scale nuclear can, the sort that powers submarines and aircraft carriers. 
> 
> A 200MW aircraft carrier engine would replace around 300 windmills and could be sited near to demand leaving the grid to do what it was designed to do, transfer small amounts of electricity from area to area to balance out changes in demand, not transport huge amounts of electricity hundreds of miles.


Yeah, good idea! Plenty of small scale nuclear reactors all over and production line workers controlling them. Radioactive waste? Ach, we don't care really. Or would it be highly skilled people controlling 200MW reactors? Who would pay the bill then, sounds rather expensive. Surely the MoD can afford this, bit I rather prefer windmills...

----------


## KittyMay

> Well name one, you can forget wave, tidal, solar, hydro etc as they are all intermittent or _unreliable_ as you like to call it and they will all need to use these 'never attainable' energy storage systems, lol
> 
> Forget nuke because they can't be used for fast changes in demand, you will still have to rely on fossil fuels to do that, more akin to what the French are doing.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, but if I was totally denying or acknowledging what you had said then you would have the same job on your hands trying to persuade me that you are correct, a bit like me trying to convince you that windfarms mitigate fossil fuels.


I thought hydro was reliable - when the resevoirs are full hydro provides a reliable and controllable source of electricity. Is hydro not called upon to meet periods of peak demand? I'd understand the comparision with the wind problem if the rain had to be actually falling from the sky before electricity could be generated.

Do you not believe that sometime in the future we will see development of storage systems?

It's interesting that you say to forget nuclear because it can't be used for meeting peak changes in demand - why would you support wind energy then which is in exactly the same position re. meeting demand but added to that can't even generate a secure base load capacity either.

----------


## KittyMay

> Hey that was some nice reading Reghead,Kittymay,fred I like an intreresting exchange of Ideas but I did think you slided past the point after my comment about the car reghead... but nevertheless are we at looking at decentralisation of the energy (Electrical) which I think looks promising.. and by the way I`m not against or for windfarms I`m for looking at all possible alternatives to make sure we get it right and not just rely on some one up front waving a stick and saying " this is the way chaps "


Bobbyian you star. You've hit the nail on the head. I've never understood why I feel so strongly about this issue but that's it in a nutshell - I feel like I'm being bullied. That stick you referred to is very big, is being waved right in my face and I'm being backed right into the corner. (Support wind or else - you're a nimby, you're pro nuclear, you care nothing for the enviroment, you want the lights to go out, you want to deprive communities of financial benefits, etc etc. In fact if you don't support wind you're depraved, the lowest of the low, the scum of the earth. Now that makes me very suspicious.)

I so envy you your neutrality - neither for or against. But what if this is not the way? What if a few years down the line there's a change of policy or enlightenment of some kind. What if it's a mistake? Are there better options?

It'll be too late for this county - the Highlands - we can never go back. Hundreds of miles of cables and thousands of tonnes of concrete industrialising our countryside for ever. The rewards (not financial) for losses such as these have to be comparable - there's no margin - no room for error, no ifs, buts or maybes. It has to be right.

----------


## Rheghead

> I thought hydro was reliable - when the resevoirs are full hydro provides a reliable and controllable source of electricity. Is hydro not called upon to meet periods of peak demand? I'd understand the comparision with the wind problem if the rain had to be actually falling from the sky before electricity could be generated.
> 
> Do you not believe that sometime in the future we will see development of storage systems?
> 
> It's interesting that you say to forget nuclear because it can't be used for meeting peak changes in demand - why would you support wind energy then which is in exactly the same position re. meeting demand but added to that can't even generate a secure base load capacity either.


Hydro is as reliable as when there is water about.  Just look around at the levels of reservoirs even in the winter, they are struggling to fill and that is with just domestic water taken from them, forget when they want to take enough to drive turbines.  Just look at the variation of hydro energy per year from 1980 to 2006 in the Energy in Brief and try to convince me that hydro is reliable.
Then you have got problems of finding valleys to flood etc.  Not many folk like to be evicted.

As for your comment re my position on nuke/wind, that is exactly my sentiments.  Wind as you say is intermittent but so is demand for electricity during the day, the fossil fuel generators can respond to such changes in demand and supply very quickly, as I said more than enough, the National Grid doesn't see a problem with intermittence until we see a 20% intrusion of wind etc into the energy market. 

Yes I do think we will have storage systems which could extend windfarm and other renewable intrusion beyond the 20% mark.

