View Full Version : Another wind farm - Yarrows
Locals have all received a brochure extolling the virtues of a nine-turbine wind farm on top of the Yarrows Hills. This is described under the name Burn of Whilk - an obscure name being a usual ploy of developers who are trying to get away with unsuitable schemes.
An intrusion of this sort into that famous and beautiful archaeological landscape is surely a step too far. As we have seen in the past, a small scheme eventually becomes a much larger one, and the viability of 9 turbines with the length of access road to be constructed is surely not tenable.
Anyone who loves Caithness and has a care for our wonderful archaeological heritage must feel a thrill of horror at the very idea.
Archaeology
The impact of the Burn of Whilk Wind Farm was assessed in terms of heritage, and cultural
value of the landscape. The assessment showed that 195 sites and monuments lie up to 5 km
away from the site.
From a heritage perspective, none of these sites would be directly impacted upon by the
proposed development the impact and it is considered that the proposed development area is
close to optimal for this region. The site itself lies in a fold of the land on the east side of a
ridge that separates it visually from the coastal plane to the south. The land to the north is
high and exposed to view from all directions and the land to the east is monument rich and
would entail high risks of physical impacts on the heritage of the site. Therefore the potential
alternatives can be shown to be more likely to impact adversely on heritage sites and
monuments, either physically or visually or both.
From a visual impact perspective, none of the sites were predicted to be significantly
impacted by the wind farm. At the majority of the sites, the impact was considered to be
negligible. The impact of the visibility of the wind farm from these sites does not impact on a
sightline that was designed or built-in to the monument. The ability of the sites and
monuments in the surveyed catchment to inform this and future generations is thus not
compromised in any way by the proposed development.
In terms of the impact of the development on the cultural value of the landscape itself, wind
farms can be viewed as only the most recent in a succession of land uses deemed by
contemporaneous societies to be appropriate in marginal areas.
On balance, it is concluded that heritage impacts alone are not sufficient to rule out the
development of the proposed wind farm.
Taken from the Environmental Statement.
Taken from the Environmental Statement.
Which is produced by the developers so they would say that, wouldn't they?
Gives the Council a dilemma as they support this as a historical site and a tourist attraction.
Taken from the Environmental Statement.
Well, how predictable Rheghead - - Yarrows is an archaeological landscape of major importance, and the individual sites are not the issue. There are, elsewhere, better examples of almost every individual type of monument at Yarrows. However, almost nowhere is there such a concentration (and it is not a haphazard one) of neolithic funerary monuments and this has put Yarrows at the top of H.C's list of heritage areas requiring special protection in the current Highland structure plan.
The benefit in terms of elecricity generation to the nation or even to our own area would be negligeable.
Which is produced by the developers so they would say that, wouldn't they?
Gives the Council a dilemma as they support this as a historical site and a tourist attraction.
It is published by the developers but the assessments are made by independent bodies.
The benefit in terms of elecricity generation to the nation or even to our own area would be negligeable.
I wouldn't say energy for 11,000 homes is negligible.
I wouldn't say energy for 11,000 homes is negligible.
Do you really believe that Rheghead? been a bit still for the last week.
Hmm a typical turbine-lovers take on it..
Don't you understand 'splendour' 'openness' the certain 'something' that is the Highlands?. Instead we have industrial monsters intermittently producing pathetic amounts of electricity that the National Grid often won't take, but we still pay these rich developers..
What is it Rheghead? you don't understand the unspoilt beauty of the Highlands, you are quite happy to despoil the heritage of open skies with wind factories, they will never make an iota to perceived global warming.. More useless machines; no matter what the damage, or the upsets suffered by those who are forced to live near them?. We know that so-called 'local democracy' is non-existent up here, 'Scottish Reporter' over-rules the lot.. well it is big business - Philistine most certainly springs to mind.
But hey, who am I?, Yes, like you, Rheghead, I too am an incomer, but I love the Highlands, I do 'my bit' for the Planet; my home is more insulated than most, energy saving bulbs? had those 20 years ago - did you?
But to destroy wantonly our grandchildren's heritage for what? these turbines will/ do not make one jot of difference to 'save the planet' - ask James Lovelock; Humans 'Not Clever Enough' to Stop Climate Change.. we will do our best, by other means but turbines are one big money-making con.. :~(
I wouldn't say energy for 11,000 homes is negligible.
You know perfectly well that the stated capacity of 11,000 homes is a joke compared with the actual product.
It is probably the most expensive and least reliable way of producing electricity. the whole thing is a monstrous scam and the only winners are the rent-receiving landlords and the power companies, who, incidentally, are also paid money to compensate them for long windless periods such as we had last winter.
On the other hand, even if they only generate paltry amounts of electricity, what they do generate are large subsidies, grants, expensive leases etc for the great benefit of a few people at the expense of everyone else.
Without these, you would not see a single turbine going up anywhere.
You know perfectly well that the stated capacity of 11,000 homes is a joke compared with the actual product.
It is probably the most expensive and least reliable way of producing electricity. the whole thing is a monstrous scam and the only winners are the rent-receiving landlords and the power companies, who, incidentally, are also paid money to compensate them for long windless periods such as we had last winter.
On the other hand, even if they only generate paltry amounts of electricity, what they do generate are large subsidies, grants, expensive leases etc for the great benefit of a few people at the expense of everyone else.
Without these, you would not see a single turbine going up anywhere.
I know perfectly well that coal, gas and nuclear industries receive £billions of subsidies each year. So they are a scam as well by that logic.
Tubthumper
05-Jul-10, 10:59
How many full-time jobs will be created?
Do you really believe that Rheghead? been a bit still for the last week.
Hmm a typical turbine-lovers take on it..
Don't you understand 'splendour' 'openness' the certain 'something' that is the Highlands?. Instead we have industrial monsters intermittently producing pathetic amounts of electricity that the National Grid often won't take, but we still pay these rich developers..
What is it Rheghead? you don't understand the unspoilt beauty of the Highlands, you are quite happy to despoil the heritage of open skies with wind factories, they will never make an iota to perceived global warming.. More useless machines; no matter what the damage, or the upsets suffered by those who are forced to live near them?. We know that so-called 'local democracy' is non-existent up here, 'Scottish Reporter' over-rules the lot.. well it is big business - Philistine most certainly springs to mind.
But hey, who am I?, Yes, like you, Rheghead, I too am an incomer, but I love the Highlands, I do 'my bit' for the Planet; my home is more insulated than most, energy saving bulbs? had those 20 years ago - did you?
But to destroy wantonly our grandchildren's heritage for what? these turbines will/ do not make one jot of difference to 'save the planet' - ask James Lovelock; Humans 'Not Clever Enough' to Stop Climate Change.. we will do our best, by other means but turbines are one big money-making con.. :~(
Please discuss the issues rather than asking me what I think.
How many full-time jobs will be created?
2 fulltime jobs which compares favorably with agricultural farming over the same area.
Coal Nuclear and gas can provide power close to where it is needed, when it is needed reliably so not a scam. Paying for while elephants that lose 35% of what little they produce as it travels south is wasteful.
Yarrows is a magical place, quite aside from the archeological significance it deserves to be unsullied simply because it is tranquil and atmospheric.
Coal Nuclear and gas can provide power close to where it is needed, when it is needed reliably so not a scam. Paying for while elephants that lose 35% of what little they produce as it travels south is wasteful.
Yarrows is a magical place, quite aside from the archeological significance it deserves to be unsullied simply because it is tranquil and atmospheric.
Wind energy is not now required to provide energy when it is needed so I feel that may be a red herring for the moment. When our wind power portfolio reaches ~30GW then I accept we need more ways to deal with the variability of renewables. But there are ways. However we are well short of being in trouble at the present time.
The energy losses via power grid are ~2% not 35%.
The power energy loss may well be recorded as 2% once it reaches the national grid and I assume that the 2% loss is for all energy produced.The only wind farm that I have been involved with had a loss of 17% from the turbines to the sub station -Power was recorded for individual turbines and then again as it was received at the sub station this when they are only operating at 47% efficency anyway. But as the owner was getting the ROC the power produced was not a huge issue anyway.
