# General > General >  Wind Turbine on Dunnet Head

## gingernut

You might think this is an April Fools prank but unfortunately it isn't.
Just found out recently that there is a proposal to put a wind turbine on Dunnet Head!
I really can't believe it. Is nowhere in Caithness safe from this absolute madness? 
Of course if one turbine gets the go ahead then no doubt others will be added and yet another beautiful wild place in Caithness will be ruined.

 ::  ::  ::

----------


## gollach

I'm sure the RSPB would have something to say about a wind turbine chopping up their little birdies, can't see it happening.

----------


## davem

Camster windfarm happened, of all the magical, beautiful places to choose to spoil. Don't be too complacent, they ride a coach and horses through planning conditions too even after the wrong decision is made.

----------


## Alrock

Sounds like another NIMBY rant to me...

If you have a valid argument on grounds of cost effectiveness & whether or not we need windfarms in the first place, etc, then please do vent them...

----------


## davem

I'd hardly call it a rant - its an opinion - shared based on my perception of the things and resentment at making other people richer to no perceivable benefit.

----------


## Alrock

> I'd hardly call it a rant - its an opinion - shared based on my perception of the things and resentment at making other people richer to no perceivable benefit.


If it's an opinion in general then fair enough, though why only express this opinion when it is going to be built in their "back yard"? You have to admit that it does come across as NIMBYism...
I do agree that the "perception of the things and resentment at making other people richer to no perceivable benefit." is a genuine & valid argument against windfarms in general.

----------


## Corrie 3

> Is nowhere in Caithness safe from this absolute madness?


No I afraid it isn't, not until enough people say "Enough is enough" !!!
If you look at the English news on windfarms it's people power that stops them being built, they kick up a fuss, they demonstrate, they get petitions, they threaten not to vote for their Councillors. What do we do in Caithness to stop this madness?  Nothing, absolutely nothing at all, we let them walk all over us, let them ruin our beautiful landscape and then the cheek of it is we have to pay extra on our bills just so the rich can get richer!!
Time to stand up and be counted I reckon!!!

C3................... ::  ::

----------


## Gronnuck

Is NIMBYism so wrong?  Why should someone living at the other end of the country have the right to desecrate large tracts of our countryside with little thought for our enjoyment of wildlife, scenery and amenity.  Dunnet Head is the home of a variety of ground nesting birds and should be protected.  If someone wants to erect a domestic turbine in their plot, fine; but we should resist the slow insidious industrialisation of our landscape.

----------


## Green_not_greed

> What do we do in Caithness to stop this madness?  Nothing, absolutely nothing at all, we let them walk all over us, let them ruin our beautiful landscape and then the cheek of it is we have to pay extra on our bills just so the rich can get richer!!


Well some people have tried y'know, but it's Wee Eck's government and targets that the fight is against, and they are not easy to beat.  Take the example of Baillie wind farm, currently under construction. The local residents and others had hundreds of letters against it, the councillors voted against it, and when it went to public enquiry the report read like it wanted to say no, but recommended for it.  We should have appealed the decision but it could have cost upward of £20,000 and we simply couldn't afford it.  The developers have very deep pockets indeed and so can pay their way to win every time if needed.  When the government has already made up its mind, and the enquiry reporter does what he's told by the same government, whats the point in fighting at all?

----------


## gingernut

> No I afraid it isn't, not until enough people say "Enough is enough" !!!
> If you look at the English news on windfarms it's people power that stops them being built, they kick up a fuss, they demonstrate, they get petitions, they threaten not to vote for their Councillors. What do we do in Caithness to stop this madness?  Nothing, absolutely nothing at all, we let them walk all over us, let them ruin our beautiful landscape and then the cheek of it is we have to pay extra on our bills just so the rich can get richer!!
> Time to stand up and be counted I reckon!!! 
> 
> 
> 
> C3...................



Yes en masse NIMBYism is the answer. As you say Gronnuck what's so  wrong with NIMBYism when we are being so blatantly exploited by greedy  fat cats.

----------


## oldchemist

It won't be a problem - it will be painted with the same reflective paint as the windmills offshore Trump's golf course and will therefore be invisible (see report in today's (April 1st) Sunday Mail.

----------


## billmoseley

A great place to put 1 0r more always windy nice and open. most of the birds are flying low to the cliffs or out to sea so they will be fine. just keep the lights on and power to my pc.  ::

----------


## Alrock

> Is NIMBYism so wrong?


Yes... If you want to object to windfarms then object to them in general, not just when they are going to be built in your "back yard"

I myself have no objection to windfarms in principle... they don't ruin the look of the land (though they could be more imaginative with the colour), if you really want to preserve the wilderness as nature intended then all roads should be ripped up, houses demolished, fencing removed, livestock removed, etc, then & only then will you have true wilderness.

What I do object to is the huge subsidies paid to landowners & I do question the economic sense of building so many small windfarms with the attached infrastructure needed when the could build fewer but larger windfarms.