----------


## Rheghead

> Hey that was some nice reading Reghead,Kittymay,fred  I like an intreresting exchange of Ideas but I did think you slided past the point after my comment about the car reghead...  but nevertheless are we at looking at  decentralisation of the energy (Electrical)  which I think looks promising..  and by the way I`m not against or for windfarms I`m for looking at all possible alternatives to make sure we get it right and not just rely on some one up front waving a stick and saying " this  is the way chaps "


Sorry I have forgotten or overlooked the issue about the car, can you repeat?

I am in fact neither for or against windfarms either.  I think they can be badly placed in terms of damage to wildlife and aesthetic reasons etc, but where there are no major conflicts then I see no reason why a landowner and developer can't put one up.

I don't find them paricularly appealing to look at but I try not to let that influence my judgement on their performance which others seem to do.  I respect any person who just thinks they are ugly and don't want them at any cost but when persons go on about irrelevent or even bogus issues because they think they are ugly then that will get me going.

This is not a game for me, I feel very passionate towards the environment and I know full well there are many double standards we deal the world in terms of resources but windfarms are a nettle which we could all do well to grasp, moaning at them won't solve a thing.

They aren't a golden bullet to cure the energy crisis but neither is solar, hydro, nuke etc etc.  A balanced mix of generation even with fossil fuels, will help combat climate, free us from foreign influence and solve the issue of dwindling resources.  

Yesterday, I had a quote over the phone for a solar heating system, £2600 so I am putting my money where my mouth is and going for it.  Not every one can afford that sort of money but I inherited a little money just recently.  I am stopping short of getting a turbine as I don't think we get enough wind where we are.  :Smile:

----------


## Bobbyian

> Sorry I have forgotten or overlooked the issue about the car, can you repeat?
> Talking about Reliability ( stability of System) I use my car realtively not very often but if it had a reliabilty curve like the wind energy power creation I think I would have sent it back to the makers.
> Imeant that if my car run like the power available curve of a wind Generator ie up and down  etc
> 
> I am in fact neither for or against windfarms either.  I think they can be badly placed in terms of damage to wildlife and aesthetic reasons etc, but where there are no major conflicts then I see no reason why a landowner and developer can't put one up.
> I Agree  but is a Tourist area not a major conflict?  Hear they have them along the Motorway round Bremen. Not in but atleast near the town
> 
> I don't find them paricularly appealing to look at but I try not to let that influence my judgement on their performance which others seem to do.  I respect any person who just thinks they are ugly and don't want them at any cost but when persons go on about irrelevent or even bogus issues because they think they are ugly then that will get me going.
> I Agree
> ...


That is comedable,  I know the systems are Expensive and I think there should be more subsidies in this to Householders.    what I was looking at if I can work out a solution is to get the household running on Lets say for working purposes on 12/24 or 48v where it is easier to do local storage with Batteries and solar panals and or wind/Water for Charging. we use already solar water warming which reduces a lot of the energy requied for hot water etc so if I can get my demand down to nearly zero ( which is proberly impossible for a town House  only thing that bothers me there is the size of Battery production if that was to fullscale for the population and all the chemical Hazards that brings with it.

----------


## Bobbyian

> I so envy you your neutrality - neither for or against. But what if this is not the way? What if a few years down the line there's a change of policy or enlightenment of some kind. What if it's a mistake? Are there better options?
> The quick answer is I don`t know, But I think I should do more to  motivate  engineers to look at all possibilities even if the main direction is governed by money.
> 
> It'll be too late for this county - the Highlands - we can never go back. Hundreds of miles of cables and thousands of tonnes of concrete industrialising our countryside for ever. The rewards (not financial) for losses such as these have to be comparable - there's no margin - no room for error, no ifs, buts or maybes. It has to be right.


on this I think the Politicians should also not forget that a large part of Scoltands Economy is reliant on Tourism and foreign people are not really motivated by a Landscape that is full of windmills ( unless its called Holland)
most poeple that I know here that go to Scotland do so because of the wild Landscape  Views and that shouldn´t be forgotten and that is where the Thin line has to be found  I think

----------


## KittyMay

> on this I think the Politicians should also not forget that a large part of Scoltands Economy is reliant on Tourism and foreign people are not really motivated by a Landscape that is full of windmills ( unless its called Holland)
> most poeple that I know here that go to Scotland do so because of the wild Landscape Views and that shouldn´t be forgotten and that is where the Thin line has to be found I think