Cant see how Burn of Whelk will have 2 full time employees when much larger windfarms have considerably less man hours/ kw
Yes and energy losses from substations etc are just a feature of the grid. It would make sense to get the most energy as possible from generation but we are living with an archaic grid.
The developers must have total contempt for the people and landscape of Caithness
To even suggest this site in the very early stages of the windification of the county, knowing the massive objections it will illicit-beggars belief :mad:
Green_not_greed
05-Jul-10, 12:21
It is published by the developers but the assessments are made by independent bodies.
More correctly, the "assessments" are made by consultants which are paid by the developers, to produce a document which meets the developers needs.
So not really "independent".....
There may well be an average of 2% losses on the grid but the figures I saw was from Caithness to major centres of population and that was quoted at 35%.
Tubthumper
05-Jul-10, 12:58
There may well be an average of 2% losses on the grid but the figures I saw was from Caithness to major centres of population and that was quoted at 35%.
That was one of the 'reasons' for further nuke power at Dounreay 'not being viable' as I heard. I always wondered what the difference between nuclear electricity and wind electricity was. I thought a volt was a volt?
Of course the Scottish Gov won't countenance it anyway, but there's still a whiff of burning insulation in the air.
Please discuss the issues rather than asking me what I think.
On reflection I think asking you, would indeed be counter productive, you certainly seem out of step with a lot on here.. I have received many PM's, this is one from an earlier post, obviously I'm not disclosing names, but this is a true and honest PM from one of many..
"Thank you, thank you, thank you Bekisman for those posts in response to Rheghead. My blood was boiling and I'm too much of a coward to post on this forum - I'm a shameful lurker!! Honestly I had to go for a long, long walk - through our glorious countryside - to calm down. He must be taking the mick, either that or he's completely lost it. I can now retire for the night. Oh the relief. Thank you once again."
Interesting that Bekisman has had so many PMs. If only folks would speak out, write more letters to the Press, join the local group to see what's happening http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/ (http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/) . Time is running out.
A fellow orger who doesn't like windfarms has produced this poster to show the future for Caithness.
oldmarine
05-Jul-10, 18:21
Looks to me like Rheghead has examined this quite thoroughly. The ideas he posted were not his but what he read.
In the states we have larger problems. I'm certain you have read about the large oil spill in the Gulf. We need to use more of what nature has to provide besides oil. Wind farms are one of those. Yes, we have to put up with unsightly wind mills, but that's better than all that oil washing up on the beaches. Nuclear energy is another source, but there are those who worry about how we devestated the land when we dropped the two A-bombs on Japan during WW2. I had always believed they saved me and my comrades lives when we dropped them. I spent nearly 3 years overseas fighting a big almost un-winable (or so it seemed at the time) war in the Pacific. You people had even a longer war in Europe.
Anyway, we must find cleaner energy. Another one I did not mention is sun energy. We have a lot of that here in sunny Tucson. Hopefully, our scientists and engineers can come up with acceptable form of that type energy for use.
Good luck powerin' yer Chevy Suburban on wind or sun power :lol:
ywindythesecond
05-Jul-10, 19:03
The developers must have total contempt for the people and landscape of Caithness
To even suggest this site in the very early stages of the windification of the county, knowing the massive objections it will illicit-beggars belief :mad:
I agree ducati. It beggars belief that anyone would think it a good idea, but even more belief-beggaring is the fact that the massive objections which should be illicited have not happened.
I frequently post the numbers of wind developments which are coming our way. You must have seen this. Have you recorded an objection to the " Burn of Whilk" aka Yarrows Archaeological Trail, windfarm? Or the others in the pipeline?
And the objections were needed a long time ago, but you are not too late to do it now.
Looks to me like Rheghead has examined this quite thoroughly. The ideas he posted were not his but what he read.
In the states we have larger problems. I'm certain you have read about the large oil spill in the Gulf. We need to use more of what nature has to provide besides oil. Wind farms are one of those. Yes, we have to put up with unsightly wind mills, but that's better than all that oil washing up on the beaches. Nuclear energy is another source, but there are those who worry about how we devestated the land when we dropped the two A-bombs on Japan during WW2. I had always believed they saved me and my comrades lives when we dropped them. I spent nearly 3 years overseas fighting a big almost un-winable (or so it seemed at the time) war in the Pacific. You people had even a longer war in Europe.
Anyway, we must find cleaner energy. Another one I did not mention is sun energy. We have a lot of that here in sunny Tucson. Hopefully, our scientists and engineers can come up with acceptable form of that type energy for use.
Now there's been a really bad disaster in the US with deep sea oil drilling, maybe someone will take notice of all the other oil spills there have been and the huge damage caused, not least in Niger. It will take a while before we find out what destruction is caused by windfarms although we already know much of it. Huge bird and bat kills are obvious (not that Govts. take much notice - funny how it's illegal unless caused by a windfarm), but what we don't yet know is how much damage they will cause in the oceans or even those huge lumps of concrete on land. How will marine life, already seriously threatened, cope with the added disruption, vibrations etc.?
Solar energy is the only thing I can think of that doesn't cause damage. Why is conservation of energy so low on the political agenda? I'll believe we are seriously worried about oil when they stop manufacturing gas guzzling cars and ban motor racing. Same goes for energy wasting electrical items.
Oh and btw, the US were not the only ones fighting in the Far East. There were plenty of us there, which tends to be forgotten. Like you I was rescued by those bombs - not my choice. Were they justified? That's another story.
More correctly, the "assessments" are made by consultants which are paid by the developers, to produce a document which meets the developers needs.
So not really "independent".....
More correctly, the developer has an obligation to pay for an independent study to be carried out. That independent body gets paid irrespective of what their investigation comes up with, so yes it is independent because they don't get paid to the satisfaction of the customer.
On reflection I think asking you, would indeed be counter productive, you certainly seem out of step with a lot on here.. I have received many PM's, this is one from an earlier post, obviously I'm not disclosing names, but this is a true and honest PM from one of many..
"Thank you, thank you, thank you Bekisman for those posts in response to Rheghead. My blood was boiling and I'm too much of a coward to post on this forum - I'm a shameful lurker!! Honestly I had to go for a long, long walk - through our glorious countryside - to calm down. He must be taking the mick, either that or he's completely lost it. I can now retire for the night. Oh the relief. Thank you once again."
I do not care what others think of me. I am only annoying to them because they make out they don't agree with what I say. A lot of the angle of antiwind is being in denial anyway.
Cinderella's Shoe
05-Jul-10, 20:13
Well good grief. I've been away from the .org for a good few months. Having come back for a quick look it seems that absolutely nothing has changed.
For the record, Rheghead, you'd seem to be the one in denial.
Are you acquainted with the term "numpty"?
I'm sorry, I'm all for green energy but the Yarrows?!
That beggars belief...
I'm sorry, I'm all for green energy but the Yarrows?!
That beggars belief...
That's why they're calling it Burn of Whilk, so no-one realises what they are actually talking about.
The developers and landowners will do almost anything to get these things through as there is so much money involved. Bettyhill started as 58 turbines - can you imagine those in that beauty spot? Even they realised it was pushing their luck so they reduced it to 2, which got passed. Don't tell me they went to all that expense and work for 2 turbines. Just wait, they'll add more as they are doing at Forss.
Well good grief. I've been away from the .org for a good few months. Having come back for a quick look it seems that absolutely nothing has changed.
For the record, Rheghead, you'd seem to be the one in denial.
Are you acquainted with the term "numpty"?
I've also been away for a good few months, coincidence?. It is a pity that you need to stoop low with insinuated insults rather than a fair discussion of the issues.
For the record, I think we need an overall strategy with regards to renewable energy in Highland which is fit-for-purpose to provide a low carbon economy.
We need to take harsh decisions now or otherwise it will be disaster. If we are seen to be NIMBY with the best renewable resources on our doorstep then what hope do we have for the international community to follow?
Any plan needs to add up and be fit for purpose. We also need to protect our most cherished landscapes from visual wind farm destruction. And we can only build renewable energy system on land where the landowners want such things on their land since we are in a supposed liberal society. We can only deal with the cards that are on the table, not like the Chinese who have the ability to bulldoze through local concerns.
