View Full Version : School Wind Turbines...
At last, the "powers that be" have been persuaded to see sense and shut down the wind turbines in school grounds. It is incredible that they thought it a good idea in the first place and shows just how far supporters of turbines are prepared to go in their effort to cover the countryside in these monstrosities.
A suitable replacement for these smaller turbines would be peddle generators designed to go under desks etc., so that the perpetrators of daft and dangerous ideas can use the surplus energy in their windbags to produce enough power to at least warm their offices as their brains seem to be suffering from hypothermia.
That's great, if the powers that be can't get their carbon footprint down via small scale renewables then the only option is large scale developments and we all know how popular they are. Well done,be careful what you gurn about.:roll:
At last, the "powers that be" have been persuaded to see sense and shut down the wind turbines in school grounds. It is incredible that they thought it a good idea in the first place and shows just how far supporters of turbines are prepared to go in their effort to cover the countryside in these monstrosities.
A suitable replacement for these smaller turbines would be peddle generators designed to go under desks etc., so that the perpetrators of daft and dangerous ideas can use the surplus energy in their windbags to produce enough power to at least warm their offices as their brains seem to be suffering from hypothermia.
And it still is good idea there is no proof that these are dangerous to children only the anti group has again given false facts no turbine on school grounds have been broken
And it still is good idea there is no proof that these are dangerous to children only the anti group has again given false facts no turbine on school grounds have been broken
If there's not a risk of any danger from these turbines why did Castletown Primary School close off and put out of bounds a significant portion of the school grounds around the turbine to the children playing there?
If there's not a risk of any danger from these turbines why did Castletown Primary School close off and put out of bounds a significant portion of the school grounds around the turbine to the children playing there?
Health & Safety gone mad yet again.
Even Chance
10-May-12, 14:21
Its rediculous. A good thing has once again been put to bed by the anti-wind brigade/H&S idiots. Utter nonsense.
Even Chance
10-May-12, 14:22
If there's not a risk of any danger from these turbines why did Castletown Primary School close off and put out of bounds a significant portion of the school grounds around the turbine to the children playing there?
EASY:- cos there was obviously an anti-wind eejit involved in the decision!!!! lol
At last, the "powers that be" have been persuaded to see sense and shut down the wind turbines in school grounds.
That is not factually correct, wind turbine operations on schools have been temporarily suspended pending a safety review. Obviously, if the raised concerns were politically motivated against wind turbines rather than through any concerns of safety then operations should recommence. If it is shown that a significant proportion of those who raised objectons have a previous history of objecting to wind turbines then that will be taken into consideration.
That is not factually correct, wind turbine operations on schools have been temporarily suspended pending a safety review. Obviously, if the raised concerns were politically motivated against wind turbines rather than through any concerns of safety then operations should recommence. If it is shown that a significant proportion of those who raised objectons have a previous history of objecting to wind turbines then that will be taken into consideration.
Perhaps not, but I'd rather see our schoolchildren safe in their playgrounds than be factually or politically correct.
What happened to the rooftop windy things at Tescos, Wick?
I'd rather err on the side of caution and have wind turbines in Caithness confined to a safe distance from us all, especially our children, until a 110% safety record is achieved.
I'd rather err on the side of caution and have wind turbines in Caithness confined to a safe distance from us all, especially our children, until a 110% safety record is achieved.
There is no such thing as a 110% safety record or a 100% safety record for anything.
No cars then? Cut all electricity to the school? Stop abusive parents from picking up the kids? The list is endless and gets sillier.
Safety actions should be based upon evidence and risk assessments not hysteria and politically motivated propaganda.
Fact is that no kids have been harmed with turbines or any close calls. In fact no member of the public has been killed during normal operation of any turbine though there are those who twist the facts to say so.
