View Full Version : Wathegar Windfarm is slap bang in the middle of Caithness. What do you know about it?
ywindythesecond
01-Dec-11, 00:32
Wathegar Windfarm is slap bang in the middle of Caithness. What do you know about it?
Only that its slap bang in the middle of Caithness.
Stack Rock
01-Dec-11, 08:24
Its not exactly in the middle of Caithness!!! Only a few miles west of Wick with permission for 5 wind turbines at present.
Well in that case, I obviously know nothing about it.
Just wondering where the centre of Caithness would be actually??
If I cut out a map of Caithness and stuck it on to heavy card and then cut that out, I reckon I could use a pin to find the centre of gravity and that should be the centre of Caithness, but where would it be I wonder? Should we raise a plaque or a wind farm?
Just wondering where the centre of Caithness would be actually??
If I cut out a map of Caithness and stuck it on to heavy card and then cut that out, I reckon I could use a pin to find the centre of gravity and that should be the centre of Caithness, but where would it be I wonder? Should we raise a plaque or a wind farm?
How about something better for the enviroment.
orkneycadian
01-Dec-11, 19:45
Wathegar Windfarm is slap bang in the middle of Caithness. What do you know about it?
That it will turn wind into electricity?
Hi orkneycadian I know that you get into raptures over windfarms.
But was over on Orkney for four days last month - where the heck are these windfarms? we were driven around a lot, and only saw one or two speckled around!
I expected coming across loads, but nope...
That it will turn wind into electricity?
That it will remove millions of pounds from the coffers and deliver them right into the developers pockets.
ywindythesecond
02-Dec-11, 21:33
That it will remove millions of pounds from the coffers and deliver them right into the developers pockets.
Don't want to be picky mi16, but "coffers" should read "consumers".
That it will remove millions of pounds from the coffers and deliver them right into the developers pockets.
Would it be fair to say that when the new fleet of nuclear power stations go ahead then it will remove millions from the consumers and coffers and deliver them right into the hands of EDF, EON etc?
orkneycadian
02-Dec-11, 22:49
But was over on Orkney for four days last month - where the heck are these windfarms? we were driven around a lot, and only saw one or two speckled around!
I expected coming across loads, but nope...
Just goes to show how efficient and visually un-obtrusive they are!
Again, we are producing more than we are using tonight, according to http://www.oref.co.uk from things you say are nearly invisible! Quality!
Just goes to show how efficient and visually un-obtrusive they are!
Again, we are producing more than we are using tonight, according to http://www.oref.co.uk from things you say are nearly invisible! Quality!
Maybe they were hidden behind that bloody great flare stack on Flotta pumping CO2 into the Orkney sky? Anyone know how much?;)
Maybe they were hidden behind that bloody great flare stack on Flotta pumping CO2 into the Orkney sky? Anyone know how much?;)
Ah but surely the Flotta flame was adding more light to help you on your quest for the turbines and you still didn't find them. That's class.
ywindythesecond
02-Dec-11, 23:58
Only that its slap bang in the middle of Caithness.
To get back on topic and ignoring the diversions, Caithness has become used to the two relatively small wind developments at Bilbster and Achairn. They are not particularly intrusive and do not seem to have generated much opposition or resentment. They are proportionate to the landscape and the needs of the County.
Wathegar Wind Farm doesn't exist at present, but Planning Permission was granted for five turbines next to Bilbster (Flex Hill) Windfarm earlier this year, and these will appear between Bilbster and Achairn (Stirkoke) Windfarms in due course. Before Wathegar Windfarm has even been started to be built, an extension has been applied for for another nine turbines (Wathegar 2) which will fill the space between Achairn and Bilbster, and actually extend beyond Achairn in the view from Tesco. What is presently 6 acceptable turbines are on the brink of becoming 20. This would be the view from Tesco's car park. http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/Wath 2.jpg (http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/Wath 2.jpg). In addition, Achairn windfarm is looking to add a further three turbines.
We could have a windfarm bigger than Causeymire between Watten and Haster that most people in Caithness are unaware of and will get unless Caithness wakes up now to what is in the pipeline.
orkneycadian
03-Dec-11, 00:02
To get back on topic and ignoring the diversions
Why, does Bekisman saying he could hardly see the turbines that produce all the power we need, and more, not fit well in this debate?
ywindythesecond
03-Dec-11, 00:12
Why, does Bekisman saying he could hardly see the turbines that produce all the power we need, and more, not fit well in this debate?
No. to get back on topic Wathegar Windfarm is slap bang in the middle of Caithness. What do you know about it?
And I wrote:
Caithness has become used to the two relatively small wind developments at Bilbster and Achairn. They are not particularly intrusive and do not seem to have generated much opposition or resentment. They are proportionate to the landscape and the needs of the County.
Wathegar Wind Farm doesn't exist at present, but Planning Permission was granted for five turbines next to Bilbster (Flex Hill) Windfarm earlier this year, and these will appear between Bilbster and Achairn (Stirkoke) Windfarms in due course. Before Wathegar Windfarm has even been started to be built, an extension has been applied for for another nine turbines (Wathegar 2) which will fill the space between Achairn and Bilbster, and actually extend beyond Achairn in the view from Tesco. What is presently 6 acceptable turbines are on the brink of becoming 20. This would be the view from Tesco's car park. http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/Wath 2.jpg (http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/Wath%202.jpg). In addition, Achairn windfarm is looking to add a further three turbines.
We could have a windfarm bigger than Causeymire between Watten and Haster that most people in Caithness are unaware of and will get unless Caithness wakes up now to what is in the pipeline.
orkneycadian
03-Dec-11, 00:18
No. to get back on topic Wathegar Windfarm is slap bang in the middle of Caithness. What do you know about it?
That it encourages bad use of grammar? Wathegar Windfarm will be slap bang in the middle of Caithness...... [lol]
ywindythesecond
03-Dec-11, 00:22
That it encourages bad use of grammar? Wathegar Windfarm will be slap bang in the middle of Caithness...... [lol]
People who are interested in the topic under discussion should revert to post #15.
orkneycadian
03-Dec-11, 00:24
Whilst those who wish to see both sides of the debate should read from the top....
No. to get back on topic Wathegar Windfarm is slap bang in the middle of Caithness. What do you know about it?
And I wrote:
Caithness has become used to the two relatively small wind developments at Bilbster and Achairn. They are not particularly intrusive and do not seem to have generated much opposition or resentment. They are proportionate to the landscape and the needs of the County.
Wathegar Wind Farm doesn't exist at present, but Planning Permission was granted for five turbines next to Bilbster (Flex Hill) Windfarm earlier this year, and these will appear between Bilbster and Achairn (Stirkoke) Windfarms in due course. Before Wathegar Windfarm has even been started to be built, an extension has been applied for for another nine turbines (Wathegar 2) which will fill the space between Achairn and Bilbster, and actually extend beyond Achairn in the view from Tesco. What is presently 6 acceptable turbines are on the brink of becoming 20. This would be the view from Tesco's car park. http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/Wath 2.jpg (http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/Wath%202.jpg). In addition, Achairn windfarm is looking to add a further three turbines.
We could have a windfarm bigger than Causeymire between Watten and Haster that most people in Caithness are unaware of and will get unless Caithness wakes up now to what is in the pipeline.
What is the field of view for that photomontage?
ywindythesecond
03-Dec-11, 00:36
What is the field of view for that photomontage?
Just left of Achairn to just right of Bilbster.
orkneycadian
03-Dec-11, 00:45
What is the field of view for that photomontage?
Looks like a better view than exists at the moment. Thats the one downside with Pentland Ferries - Its quite a dull drive up to Gills, whilst going to Scrabster, you get to see all the turbines at the Causewaymire. Something like this to liven up the landscape will make it a much more interesting drive by Wick!
ywindythesecond
03-Dec-11, 00:57
People who are interested in the topic under discussion should revert to post #15.
orkneycadian
03-Dec-11, 01:01
Isn't a discussion where other views and opinions are debated?
ywindythesecond
03-Dec-11, 01:06
Isn't a discussion where other views and opinions are debated?
I would welcome that.
People who are interested in the topic under discussion should revert to post #15.
secrets in symmetry
03-Dec-11, 01:11
Wathegar windfarm has a great location and our county should stand up and be proud of its contribution to the fight against global warming.
The fight against pen pushers with PCs but little knowledge comes next.
Just left of Achairn to just right of Bilbster.
Then the FOV seems to be 20 degrees.
SNH guidelines state that the best FOVs for photomontages are achieved by using a standard 50mm lens and SLR which has a FOV of 40 degrees.
Any FOV narrower than that would tend to over emphasise the height of the turbines from a perspective aspect.