Not having wind is not an option, we need to find space for 30GW of wind by 2020 so the turbines have to go somewhere. And if that means someone visiting a cairn that is 1km or whatever away from something that is providing energy to run our country then so be it. I think we need to find space for about 500MW of wind capacity in Caithness and we can only accept what is proposed.
Let us show to the world that we are willing to embrace change upon an ancient landscape for the better for nature and humanity.
Green_not_greed
05-Jul-10, 20:59
More correctly, the developer has an obligation to pay for an independent study to be carried out. That independent body gets paid irrespective of what their investigation comes up with, so yes it is independent because they don't get paid to the satisfaction of the customer.
Consultants may get paid for their work (and they should), but if the developer doesn't get the outcome they want in the first place they pay for either "further work" which may turn the original findings on their head, or will pay for another consultant altogether to come up with what they want. It is far from independent. An independent system would require developers to pay for an independent review of their "assessment" by a third party appointed by the relevant planning authority.
The current system is akin to historic UK government systems from the 1970s where the government sponsor, developer and regulator were all on the same side, answering to the same person, and often in the same building!
Its all just a bit too cosy for my liking.
I agree ducati. It beggars belief that anyone would think it a good idea, but even more belief-beggaring is the fact that the massive objections which should be illicited have not happened.
I frequently post the numbers of wind developments which are coming our way. You must have seen this. Have you recorded an objection to the " Burn of Whilk" aka Yarrows Archaeological Trail, windfarm? Or the others in the pipeline?
And the objections were needed a long time ago, but you are not too late to do it now.
Doing it right now.
We also need to protect our most cherished landscapes from visual wind farm destruction.
Rheghead, you don't believe that - even for one second
ywindythesecond
05-Jul-10, 21:53
Doing it right now.
Thanks Ducati, sorry if I sounded a bit pushy, but I don't understand why Caithness people don't know what is happening on the windfarm front, and why they aren't up in arms about it.
glaikit is all for renewables. I hope I can persuade him otherwise through facts and logic, but he holds that belief, and he sees that Yarrows is wrong.
It is easy to see why Yarrows is wrong for wind development. It is a stunning historical and naturally beautiful environment.
The areas around Spittal and Durran Windfarms don't have the archaeological setting of Yarrows, but at the Spittal not-hearing, Councillors were bowled over by the beauty of the area, and ordinary people live and work there.
Yes we should protect our historic and natural environment but that is for the benefit and enjoyment of people, and if we just allow development to run roughshod over people, why bother protecting these things.
Even the Scottish Government says it is not development at all costs. Adverse impacts must be dealt with.
Reggy wants 500GW windpower from Caithness but I am glad he is not in charge of energy strategy. The Highland Renewable Energy Strategy which many people vigorously opposed only wanted 100MW by 2010, with a cap of 250MW by 2050. Already today we have about 270MW consented if Dunbeath is included.
Have a good look at the map on Badger's post #22. The coloured bits are windfarms to scale on the map of Caithness.
Don't you think Caithness folk should be up in arms?
Why is conservation of energy so low on the political agenda?
Yeah, I've bandied this one about before. If we just use less we can take the hacksaws to these windymills.
Why is it so many cities & towns insist on persisting energy & money, quite literally, up the wall?
http://www.phillrawlins.com/8673qu47e3/images/cis.jpg
http://www.phillrawlins.com/8673qu47e3/images/cisold.jpg
Why not take a leaf out of coalition recommendations. All the wind energy from Caithness should be used to power the energy needs of the county. if energy was kep local the big chain of pylons can be avoided. That plus a premium (council tax rebate) might keep the NIMBY's happy
How many of the objectors have been for a walk to Yarrows recently?
Duncansby
05-Jul-10, 22:11
glaikit is all for renewables. I hope I can persuade him otherwise through facts and logic, but he holds that belief, and he sees that Yarrows is wrong.
I'm just curious, if you're against renewables, what do you suggest we use instead?
More correctly, the developer has an obligation to pay for an independent study to be carried out. That independent body gets paid irrespective of what their investigation comes up with, so yes it is independent because they don't get paid to the satisfaction of the customer.
I really do despair when I read your posts about wind farms and frequently have to stop myself throwing something at the computer screen but hey I count to ten and tell myself that everyone is entitled to their own opinion however misguided it is.
Over the past few years I have read numerous environmental statements which you claim are 'independent' of any developer influence. It is true to say that there are some that appear to be totally unbiased and reflect what really is happening on the ground. These tend to be from the true professionals. Not companies set up to exploit the windfarming craze of these times. But there is no getting away from the fact that some are riddled with mistakes and untruths.
Luckily, our Councillors can see through all the baloney and arrive at their own judgement on the day, whether thats in favour or not.
That plus a premium (council tax rebate) might keep the NIMBY's happy
How many of the objectors have been for a walk to Yarrows recently?
Ooooh, more handbags.
Have you been swimming out in the Moray recently, 'bout 10 miles out?
It has been a few months since I was at Yarrows, but do I have to tread the physical ground of the proposed windymills to enjoy the landscape?
(as fer me back yard, well. I reckon I could squeeze in 3. Now that is an earner, right?)
Rheghead, you don't believe that - even for one second
Completely wrong.
what we are seeing right now is the early stages of a wind industry goldrush that is the going for the choice sites that get their biggest pound for their buck. If these fail then they will go for sites that offer decreased load factors. Since we need an arbitrary level ~80% of energy from renewable sources if we need to get a hold of global temperatures then if these choice sites get refused then we will need more wind farms and more visual damage to local vistas.
ILuckily, our Councillors can see through all the baloney and arrive at their own judgement on the day, whether thats in favour or not.
You said it. 'whether thats in their favour or not'
Councillors are dancing a fine line of appeasement, they should have concerns for who elect them but they also have a duty to implement national strategies. They like to show that they are ticking all the boxes but at the end of the day they like to keep their job. In that there is an inherent assymetry of interests, they are answerable to the people on the ground but they can't be removed by central Government.
what we are seeing right now is the early stages of a wind industry goldrush that is the going for the choice sites that get their biggest pound for their buck.
Mebbe. Although I think choice sites from a different perspective.
If these fail then they will go for sites that offer decreased load factors. Since we need an arbitrary level ~80% of energy from renewable sources if we need to get a hold of global temperatures then if these choice sites get refused then we will need more wind farms and more visual damage to local vistas.
The smart cookies in the 'goldrush' will be looking for longterm financial gain. My money would be in setting precedents, i.e. carve up one historical site in the middle of nowhere and then you can do it anywhere.
A lot of what were seeing here is the tip of the iceberg. Wait until the deadline draws closer, see the ROC's go up then.
Expansions and concentrations passed via derogatory powers in planning.
Yet the brownfield sites are landbanked for when housing comes back.
Hmmmmmm.
Not about money is it.
ywindythesecond
05-Jul-10, 23:26
Why not take a leaf out of coalition recommendations. All the wind energy from Caithness should be used to power the energy needs of the county. if energy was kep local the big chain of pylons can be avoided. That plus a premium (council tax rebate) might keep the NIMBY's happy
How many of the objectors have been for a walk to Yarrows recently?
Bagpuss,
Causeymire and Forss between them theoretically can provide all the power Caithness can use, if the wind is blowing enough.
When it is not blowing, they can't power Caithness.
Fill Caithness with windfarms, and when the wind is not blowing it can't power anywhere else either.
And it frequently doesn't blow.
ywindythesecond
05-Jul-10, 23:51
I'm just curious, if you're against renewables, what do you suggest we use instead?
I should apologise for the use of the word "renewables" in my post. glaikit said he was all for green energy, not renewables, sorry for misquote glaikit. I would use :
Dependables.
Nuclear.
Coal.
Gas.
Hydro.
Pump storage hydro.
Energy from waste.
Not sure about biomass. I think land is better used in growing food.
Wave and tide have huge undependable and technological issues.
Offshore wind is just as fickle as onshore.