----------


## gingernut

> Yes... If you want to object to windfarms then object to them in general, not just when they are going to be built in your "back yard"
> 
> I myself have no objection to windfarms in principle... they don't ruin the look of the land (though they could be more imaginative with the colour), if you really want to preserve the wilderness as nature intended then all roads should be ripped up, houses demolished, fencing removed, livestock removed, etc, then & only then will you have true wilderness.
> 
> What I do object to is the huge subsidies paid to landowners & I do question the economic sense of building so many small windfarms with the attached infrastructure needed when the could build fewer but larger windfarms.


And how do you know that I haven't objected to windfarms in general? You are just assuming that I am a NIMBY. In fact you are very very wrong.

----------


## Alrock

> And how do you know that I haven't objected to windfarms in general? You are just assuming that I am a NIMBY. In fact you are very very wrong.


OK... Please do accept my apology, but you do have to admit there is a lot of NIMBYism around such issues.

----------


## Sgitheanach

What is so wrong with wind turbines they will only be there for 20 to 25 years

----------


## ywindythesecond

It is not an April Fool. There is a pre-application notification to Highland Council for a single 500kw turbine on the road to Dunnet Head. It would be 86metres to the blade tip. 
It would earn £367,920 a year of which £45,990 is electricity and £321,930 is subsidy. The subsidy is taken from your electricity bill. Over the 20 year guaranteed inflation-proof contract the subsidy will come to £6,438,600. From your electricity bill. Check it out at www.fitariffs.co.uk and see how bad it already is at www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk 

_It would attract payments under the Feed-in Tariff scheme of 21p/kwh (the proposed reduced tariff due to take effect in October 2012). It is in a good windy spot so it is reasonable to assume that it will work at 35% Load Factor. The electricity supplier the developer uses will pay the developer 21p per kwh generated plus about 3p if the electricity is exported to the grid. As there are no consumers directly connected to this machine, the income per kwh will be 24p or thereabouts. Annual income will be 500kw times 24 hours a day times 365 days a year times 35% load factor times 24p = £367,920. In the case of FiTs, the cost of the subsidy is spread around all the electricity supplier's other customers. That means you! If you don't have a small wind turbine or PV panel you pay directly for the electricity used by people who do have them, and also for their substantial income.
The only other "benefit" gained is that the electricity was generated by renewables thus helping to meet a meaningless Eureopean directive.
_

----------


## Rheghead

> It would earn £367,920 a year of which £45,990 is electricity and £321,930 is subsidy.


Therefore (£321,930/£0.21)/(500kW X 8760) =35%

So you accept that wind farms in Caithness have a load factor of  35% then?  Your words or do you just use the right information when it suits you?  ::

----------


## ywindythesecond

> Therefore (£321,930/£0.21)/(500kW X 8760) =35%
> 
> So you accept that wind farms in Caithness have a load factor of 35% then? Your words or do you just use the right information when it suits you?


Forss operates around 42%. Causeymire around 29%. Dunnet head is sort of in between, I made specific reference to this precise location. Instead of nitpicking tell me if my calculations are otherwise correct.
Here is another calculation.
There are currently 41 seperate small FiTs-earning wind turbine schemes in the planning system in Caithness alone at present with a total capacity of 1462MW and falling into the 21p per unit for FiTs. If we assume that the average Load Factor is 25% across Caithness then the rest of us have to find £969,101 every year to pay to the turbine owners, or another £19,382,026 over 20 years on top of the £6 million or so for the Dunnet Head Turbine. 
Are my calculations right or wrong? Have I described the funding arrangements for Feed-in Tariffs correctly or not?

By the way, you did not have to do the calculation for 35%, it was done for you in the small print.
﻿

----------


## badger

> What is so wrong with wind turbines they will only be there for 20 to 25 years


Even if they last that long, and many won't especially offshore, there's no guarantee they will be removed when the companies owning them have changed hands several times.  In theory they're supposed to but in practice, who knows?   California has thousands of rusting useless turbines.  The damage done to the ground by massive concrete bases, access tracks etc. is permanent.  

and Corrie 3, some of us despair over the apathy up here when we see thousands turning out in Wales to save their beautiful countryside.  Protests are organised but very few people up here bother to attend.  Have a look at what is being done to Camster now before the turbines have even arrived and get a glimpse into the future.  If you want to know what's happening, look at the local website http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/index.htm 

I wouldn't be surprised if the turbine proposed for Dunnet Head isn't the first of many.  Who will want to visit the most northerly point in Scotland then?

----------


## Alrock

> ..... California has thousands of rusting useless turbines.  The damage done to the ground by massive concrete bases, access tracks etc. is permanent.


So... Has California's tourism industry collapsed because of it?




> Who will want to visit the most northerly point in Scotland then?


Not many do anyway, most buy into the hype & visit John O' Groats instead.