Over emphasising the height of the turbines would be in the interest of any pressure group who wants to create bad publicity for the Wathegar development. You aren't trying to do that are you?
ywindythesecond
03-Dec-11, 10:07
Then the FOV seems to be 20 degrees.
SNH guidelines state that the best FOVs for photomontages are achieved by using a standard 50mm lens and SLR which has a FOV of 40 degrees.
Any FOV narrower than that would tend to over emphasise the height of the turbines from a perspective aspect.
Over emphasising the height of the turbines would be in the interest of any pressure group who wants to create bad publicity for the Wathegar development. You aren't trying to do that are you?
Dont be a pillock Reggy. Bilbster turbines are 100m high, Achairn are 110m. Are you seriously suggesting that the 100m Wathegar turbines I have shown are oversized? You do yourself no favours with such stupid remarks.
People can judge for themselves.
http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/7840/wathegar2objection.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/14/wathegar2objection.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
orkneycadian
03-Dec-11, 12:00
SNH guidelines state that the best FOVs for photomontages are achieved by using a standard 50mm lens and SLR which has a FOV of 40 degrees.
Any FOV narrower than that would tend to over emphasise the height of the turbines from a perspective aspect.
In laymans terms, does that mean the picture has been zoomed in more than it should?
Penelope Pitstop
03-Dec-11, 12:55
Dont be a pillock Reggy. Bilbster turbines are 100m high, Achairn are 110m. Are you seriously suggesting that the 100m Wathegar turbines I have shown are oversized? You do yourself no favours with such stupid remarks.People can judge for themselves.http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/7840/wathegar2objection.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/14/wathegar2objection.jpg/)Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)That looks hellish on the landscape. Hope the planners see sense and reject it. Anyone have a link to the planning application on highland council web site?Thanks for letting us see this. PP
Mystical Potato Head
03-Dec-11, 13:06
In laymans terms, does that mean the picture has been zoomed in more than it should?
In laymans terms if you zoom in on the turbines you also zoom in on the surrounding area,therefore the height of the turbines is not over emphasised
because any landmark,trees,buildings etc is zoomed in to the same proportions.Also this view appears to be on the same level as the turbines,not from a lower point of view looking up which
exaggerates the height.I have seen views from a higher point where the turbines are made to look smaller because you are looking down on them,of course i wouldnt even suggest that the wind farm
applicants would ever use methods to make the turbines appear smaller.
Perspective(POV) has a far greater varying effect on the apparent height of an object than varying your FOV from 20 degrees to the SNH recommended 40 degrees.
secrets in symmetry
03-Dec-11, 13:29
In laymans terms, does that mean the picture has been zoomed in more than it should?Yes. That and the foreshortening effect of the "zoom" serves to overemphasize the turbines - which is of course why he does it, although he probably doesn't understand why.
Note also that his "new" turbines are bright white (to further overemphasize them), whilst the old ones are almost perfectly blended into the sky. Ywindy is a charlatan, as most of us already knew.
Read his report to the John Muir Trust if you want a good laugh at all the other things he doesn't know or understand.
Bobinovich
03-Dec-11, 13:59
That looks hellish on the landscape. Hope the planners see sense and reject it. Anyone have a link to the planning application on highland council web site?Thanks for letting us see this. PP
HC application here (http://wam.highland.gov.uk/wam/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=LSULREIH0A000), and anyone wanting to object to Wathegar 2 can do so here (http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/page2.htm#Wathegar2)
Mystical Potato Head
03-Dec-11, 14:34
Yes. That and the foreshortening effect of the "zoom" serves to overemphasize the turbines - which is of course why he does it, although he probably doesn't understand why.
Note also that his "new" turbines are bright white (to further overemphasize them), whilst the old ones are almost perfectly blended into the sky. Ywindy is a charlatan, as most of us already knew.
Read his report to the John Muir Trust if you want a good laugh at all the other things he doesn't know or understand.
Yes,he should have made all the turbines white but that still doesnt detract from the fact, that on a sunny day, with said sun behind you the new turbines will appear what colour? Yes ,they'll be white,not overemphasized white but the usual reflective bright white which i'm sure most of us already knew.
And i repeat that the foreshortening effect of the zoom does not overemphasize the turbines alone,everything else is overemphasized as well.
If you zoom in on a Buzzard sitting on a fence post the Buzzard will appear larger,the fence post will also appear larger or are you saying it will look
like a huge Buzzard sitting on a matchstick because only the Buzzard is "overemphasized."
ywindythesecond
03-Dec-11, 14:57
Yes,he should have made all the turbines white but that still doesnt detract from the fact, that on a sunny day, with said sun behind you the new turbines will appear what colour? Yes ,they'll be white,not overemphasized white but the usual reflective bright white which i'm sure most of us already knew.
Thanks MPH.
Here is a photograph of Forss turbines taken on 12th February 2010.
http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/2093/12022010010.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/834/12022010010.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
I've objected, it is very simple to do online using Bobo's link.
Thanks B :D
Mystical Potato Head
03-Dec-11, 17:36
Thanks MPH.
Here is a photograph of Forss turbines taken on 12th February 2010.
http://img834.imageshack.us/img834/2093/12022010010.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/834/12022010010.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
And from a different perspective.Its very easy to maximise or minimise the visual impact to suit which ever side of the
argument you're on,irrespective of FOV,even at the recommended 40 degrees its possible to make them stick out like a sore thumb
or have them barely impacting on the skyline by altering only one thing,PERSPECTIVE.
http://i374.photobucket.com/albums/oo189/sat5_photos/ForssWindmills1flickr-1.jpg
In laymans terms, does that mean the picture has been zoomed in more than it should?
Yes that is exactly what I am suggesting, ywindy is trying to create bad publicity for the development.
I can't decide for other people how they should judge wind farms aesthetically but I do want to point out that there are rules to representing wind farms and ywindy breaks everyone of them.
It doesn't matter, in the montage the existing towers look the same as the superimposed ones. It looks like a bliddy forest!
It looks like a bliddy forest!
We need 30GW of installed wind, much of it onshore by 2020, nobody said they were going to be invisible.
We need 30GW of installed wind, much of it onshore by 2020, nobody said they were going to be invisible.
But the cost to the environment is too high. There are plenty of places that don't impact the very view that almost every visitor to the area takes in when they stop to stock up on supplies.
This is like they had a competition to choose the worst place to put it.
But the cost to the environment is too high. There are plenty of places that don't impact the very view that almost every visitor to the area takes in when they stop to stock up on supplies.
This is like they had a competition to choose the worst place to put it.
You seem to be making two false assumptions.
Not everyone finds wind farms objectionable to look at though I do find them horrible so count me in the anti-wind brigade as far as aesthetics are concerned, I'd much like unspoilt landscapes if it was achievable.
People do actually realise that sacrificing visual amenity has to be essential in a lot of cases if we are to get carbon emissions down to stabilise energy prices and a changing environment.
You seem to be making two false assumptions.
Not everyone finds wind farms objectionable to look at though I do find them horrible so count me in the anti-wind brigade as far as aesthetics are concerned, I'd much like unspoilt landscapes if it was achievable.
People do actually realise that sacrificing visual amenity has to be essential in a lot of cases if we are to get carbon emissions down to stabilise energy prices and a changing environment.
I would say that there are plenty of places in Caithness that would not have the impact this will. Presumably not in places that are so advantageous to the developers.
I would say that there are plenty of places in Caithness that would not have the impact this will. Presumably not in places that are so advantageous to the developers.
Yes I agree 100% but we have to deal within the system that we have got.
Wind farms will only be erected on land which is owned by those landowners that want them. John Thurso owns much of the interior and we all know his stance.
And the State is one based upon liberalism and free markets, it would be unthinkable for the State to introduce a scheme which would compulsory purchase land which would have the least amount of visual impact on residents or handsomely reward landowners of such land above other land owners nearer to property etc.
Yes I agree 100% but we have to deal within the system that we have got.
Wind farms will only be erected on land which is owned by those landowners that want them. John Thurso owns much of the interior and we all know his stance.
And the State is one based upon liberalism and free markets, it would be unthinkable for the State to introduce a scheme which would compulsory purchase land which would have the least amount of visual impact on residents or handsomely reward landowners of such land above other land owners nearer to property etc.
You're probably right. All we can do is sensibly object to the ones that are taking the pee, and not to the sensible ones.
I would disagree with a comment I've seen here a few times, that Caithness is being unfairly targeted. I was back in South Lanarkshire recently and they are pretty much wall to wall.
Would it be fair to say that when the new fleet of nuclear power stations go ahead then it will remove millions from the consumers and coffers and deliver them right into the hands of EDF, EON etc?
I guess it most likely will, however how many long term jobs will be created by the wind farms?
Also nuclear power will deliver its rated load 24/7 wind or no wind. A nuclear power station will not be switched off and left to rot when the government incentives cease and they start to cost money.
ywindythesecond
03-Dec-11, 23:18
I would say that there are plenty of places in Caithness that would not have the impact this will. Presumably not in places that are so advantageous to the developers.