Dependables..
But for how long and at what cost?
ywindythesecond
06-Jul-10, 05:57
But for how long and at what cost?
Reggy, you are a slave to the stopped watch syndrome. It must be better because it is right twice a day, whereas the watch that is one minute fast or slow is never right.
Here are the simple facts.
1) You can't make the wind and waves do your bidding (King Canute)
2) You can't turn off thermal power stations in the hope that you might make the wind and waves do your bidding.
I am all for renewables. The thing that makes me very angry is that Windfarms are the renewable of choice to the developers because they can make a fast buck, and the Government because it looks like they are doing something. The problem is, all the public money being 'invested' in windfarms, is not then available for the development of renewable energy generation that might actually work: Wave, Tide, Solar, more efficient Hydro.
While our last Government were paying people to buy new (foreign) cars :roll:
Reggy, you are a slave to the stopped watch syndrome. It must be better because it is right twice a day, whereas the watch that is one minute fast or slow is never right.
Here are the simple facts.
1) You can't make the wind and waves do your bidding (King Canute)
2) You can't turn off thermal power stations in the hope that you might make the wind and waves do your bidding.
Here are some other simple facts.
1. Yes we can make the wind and waves do our bidding of providing up to 20% of our electrical energy.
2. Yes we can turn thermal generation off for the purpose of letting waves and wind do our bidding of providing up to 20% of our electrical energy.
Wind might not be dependable, but tides certainly are.
Wind might not be dependable, but tides certainly are.
High spring tides at 3.30am when we should be all tucked up?
Slack tides 3 hours before your Christmas roast?
The variability of tidal still has to be met regardless if you can predict it 20 years from now or 20 hours from now. We only need ~12 hours of variability prediction to allow a cold start-up of a thermal generator, some only take an hour.
Is there no way of accumulating the power? Or would there not be enough anyway?
Is there no way of accumulating the power? Or would there not be enough anyway?
Like some sort of huge rechargable battery? You might be on to something....
Like some sort of huge rechargable battery? You might be on to something....
In fact that is what effectively could be on the cards but we don't need it yet. We won't need to do anything until full plated capacity of wind exceeds the minumum nighttime electricity demand. Eventually we will need about 1200GWh of system storage which can be provided by car batteries that are smartly linked to the mains. It is just one idea that is possible.
achingale
06-Jul-10, 13:28
I think it is a poor choice of location considering the history. But whether you are for or against, the whole landscape of Caithness is changing out of all proportion due to windfarms. Soon, people will want to leave because of it. We are lucky to live in such wild and open spaces but it seems to me the developers want to make the county just one big windfarm with little or no regard for locals getting a community turbine or three to power their homes. Most of this power is for the south, from what I gather. Perhaps we would not feel so ill done by if it was to benefit us by dramatically cutting our costs but it is such a huge and ugly impact on the countryside.
Even Chance
06-Jul-10, 14:28
High spring tides at 3.30am when we should be all tucked up?
Slack tides 3 hours before your Christmas roast?
Read a wee bit more aboot e tides in e firth afore dismissin it lek at. I reckon its e way ahead masel.:)
Read a wee bit more aboot e tides in e firth afore dismissin it lek at. I reckon its e way ahead masel.:)
I have done. I think tidal is part of the way ahead just like wind is.
Even Chance
06-Jul-10, 14:37
I have done. I think tidal is part of the way ahead just like wind is.
Maybe they will be the next Archaeology to study round here some day eh?;)
wavy davy
06-Jul-10, 23:24
In fact that is what effectively could be on the cards but we don't need it yet. We won't need to do anything until full plated capacity of wind exceeds the minumum nighttime electricity demand. Eventually we will need about 1200GWh of system storage which can be provided by car batteries that are smartly linked to the mains. It is just one idea that is possible.
1200GWh stored in car batteries! What a practical idea Rheghead.
But, regardless of my opinion of your opinions I do believe that they are sincerely held. (Sorry if that sounds patronising, wasn't meant that way)
However, I don't believe the same of the developers who are are riding the windfarm gravy train. Unlike you, they don't have a sincere belief in the (illusory) benefits of windfarms. They are happy to vandalise the beauty of this county with these useless monstrosities just to line their pockets.
ywindythesecond
06-Jul-10, 23:35
I am all for renewables. The thing that makes me very angry is that Windfarms are the renewable of choice to the developers because they can make a fast buck, and the Government because it looks like they are doing something. The problem is, all the public money being 'invested' in windfarms, is not then available for the development of renewable energy generation that might actually work: Wave, Tide, Solar, more efficient Hydro.
While our last Government were paying people to buy new (foreign) cars :roll:
The money being invested in the development of onshore windfarms is not public money. It is gold plated speculative investment from private or market sources, because once the development is running, Government has ensured that there will be guaranteed returns from the price which can be levied on the electricity consumers. Us. We ultimately fund the development of windfarms and we pay the profits. We also pay for the necessary grid upgrades, and the cost of standby generation. Its a double double whammy.
Well another good day for power and wind farm :D This is more like Caithness windy every day even in the summer time;)
Well another good day for power and wind farm :D This is more like Caithness windy every day even in the summer time;)
And we never seem to get one of ywindy's BMReport updates when it is windy. [lol]
Duncansby
07-Jul-10, 14:23
I should apologise for the use of the word "renewables" in my post. glaikit said he was all for green energy, not renewables, sorry for misquote glaikit. I would use :
Dependables.
Nuclear.
Coal.
Gas.
Hydro.
Pump storage hydro.
Energy from waste.
Not sure about biomass. I think land is better used in growing food.
Wave and tide have huge undependable and technological issues.
Offshore wind is just as fickle as onshore.
The great thing about renewables is that we can use these resources today, tomorrow and in the future by our children's children etc. However, coal and gas are not renewable and will not last forever and we will run out - so how can these resources be considered to be dependable?
Is it morally right that we build nuclear power plants and leave the waste for future generations to deal with. You are rightly concerned about the visual aspect of wind turbines in Caithness but how would you react to high level nuclear waste being stored in the county? Not to mention the cost, both financially and evironmentally, of new nuclear power plants - how much CO2 would be released in the associated works and transport of waste and fuel?
You use the word 'dependables' and we can certainly depend on the tides to ebb and flow and wind will always be in plentiful supply in Caithness. However, if you are only looking at small timescales then yes you could say the wind is unrealiable but you must take a longer term view in order to properly assess the resource. It is neccessary to measure wind flow over an appropriate length of time in order to arrive at an accurate assement.
Hydro certainly has a place in the supply of our future energy needs but geographically Scotland (and the UK as a whole) is pretty much loused as far as its capacity is concerned. Large scale hydro schemes can also have hugely detrimental impacts on social and environmental aspects of a community. Hydro is dependent on rainfall, and as in the case of wind, rainfall is variable - dry summers are not unknown in Scotland! :)
Energy from waste has potential and as a society we certainly produce a lot of it, whether that be agricultural, commercial or household waste. But I think the key thing we have to bear in mind is the need for a range of schemes to make the most efficient use of the resources we do have!
ywindythesecond
07-Jul-10, 18:25
Well another good day for power and wind farm :D This is more like Caithness windy every day even in the summer time;)
http://img808.imageshack.us/img808/710/junewebsize.jpg
Interesting point Scout "This is more like Caithness windy every day even in the summer time". You have noticed that we are in a windy spell, but you seem to have already forgotten the long periods in June when there was little wind, even in Caithness.
This is what the metered windfarms did in June.
http://img808.imageshack.us/img808/710/junewebsize.jpg
Causeymire and Buolfruich are included in this record. When the 1588MW metred windfarms produce almost nothing between them, Causeymire and Buolfruich are contributing their own share of almost nothing.
If anyone wants full details, please PM me.
Surely we can use the electricity from windfarms when they are producing to pump water up a hill to be released for hydro production when there is no wind, or is that too simple, not cost effective etc?
ywindythesecond
07-Jul-10, 18:58
And we never seem to get one of ywindy's BMReport updates when it is windy. [lol]
Here we are, ran out of time this morning.
http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/7578/earlyjuly.jpg
At 14.25 on 4th July, metered wind output was 1440MW, 90% metred capacity, and the highest I have seen since I started watching in January.