----------


## gleeber

I would be more concerned about the road widening needed to bring the turbine to its destination. It would cost millions just to get it there. Ive not followed the windmill debate very closely because they dont bother me but I was talking to an older mannie yesterday and hes followed the windmill racket since it began. Its about time the economics of windmills was investigated because of the amounts of money involved. Many millions and a wealthy landowner but that doesnt matter. Well at least not to me. Thats life but theres no way a turbine can be built at Dunnet head without major road construction including bridges. I would be surprised if it happened.

----------


## Alrock

> ...theres no way a turbine can be built at Dunnet head without major road construction including bridges. I would be surprised if it happened.


Hmmmm.... Major road improvements up to Dunnet Head... Could be a massive boost for tourism then.

----------


## Rheghead

> Forss operates around 42%. Causeymire around 29%. Dunnet head is sort of in between, I made specific reference to this precise location. Instead of nitpicking tell me if my calculations are otherwise correct.
> Here is another calculation.
> There are currently 41 seperate small FiTs-earning wind turbine schemes in the planning system in Caithness alone at present with a total capacity of 1462MW and falling into the 21p per unit for FiTs. If we assume that the average Load Factor is 25% across Caithness then the rest of us have to find £969,101 every year to pay to the turbine owners, or another £19,382,026 over 20 years on top of the £6 million or so for the Dunnet Head Turbine. 
> Are my calculations right or wrong? Have I described the funding arrangements for Feed-in Tariffs correctly or not?
> 
> By the way, you did not have to do the calculation for 35%, it was done for you in the small print.


You have often placed it as a criticism that load factors are low for wind farms, in fact you claim dubiously that it is 21.4% average across the UK.  Since now you are claiming that the load factor is 35% for Caithness then you make no argument against further wind development in the county.  In fact you make the case for more development.  Shame on you if you think there is enough.  Perhaps it is you that is the reason why there is so much wind farms here?

As an aside, I was in conversation with a prominent person in planning and he said the prominent personalities of the anti-wind brigade are well known to them by now and the planning dept are basically keeping a book on all of their appearances and activities.  Since the antis come out with a stonewall nay campaign, regurgitating old debunked arguments with little acknowledgement for the merits of wind then increasingly he said that they are heeding less the anti message as being bogus.

----------


## ywindythesecond

> You have often placed it as a criticism that load factors are low for wind farms, in fact you claim dubiously that it is 21.4% average across the UK. Since now you are claiming that the load factor is 35% for Caithness then you make no argument against further wind development in the county. In fact you make the case for more development. Shame on you if you think there is enough. Perhaps it is you that is the reason why there is so much wind farms here?
> 
> As an aside, I was in conversation with a prominent person in planning and he said the prominent personalities of the anti-wind brigade are well known to them by now and the planning dept are basically keeping a book on all of their appearances and activities. Since the antis come out with a stonewall nay campaign, regurgitating old debunked arguments with little acknowledgement for the merits of wind then increasingly he said that they are heeding less the anti message as being bogus.


Can't you read?

----------


## Nigel Shelton

Not heard that one but your right it would be madness, King Salmond wont be happy till he covers the whole of the North with his horrible turbines. Tip for aspiring entrepreneurs, get into recycling windturbines cos in a few years time there will be a glut of them to be scrapped when we all come to our senses and realise they wont do the job.

----------


## Rheghead

> Can't you read?


Yes I can read but I see you are serving up a banquet of Michelin style food inter-spaced with side plates of dog poo.  Despite the lovely morsels on offer, no one in their right mind would be prepared to sit and dine.

----------


## badger

> Not heard that one but your right it would be madness, King Salmond wont be happy till he covers the whole of the North with his horrible turbines. Tip for aspiring entrepreneurs, get into recycling windturbines cos in a few years time there will be a glut of them to be scrapped when we all come to our senses and realise they wont do the job.


Don't think I'd recommend that as a career move unless they can come up with some unpolluting method of recycling as at present the blades at least can't be, which is why they're piling up in landfill, and the rest isn't much better.  Doubt very much if they'll be picking bits out of the oceans either but hey, who cares?

----------


## John Little

Like painting a moustache on the Mona Lisa.

----------


## gingernut

> Yes I can read but I see you are serving up a banquet of Michelin style food inter-spaced with side plates of dog poo.  Despite the lovely morsels on offer, no one in their right mind would be prepared to sit and dine.


Well at least there's something edible in there, unlike most of what you serve up Rheghead!

----------


## Rheghead

> Well at least there's something edible in there, unlike most of what you serve up Rheghead!


My cuisine may be unsavory to some but at least it is an honest meal.

----------


## Gronnuck

Honesty doesn't come into it!  IMO the whole subsidised green energy system is morally repugnant because it robs the less well off, particularly the poor, to pay the better off and the well-to-do investors.  I would have no objection to wind farms if it could be shown that were to be distributed across the whole country and there was a master plan.  As things are I get the impression that in Scotland it’s a free-for-all to satisfy Wee Eck’s ego.  Honesty? You’re having a laugh!  I'll start to believe the greens when electricity prices remain the same for at least three years running and will be 'converted' when energy prices begin to fall; in truth I can't see that happening in my lifetime.