Wind power is one of the safest form of energy generation there is.
secrets in symmetry
10-May-12, 22:58
EASY:- cos there was obviously an anti-wind eejit involved in the decision!!!! lolNot necessarily. I'm not anti-wind, yet I am anti windmills in schools - partly because of the risk, and partly because piddly windmills in schools are like peeing into the wind when it comes to reducing CO2 emissions.
ywindythesecond
10-May-12, 22:59
And it still is good idea there is no proof that these are dangerous to children only the anti group has again given false facts no turbine on school grounds have been broken
Not true Scout. The turbine at Raasay Primary school disintegrated during School hours and the teacher had to go and disable it. THC investigated the incident, made recommendations, and carried on installing them against its own recommendations.
ywindythesecond
10-May-12, 23:07
Its rediculous. A good thing has once again been put to bed by the anti-wind brigade/H&S idiots. Utter nonsense.
Even Chance, if a thing is good and sensible and safe, nothing us anti-wind brigade can say will make a reasonable and competent Authority do something just to appease us. There is no smoke without fire. And this is not an anti-wind issue, it is to do with putting children in a position of risk which would not be tolerated in a factory or construction site.
Not true Scout. The turbine at Raasay Primary school disintegrated during School hours and the teacher had to go and disable it. THC investigated the incident, made recommendations, and carried on installing them against its own recommendations.
If this happened why did we not see this in the papers? What about the ones outside the houses at Dunnet were it has more wind then most places have they not had any problems and they are the same size used in schools
Fact is that no kids have been harmed with turbines or any close calls.
So you're saying we stand back and do nothing until schoolchildren have been shredded like chips!
In fact no member of the public has been killed during normal operation of any turbine.
Well obviously, it's not normal operation once a turbine starts killing people.
If this happened why did we not see this in the papers?
Do you not believe what you don't read in the papers? That's a bit inverted!
There wasn't room in the papers at the time. It was bankers's bonus payday and there was an exclusive about Baby Spice's knickers.
That is not factually correct, wind turbine operations on schools have been temporarily suspended pending a safety review. Obviously, if the raised concerns were politically motivated against wind turbines rather than through any concerns of safety then operations should recommence. If it is shown that a significant proportion of those who raised objectons have a previous history of objecting to wind turbines then that will be taken into consideration.
Why should the fact that an opinion is long held have any bearing on how valid it might be deemed to be? My concern with these planning decisions is that impartiality seems to have flown out of the window. Why this unbridled enthusiasm should result in placing bits of machinery in school playgrounds is beyond belief. Clearly 100% safe is not possible, windmills have failed catastrophically - rarely true - but it only takes one. I think one of the best lessons in life is to understand the concept that perhaps it is conceivable that one could be mistaken. That seems entirely lacking in the windfarm debate - to the extent that its ok in school playgrounds or at Camster QED
Even Chance, if a thing is good and sensible and safe, nothing us anti-wind brigade can say will make a reasonable and competent Authority do something just to appease us. There is no smoke without fire. And this is not an anti-wind issue, it is to do with putting children in a position of risk which would not be tolerated in a factory or construction site.
Yes! It's the safety of our children that matter! Ordinarily "Health and Safety" would not tolerate such a decision but..... who knows what is in their minds..... not the safety of the kids!
Why should the fact that an opinion is long held have any bearing on how valid it might be deemed to be? My concern with these planning decisions is that impartiality seems to have flown out of the window. Why this unbridled enthusiasm should result in placing bits of machinery in school playgrounds is beyond belief. Clearly 100% safe is not possible, windmills have failed catastrophically - rarely true - but it only takes one. I think one of the best lessons in life is to understand the concept that perhaps it is conceivable that one could be mistaken. That seems entirely lacking in the windfarm debate - to the extent that its ok in school playgrounds or at Camster QED
Well put Davem; definitely not a decision made with common sense in mind!
Not true Scout. The turbine at Raasay Primary school disintegrated during School hours and the teacher had to go and disable it. THC investigated the incident, made recommendations, and carried on installing them against its own recommendations.
A prime example of how the powers that be can do what they like regardless of safety and concern for the children.
That is not factually correct, wind turbine operations on schools have been temporarily suspended pending a safety review. Obviously, if the raised concerns were politically motivated against wind turbines rather than through any concerns of safety then operations should recommence. If it is shown that a significant proportion of those who raised objectons have a previous history of objecting to wind turbines then that will be taken into consideration.