At the same time, we were importing 1997MW of nuclear generated electricity from France, and paying for 1440MW worth of power NOT to be generated to allow space on the grid for the wind power which National Grid is obliged by government to take.
Anyone wants confirmation of this,PM me for full details.
Here we are, ran out of time this morning.
http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/7578/earlyjuly.jpg
At 14.25 on 4th July, metered wind output was 1440MW, 90% metred capacity, and the highest I have seen since I started watching in January.
At the same time, we were importing 1997MW of nuclear generated electricity from France, and paying for 1440MW worth of power NOT to be generated to allow space on the grid for the wind power which National Grid is obliged by government to take.
Anyone wants confirmation of this,PM me for full details.
The French 1997MW bit is a red herring as we take turns to export a baseline 2GW to balance both our grids.
However paying fossil fuel generators to not produce is a genuine concern. But it is important to point out that these financial arrangements are nothing new, we already pay millions to fossil fuel generator to be part of plant margin to back up existing fossil fuel/nuclear generation. Wind power has a the innate characteristic of having 10-20% capacity credit (depending on the size of wind intrusion) which would effectively cut the amount of plant margin that we already pay for. It is a complex issue and one that is recognised to increase fuel bills by about £12 per household, a couple of packs of smokes.
ywindythesecond
07-Jul-10, 22:14
The French 1997MW bit is a red herring as we take turns to export a baseline 2GW to balance both our grids.
However paying fossil fuel generators to not produce is a genuine concern. But it is important to point out that these financial arrangements are nothing new, we already pay millions to fossil fuel generator to be part of plant margin to back up existing fossil fuel/nuclear generation. Wind power has a the innate characteristic of having 10-20% capacity credit (depending on the size of wind intrusion) which would effectively cut the amount of plant margin that we already pay for. It is a complex issue and one that is recognised to increase fuel bills by about £12 per household, a couple of packs of smokes.
The French 1997MW bit was a statement of fact. Please explain why you say we take turns to export a baseline 2GW to balance our grids.
Please also explain
"Wind power has a the innate characteristic of having 10-20% capacity credit (depending on the size of wind intrusion) which would effectively cut the amount of plant margin that we already pay for."
The French 1997MW bit was a statement of fact. Please explain why you say we take turns to export a baseline 2GW to balance our grids.
Please also explain
"Wind power has a the innate characteristic of having 10-20% capacity credit (depending on the size of wind intrusion) which would effectively cut the amount of plant margin that we already pay for."
I thought you had a good grasp of such things or have studied BMReports intently?
Go read some books, or an impartial source of info. I don't think you are really that interested, you are only interested in stopping wind farms, not educating yourself.
ywindythesecond
08-Jul-10, 07:55
I thought you had a good grasp of such things or have studied BMReports intently?
Go read some books, or an impartial source of info. I don't think you are really that interested, you are only interested in stopping wind farms, not educating yourself.
Am I the only person on this thread who doesn't immediately understand what you say in your post?(#68)
This is what I asked you:
1. The French 1997MW bit was a statement of fact. Please explain why you say we take turns to export a baseline 2GW to balance our grids.
2. Please also explain
"Wind power has a the innate characteristic of having 10-20% capacity credit (depending on the size of wind intrusion) which would effectively cut the amount of plant margin that we already pay for."
Please explain yourself for the benefit of the others who have been following this interesting discussion.
Green_not_greed
08-Jul-10, 08:54
Spurtle started this thread with a comment about the "virtues of a 9 turbine wind farm" being foisted on the area by the Yarrows developer.
I think it says a lot when so-called "Eco Warriors" are starting to fight against wind turbine developments.
http://www.pressherald.com/news/wind-protest-lands-activists-in-hot-water_2010-07-07.html
It may finally have dawned on them that such developments are all about money - and nothing more.
ywindythesecond
08-Jul-10, 09:22
The great thing about renewables is that we can use these resources today, tomorrow and in the future by our children's children etc. However, coal and gas are not renewable and will not last forever and we will run out - so how can these resources be considered to be dependable?
Is it morally right that we build nuclear power plants and leave the waste for future generations to deal with. You are rightly concerned about the visual aspect of wind turbines in Caithness but how would you react to high level nuclear waste being stored in the county? Not to mention the cost, both financially and evironmentally, of new nuclear power plants - how much CO2 would be released in the associated works and transport of waste and fuel?
You use the word 'dependables' and we can certainly depend on the tides to ebb and flow and wind will always be in plentiful supply in Caithness. However, if you are only looking at small timescales then yes you could say the wind is unrealiable but you must take a longer term view in order to properly assess the resource. It is neccessary to measure wind flow over an appropriate length of time in order to arrive at an accurate assement.
Hydro certainly has a place in the supply of our future energy needs but geographically Scotland (and the UK as a whole) is pretty much loused as far as its capacity is concerned. Large scale hydro schemes can also have hugely detrimental impacts on social and environmental aspects of a community. Hydro is dependent on rainfall, and as in the case of wind, rainfall is variable - dry summers are not unknown in Scotland! :)
Energy from waste has potential and as a society we certainly produce a lot of it, whether that be agricultural, commercial or household waste. But I think the key thing we have to bear in mind is the need for a range of schemes to make the most efficient use of the resources we do have!
Duncansby
Like it or not, our society depends on having electricity at the flick of a switch. For that to happen, we need a power source which is available and controllable 60 seconds a minute, 60 minutes an hour and so on.
Coal and gas will run out and we cannot depend on them for a fuel source for ever, but coal and gas can be depended upon to supply our electricity when we need it. Wind, wave, and tidal, cannot. Potential tidal availability can be predicted way into the future, but its strength cannot. Wind and wave power availability can’t be predicted beyond a few days at best. In our society dependence upon power sources which are wildly fluctuating and random is untenable, therefore I say we must rely on the technically dependable sources I listed until a better idea comes along.
First generation and experimental nuclear power stations are being decommissioned at the expense of current taxpayers. Don’t you think that your concerns and those of many others will ensure that future nuclear power station approvals will include a means of ensuring future costs are secured? Wind farm approvals are subject to there being guaranteed decommissioning costs being secured. Nuclear will be subject to the same provisions, including waste management costs.
I am concerned about the visual aspects of windfarm development in Caithness, and anywhere else they are proposed, but that is not the reason why I am banging on here. The reason is that no matter how many wind turbines are built, no thermal power plant can be closed down because it will always be needed when there is no wind. In the meantime we destroy our landscapes, subject many people to a diminution of their quality of life, pay for all the costs associated with wind development, continue to pay for back-up fossil plant, continue to use fossil fuels, put many people into fuel poverty, -make a small number of people rich, and the world will be no better off at the end of it. If it would be, I would happily accept the sacrifices.
Waste of any description should be dealt with where it is produced in my opinion. I have no problem with nuclear waste being stored in Caithness.
Sizewell B is rated at 1300MW or thereabouts. Lets say, subject to breakdown and maintenance, it can be depended upon to give us 1000MW. It occupies a space of about 400m x 1200m (0.48 sq kilometers, including Sizewell A).
One typical 2.5MW turbine will occupy a space 350 x 350m, and will have a dependable output of zero but let’s say 5% or 125kw (40 kettles).
Assuming the turbine can be relied upon at all times for at least 5% of its capacity, Sizewell B = 8000 turbines, taking up 2800sq kilometers of land.
If each turbine has a base 15x15x1.5m that is 337 cubic metres of concrete per turbine, a much larger volume of soil displaced, and many dozens of lorry movements per turbine.
8000x337=2,696,000 cubic metres of concrete. How much carbon is that?
You say we need to look at wind generation over a longer period. If we relied on wind for a substantial proportion of our energy and if it performed perfectly for five years and then failed for five minutes, or five seconds for that matter, what then? Wind fails to deliver with monotonous regularity. It needs dedicated back-up all the time. The more windpower we have the more thermal power stations we need to build just to support it. There is nothing wrong with windpower in itself, but the political and commercial drivers of it are ruining this country, financially and aesthetically.