----------


## gardenergirl

> As an aside, I was in conversation with a prominent person in planning and he said the prominent personalities of the anti-wind brigade are well known to them by now and the planning dept are basically keeping a book on all of their appearances and activities. Since the antis come out with a stonewall nay campaign, regurgitating old debunked arguments with little acknowledgement for the merits of wind then increasingly he said that they are heeding less the anti message as being bogus.


I wonder who coined the phrase NIMBYism, as a convenient way of belittling the valid opinions and concerns of the local people who these schemes affect the most? And if the above is true then people really don't seem to have the right to protest against anything, whether you're a small-minded NIMBYist, or a militant campaigner. No wonder people have given up the fight, what's the bloody point?  ::

----------


## Corrie 3

> My cuisine may be unsavory to some but at least it is an honest meal.


I would sooner starve!!!

C3............... ::

----------


## Rheghead

> I would sooner starve!!!
> 
> C3...............


Some SNPer you are, it is all wee Eck pushing it, how that make you feel?

----------


## david

> Some SNPer you are, it is all wee Eck pushing it, how that make you feel?


Not very hungry for tripe.

----------


## Rheghead

> Honesty doesn't come into it!  IMO the whole subsidised green energy system is morally repugnant because it robs the less well off, particularly the poor, to pay the better off and the well-to-do investors.  I would have no objection to wind farms if it could be shown that were to be distributed across the whole country and there was a master plan.  As things are I get the impression that in Scotland it’s a free-for-all to satisfy Wee Eck’s ego.  Honesty? You’re having a laugh!  I'll start to believe the greens when electricity prices remain the same for at least three years running and will be 'converted' when energy prices begin to fall; in truth I can't see that happening in my lifetime.


I share some of your concerns except one.  I dislike the idea of a masterplan, that sums up images of an authoritative state pushing through their agenda without heed to due planning.  Though it is cynically said that is what happens now.  

As for renewable energy being expensive and unaffordable for the poor then I whole heartedly disagree.  This week EON and RWE pulled out of nuclear in UK because of the expense of building new sites.  Fossil fuels are going to get more expensive on the global markets as the emerging economies of the East start to out bid us for their own growth, plus they will ever attract more carbon taxes as climate change bites even deeper.

Renewable energies are the only solution to decoupling the price of energy from the rising costs of fossil fuels which are the prime driver of rising energy costs.

----------


## ducati

> I share some of your concerns except one. I dislike the idea of a masterplan, that sums up images of an authoritative state pushing through their agenda without heed to due planning. Though it is cynically said that is what happens now. 
> 
> As for renewable energy being expensive and unaffordable for the poor then I whole heartedly disagree. This week EON and RWE pulled out of nuclear in UK because of the expense of building new sites. Fossil fuels are going to get more expensive on the global markets as the emerging economies of the East start to out bid us for their own growth, plus they will ever attract more carbon taxes as climate change bites even deeper.
> 
> Renewable energies are the only solution to decoupling the price of energy from the rising costs of fossil fuels which are the prime driver of rising energy costs.


Surely subsidies replace the rising cost of fossil fuel in energy generation? Otherwise energy from renewable sources would be cheaper wouldn't it?

Sum for me is;
 cost of building power station = cost of building renewable devices
Cost of fueling power station = (an amount)
Cost of fueling renewable devices = zero

Cost of energy= the same....why?

----------


## Phill

> Renewable energies are the only solution to decoupling the price of energy from the rising costs of fossil fuels which are the prime driver of rising energy costs.


One thing I find interesting is the fact that, on the surface, renewables are the future. If, as you point out, renewables can help readjust the rising cost of energy then there is a good business plan for investment.
However, no private enterprise seems to be running with windfarms without subsidy.
What's the problem?

----------


## Rheghead

> Surely subsidies replace the rising cost of fossil fuel in energy generation? Otherwise energy from renewable sources would be cheaper wouldn't it?


Well let me first redress the language being used.  

The Renewable Obligation is an _incentive_ not a subsidy.  A subsidy is a payment to keep an old, mature and unprofitable business going to offset the deleterious effects of closure.  An incentive is aimed at encouraging growth of a new business in the face of competition from mature business.

The fact that anti-wind groups want an end to the RO is because it is working, it is doing what it says on the tin.

In answer to your question, onshore wind energy is already competitive with fossil fuels even with the RO.  Banding of the RO allows politicians to increase or decrease as fit to protect consumers from too much payments as RO.  But we cannot build a low carbon economy on onshore wind alone, nobody wants the UK countryside becoming a forest of turbines.

----------


## Rheghead

> It would earn £367,920 a year of which £45,990 is electricity and £321,930 is subsidy.