That's interesting ducati. You often hear the cry "I am not against wind farms per se, but this is the wrong place". I was thinking about that the other day and it occured to me that whenever that was said, the person should be required to nominate another location and persuade the people there that it was a better place. Now I know you didn't say it, but where in Caithness would you say was a better place and which community would you have to persuade to accept the development, and what arguments would you put forward to persuade them?
I guess it most likely will, however how many long term jobs will be created by the wind farms?
Also nuclear power will deliver its rated load 24/7 wind or no wind. A nuclear power station will not be switched off and left to rot when the government incentives cease and they start to cost money.
Well you've definitely raised a few issues in an attempt to justify a position of being against wind farms.
If you are saying there won't be many jobs with wind then you are ultimately saying that wind has the potential to being very cost effective for consumers. Also you are making the mistake of likening nuclear as a sustainable energy source when it can't possibly be so.
Considering the hugely inflated tarrifs that are paid to wind developers and the face the we the consumer pay for it then no it is not cost effective at all.
Almost every nation has recognised that nuclear is the way to go to provide cost effective, reliable, safe and plentiful energy. They cant all be wrong can they.
Wind is paying lip service to the tree huggers and to fulfill our international commitments to reduce Co2 emisions.
ywindythesecond
03-Dec-11, 23:30
We need 30GW of installed wind, much of it onshore by 2020, nobody said they were going to be invisible.
Do we really "need" 30GW of wind installed by 2020? Why do we "need" 30GW installed wind by 2020". If we had it, how much of that 30GW could be relied upon to be available at 1030am on 2nd February 2021? I mean RELIED upon. If it didn't turn up, then what would boil the kettles for elevenses?
Do we really "need" 30GW of wind installed by 2020? Why do we "need" 30GW installed wind by 2020". If we had it, how much of that 30GW could be relied upon to be available at 1030am on 2nd February 2021? I mean RELIED upon. If it didn't turn up, then what would boil the kettles for elevenses?
Wind is the most reliable energy source that we have. A world without wind? Now that is ridiculous but then anti-wind campaigners have come up with some howlers.
ywindythesecond
03-Dec-11, 23:41
Wind is the most reliable energy source that we have. A world without wind? Now that is ridiculous but then anti-wind campaigners have come up with some howlers.
Thanks for that Reggy. I'll ask the question again but I don't expect a proper answer this time either:
"Do we really "need" 30GW of wind installed by 2020? Why do we "need" 30GW installed wind by 2020". If we had it, how much of that 30GW could be relied upon to be available at 1030am on 2nd February 2021? I mean RELIED upon. If it didn't turn up, then what would boil the kettles for elevenses? "
We need it to reduce carbon emissions and stabilise rising energy prices, I think we have been over this before.
Your only argument is the NIMBY one.
orkneycadian
04-Dec-11, 00:15
A nuclear power station will not be switched off and left to rot when the government incentives cease and they start to cost money.
Whats happening over at Dounreay these days?
ywindythesecond
04-Dec-11, 00:18
That looks hellish on the landscape. Hope the planners see sense and reject it. Anyone have a link to the planning application on highland council web site?Thanks for letting us see this. PP
I am afraid that that is not the whole story PP. Camster windfarm was approved two years ago and is now under construction. The picture below is the same one from Tesco car park but moving to the left.
http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/9277/croppedcamsterandachair.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/845/croppedcamsterandachair.jpg/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
The three turbines on the right are Achairn Windfarm (Photo) and the others are Camster, (photomontage). Further to the left will be Burn of Whilk Windfarm, also approved but not so visible from this viewpoint. Pretty damaging to the Yarrows Archaeological Trail though.
Mystical Potato Head
04-Dec-11, 00:31
Whats happening over at Dounreay these days?
If we told you you would have to be shot..................quick,somebody tell him.
Whats happening over at Dounreay these days?
I don't know but it and the rest of decommissioning is sucking nearly £3 billion per year out of the public purse to get rid of it all.
That's interesting ducati. You often hear the cry "I am not against wind farms per se, but this is the wrong place". I was thinking about that the other day and it occured to me that whenever that was said, the person should be required to nominate another location and persuade the people there that it was a better place. Now I know you didn't say it, but where in Caithness would you say was a better place and which community would you have to persuade to accept the development, and what arguments would you put forward to persuade them?
I don't know! It isn't my job, but it is somebodies, there are only four main roads in Caithness, it can't be that hard to find locations that don't have massive visual impact viewed from these roads.
John Little
04-Dec-11, 09:39
Can I ask a couple of questions please?
I know nothing on these matters but one of the reasons I heard given for not keeping Dounreay open as a power station was that transmitting power south would lose too much (6.5%) to resistance.
1 If this was true of Dounreay, why is it not true of wind farms?
2 If it is just an urban myth/ load of tosh, then is there any practical reason why there should not be a power station in Caithness? By practical I mean scientific, not political or ideological.
3 Where is the supply for the Highlands, Islands, Orkneys and Shetland generated?
John Little
04-Dec-11, 09:45
I don't know but it and the rest of decommissioning is sucking nearly £3 billion per year out of the public purse to get rid of it all.
Per year?
"On 1 April 2005 the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Decommissioning_Authority) (NDA) became the owner of the site, with the UKAEA remaining as operator. Decommissioning of Dounreay is planned to bring the site to an interim care and surveillance state by 2036, and as a brownfield site (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownfield_land) by 2336, at a total cost of £ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_sterling)2.9 billion."
Better get on to Wikipedia and amend the entry then...
Can I ask a couple of questions please?
I know nothing on these matters but one of the reasons I heard given for not keeping Dounreay open as a power station was that transmitting power south would lose too much (6.5%) to resistance.
Haven't you heard John? Scotland will be a Nuclear free state when we get rid of the rest of the powerstations, and all the Missiles, and the Submarines oh and the ships, and medical research facilities and the hospitals and cancer care centres, and the Universities and mass spectrometers and watches and .........................
John Little
04-Dec-11, 10:19
Haven't you heard John? Scotland will be a Nuclear free state when we get rid of the rest of the powerstations, and all the Missiles, and the Submarines oh and the ships, and medical research facilities and the hospitals and cancer care centres, and the Universities and mass spectrometers and watches and .........................
My point Duke is that if it's economic to transmit power from wind farms to the grid, then it's economic to transmit power from a power station. Not necessarily nuclear- and it would not matter where it was sited.
ywindythesecond
04-Dec-11, 12:06
Can I ask a couple of questions please?
I know nothing on these matters but one of the reasons I heard given for not keeping Dounreay open as a power station was that transmitting power south would lose too much (6.5%) to resistance.
1 If this was true of Dounreay, why is it not true of wind farms?
2 If it is just an urban myth/ load of tosh, then is there any practical reason why there should not be a power station in Caithness? By practical I mean scientific, not political or ideological.
3 Where is the supply for the Highlands, Islands, Orkneys and Shetland generated?
Good questions John.
The losses from transmission I understand arise mostly at transformers and in the low voltage local networks. There is a loss in HV transmission but you can't always site your generators right beside the demand so some loss has to be tolerated. Dounreay was closed for other reasons. Partly because it was built when pipe joints were made with hemp and Plumber's Mait, partly political because nuclear was becoming a dirty word, and no doubt for other good reasons such as the end of the cold war.
Caithness already has its own generating plant-Causeymire, Buolfruich, and Forss windfarms. When it is windy these more than supply Caithness's needs. If it is not windy, then there is no point as far as Caithness is concerned in adding more windfarms to do nothing as well.
Having said that, there is already a transmission infrastructure from Dounreay south which could be used for new nuclear generation and can at reasonable cost be upgraded because only one side is strung.As Caithness is well used to nuclear it would be (generally) politically acceptable.
As to where the Highlands and Islands get their power, it is mostly from the thermal plants like Peterhead, Longannet and Hunterstown etc. Not as you might expect from Highland Hydro as its purpose is principally to balance the national grid, not supply base load. I don't know for sure but I imagine the more remote islands will have their own oil fired plant.
Per year?
"On 1 April 2005 the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Decommissioning_Authority) (NDA) became the owner of the site, with the UKAEA remaining as operator. Decommissioning of Dounreay is planned to bring the site to an interim care and surveillance state by 2036, and as a brownfield site (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownfield_land) by 2336, at a total cost of £ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_sterling)2.9 billion."
Better get on to Wikipedia and amend the entry then...
Sorry John but you didn't read my post properly or I didn't make it clear, I didn't say Dounreay cost £3billion per year, I said it and the rest of the decommissioning, meaning the other decommissioning at other sites cost nearly £3 billion per year. Dounreay only accounts for ~5% of that.