Hydro is brilliant, but as you say, we have just about got all that is available to us. And once the water is used, you have to wait till it is replenished so it is used sparingly to balance the grid, not to supply our basic needs except in emergency (eg Sizewell B breaks down, hydro supplies the power till thermal plants get up to temperature)
We do need a balance of generation sources. The pressure to develop wind has us completely out of balance, and our energy supply is less secure every time a windfarm is connected unless a new dedicated back-up is connected at the same time, and this is not happening.
I don't have anywhere near the amount of knowledge that other posters have about this subject and I'm finding it very interesting reading this.
If the windmills are rubbish, which they appear to be, why are they attempting to stick them up all over the place? Is it so that the government look like they're doing something 'green'?
Why are we not investing massive sums globally, in looking for alternative power? I know there's all the issues surrounding the USA and China not wishing to adhere to any agreements but do we have to wait til things reach the point of no return before we do anything?:eek:
Our generation made this mess, we should be doing something to clean it up and not pass on this horrific legacy to future generations.
ywindythesecond
08-Jul-10, 10:36
I don't have anywhere near the amount of knowledge that other posters have about this subject and I'm finding it very interesting reading this.
If the windmills are rubbish, which they appear to be, why are they attempting to stick them up all over the place? Is it so that the government look like they're doing something 'green'?
Why are we not investing massive sums globally, in looking for alternative power? I know there's all the issues surrounding the USA and China not wishing to adhere to any agreements but do we have to wait til things reach the point of no return before we do anything?:eek:
Our generation made this mess, we should be doing something to clean it up and not pass on this horrific legacy to future generations.
In a nutshell glaikit, Tony Blair came back from Kyoto with a binding obligation for UK to reduce carbon emissions. Instead of governing, he passed the obligation onto the energy generators and handed them the carrot of the “Renewables Obligation Certificate” (ROC), because renewable power without financial support is not commercially viable.
If it was, the country would have been flooded by windmills before Kyoto.
Each MW of power generated by renewables earns a ROC which has a value at present of about £48 which goes onto the our electricity bills. The generators have a duty to their shareholders to maximise their returns, so they are forced to make as much money as possible while complying with the “Obligation”. Wind turbines are cheap, many landowners are easily bought, wind appears to be free and green, so the public buy in to it.
The wind industry would have us believe that a turbine will provide on average 30% of its rated capacity. Some do, but overall in UK the record is showing this to be much lower than 30%. This 30% is used as the basis for claims of how many houses are served by a particular development.
So using the wind industry claim of 30%, the sums go like this:
A 1MW turbine running 24 hours a day for 365 days of the year at 30% of its capacity will earn a ROC worth about £48 for each Megawatt hour generated.
1x24x365x30%x£48= £126,144.
Spittal Hill Windfarm, for example, at 75MW rated capacity, would earn £9,460,800 in a year from ROCs. Plus about half again for electricity.
It only happens because National Grid is obliged by Government to take renewable energy whenever it is being generated whether technically or commercially sensible or not, thereby guaranteeing the developers’ returns.
Does this answer your question?
I don't have anywhere near the amount of knowledge that other posters have about this subject and I'm finding it very interesting reading this.
If the windmills are rubbish, which they appear to be, why are they attempting to stick them up all over the place? Is it so that the government look like they're doing something 'green'?
Why are we not investing massive sums globally, in looking for alternative power? I know there's all the issues surrounding the USA and China not wishing to adhere to any agreements but do we have to wait til things reach the point of no return before we do anything?:eek:
Our generation made this mess, we should be doing something to clean it up and not pass on this horrific legacy to future generations.
I am sorry to tell you but China increasing number of wind farms onshore and off. I also know for a fact that China will be the leading in green energy and we be left behind yet again. They have lot do but there are well ahead compare to us.
Am I the only person on this thread who doesn't immediately understand what you say in your post?(#68)
This is what I asked you:
1. The French 1997MW bit was a statement of fact. Please explain why you say we take turns to export a baseline 2GW to balance our grids.
2. Please also explain
"Wind power has a the innate characteristic of having 10-20% capacity credit (depending on the size of wind intrusion) which would effectively cut the amount of plant margin that we already pay for."
Please explain yourself for the benefit of the others who have been following this interesting discussion.
You must know what capacity credit and plant margin is surely?
I am sorry to tell you but China increasing number of wind farms onshore and off. I also know for a fact that China will be the leading in green energy and we be left behind yet again. They have lot do but there are well ahead compare to us.
Indeed, and if wind energy is a scam then I cannot for the life of me imagine that the Chinese would fall for it.
The Chinese have many areas that have no electricity. Therefore unreliable electricity would be a distinct improvement. :roll:
You must know what capacity credit and plant margin is surely?
I don't - I'm not that genned up on renewable energy (excuse the pun).
The Chinese have many areas that have no electricity. Therefore unreliable electricity would be a distinct improvement. :roll:
But also the days when we in the UK can just switch the light on or put the kettle on without a thought of the consequences of where that electricity is coming from or how it is managed is ending very rapidly. That is what comes with too many finite resources being used up.
I'd love it if we could go on business as usual and using more gas, coal and nuke without any care but the facts are that we can't.
I don't - I'm not that genned up on renewable energy (excuse the pun).
I wouldn't expect you to know as I'm not aware of you having an negative obsession about how wind energy operates on the national grid.
The Chinese have many areas that have no electricity. Therefore unreliable electricity would be a distinct improvement. :roll:
Yes but there are also big city's as well that would use twice as much as Uk would use:D
I wouldn't expect you to know as I'm not aware of you having an negative obsession about how wind energy operates on the national grid.
But please tell....
But also the days when we in the UK can just switch the light on or put the kettle on without a thought of the consequences of where that electricity is coming from or how it is managed is ending very rapidly. That is what comes with too many finite resources being used up.
I'd love it if we could go on business as usual and using more gas, coal and nuke without any care but the facts are that we can't.
I absolutely agree. Why aren't the governments of the world addressing the single biggest carbon polluter, new cars, we don't need them and we haven’t enough fuel for them. But politically disastrous, so ignored.
Instead our previous government, instead of letting car manufacture die a natural death when no one was prepared to buy them, they paid people to!
And most weren't even manufactured in the UK. Now we have new countries and economies that never depended on car manufacture before, coming on stream in a huge way. Progress?
No it wasn't progress, ducati, and I agree with you 100% as well, that manufacturing base should have been incentivised into making something that the economy and environment needed simultaneously.
Part of this comes from a question I've pitched before. We know our resources are finite so when are we going to reduce our use?
Cars being a prime example.
When are WE as individuals going to give up the car?
Another part, to bring things back on topic, is when are we going to stop the nonsense of these windfarms as the answer to the worlds environmental issues when we keep buying goods from India, China and similar industrially expanding countries with scant regard for their emmisions.
We carve up the country side in a Kyoto bid to to reduce Co2 and then buy goods that have produced tonnes of co2 in their manufacture and transportation.
Reduce, reduce, reduce. Not the whole answer but we need to address it seriously.
Stop investing in waste of space windymills and introduce legislation on goods we buy, i.e. all electrical items without standby, non essential external lighting taxed, heavily subsidise solar panels and standardise all 12v goods, enforce usage of low power systems in new build regs and retrospectively for large buildings.
Part of this comes from a question I've pitched before. We know our resources are finite so when are we going to reduce our use?
Cars being a prime example.
When are WE as individuals going to give up the car?
Another part, to bring things back on topic, is when are we going to stop the nonsense of these windfarms as the answer to the worlds environmental issues when we keep buying goods from India, China and similar industrially expanding countries with scant regard for their emmisions.
We carve up the country side in a Kyoto bid to to reduce Co2 and then buy goods that have produced tonnes of co2 in their manufacture and transportation.
Reduce, reduce, reduce. Not the whole answer but we need to address it seriously.
Stop investing in waste of space windymills and introduce legislation on goods we buy, i.e. all electrical items without standby, non essential external lighting taxed, heavily subsidise solar panels and standardise all 12v goods, enforce usage of low power systems in new build regs and retrospectively for large buildings.