So, let me get this straight, an energy provider like SSE will buy the electricity from the turbine developer @3p per kWh, (or £45,990 per year) and SSE will sell that energy on to the consumers at 16.5p per kWh (Standard Tariff charge), or £252,945 per year?

Even with the incentive, they are just paying 23% more for the electricity and t is hardly going to push up the price of electricity in the mix of other energy sources.

----------


## ywindythesecond

> So, let me get this straight, an energy provider like SSE will buy the electricity from the turbine developer @3p per kWh, (or £45,990 per year) and SSE will sell that energy on to the consumers at 16.5p per kWh (Standard Tariff charge), or £252,945 per year?
> 
> Even with the incentive, they are just paying 23% more for the electricity and t is hardly going to push up the price of electricity in the mix of other energy sources.


I see you are having trouble grasping this Reggy. The SSE also pass on the subsidy paid by them to the selfsame generator to their other customers. Don't forget my figures are at point of generation and your 16.5p is at point of supply so all the admin distribution maintenace profit etc costs also get added to the FiTs cost at point of supply.
Go to http://www.fitariffs.co.uk/FITs/ and after you have read all that, follow the link to "Who pays for the FiTs". It is explained very clearly, I imagine you will manage to follow it.

----------


## Rheghead

> The SSE also pass on the subsidy paid by them to the selfsame generator to their other customers.


Have you any proof of this being anything substantial, I think the real reason for increases to bills are fossil fuel increases?  I suspect you are just playing up the negatives again, yawn.

----------


## Scout

> I see you are having trouble grasping this Reggy. The SSE also pass on the subsidy paid by them to the selfsame generator to their other customers. Don't forget my figures are at point of generation and your 16.5p is at point of supply so all the admin distribution maintenace profit etc costs also get added to the FiTs cost at point of supply.
> Go to http://www.fitariffs.co.uk/FITs/ and after you have read all that, follow the link to "Who pays for the FiTs". It is explained very clearly, I imagine you will manage to follow it.


I thought this makes interesting reading 

*Existing nuclear subsidies* Of course, subsidies already exist. Here are six of them:
 1. Charles Hendry, Minister of State for Energy,  has just made nuclear power even more expensive for operators (although  this move was widely expected), by announcing on Friday that the  operator's liability in the event of a nuclear accident will be raised  from £140 million to 1.2bn, or just over £1 billion.
 This removes some of what is an effective subsidy  from the taxpayer to nuclear operators. However, in the event of a  really serious accident, there is no doubt that the cost of reparation  would be much higher than £1 billion: £800 billion is the current level  of the cleanup bill at Fukushima. And this will be borne by the  taxpayer.
 2. Under the proposed Electricity Market Reform,  the Contracts for Difference Feed in Tariffs will provide a subsidy of  between £63 billion and £75 billion to EDF, the only nuclear player left  in town, over the next 35 years. That is nearly £2.0 billion a year.
 3. Waste disposal costs will also be subsidised  since the Government has proposed capping the nuclear industrys  liabilities. Currently, DECC spends £6.93 billion a year, 86% of its  budget, on managing nuclear waste and other liabilities from Britains  current nuclear power programme: over eight times more than it spends on  securing our future energy and climate security.
 4. The four campaigners calculate that it is  likely that new nuclear build in Britain will require the creation of  special purpose financing mechanisms to protect the balance sheets of  the proposers, even a well-apitalised company like EDF in the form of  loan guarantees.
 5. Dozens of agencies, offices, quangos and  departments support the nuclear industry, costing billions of pounds per  year. Similar levels of support do not exist for other low carbon  technologies.
 6. Finally, it is impossible to have nuclear power  without huge security and counter-terrorism costs. Most of this is paid  for by the taxpayer, but official secrecy prevents us from knowing how  much.
 These and other ways in which the taxpayer supports nuclear power and  will support new nuclear power stations, are summarised in a briefing prepared for the government this week by antinuclear ex-directors of Friends of the Earth, Tom Burke, Tony Juniper, Jonathon Porritt and Charles Secrett.
*It's not just the UK* The same S-word dilemma is occurring everywhere and getting worse. And it's not just woolly eco-freaks saying so.
 At a symposium this week on the Future of Nuclear Power hosted by the  Dick Thornburgh Forum for Law and Public Policy of the University of  Pittsburgh, this extremely authoritative and august body, speaking from a  birthplace of nuclear power, admitted the following in a comprehensive report on Nuclear Safety and Nuclear Economics, written by Mark Cooper, Ph.D., Senior Fellow for Economic Analysis, at the Institute for Energy and the Environment:
 "The subsidy problem in nuclear reactor construction has actually become much more severe," he writes.
 Besides increased liabilities resulting from heightened safety  awareness following the Fukushima accident, "The utilities proposing new  nuclear reactors have demanded many more and larger direct subsidies".
 He continues: "Since construction of nuclear reactors cannot be  financed in normal capital markets, federal loan guarantees and  partnership with public power that has independent bonding authority  appear to be necessary ingredients to move projects forward."
 We shouldn't have to point out the ludicrous irony of the Tory part  of the coalition, which is the half that actively supports nuclear  power, relying on a socialist French government, which supports a  nationalised industry, to bring about with British subsidies the nuclear  power it wants in the UK.
*Why not just abandon nuclear power?* All of this makes absurd the claim, continually made by Government,  that nuclear power is the cheapest form of new generation energy. Most  recently highlighted in its 2011 update of the costs of new generation capacity.
 If even just one of EDF's proposed new nuclear power stations goes  ahead (and they still haven't submitted a timetable for construction)  there is absolutely no doubt that the country will regret it in the  future.
 And to those who say we need nuclear newbuild to combat climate  change, I say with the billions saved from scrapping all the currents  subsidies listed above we could build the equivalent amount of new  renewable generation plants and install more energy saving products far  quicker and with far better value for money and providing far more  British jobs.