Can I ask a couple of questions please?
I know nothing on these matters but one of the reasons I heard given for not keeping Dounreay open as a power station was that transmitting power south would lose too much (6.5%) to resistance.
1 If this was true of Dounreay, why is it not true of wind farms?
2 If it is just an urban myth/ load of tosh, then is there any practical reason why there should not be a power station in Caithness? By practical I mean scientific, not political or ideological.
3 Where is the supply for the Highlands, Islands, Orkneys and Shetland generated?
1) I suppose the crux is about sustainability, if in the first scenario you had a nuclear reactor in caithness and wind farms near the city, over time there would be more losses from a finite energy source (which is never recoverable) and in time we would be forced to put up more wind farms much sooner once the energy is spent.
In the second scenario, if we had wind farms in Caithness and a nuclear reactor nearer the city then there will less losses from the nuclear so the energy will be able to last longer to do useful work and in turn there will be a less pressing need to put up wind farms in Caithness.
secrets in symmetry
04-Dec-11, 22:48
As to where the Highlands and Islands get their power, it is mostly from the thermal plants like Peterhead, Longannet and Hunterstown etc."Thermal plants like...Hunterstown." Lol! You get worse and worse....
Doth anyone know with some precision if these Windfarms and Solar Farms are/will actually reduce the costs of Electricity?
Many people have their own views, but I am reading that there are more and more Solar Companies going bankrupt.....
orkneycadian
05-Dec-11, 00:07
"Thermal plants like...Hunterstown." Lol! You get worse and worse....
I thought ywindy professed to know something about power generation? [lol]
ywindythesecond
05-Dec-11, 00:27
I thought ywindy professed to know something about power generation? [lol]
True okc, but I think SiS was pointing out that I had misspelt "Hunterston", a serious technical error.
More to the point, Sandyr1 asked about whether "Windfarms and Solar Farms are/will actually reduce the costs of Electricity?
Many people have their own views, but I am reading that there are more and more Solar Companies going bankrupt..... "
The answer is a clear no, but leaving windfarms aside for the moment, Solar Companies are going bust because they came into being to satisfy an artificial demand for solar panels created by Government through Feed-in Tariffs. Google "Feed-in Tariffs " to find out what a scam this is. Our present Westminster Govt has realised what a drain this is on electricity bill payers and has halved the payment to people who will install solar panels in their homes in future so because there is now no financial benefit to them and no cost to us, there is no work for solar companies, which would not have existed anyway if FiTs had not been introduced by govt.
Mystical Potato Head
05-Dec-11, 01:07
I thought ywindy professed to know something about power generation? [lol]
Is it true that they use your hot air to power Orkney? Any Tesco building excluded of course.
secrets in symmetry
05-Dec-11, 01:24
True okc, but I think SiS was pointing out that I had misspelt "Hunterston", a serious technical error.I wondered if you might interpret my post like that - but I thought that even you couldn't possibly be that hopeless. This reminds me of the time you couldn't spot the idiotic assumption in your infamous report. I'm not sure if this one is worse or not - I think it might be....
There is one way you might wriggle out of it. I'd almost be impressed if you could see it....
but leaving windfarms aside for the moment, Solar Companies are going bust because they came into being to satisfy an artificial demand for solar panels created by Government through Feed-in Tariffs. Google "Feed-in Tariffs " to find out what a scam this is. Our present Westminster Govt has realised what a drain this is on electricity bill payers and has halved the payment to people who will install solar panels in their homes in future so because there is now no financial benefit to them and no cost to us, there is no work for solar companies, which would not have existed anyway if FiTs had not been introduced by govt.
Feed in Tariffs aren't a scam, they are an incentive to promote growth in the micro renewable energy market. The Government wanted growth and that is what they got, 350MW of micro solar in 18 months. The intention was to reduce the FiT by 8% each year but DECC have either pulled off a masterstroke of genius or have acted out of complete lunacy to pander to right wing sceptics' pseudo concerns over increases to the cost of energy which is only the price of a Daily Mail per year to the average consumer.
I've no doubt that installers were keeping up their installation prices to suit demand and now the onus is on them to see if they can reduce the cost of the installations, that or go bust. Even so,it is still worth investing in solar with the new FiT despite all the bad press. It just won't have the same payback but customers will still have the same savings on their electricity bill.
A typical installation of ~4kW will produce 3200kWh per year in a good location, the savings on the bills will be +£500 @16p/kWh and it will generate over £750 in Fit@21p/kWh making the customer £1250 per year better off.
Energy prices will keep going up so ensuring it will be a wise investment.
ywindythesecond
05-Dec-11, 09:07
Feed in Tariffs aren't a scam, they are an incentive to promote growth in the micro renewable energy market. The Government wanted growth and that is what they got, 350MW of micro solar in 18 months. The intention was to reduce the FiT by 8% each year but DECC have either pulled off a masterstroke of genius or have acted out of complete lunacy to pander to right wing sceptics' pseudo concerns over increases to the cost of energy which is only the price of a Daily Mail per year to the average consumer.
I've no doubt that installers were keeping up their installation prices to suit demand and now the onus is on them to see if they can reduce the cost of the installations, that or go bust. Even so,it is still worth investing in solar with the new FiT despite all the bad press. It just won't have the same payback but customers will still have the same savings on their electricity bill.
A typical installation of ~4kW will produce 3200kWh per year in a good location, the savings on the bills will be +£500 @16p/kWh and it will generate over £750 in Fit@21p/kWh making the customer £1250 per year better off.
Energy prices will keep going up so ensuring it will be a wise investment.
Customers who install PV will still save money. Customers who don't will be in the fortunate position of only having to subsidise it to 50% of what they would have otherwise. FiTs is paid for by the other customers. Anyone out there interested don't just believe me. Google FiTs and find out for yourself what you are paying for but don't know it.
ywindythesecond
05-Dec-11, 09:13
I wondered if you might interpret my post like that - but I thought that even you couldn't possibly be that hopeless. This reminds me of the time you couldn't spot the idiotic assumption in your infamous report. I'm not sure if this one is worse or not - I think it might be....
There is one way you might wriggle out of it. I'd almost be impressed if you could see it....
Am I the only contributor to this thread that hasn't a clue what SiS is on about? SiS, I don't know what your beef is but why not just slag me openly and honestly once and for all and get it over with.
"Thermal plants like...Hunterstown." Lol! You get worse and worse....
Tutt-Tutt SiS.....how childish of you, it must be a smug feeling knowing you are Mr. Perfect!!
C3..............:roll:[disgust][disgust]
John Little
05-Dec-11, 12:09
Thankyou for the information- most interesting.
I suppose the idea of a gas fired power station at Dounreay with Sullum Voe and Laggan Tormore on schedule and not so far away is a bit of a no starter then.
Oh well - must keep my amateur nose out of such things.
Wind farms are the future it seems.
Well John if you live too near 'em you can always sue:
http://www.rechargenews.com/energy/wind/article291754.ece (http://www.rechargenews.com/energy/wind/article291754.ece) The outcome of the case was seen as significant for other UK wind farm operators facing complaints from local residents over alleged noise nuisance. But the terms of the settlement mean the exact resolution will remain a secret.
Oh Dear:
"UK Green energy projects fall by wayside in Dash for Gas" (Guardian too! that's £288.00 a year for a daily copy!)
'Wind turbine construction down by half on last year'..
Oh dear I'm wringing my hands now..
But give me a couple of years and I'll be up to speed with anthropogenic (man-made) Global warming maybe..
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/dec/04/renewableenergy-energy-industry?newsfeed=true (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/dec/04/renewableenergy-energy-industry?newsfeed=true)
secrets in symmetry
06-Dec-11, 00:50
Am I the only contributor to this thread that hasn't a clue what SiS is on about? SiS, I don't know what your beef is but why not just slag me openly and honestly once and for all and get it over with.It's better that you work it out for yourself, but let's ask instead....
What makes Hunterston a "thermal plant"?
ywindythesecond
06-Dec-11, 01:06
It's better that you work it out for yourself, but let's ask instead....
What makes Hunterston a "thermal plant"?
It uses steam to drive the turbines.
secrets in symmetry
06-Dec-11, 01:19
It uses steam to drive the turbines.I thought you might say that lol!
You're not quite as daft as you seem....
Although goodness knows why you lump together nuclear and coal fired power stations because of their turbines - and classify them both as thermal plants when their fuels and their CO2 output are so different....
I think I'll invent a steam generating solar power plant with a steam turbine, so you can call that a thermal plant too - would you like that? And what about a steam generating windmill?
I suppose the idea of a gas fired power station at Dounreay with Sullum Voe and Laggan Tormore on schedule and not so far away is a bit of a no starter then.
Oh well - must keep my amateur nose out of such things.