To be quite honest I don't think reducing our energy consumption is a practical option because of the civil liberty issues that were raised when you asked the question about when are we as 'individuals' going to give up our car. It is never going to happen for the vast majority of your typical Sunreader type. It is admirable to recycle and do what we can and perhaps buy local produce and such like. But when all is said and done, human nature kicks in and people want the right to do what they like and when they like if they can get away with it and to hell with those that can afford it, we all want it too.
When we decide to refuse a wind turbine in our environment, we are not only denying ourselves clean energy but we are also putting a message out to every other country that says we are hypocrits, we, the big polluters, demand the rest of the population of the Earth to go green but our countryside is too precious for all that. It is a form of colonial mindset once again, 'do as we say and not do as we do'.
So what are the chances of India, USA, China and every other potential big polluter following suit on green energy if we don't accept it ourselves? A mid point between fat chance and nae chance.
In the end, we can't continue to live an advanced modern lifestyle which was achieved by burning fossil fuels and expect developing countries to deny themselves the same by our demands to cut emissions. We have to show a good example on how best to achieve a low carbon economy and live a modern lifestyle, otherwise we will be ignored and ridiculed by everybody.
It is realism over idealism, human nature is the same everywhere.
Surely we can use the electricity from windfarms when they are producing to pump water up a hill to be released for hydro production when there is no wind, or is that too simple, not cost effective etc?
Anyone got any views/ideas why this would or would'nt work?
Originally Posted by david http://forum.caithness.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?p=733135#post733135)
Surely we can use the electricity from windfarms when they are producing to pump water up a hill to be released for hydro production when there is no wind, or is that too simple, not cost effective etc?
Anyone got any views/ideas why this would or would'nt work?
I looked into this small scale a few years back, we live on a hill and thought this would be quite a simple 'heat dump' answer and doubly eco efficient.
Not so.
Quite complex to a degree and not overly efficient, quite expensive and also there is still an underlying problem......what when the wind don't blow and all the water is at the bottom of the hill?
Surely we can use the electricity from windfarms when they are producing to pump water up a hill to be released for hydro production when there is no wind, or is that too simple, not cost effective etc?
It would work in principle but it would be largely ineffective as we currently only have 30GWh of hydroelectric storage capacity, about 6 hours of Grid energy if we emptied it all at once. There is also no economic need to do so as wind energy can currently be just fed into the grid without having any concerns of over supply when it is windy or incurring thermal losses from pumping water uphill.
But you are right but we need more storage on the Grid but who wants to be forced from their idyllic valley home to make way for a hydro-electric scheme?
It would be "come back wind all is forgiven"...
To be quite honest I don't think reducing our energy consumption is a practical option because of the civil liberty issues that were raised when you asked the question about when are we as 'individuals' going to give up our car. It is never going to happen for the vast majority of your typical Sunreader type. It is admirable to recycle and do what we can and perhaps buy local produce and such like. But when all is said and done, human nature kicks in and people want the right to do what they like and when they like if they can get away with it and to hell with those that can afford it, we all want it too.
When we decide to refuse a wind turbine in our environment, we are not only denying ourselves clean energy but we are also putting a message out to every other country that says we are hypocrits, we, the big polluters, demand the rest of the population of the Earth to go green but our countryside is too precious for all that. It is a form of colonial mindset once again, 'do as we say and not do as we do'.
So what are the chances of India, USA, China and every other potential big polluter following suit on green energy if we don't accept it ourselves? A mid point between fat chance and nae chance.
In the end, we can't continue to live an advanced modern lifestyle which was achieved by burning fossil fuels and expect developing countries to deny themselves the same by our demands to cut emissions. We have to show a good example on how best to achieve a low carbon economy and live a modern lifestyle, otherwise we will be ignored and ridiculed by everybody.
It is realism over idealism, human nature is the same everywhere.
You seem to be contradicting yourself. Phill is advocating what I have always said which is to reduce consumption. That would be an excellent example to other countries. What could be better than persuading the rest of the world that we don't need fast large cars, wasted lighting and heat in public and office buildings (heated shops with open doors - how mad is that?). If we reduced our energy consumption drastically - and we could with money spent in the right places - we would not need deep sea oil drilling and inefficient wind farms.
You talk about civil liberty but what about the liberty of people whose lives will be destroyed by windfarms? Don't they have any rights.
Energy efficiency and conservation hurt no-one and could produce thousands of jobs. World wide it could solve all our problems. What can be greener than that?
ywindythesecond
08-Jul-10, 22:30
Anyone got any views/ideas why this would or would'nt work?
David,
It does work and it happens already at Cruachan and Foyers Power Stations in Scotland and Dinorwig and Ffestiniog in Wales.
The reality is there are very few suitable locations, and the best have been used, and the total connected capacity is small, about 3GW.
All these schemes depend on cheap overnight electricity to replenish the reservoirs, and all of them have a limited period in which they can deliver full load. Dinorwig at 1800MW for 5 hours, Ffestiniog at 360MW for "several hours", Foyers at 300MW will run for a limited peiod only as the reservoir at Loch Mhor is small, and Cruachan at 440MW can deliver full power for 22 hours. http://www.scottishpower.com/uploads/CruachanPowerStation.pdf
So pump storage hydro is used sparingly and effectively to do the second by second adjustments that keep the grid in balance. It doesn't have the ability to provide baseload generation so the load factor is low, but the value is high because it is so flexible and can be turned on almost instantaneously. You can see how this works by following the www.bmreports.co.uk (http://www.bmreports.co.uk) website. You, and anyone else interested, can PM me and I will run you through it first time.
A real opportunity was missed when the Millenium Windfarm at Glenmoriston was not linked to the Glendoe Hydro scheme on the other side of Loch Ness. If Millenium was used solely to replenish the Glendoe reservoir from Loch Ness which is effectively an infinite water resource, then this would be a truly renewable and sustainable scheme which I would support.
It could never happen of course. In my scenario, there would only be one stream of ROCs from the hydro generation whereas there are currently two ROCs streams and less reliable power.
To be quite honest I don't think reducing our energy consumption is a practical option It has to be in the post fossil fuel future!
because of the civil liberty issues Scaremongering. What about my civil liberty to enjoy an unspoilt landscape?
I did say give up, not taken by force. The congestion charge doesn't affect my civil liberties, does it:confused
........human nature kicks in and people want the right to do what they like and when they like if they can get away with it and to hell with those that can afford it, we all want it too.True, very true. This is the problem and real change will take generations.
But if there were a mobile windymill that could be moved from house to house and the residence was forced to depend on it for a week or so I guess that would be a wake up call.
When we decide to refuse a wind turbine in our environment, we are not only denying ourselves clean energy but we are also putting a message out to every other country that says we are hypocrits, we, the big polluters, demand the rest of the population of the Earth to go green but our countryside is too precious for all that. It is a form of colonial mindset once again, 'do as we say and not do as we do'.
everybody.The hypocrisy comes from our colonial stance of 'look at us, all green and eco friendly' while building new coal fired power stations to support our windymills that don't provide. And all our talk of reducing CO2 emmisions, look we've got a windymill. So we can take the moral high ground.....and still have fossil fuelled plants spewing out their muck in the back ground.
It is realism over idealism, human nature is the same everywhere.Yes it is. Lets be realistic:
Windymills will only last a few hours longer than fossil fuels, so to spend the next however many years following this folly is only making a handful of this, and maybe the next, generation of individuals rich.
Longterm....???? We have no solution.
So why don't we start now looking for it?
But hey, why bother, the few can get rich now and to hell with us oiks.
You seem to be contradicting yourself. Phill is advocating what I have always said which is to reduce consumption. That would be an excellent example to other countries. What could be better than persuading the rest of the world that we don't need fast large cars, wasted lighting and heat in public and office buildings (heated shops with open doors - how mad is that?). If we reduced our energy consumption drastically - and we could with money spent in the right places - we would not need deep sea oil drilling and inefficient wind farms.
You talk about civil liberty but what about the liberty of people whose lives will be destroyed by windfarms? Don't they have any rights.