That's so true, Bobbyian. This would be so much easier to debate if the price we were being forced to pay was comparable to the projected benefit - and more so if we believed these projections. 
You attached a link to the Kilbruar windfarm, do you have any idea how many turbines/windfarms are being proposed for this area - we're not talking a couple of windfarms here? It's crazy numbers and our regional council are desperate to climb aboard this money spinner.
As to tourism, the wind industry and government just role out their survey statistics, tell us that tourists love windfarms and people living near windfarms are huge supporters. 
Even our local councillors have suggested the tourist industry might benefit as a result of wind turbines - can you imagine tourists from around the globe choosing a particular holiday destination for the windfarms. They make comparisons between the environmental impact/intrusion of a windfarm to that of holiday cottages.

How are decisions on suitable sites for wind developments in your area made? 
Is it left to developers and landowners to choose the sites?
How big a part does community benefit play in the proceedings?
What's your understanding of the grid problems in Germany? I understand that if Germany didn't have interconnectors with neighbouring countries there would be major restrictions on the level of wind generated electricity.

----------


## KittyMay

> Well name one, you can forget wave, tidal, solar, hydro etc as they are all intermittent or _unreliable_ as you like to call it and they will all need to use these 'never attainable' energy storage systems, lol
> 
> Forget nuke because they can't be used for fast changes in demand, you will still have to rely on fossil fuels to do that, more akin to what the French are doing.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, but if I was totally denying or acknowledging what you had said then you would have the same job on your hands trying to persuade me that you are correct, a bit like me trying to convince you that windfarms mitigate fossil fuels.


Is it me or are we going round in circles - I'm getting dizzy.

Can you define intermittant? Are we talking intermittant as in no wind, some wind, too much wind affecting generation or are we talking intermittant as in the fluctuations of power output (voltage - I'm not being clear but you know what I mean - flickering lightbulbs etc) when the turbines are actually operating - or both. The reason I ask is your reference to hydro being intermittant. I thought that when available hydro generated a firm supply - steady and controllable and reliable. I wasn't aware it was classed as intermittant.
There's so much to learn about this electricity milarky.

You're 2nd point/para has bamboozled me. I didn't think we'd disagreed that we'd be relying on fossil fuels for quite some time yet. Or are you suggesting that we don't use nuclear or fossil fuel. I agree nuclear can't be used for meeting changes in demand but it does provide about 20% of our baseload.
I'm just not clear on what point you're making - can you expand please.

I've agreed that windfarms displace some fossil fuel generation. I've just not agreed on how much or how beneficial it is in comparison to other options.

You made this statement in another post '_They aren't a golden bullet to cure the energy crisis but neither is solar, hydro, nuke etc etc. A balanced mix of generation even with fossil fuels, will help combat climate, free us from foreign influence and solve the issue of dwindling resources.'_

Right let's move on.
What do you propose would be a realistic energy mix for Scotland - in say 10 years and 20 years time?
Would you provide a breakdown of all technologies and the levels you envisage for each of the renewable options - onshore wind, offshore wind, tidal, wave, solar and micro renewables.
You've mentioned that the grid can take intermittant generation of 20%.
I've read a number of reports which state that anything much above 10% is going to cause major problems on the UK grid system.

One last question - distributed generation/decentralisation is now considered to be the way forward - the future for electricity generation. Lots of small generators supplying communities, regions etc.

You support spending billions of pounds on developing onshore windfarms. You've acknowledged and support the spending of billions of pounds on upgrading the grid to carry this wind generated electricity south.

Does this fit in with our future distributed generation networks? Or is this another gap filler?

----------


## Bobbyian

[quote=KittyMay;187062] 
You attached a link to the Kilbruar windfarm, do you have any idea how many turbines/windfarms are being proposed for this area - we're not talking a couple of windfarms here? It's crazy numbers and our regional council are desperate to climb aboard this money spinner.

I`ve only found todate  that Nordex have an order as stated for 19            70 meter high turbines  to the value of about 60 million euros  for Kilbruar

and just before Christmas an order for   26 smaller turbines for a windfarm just north of Manchester for a company called  Peel wind Ltd  but I´ll have to check the name, to the value of 61 million Euros   this company is really doing well they have manufacturingsites here in Germany and China If I remeber correctly  780 million Euros turnover last year.

----------