A nice though but Laggan and Tormore will be going into the Frigg pipeline and on to Peterhead.
Caithness won't get any unsubsidised power generation anytime soon.
Doth anyone know with some precision if these Windfarms and Solar Farms are/will actually reduce the costs of Electricity?
Many people have their own views, but I am reading that there are more and more Solar Companies going bankrupt.....
I am not an economist but I noticed that Bloomberg has recently produced a report which forecasts that onshore wind will be fully competitive with other forms of generation by 2016. It already beats nuclear and is already fully competitive in other countries like Brazil.
The best wind farms in the world already produce power as economically as coal, gas and nuclear generators;
The logic goes that when wind does become fully competitive in the near future then there will be a global tipping point of investment in wind as industry fully wakes up to this clean and benign form of energy.
So in answer to your query, if the energy market is influenced by a cheaper alternative then it will be reasonable to predict on just the principle of market forces that energy prices will come down as consumers switch to wind and reduce demand on fossil fuels.
http://bnef.com/PressReleases/view/172
ywindythesecond
06-Dec-11, 09:16
The logic goes that when wind does become fully competitive in the near future then there will be a global tipping point of investment in wind as industry fully wakes up to this clean and benign form of energy.
The argument that wind energy will be competetive soon with coal and gas relies on coal and gas prices rising to be higher than the hugely subsidised wind power (5.5p per unit of electricity). It is nothing to do with wind energy getting cheaper. The technology is mature, the cheapest sites are already booked, the available transmission infrastructure is oversubscribed, offshore is hugely more expensive than onshore. If wind is heading to be competitive then wind power does not need the subsidy, so it should be removed and wind power will find its proper level in the market place. Ditched.
The argument that wind energy will be competetive soon with coal and gas relies on coal and gas prices rising to be higher than the hugely subsidised wind power (5.5p per unit of electricity). It is nothing to do with wind energy getting cheaper. The technology is mature, the cheapest sites are already booked, the available transmission infrastructure is oversubscribed, offshore is hugely more expensive than onshore. If wind is heading to be competitive then wind power does not need the subsidy, so it should be removed and wind power will find its proper level in the market place. Ditched.
Did you actually read the report from Bloomberg? How come you are so out of touch with the facts?
When the hard-boiled economists at Bloomberg say that wind energy is getting cheaper and will be cheaper than fossil fuels by 2016 then I think we have to take notice.
ywindythesecond
06-Dec-11, 10:33
Did you actually read the report from Bloomberg? How come you are so out of touch with the facts?
When the hard-boiled economists at Bloomberg say that wind energy is getting cheaper and will be cheaper than fossil fuels by 2016 then I think we have to take notice.
I haven't read the report yet but I started to read the item you linked to. When I read this "These improvements have increased capacity factors by 13 percentage points to 34% over the past 27 years." , I stopped because that is simply not true.
There was an excellent report produced earlier this year "Analysis of UK Wind Power Generation November 2008 to December 2010" http://www.jmt.org/assets/pdf/Report_Analysis%20UK%20Wind_SYoung.pdf. The highest annual average load factor during that period was for 2009 and it was 27.18%. It was entirely from Scottish onshore windfarms and Scotland "has the best wind resource in Europe." 2010 was 21.14% load factor and that included a sizeable chunk of English offshore wind.
Have you read Colin Gibson's report ?The Institution of Engineers and Shipbuilders in Scotland Levelised cost estimates for electricity generation http://www.iesisenergy.org/lcost/
I haven't read the report yet but I started to read the item you linked to. When I read this "These improvements have increased capacity factors by 13 percentage points to 34% over the past 27 years." , I stopped because that is simply not true.
There was an excellent report produced earlier this year "Analysis of UK Wind Power Generation November 2008 to December 2010" http://www.jmt.org/assets/pdf/Report_Analysis%20UK%20Wind_SYoung.pdf. The highest annual average load factor during that period was for 2009 and it was 27.18%. It was entirely from Scottish onshore windfarms and Scotland "has the best wind resource in Europe." 2010 was 21.14% load factor and that included a sizeable chunk of English offshore wind.
Have you read Colin Gibson's report ?The Institution of Engineers and Shipbuilders in Scotland Levelised cost estimates for electricity generation http://www.iesisenergy.org/lcost/
Hardly unbiased, Colin Gibson is a well known anti-wind campaigner and the other report is full of false assumptions and bad data as has been already covered..
ywindythesecond
06-Dec-11, 20:27
Hardly unbiased, Colin Gibson is a well known anti-wind campaigner and the other report is full of false assumptions and bad data as has been already covered..
Sorry Reggy, you can’t dismiss Colin Gibson as lightly as that. Perhaps you know another Colin Gibson but the one that wrote the report is a retired board member of National Grid with a lifetime of experience in electricity generation and transmission. I am an anti-windfarm campaigner, Colin Gibson is a highly respected engineer.
His report which compares generation costs by technology on a level playing field lists all his source data and assumptions and provides an interactive spreadsheet into which you can put your preferred assumptions. Instead of a trashy throw-aside remark “Colin Gibson is a well known anti- wind campaigner”, how about some good technical criticism which I know you are capable of. The beauty of Colin’s report is that it gives you the opportunity to input your own assumptions to challenge his, but don’t forget to state your rationale.
Sorry Reggy, you can’t dismiss Colin Gibson as lightly as that. Perhaps you know another Colin Gibson but the one that wrote the report is a retired board member of National Grid with a lifetime of experience in electricity generation and transmission. I am an anti-windfarm campaigner, Colin Gibson is a highly respected engineer.
His report which compares generation costs by technology on a level playing field lists all his source data and assumptions and provides an interactive spreadsheet into which you can put your preferred assumptions. Instead of a trashy throw-aside remark “Colin Gibson is a well known anti- wind campaigner”, how about some good technical criticism which I know you are capable of. The beauty of Colin’s report is that it gives you the opportunity to input your own assumptions to challenge his, but don’t forget to state your rationale.
Yes I can dismiss him but not so lightly as you suggest. Colin Gibson has written several pieces on anti-wind websites and he has appeared as a guest speaker at the anti-wind conference in Ayr recently. He could have made his study of the costs of energy without being involved in the anti-wind brigade and left it at that. But no. He obviously is using his profession antecedents to give weight to his anti-wind agenda. And I'm afraid to say that once you are involved with a pressure group or a political 'movement' then you lose all your objectivity, but you will choose not to acknowledge that. Simples.
ywindythesecond
06-Dec-11, 21:22
Yes I can dismiss him but not so lightly as you suggest. Colin Gibson has written several pieces on anti-wind websites and he has appeared as a guest speaker at the anti-wind conference in Ayr recently. He could have made his study of the costs of energy without being involved in the anti-wind brigade and left it at that. But no. He obviously is using his profession antecedents to give weight to his anti-wind agenda. And I'm afraid to say that once you are involved with a pressure group or a political 'movement' then you lose all your objectivity, but you will choose not to acknowledge that. Simples.
So I repeat myself "how about some good technical criticism which I know you are capable of. The beauty of Colin’s report is that it gives you the opportunity to input your own assumptions to challenge his, but don’t forget to state your rationale."
Give me some instances of Colin writing on anti-windfarm websites.
Give me some instances of Colin writing on anti-windfarm websites.
just google. I know you are capable of that
ywindythesecond
06-Dec-11, 21:53
Hardly unbiased, Colin Gibson is a well known anti-wind campaigner and the other report is full of false assumptions and bad data as has been already covered..
The “other report” you refer to is “Analysis of UK Wind Power Generation November 2008 to December 2010”. I wrote it and it was supported by John Muir Trust. It is commonly referred to as “the John Muir Report”. It was reported around the world within days of its release and was downloaded from the John Muir website over 49,000 times in May this year. So far it has been criticised by Reggy, SiS, and Scotrenewables. http://www.scottishrenewables.com/news/statement-john-muir-trust-analysis-UK-wind-power-/
On the other hand, David JC Mackay, author of “Sustainable Energy – Without the Hot Air” and Chief Scientific Advisor to the Department of Energy and Climate Change wrote this on 10th April 2011:
“Dear Stuart
1. I enjoyed your paper on UK wind power.
(I'm a JMT member, and the Chief Scientific Advisor to DECC, by the way.)
2. You said you could not find one minor fact, namely the capacity of Foyers.
It's in my book:
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c26/page_191.shtml
6.3 GWh / 0.3 GW = 21 hours.
3. Would you like to present your work at DECC?
yours
David MacKay
--
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
David J.C. MacKay FRS To contact me, see tinyurl.com/DJCM2009
Cavendish Laboratory, Chief Scientific Advisor,
19 J J Thomson Ave, Department of Energy and Climate Change,
Cambridge CB3 0HE. UK 3 Whitehall Place, London SW1A 2AW
Book: "Sustainable Energy - without the hot air" - withouthotair.com”
Here is a challenge Reggy- Find an authoritative peer-reviewed condemnation of my report.