----------


## ywindythesecond

> I thought this makes interesting reading


It makes very interesting reading Scout but it is completely off topic.  FiTs rewards individual investors at the expense of all other consumers, including those with the least means to pay for it. It is not a subsidy to a generation industry, it is a political process gone completely wrong. Please take the time to go to the links I provided and see for yourself.

----------


## Scout

> It makes very interesting reading Scout but it is completely off topic.  FiTs rewards individual investors at the expense of all other consumers, including those with the least means to pay for it. It is not a subsidy to a generation industry, it is a political process gone completely wrong. Please take the time to go to the links I provided and see for yourself.


No I think it is the same argument you are saying we all will pay for power by subsidies not just wind farms etc. It seems power stations will be much higher to run in the end. If I am correct you support power stations?  I may of got this wrong as well but is this not saying about feeding in to tariffs one of them would be power stations. Again I thought that was your argument for small scale wind turbines                                      

Under the proposed Electricity Market Reform,  the Contracts for  Difference Feed in Tariffs will provide a subsidy of  between £63  billion and £75 billion to EDF, the only nuclear player left  in town,  over the next 35 years. That is nearly £2.0 billion a year.

----------


## gingernut

No doubt the debate will continue... Are wind turbines effective or not? 
However, what I would like to know is ... Is there a limit to the number of turbines any one area should have inflicted upon them? Should anywhere be protected from them eg SSI's, National Parks etc?
It appears to me looking at the map of UK wind turbine distribution that Caithness already has more than its fair share of wind turbines and areas of the South of England have none, surprise surprise.
I understand that a lot of this is to do with people power and as was said earlier in this thread many people in Caithness obviously don't mind or don't care.

----------


## Alrock

Whether or not wind turbines should be built in the first place is another issue entirely, but since they are building wind turbines the most sensible place to build them is where it is the windiest & you have to admit, Caithness can be hell of a windy at times.

----------


## Phill

> ..............many people in Caithness obviously don't mind or don't care.


But, even if everyone objected it would only get about 16,000 objections.
Try lobbing them up in Milton Keynes and there is 200,000 people with an opinion.
Why haven't they put them on the front at Blackpool? Certainly wouldn't be an eyesore there, quite an improvement actually. But another 150,000 people with an opinion.

----------


## Scout

> But, even if everyone objected it would only get about 16,000 objections.
> Try lobbing them up in Milton Keynes and there is 200,000 people with an opinion.
> Why haven't they put them on the front at Blackpool? Certainly wouldn't be an eyesore there, quite an improvement actually. But another 150,000 people with an opinion.


I think you will find them in London and along the Kent Coast also in the Lake District

----------


## newweecroft

They do have a few on the sea front at blackpool, I agree however they do need many more.Once the country is sufficently populated by renewable energy sources we will finally be able to remove our reliance on fossil fuel. Untill these are in place we cannot. As such I believe the FiTs are an excellent way of encouraging new development, even if they are at present somewhat surplus.

----------


## spurtle

It doesn't matter how much we produce we will always  use more.Any council building , hospital ,banks and shops in the middle of winter everyone parading about in shirt sleeves with the heating cranked up, if people really care about being green use less energy -it doesn't solve the problem but it would help.It seems people think its a human right to wander about in their house in the depths of winter as if we're in the Bahamas.

----------


## ywindythesecond

> No I think it is the same argument you are saying we all will pay for power by subsidies not just wind farms etc. It seems power stations will be much higher to run in the end. If I am correct you support power stations? I may of got this wrong as well but is this not saying about feeding in to tariffs one of them would be power stations. Again I thought that was your argument for small scale wind turbines 
> 
> Under the proposed Electricity Market Reform, the Contracts for Difference Feed in Tariffs will provide a subsidy of between £63 billion and £75 billion to EDF, the only nuclear player left in town, over the next 35 years. That is nearly £2.0 billion a year.