Energy efficiency and conservation hurt no-one and could produce thousands of jobs. World wide it could solve all our problems. What can be greener than that?
I didn't contradict myself, I said it would be great if we reduced our energy consumption, I just don't think we can rely on people as individuals to make that choice to tackle a global problem. The only way to do that is to have a Carbon Allowance credit system for every citizen and on every retail item and energy use.
If that you think that is the way to go then you are talking my idealistic language and David Milliband was suggesting something like that a few years ago, but it is those with wealth who use more energy who make the decisions that affect us.
Your insulation and waste energy commentry is a red herring, whether we go as business as usual or have wind farms, how we use and conserve energy will have to be a greater feature of importance in any future energy policy.
As for civil liberties in the terms which you describe then it surely must work two ways. If the rest of the UK is desiring wind energy which 80% of the country does by most leading nation opinion polls then why should a small vocal minority stop something that would benefit them?
The trouble is, the statement:
"I'm all for renewable energy and a wind farm is OK if it is in the right place."
means different things to different people and can be used in a flexible way by those fundamentally opposed to wind energy to scupper plans for a wind farm even if it is in the right place for one and not the other. In other words, there IS no perfect place for a wind farm that suits all so we should stop looking for one.
But hey, why bother, the few can get rich now and to hell with us oiks.
That seems to me to be your biggest bugbear.
Originally Posted by Phill http://forum.caithness.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?p=733666#post733666)
But hey, why bother, the few can get rich now and to hell with us oiks.
That seems to me to be your biggest bugbear.
Not at all, I can accept this. I understand this, I realise this is what is happening. What I find crazy is people somehow seem to be brainwashed that it is nothing to do with cash.
I have worked for such a company, pioneers in their league, but the reality is...........................money, and more money, and grants, and free money. (Oh and the environment...yeah that too...maybe)
One of my bugbears is the term 'Environment' especially when this is bandied about to support windymills that are built on areas of untouched beauty in the name of the 'Environment' yet try and put some other such eco friendly, nae, 'Environmentally' friendly, windymill on a brownfield site near a city......WHOAAA all hell will break loose 'cos they does be ugly!!!!!!!!!
My bugbear is that it is a folly that is destroying many landscapes & countrysides with windymills, often owned by people that do not inhabitate those lands, under the guise of saving the planet (but they does get ROC's).
What I do not understand is the fact that windymills will not last any longer than fossil fuels, so why bother?
What I do not understand is the fact that windymills will not last any longer than fossil fuels, so why bother?
In fact windymills only last ~25 years and we have at least 150 years of coal left so I guess you must be right! :roll: :Razz
In fact windymills only last ~25 years and we have at least 150 years of coal left so I guess you must be right!
Interesting thought, but coal isn't a good lubricant.
But if we have 150 years of coal left, why build windymills with 25 year lives?:eek::confused
But if we have 150 years of coal left, why build windymills with 25 year lives?:eek::confused
If you don't agree with with the science behind climate change then I don't think you have any reason to support wind energy in that context.
David,
It does work and it happens already at Cruachan and Foyers Power Stations in Scotland and Dinorwig and Ffestiniog in Wales.
The reality is there are very few suitable locations, and the best have been used, and the total connected capacity is small, about 3GW.
All these schemes depend on cheap overnight electricity to replenish the reservoirs, and all of them have a limited period in which they can deliver full load. Dinorwig at 1800MW for 5 hours, Ffestiniog at 360MW for "several hours", Foyers at 300MW will run for a limited peiod only as the reservoir at Loch Mhor is small, and Cruachan at 440MW can deliver full power for 22 hours. http://www.scottishpower.com/uploads/CruachanPowerStation.pdf
So pump storage hydro is used sparingly and effectively to do the second by second adjustments that keep the grid in balance. It doesn't have the ability to provide baseload generation so the load factor is low, but the value is high because it is so flexible and can be turned on almost instantaneously. You can see how this works by following the www.bmreports.co.uk (http://www.bmreports.co.uk) website. You, and anyone else interested, can PM me and I will run you through it first time.
A real opportunity was missed when the Millenium Windfarm at Glenmoriston was not linked to the Glendoe Hydro scheme on the other side of Loch Ness. If Millenium was used solely to replenish the Glendoe reservoir from Loch Ness which is effectively an infinite water resource, then this would be a truly renewable and sustainable scheme which I would support.
It could never happen of course. In my scenario, there would only be one stream of ROCs from the hydro generation whereas there are currently two ROCs streams and less reliable power.
The internet is over, says Prince. "All these computers and digital gadgets are no good. They just fill your head with numbers and that can't be good for you."
I never thought I'd agree with the vertically challeneged Squiggle but maybe he knows something we don't?!! I'm away for a lie down.
No offence intended to anyone. Just seemed appropriate when I read this, as I struggled to come to terms with all the "numbers".
If you don't agree with with the science behind climate change
......................new thread?
:eek:
......................new thread?
:eek:
Well you did truncate my quote but I think anyone that starts spouting off climate change denialism rubbish is going to look like a backward silly billy in the light of 3 independent inquiries which vindicated the scientists research.
I'm happy to participate but don't expect any mercy because the science has triumphed and ignorance and greed has failed.
Well you did truncate my quote but I think anyone that starts spouting off climate change denialism rubbish is going to look like a backward silly billy in the light of 3 independent inquiries which vindicated the scientists research.
I'm happy to participate but don't expect any mercy because the science has triumphed and ignorance and greed has failed.
LOL, not looking fer mercy. Who said I denied climate change.
I meant a new thread as this started about Yarrows/ Burn of Whilk, to try and discuss the theories behind climate change is a thread in itself (and we've had it before haven't we?).
Greed is what is driving things now. Which is part of the problem, not the solution.
There is climate change, that is not in denial (the causes & effects are debateable).
There are finite fossil fuel resources, that is not in question.
The trouble is, the statement:
"I'm all for renewable energy and a wind farm is OK if it is in the right place."
This looks as if it's quoting me and I've never said this and never would because I don't believe there is a right place for windfarms. Wherever they are they damage something and we have no real idea of the extent of this long term. I don't have a problem with small individual turbines in the countryside so long as they don't affect the neighbours as some work pretty well (although not Jonathan Dimbleby's).
I have read that less obtrusive and more efficient wind turbines have been invented but big business has so much investment in those big blades that they won't consider changing. So we're back to money rules again.
I will only believe Govts. are taking climate change seriously when they stop allowing the manufacture of electrical goods, cars, buildings etc. without proper consideration of energy efficiency.
Greed is what is driving things now. Which is part of the problem, not the solution.
Can you give any examples of any business that doesn't involve greed?
If you were the President of the world how would you encourage companies to go into the renewable business without playing their greed card?
Again, you keep mentioning it and denying it, but this IS your biggest bugbear. (I actually agree with you)
Evils of capitalism aside, arguments over true worth of wind farms, is anyone actually saying that Yarrows is a good site for a windfarm? Personally, having been entranced by the place I would say not, never ever.
I will only believe Govts. are taking climate change seriously when they stop allowing the manufacture of electrical goods, cars, buildings etc. without proper consideration of energy efficiency.
You are right that energy efficiency should be tackled but even if we cut standby then we will be still well short of tackling Climate Change for the scientists reckon we need to cut our fossil fuel use by over 80%.
Take for instance stanby mode if we cut it out altogether by legislation.
A typical standby usage of a household will probably be ~100W with a couple of teles, the SKY, and various electronic gadgets around the house.
So a quick calculation reveals
0.00001MW X 8760hrs X 25,000,000 houses X 0.43te(CO2) = 9.5 million tonnes of CO2.
A fairly big chunk of greenhouse gases that we should be aiming to cut but when you put it into perspective that the UK has CO2 emissions of 600 million tonnes of CO2 then we have only tackled 1.5% of our emissions. Even tackling that would take a huge shift in the behavior of manufacturers outside the UK boundary and the Sun-reader attitude.
We just need more radical cuts in our emissions and that means we have to look at energy generation (33%), space heating 33%) and transport (33%).
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.