So I repeat myself "how about some good technical criticism which I know you are capable of. The beauty of Colin’s report is that it gives you the opportunity to input your own assumptions to challenge his, but don’t forget to state your rationale.".
I tried to stop reading the report after taking in his assumptions on nuke. I know they are simply not true.
His calculations are based on load factors that vary through plant life, nothing wrong with that but he has that load factors are 81.5% in the first 5 years, a good assumption possibly but his second assumption is that it improves to 87.5% for years 5-40, that is counter to anything that I've read on the subject. And yet he gives them a life of 60 years?!?
And he gives them a construction time of 5 years? Rather gilding the lily there I think.
A two year old could pick this baby to bits.
ywindythesecond
06-Dec-11, 22:09
.
A two year old could pick this baby to bits.
Go on then, shouldn't take you long.
Go on then, shouldn't take you long.
I'm sure I could go on and on, but I do have a life contrary to common belief
Yes I can dismiss him but not so lightly as you suggest. Colin Gibson has written several pieces on anti-wind websites and he has appeared as a guest speaker at the anti-wind conference in Ayr recently. He could have made his study of the costs of energy without being involved in the anti-wind brigade and left it at that. But no. He obviously is using his profession antecedents to give weight to his anti-wind agenda. And I'm afraid to say that once you are involved with a pressure group or a political 'movement' then you lose all your objectivity, but you will choose not to acknowledge that. Simples.
Rheghead, thought you were involved with a pressure group called: "Supporters of Wind Farms in Caithness" You are also a 'Green' politically, and you were/are an "Environmental consultant for Local Government" bit of calling the kettle black eh?
Rheghead, thought you were involved with a pressure group called: "Supporters of Wind Farms in Caithness" You are also a 'Green' politically, and you were/are an "Environmental consultant for Local Government" bit of calling the kettle black eh?
it never got off the ground, it just exists as a page on the org community section and I've never been an Environmental consultant for Local Government, if you believe that on my profile then you are even more gullible than I took you for.
orkneycadian
07-Dec-11, 00:37
It uses steam to drive the turbines.
I am afraid, ywindy, that all credibility (not that there was ever that much), for all your stats and figures have gone out the window now. How any figures that get conjured up can be trusted when assumptions like the above are made, is beyond my comprehension. Seems that power stations can be put into any categorisation of your choosing.
Solar power is of course thermal too, without having to pass through steam - Simply on the basis that the sun is hot
Coal fired is of course renewable on the grounds that its made from wood and other organic material, and wood (and organic material) is still growing to this day.
Then wind is of course thermal too - The sun heats up different parts of the earths atmosphere causing pressure differentials resulting in wind
And of course solar is nuclear, on the grounds that the sun is a big nuclear reaction - Hang on, didn't I say solar was thermal? :confused
But then wind must be nuclear too, since the heat that is producing it, comes from the sun, which is a big fusion reaction. So is wind thermal or nuclear?
Dunno, depends what you want it to be I guess! ;)
So from now on ywindy, wind power can be what you want it to be, depending on whatever figures you are trying to convince us of at the time. Thermal or nuclear is fine by me!
Of course the proposed Hunterston coal fired power station is definitely thermal but it isn't built yet and there is a lot of effort behind the scenes to make sure it doesn't.
ywindythesecond
07-Dec-11, 11:43
I am afraid, ywindy, that all credibility (not that there was ever that much), for all your stats and figures have gone out the window now. How any figures that get conjured up can be trusted when assumptions like the above are made, is beyond my comprehension. Seems that power stations can be put into any categorisation of your choosing.
Solar power is of course thermal too, without having to pass through steam - Simply on the basis that the sun is hot
Coal fired is of course renewable on the grounds that its made from wood and other organic material, and wood (and organic material) is still growing to this day.
Then wind is of course thermal too - The sun heats up different parts of the earths atmosphere causing pressure differentials resulting in wind
And of course solar is nuclear, on the grounds that the sun is a big nuclear reaction - Hang on, didn't I say solar was thermal? :confused
But then wind must be nuclear too, since the heat that is producing it, comes from the sun, which is a big fusion reaction. So is wind thermal or nuclear?
Dunno, depends what you want it to be I guess! ;)
So from now on ywindy, wind power can be what you want it to be, depending on whatever figures you are trying to convince us of at the time. Thermal or nuclear is fine by me!
Back to bed okc, SiS and Reggy have already done this to death. But before you go, for the benefit of any other viewers, could you please explain what is not "thermal" about steam?
it never got off the ground, it just exists as a page on the org community section and I've never been an Environmental consultant for Local Government, if you believe that on my profile then you are even more gullible than I took you for.Wot! [supporters of wind farms in Caithness] never got off the ground? these turbines are 'supposed' to produce leccy Reggy, not fly off into the distance, you know! ;)
You never denied you're a political Green, and why oh why say you're an 'Environmental consultant for Local Government' when you now say you're not?
I'm confused... especially when you tell me I'm gullible 'cos I actually believed your profile- uh?
Anyway enough nonsense..basically 'wind farms simply make land owners even richer and our electricity costs us more'.
Gordonbush wind farm (Strath Brora) on land owned by the Tyser family. The wind farm is providing Community benefit of £140,000 per year - which sounds fine until one considers that's only 0.5% of the total profit the wind farm stands to make when it's borne in mind it will generate revenue of between £21 and £28 million a year from selling electricity to the National Grid and also from Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROC).
(who pays for these ROC thingy's?)..
The answer is not money-making wind farms, we should all concentrate on conservation of energy and insulation - I've four bedrooms; two electric showers, large double-oven electric cooker, washing machine, tumble dryer (no line outside) TV's two PC's going most of time, the usual toaster, kettle microwave etc AND my leccy bill (I got today) was £49.45 a month. Although we're Oil fired central heating it's only a few £'s because of the insulation..
Insulation is the answer.. Our Lounge (20ft x 13ft) has one rad on (U value?). Starting from the outside of the house, it's 4 inch concrete block, 4 inch cavity wall insulation, 4 inch concrete block, DPC plastic, 4 inches of rockwall insulation, foil-backed plasterboard and wallpaper.. the remaining rooms the same.. (oh yes loft has 12 inches weft/weave of insulation, on top of foil-backed plasterboard. The ceiling underneath, has 2 inch of insulation and a further plasterboard plus insulating tiles.. along with good ventilation, it's very economical, and we're never cold. NEVER understood why house insulation is not a priority in all homes!
Part of our house is stone, so no cavity wall insulation there, BUT internally the walls are lined with DPC Foundation Underlay Plastic, a stud wall with 4 inches of Rockwall insulation , silver -backed plasterboard and wallrock thermal liner on top of which is our very pretty wallpaper..
I know a lot of stone houses simply have internally; the bare stone wall, a gap of a couple of inches and then plasterboard.. and cost a foutune to heat
How's YOUR insulation Reggy - are YOU doing your bit?
Beks
it will generate revenue of between £21 and £28 million a year from selling electricity to the National Grid and also from Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROC).
£21-28 million? And as income is directly related to performance then they must be a very efficient wind farm and the decision to site it there was right. So they do produce 'leccy' you can't have it both ways.
Currently just £1.5 billion is spent on the ROC to promote renewables but under the Project Transmit £13 billion of public money will be spent on nuclear and £6.4 billion on gas plants. Who pays for that?
Ah but surely the Flotta flame was adding more light to help you on your quest for the turbines and you still didn't find them. That's class.
Oops just saw this - looks very much like you've not been to Orkney Reggy, the flares 'brightness' isn't really that good, I'll mention (just for you) I was referring to the height..
I'm just concerned about the CO2 that's threatening us all, surely with you now, think it's causing human-induced climate change - I really thought you would have commented on that..
Currently just £1.5 billion is spent on the ROC to promote renewables but under the Project Transmit £13 billion of public money will be spent on nuclear and £6.4 billion on gas plants. Who pays for that?
Is that 'currently'? thought you wanted upteen more of these things!
Is that 'currently'? thought you wanted upteen more of these things!
Yes we need more in the right places.
This is boring.
What happened to this Reggy, changed your mind - yet again.?
On 16th Jan 2010 "I'm retiring from wind farm/ global warming threads from now on if it causes such bitterness. I think I'll be doing my homelife a great service tbh".
Me? I don't mind what you do, I enjoy these wind farm threads, seeing all the questions you never answer..
Anyway going for a Lavazza!
Mystical Potato Head
07-Dec-11, 20:22
This is boring.
What happened to this Reggy, changed your mind - yet again.?
On 16th Jan 2010 "I'm retiring from wind farm/ global warming threads from now on if it causes such bitterness. I think I'll be doing my homelife a great service tbh".