I am talking very specifically about the Feed in Tariffs as in this DECC website, nothing else.
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cm...in_tariff.aspx

Under this scheme individuals who install small (or not so small) renewable generation units are paid by their electricity supplier for all electricity generated at a rate greater than the normal cost to the consumer even if they use it themselves, plus a little more if the electricity is sold to the supplier.  Electricity suppliers normally supply electricity and get paid for providing it. To pay someone else to generate electricity and get nothing for it is commercial suicide. But under FITS, the supplier is allowed to collect back the money it pays to people with a renewable energy generator, from the rest of its customers who don't have a renewable energy generator.

Scout, I am not trying to argue a point, I am trying to point people in the direction of understanding how FITS works so they can understand what an immoral scheme it is which takes money from the poorest people to give to those better off for no gain other than personal enrichment of the few and Government's satisfaction in saying "but it was generated by renewable means".

Go to http://www.fitariffs.co.uk/FITs/ and after you have read all that, follow the link to "Who pays for the FiTs". 

I see I will have to get to grips with "Contracts for Difference". I suspect it is yet another scam.

----------


## ywindythesecond

> Have you any proof of this being anything substantial, I think the real reason for increases to bills are fossil fuel increases? I suspect you are just playing up the negatives again, yawn.


I think that you probably *can* read, it is just that you *won't* read. Do try reading this;

 "Go to http://www.fitariffs.co.uk/FITs/ and after you have read all that, follow the link to "Who pays for the FiTs". It is explained very clearly, I imagine you will manage to follow it."

----------


## Rheghead

> I think that you probably *can* read, it is just that you *won't* read. Do try reading this;
> 
>  "Go to http://www.fitariffs.co.uk/FITs/ and after you have read all that, follow the link to "Who pays for the FiTs". It is explained very clearly, I imagine you will manage to follow it."


Oh I can follow it perfectly, it is your presentation and interpretation of the facts that I have a problem with(OK you are chairman of a anti-wind pressure group so you are expected not to acknowledge a balanced viewpoint).  You go on to say in the Groat that this feed-in tarriff is going to bankrupt the country and yet you have to admit that renewable energy incentives will just cost us just £15 each.  Overstating the negatives as usual and not putting things into perspective or the bigger picture.

BTW that 3p per kWh, isn't that an arbitrary figure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer determines rather than has any relevence to the real cost of wind energy?  In fact the true cost of wind energy is about 7p per kWh, I know that is true by the way so you don't need to answer even though I know you weren't be prepared to say otherwise.

That said, if the true cost of electricity is a lot higher then the developer will be getting underpaid for the electricity that he produces.  Suffice to say that some of the feed-in tariff goes some way to balance the books to make it attractive to invest in a wind generator.

----------


## ywindythesecond

> Oh I can follow it perfectly, it is your presentation and interpretation of the facts that I have a problem with(OK you are chairman of a anti-wind pressure group so you are expected not to acknowledge a balanced viewpoint). You go on to say in the Groat that this feed-in tarriff is going to bankrupt the country and yet you have to admit that renewable energy incentives will just cost us just £15 each. Overstating the negatives as usual and not putting things into perspective or the bigger picture.
> 
> BTW that 3p per kWh, isn't that an arbitrary figure that the Chancellor of the Exchequer determines rather than has any relevence to the real cost of wind energy? In fact the true cost of wind energy is about 7p per kWh, I know that is true by the way so you don't need to answer even though I know you weren't be prepared to say otherwise.
> 
> That said, if the true cost of electricity is a lot higher then the developer will be getting underpaid for the electricity that he produces. Suffice to say that some of the feed-in tariff goes some way to balance the books to make it attractive to invest in a wind generator.


Please tell us who pays for Feed in Tarrif income to those fortunate enough to have a small(ish) scale renewable energy generator.

----------


## Errogie

I always direct folk to Dunnet Head as the real end of G.B. experience as compared to John o' Groats. The great little minor road experience winding through the peat banks and lochans is a gem and I camped out there again last summer. Widening and straightening out that approach to allow the turbine bits in will unfortunately spoil it for me plus of course the object itself.


When the Drapers first bought the place they tried to stop the public taking access to the superb little beach to the north of and under the house of the Northern Gate and after there was a public hue and cry they backed off. I think they may have got it badly wrong again for iconic Dunnet Head. It would be like attaching a satelite dish to a church spire.

----------


## Scout

> I always direct folk to Dunnet Head as the real end of G.B. experience as compared to John o' Groats. The great little minor road experience winding through the peat banks and lochans is a gem and I camped out there again last summer. Widening and straightening out that approach to allow the turbine bits in will unfortunately spoil it for me plus of course the object itself.
> 
> 
> When the Drapers first bought the place they tried to stop the public taking access to the superb little beach to the north of and under the house of the Northern Gate and after there was a public hue and cry they backed off. I think they may have got it badly wrong again for iconic Dunnet Head. It would be like attaching a satelite dish to a church spire.