Me? I don't mind what you do, I enjoy these wind farm threads, seeing all the questions you never answer..
Anyway going for a Lavazza!
If anyone should be retiring from these sort of threads it should be ywindy condsidering the consant belittling comments he recieves from a certain expert to everything he posts,and now he has to put up with Dorkneycadian's
shite as well,in fact i'm sure some people who have been sitting on the fence or not particularly bothered by the issue must have voted against these wind farms just because of the arrogant,know it all,dismissive attitude of certain pro wind farm experts,just to say get it right up you.At least Reggy disagrees in a reasonably civil manner.
This is boring.
What happened to this Reggy, changed your mind - yet again.?
On 16th Jan 2010 "I'm retiring from wind farm/ global warming threads from now on if it causes such bitterness. I think I'll be doing my homelife a great service tbh".
Me? I don't mind what you do, I enjoy these wind farm threads, seeing all the questions you never answer..
Anyway going for a Lavazza!
If it is boring then put me on ignore, simples, please do it. But I know you won't because you love me. And what is the purpose of all this archive creeping? Got nothing better to do? You best go for that Lavazza.
If it is boring then put me on ignore, simples, please do it. But I know you won't because you love me. And what is the purpose of all this archive creeping? Got nothing better to do? You best go for that Lavazza.Put you on ignore? nah, it's sooo much fun.. 'love you'? em, wouldn't go that far!.
Had me Lavazza, and just unpacked our delivery from Tesco, and that's saved a 88 mile return trip for three quid. What's that? 3.4p a mile, don't think your pushbike would do that Rheggy..
Time to save energy, so I'll switch off me PC and monitor..
Put you on ignore? nah, it's sooo much fun.. 'love you'? em, wouldn't go that far!.
You've just said I was getting boring, now I am too much fun to ignore, which is it? Or does your feelings for me get in the way of your judgement?
secrets in symmetry
08-Dec-11, 00:13
Back to bed okc, SiS and Reggy have already done this to death. But before you go, for the benefit of any other viewers, could you please explain what is not "thermal" about steam?Are you attempting to extract the uric, or do you really not understand why your comments about Hunterston are so mind-numbingly stupid?
As for your schoolboy report...I don't know whether your data is reliable, but I do know that your "analysis" of it is so naive that it is hilarious.
Did you present your results at DECC?
ywindythesecond
08-Dec-11, 01:50
Are you attempting to extract the uric, or do you really not understand why your comments about Hunterston are so mind-numbingly stupid?
As for your schoolboy report...I don't know whether your data is reliable, but I do know that your "analysis" of it is so naive that it is hilarious.
Did you present your results at DECC?
Ignoring your trashy first two sentences as irrelevant, the answer to the third is, no I did not.
I wasn't invited. Around that time Chris Huhne made some statements which would not have fitted well with my report. I assume that David MacKay decided that it was not appropriate to present it.
Anyway, what actually is not "thermal" about steam?
Ignoring your trashy first two sentences as irrelevant, the answer to the third is, no I did not.
I wasn't invited. Around that time Chris Huhne made some statements which would not have fitted well with my report. I assume that David MacKay decided that it was not appropriate to present it.
Anyway, what actually is not "thermal" about steam?
What is more hilarious or even depressing is that the tory appointed Chief Scientific Advisor on Energy for DECC had even the slightest thoughts that your schoolboy report was enjoyable to read or that it had any relevance to the debate on green energy.
Your collection and analysis was hugely flawed.
ywindythesecond
08-Dec-11, 10:13
What is more hilarious or even depressing is that the tory appointed Chief Scientific Advisor on Energy for DECC had even the slightest thoughts that your schoolboy report was enjoyable to read or that it had any relevance to the debate on green energy.
Your collection and analysis was hugely flawed.
I challenged you to find a peer-reviewed condemnation of my report. Did you find one or is it still just the world according to Reggy? Why are you not Chief Scientific Advisor to DECC btw?
secrets in symmetry
08-Dec-11, 10:39
Ignoring your trashy first two sentences as irrelevant, the answer to the third is, no I did not.
I wasn't invited. Around that time Chris Huhne made some statements which would not have fitted well with my report. I assume that David MacKay decided that it was not appropriate to present it.
Anyway, what actually is not "thermal" about steam?Have spades been multiplying on this forum? I thought you'd borrowed Sandy's monster because you are digging as crazily as he digs. Sandy is still going at it elsewhere, so I suppose you have your own monster....
I gave you a few hints about you getting steamed up over the wrong issues in a previous post - but they appear to have flown over your head.
As for Chris Huhne's comments...are you suggesting a government conspiracy here? Will you write a "report" on that too lol?
What is more hilarious or even depressing is that the tory appointed Chief Scientific Advisor on Energy for DECC had even the slightest thoughts that your schoolboy report was enjoyable to read or that it had any relevance to the debate on green energy.
Your collection and analysis was hugely flawed.Perhaps David Mackay was just being polite. On the other hand, he could have been enticing naive prey into the lion's den. :cool:
David is a very smart bloke, and he already knew (at least in principle) everything that ywindy claims to have discovered for the first time - as did many other people.
I don't know whether ywindy's raw data is at all representative or reliable, but I do know that he didn't do anything useful with it.
You've just said I was getting boring, now I am too much fun to ignore, which is it? Or does your feelings for me get in the way of your judgement?
Forsooth child!, I said 'it's sooo much fun' pertaining to this thread, it's, just, well, actually, fascinating watching you floundering, it's like a car crash; you shouldn't watch but you just can't help it...
Seems Wathegar windfarm got the OK without it going in front of Councillors Eh? That's not right surely (Or does this manic belief that wind farms will 'save the world' override local democracy?) in some minds it apparently does, as even the Committee chairman was unaware, of new 'delegated powers' This 'rush for wind' certainly erodes basic democracy
PS could not help noticing but you posted at 04.32! - OK I know, you do shifts, but I refer my honourable friend to the statement you gave some time ago (ref writing that you're retiring from wind farm/ global warming threads):"I think I'll be doing my homelife a great service tbh".
Now, unless you're using the PC at work (shock horror!?) you're not really keeping to your word, now are you.. :(
PS could not help noticing but you posted at 04.32! - OK I know, you do shifts, but I refer my honourable friend to the statement you gave some time ago (ref writing that you're retiring from wind farm/ global warming threads):"I think I'll be doing my homelife a great service tbh".
Now, unless you're using the PC at work (shock horror!?) you're not really keeping to your word, now are you.. :(
Aww you're so concerned about me that you are desperate to see what I am doing every living minute of night and day! You absolutely adore me! Nobody else has such interest in me, I'm quite flattered, does your Mrs know? ;) xxx
I challenged you to find a peer-reviewed condemnation of my report. Did you find one or is it still just the world according to Reggy? Why are you not Chief Scientific Advisor to DECC btw?
Well as your peer I have reviewed it and there was serious shortfalls in its accuracy and analysis. SiS has done the same and Scotrenewables has a rebuttal to your conclusions as well.
Perhaps David Mackay was just being polite. On the other hand, he could have been enticing naive prey into the lion's den. :cool:
David is a very smart bloke, and he already knew (at least in principle) everything that ywindy claims to have discovered for the first time - as did many other people.
I don't know whether ywindy's raw data is at all representative or reliable, but I do know that he didn't do anything useful with it.
Perhaps we should give him the benefit of the doubt when he said that he enjoyed reading ywindy's report, he really meant he hadn't had such a good laugh in a long long time? ;)
Aww you're so concerned about me that you are desperate to see what I am doing every living minute of night and day! You absolutely adore me! Nobody else has such interest in me, I'm quite flattered, does your Mrs know? ;) xxx
I think the question should be "does your Mrs know"? a rather strange man, stuck on the PC all night after being on shift all day, hmm, might well beg certain questions, which we won't explore that on a public forum..
As I mentioned above, it's, just, well, actually, fascinating watching your floundering, it's like a car crash; you shouldn't watch but you just can't help it...
Might be Freudian slip with you Reggy Aww (?)- first thing that came up (honestly) was The Australian Women's Weekly, now, isn't that interesting..
Come on lad, back to thread!
I think the question should be "does your Mrs know"? a rather strange man, stuck on the PC all night after being on shift all day, hmm, might well beg certain questions, which we won't explore that on a public forum..
As I mentioned above, it's, just, well, actually, fascinating watching your floundering, it's like a car crash; you shouldn't watch but you just can't help it...
Might be Freudian slip with you Reggy Aww (?)- first thing that came up (honestly) was The Australian Women's Weekly, now, isn't that interesting..
Come on lad, back to thread!
You really just can't get enough of me, can you? I'm an absolute fascination to you. All that creeping through all my 9500+ posts and looking to see what time I'm on the computer. And now you are googling every word I say. You've even been known to follow me on my bicycle and honk your car horn and wave to me, how sweet!! and now you are jealous of my Mrs, aww.
You are the only one that stalks me like this, you make me feel so special. xxx
secrets in symmetry
08-Dec-11, 16:41
Perhaps we should give him the benefit of the doubt when he said that he enjoyed reading ywindy's report, he really meant he hadn't had such a good laugh in a long long time? ;)Lol! We should encourage David Mackay to join the forum - where he can read more from Caithness' very own Don Quixote. :cool:
Another possibility is that he thought he was encouraging a teenage proto geek - and helping him with his homework project!
You really just can't get enough of me, can you? I'm an absolute fascination to you. All that creeping through all my 9500+ posts and looking to see what time I'm on the computer. And now you are googling every word I say. You've even been known to follow me on my bicycle and honk your car horn and wave to me, how sweet!! and now you are jealous of my Mrs, aww.
You are the only one that stalks me like this, you make me feel so special. xxx
Creeping through all those 9,500+ posts? nah, just stick a pin in any thread and I come up with howlers, I just had to Google AWW as not seen that before..
Follow you on your bike - how do you know it was me? been searching though MY posts now have we? I seem to remember you were distressed 'cause I had a nice V70 Volvo and you were envious that I could carry more than your panniers?
Nope, don't fancy you, seen you on facebook that was enough!
Anyway Rheggy don't get so stressed - come back to the thread!!! ;)
Creeping through all those 9,500+ posts? nah, just stick a pin in any thread and I come up with howlers, I just had to Google AWW as not seen that before..
Follow you on your bike - how do you know it was me? been searching though MY posts now have we? I seem to remember you were distressed 'cause I had a nice V70 Volvo and you were envious that I could carry more than your panniers?
Nope, don't fancy you, seen you on facebook that was enough!
Anyway Rheggy don't get so stressed - come back to the thread!!! ;)
You didn't explain what motivates you to drag up old posts of mine from yonks ago, what's the point? Just curious.
You didn't explain what motivates you to drag up old posts of mine from yonks ago, what's the point? Just curious.
It looks like Reggy can't deviate from this particular thread, so I'll let him go..
Don't know why he's so excitable - after all I did give him a GREEN rep for posting "Why should Bill Gates bother? Nuclear is totally safe by all pro-nuclear accounts anyway."
a volte-face maybe? (Anyway should you not be on shift?);)
It looks like Reggy can't deviate from this particular thread, so I'll let him go..
Don't know why he's so excitable - after all I did give him a GREEN rep for posting "Why should Bill Gates bother? Nuclear is totally safe by all pro-nuclear accounts anyway."
a volte-face maybe? (Anyway should you not be on shift?);)
Are you going to give me an answer?
Nope, don't fancy you, seen you on facebook that was enough!
And now you are creeping on my Facebook profile!!
Tried looking this morning, would not come up.. http://www.whirlwindrenewables.com/sites/wathegar.html know a bit more now..
Tubthumper
08-Dec-11, 18:00
Gentlemen, please...
11281
Not against windfarms, however a bit concerned about this one at Ardrossan today. I suppose its extreme weather but still...
That's terrible!
http://news.stv.tv/scotland/west-central/286170-wind-turbine-bursts-into-flames-as-hurricane-force-winds-hit-scotland/
Aaldtimer
08-Dec-11, 18:23
And another... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-16084013
Couldn't cope with 50mph gusts! Sheesh!:eek:
And now you are creeping on my Facebook profile!!
Don't worry Rh.....
I had a picture of my car on Facebook some months ago, to show someone and then took it off. A few weeks ago, said pic showed up on here...Was trying to figure that one out...My thought was...Are people who do that real? There are Strange...rs on here!
And planners for the Lake District National park have approved wind turbines to go up on their patch.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-16072368
Don't worry Rh.....
I had a picture of my car on Facebook some months ago, to show someone and then took it off. A few weeks ago, said pic showed up on here...Was trying to figure that one out...My thought was...Are people who do that real? There are Strange...rs on here!
Hey Sandyr1
are you asking 'if people do that for real' - not me, this was way back when reggy was doing his cycle ride end-to-end and I gave him a lot of encouragement and information from my own LEJOG..
No idea that was your car! But 'spose if you offer it up to zillions, someone will find it - by the way I don't care for facebook, I ain't on it..
And another... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-16084013
Couldn't cope with 50mph gusts! Sheesh!:eek:
Well, two down and a few more hundreds to go !!!
I was very surprised to read that the Guy said he lives 500yds from it and there are houses at 200 yds from it...this beggars the question....how long before someone gets killed ????
C3...........:eek:[disgust]
Don't worry Rh.....
I had a picture of my car on Facebook some months ago, to show someone and then took it off. A few weeks ago, said pic showed up on here...Was trying to figure that one out...My thought was...Are people who do that real? There are Strange...rs on here!
Indeed yes Sandyr1, there are lots of creepy people around and they'll say anything to wriggle out of being singled out by the good and virtuous that are amongst us. It wasn't that long ago when an anti-wind orger was seen creeping around my house by my scared pregnant wife to be peering over my garden wall and looking in the house. It was a good job I wasn't there at the time. He cowardly denied it of course but she pointed him out to me in Tescos. I suspected it was him all along.
Indeed yes Sandyr1, there are lots of creepy people around and they'll say anything to wriggle out of being singled out by the good and virtuous that are amongst us. It wasn't that long ago when an anti-wind orger was seen creeping around my house by my scared pregnant wife to be peering over my garden wall and looking in the house. It was a good job I wasn't there at the time. He cowardly denied it of course but she pointed him out to me in Tescos. I suspected it was him all along.
Well it wasn't me, I can't 'creep' or walk proper for a start, but Tesco eh? that'll narrow it down a bit, the plot thickens, well something does (sorry could not resist the dig Reggy)
secrets in symmetry
08-Dec-11, 23:39
Indeed yes Sandyr1, there are lots of creepy people around and they'll say anything to wriggle out of being singled out by the good and virtuous that are amongst us. It wasn't that long ago when an anti-wind orger was seen creeping around my house by my scared pregnant wife to be peering over my garden wall and looking in the house. It was a good job I wasn't there at the time. He cowardly denied it of course but she pointed him out to me in Tescos. I suspected it was him all along.That's not good, but I can't say I'm surprised.
Your two forum fanboys are a bit worrying....
That's not good, but I can't say I'm surprised.
Your two forum fanboys are a bit worrying....
They do not know what they do so I try to forgive them.
Oh come come s-i-s don't become an agent provocateur.
Rhegheads obviously getting rattled by the mainly light-hearted banter that interweaves this thread.
Considering that this anti-wind intruder was confronted by his wife and identified by her to Rheghead at Tesco's, Rheghead knows he is an Orger.
Someone confronted and identified acting very suspiciously around a home, where it seems the husband is away on shifts, must be reported to the Police.
I would have expected one of his fans; sandyr1 an ex-Caithness Bobby, to guide him here.
It appears that this intruder was confronted, but he denied it? Again, this intruder who Rheghead 'suspected' all along was pointed out to him at Tesco's, so, taking into consideration that Reggy's assertation "It was a good job I wasn't there at the time" would surely have resulted in a confrontation or at least a gentle finger wagging at Tesco's?
Well in my own opinion for someone who can positively identify a very suspicious intruder and do absolutely nothing about it, must be placed in the big bin of fantasy..
So anymore turbines been damaged?
Anyway got to go out, decided that no matter what Reggy says on this thread, I'm not going to pander.. 'Saving the world' is much more important!
Right we're off into the wind.. hope it's not too bad now
secrets in symmetry
09-Dec-11, 12:31
They do not know what they do so I try to forgive them.Lol! I suppose that's one way to deal with your two fanboys....
Oh come come s-i-s don't become an agent provocateur.
Rhegheads obviously getting rattled by the mainly light-hearted banter that interweaves this thread.
Considering that this anti-wind intruder was confronted by his wife and identified by her to Rheghead at Tesco's, Rheghead knows he is an Orger.
Someone confronted and identified acting very suspiciously around a home, where it seems the husband is away on shifts, must be reported to the Police.
I would have expected one of his fans; sandyr1 an ex-Caithness Bobby, to guide him here.
It appears that this intruder was confronted, but he denied it? Again, this intruder who Rheghead 'suspected' all along was pointed out to him at Tesco's, so, taking into consideration that Reggy's assertation "It was a good job I wasn't there at the time" would surely have resulted in a confrontation or at least a gentle finger wagging at Tesco's?
Well in my own opinion for someone who can positively identify a very suspicious intruder and do absolutely nothing about it, must be placed in the big bin of fantasy..
So anymore turbines been damaged?
A lot of assumptions there, from here you are looking very silly indeed.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.