I think you will find they were correct in what they were saying no one had the right to walk that is why Scottish parliament produced the right to roam act. I also note you have not mention the two wind turbines that are already up on Dunnet Head ok lot smaller but they are up and running. I see you also add to the local area camping out at Dunnet head and not the camp site at Dunnet beach.

----------


## Errogie

Yes, we did have a right to walk the Scottish countryside before Part 1 of the Land Reform Scotland Act. The legislation was a confirmatory Act for established common law rights which were being increasingly challenged by incomers without any knowledge or awareness of Scottish tradition and culture , however the route to the beach was also a public right of way (connecting two public places, use for more than 20 years without challenge and without seeking permission).

You should also be aware that the the Act conferrs a right to "wild" camp within the parameters of the Scottish Countryside Access Code but in fact I slept in the back of my van. There are three basic human rights which require to be under constant surveilance. These are the the right to freedom of speech, freedom of worship and the freedom to move over the surface of the planet and in this latter Scotland now leads the world unlike the USA and its much vaunted slogan of the  "Land of the Free".

----------


## ywindythesecond

> Yes, we did have a right to walk the Scottish countryside before Part 1 of the Land Reform Scotland Act. The legislation was a confirmatory Act for established common law rights which were being increasingly challenged by incomers without any knowledge or awareness of Scottish tradition and culture , however the route to the beach was also a public right of way (connecting two public places, use for more than 20 years without challenge and without seeking permission).
> 
> You should also be aware that the the Act conferrs a right to "wild" camp within the parameters of the Scottish Countryside Access Code but in fact I slept in the back of my van. There are three basic human rights which require to be under constant surveilance. These are the the right to freedom of speech, freedom of worship and the freedom to move over the surface of the planet and in this latter Scotland now leads the world unlike the USA and its much vaunted slogan of the "Land of the Free".


Well said Errogie but perhaps there is another human right to be added to your list and that would be the right to decline to contribute to one's neighbour's "small" wind, hydro, or PV generation income stream.

----------


## Scout

> Yes, we did have a right to walk the Scottish countryside before Part 1 of the Land Reform Scotland Act. The legislation was a confirmatory Act for established common law rights which were being increasingly challenged by incomers without any knowledge or awareness of Scottish tradition and culture , however the route to the beach was also a public right of way (connecting two public places, use for more than 20 years without challenge and without seeking permission).
> 
> You should also be aware that the the Act conferrs a right to "wild" camp within the parameters of the Scottish Countryside Access Code but in fact I slept in the back of my van. There are three basic human rights which require to be under constant surveilance. These are the the right to freedom of speech, freedom of worship and the freedom to move over the surface of the planet and in this latter Scotland now leads the world unlike the USA and its much vaunted slogan of the  "Land of the Free".



I agree with your points you have raised that did not make it right however as you say Land Reform Act gives clear right now for both sides  and it seems to work  coming back to what this thread is about it is also the right of a crofter farmer landowner to apply for planning on his or her land it is also the right for the public to object or to support personal attacks on family's who make these applications will not have any effect on the out come of the planning application. 


Well said Errogie but perhaps there is another human right to be added  to your list and that would be the right to decline to contribute to  one's neighbour's "small" wind, hydro, or PV generation income stream.  		

Would that also include power stations ?  I may be wrong here they are talking about building 10 power station in the UK. Where would these be built? I wonder if power stations to be built not far from homes how would people feel I would think if it was between Power station and wind turbine I am sure I would have a good bet of the out come would be. 

I have pointed out before in the Lake District wind farm has been built I was there last year the number of tourist in that area I am sure if Caithness had half that number of people  you would be very happy.

----------


## Errogie

Of course when you acquire a legal title to land that title includes certain rights to initiate development, however in Scotland I have always understood that your title is termed an "interest" in land rather than the more comprehensive "fee simple absolute" met south of the border. This Scottish law based "interest" is different in that it recognises the historic feudal connection to the monarch and by consequence the monarch's wider subject base.
So what I am saying is that the privelege of land ownership in our country should in theory conferr less autocratic and more sensitive behaviour than in England.

However given the plethora of rules, regulations and taxation within which a landowner has to operate (plus the Feudal Reform Act) no land owner has an easy ride. The bottom line is that Dunnet Head for me and I suspect many others is a very special place ever since I completed my Boy Scout first class hike around its edges and I would not be happy to meet a large turbine on this national treasure. I've said it before, when I see a wind turbine on Arthur's Seat then I'll know the Scottish Government's wind farm policy is being equably carried out!    


So far as power stations are concerned I live within 3 miles of a pump storage hydro scheme and having been brought up next to Dounereay am supportive of nuclear in the long term as the best answer to reliable power even allowing for the obvious problems which I believe can be resolved.  How do you square a dislike of nuclear when our supplies are being cheerfully topped up from the French connection?

----------