And if the installation of wind turbines IN SCHOOL GROUNDS is shown to be supported by the pro-wind brigade will they be accused of having a previous history of wanting to put our children at risk just to sell their idea? I have not come out either for or against wind turbines. I am very well aware that we have to either cut our energy usage, each and every one of us (as if), or find alternatives using the resources we have already such as wind and water.
It is the appalling decision to put our children at risk that makes my blood run cold and yes, that was my gut reaction when I saw the turbine in the Bower School playground. I did hear that one of the blades came off that installation but I have no proof. Maybe someone here knows the truth.
Its rediculous. A good thing has once again been put to bed by the anti-wind brigade/H&S idiots. Utter nonsense.
Sorry, not sure what you mean about "A good thing has once again been put to bed etc., etc." Have all school turbines been moved to a safer place or removed all together? I don't think so.....
Even Chance
11-May-12, 11:05
Sorry, not sure what you mean about "A good thing has once again been put to bed etc., etc." Have all school turbines been moved to a safer place or removed all together? I don't think so.....
Ken whit u mean, but theyre no exactly running the now are they? I'd hev no fear of lettin ma bairns play ablow them, ats a fact. And no, Im no a Pro-wind power campaigner, I choost see it as a good idea for power in e long term future of e planet. Its ma bairns Im oot til help, no masel!
I prefer tidal power if push came to shove and a choice had til be made, but ats only cos its always assured til be there, no lek e wind (although theres a bonny dose of it aroond here! lol
And it still is good idea there is no proof that these are dangerous to children only the anti group has again given false facts no turbine on school grounds have been broken
Really ? - try these (some of the original links are now broken but the facts are here):
West Lothian http://ventdubocage.net/ecosse5.htm
(http://ventdubocage.net/ecosse5.htm)
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/8808949/Eco-friendly-school-left-out-of-pocket-after-unproven-wind-turbine-breaks.html)Cornwall http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/8808949/Eco-friendly-school-left-out-of-pocket-after-unproven-wind-turbine-breaks.html
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/8808949/Eco-friendly-school-left-out-of-pocket-after-unproven-wind-turbine-breaks.html)
Buckinghamshire http://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/news/4666787.Part_of_wind_turbine_at_Flackwell_Heath_sc hool_fell_off/
(http://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/news/4666787.Part_of_wind_turbine_at_Flackwell_Heath_sc hool_fell_off/)
Skye http://www.windaction.org/news/24196
Norfolk http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1232540/School-wind-turbine-collapses-crushes-contractors-van.html
These are just in the UK. In every case it was sheer luck that no children were near the turbines but you can't rely on luck for ever. Also there have been many other incidents of small turbines failing, they don't always get reported.
After the Raasay incident, which was a Proven turbine (they later ordered all their turbines to be braked before going out of business) the Council recommended an exclusion zone round future school turbines. They made the same recommendation in a recent risk assessment. Why has this never been implemented?
I'm sure you have all seen the speed of the blades when the wind blows. No child should be forced to play near dangerous machinery.
Even Chance
11-May-12, 11:54
No child should be forced to play near dangerous machinery.
Better not take them out of the cotton wool then eh?? Madness..........
So you're saying we stand back and do nothing until schoolchildren have been shredded like chips!
Well obviously, it's not normal operation once a turbine starts killing people.
More emotive provocative language without any basis in reason.
But I appreciate that when it comes to parental attitudes concerning their children's welfare at school then reason goes out the window and fear takes over. E.G. like the parents that will ferry their kids every day the mile to school in cars for fear of them being abducted by child molesters. The reality is that the risk is not very large though is real, the benefits of them making their way to school for the exercise alone should out weigh any risk, especially in Caithness:roll: :lol:
Really ? - try these (some of the original links are now broken but the facts are here):
West Lothian http://ventdubocage.net/ecosse5.htm
(http://ventdubocage.net/ecosse5.htm)
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/8808949/Eco-friendly-school-left-out-of-pocket-after-unproven-wind-turbine-breaks.html)Cornwall http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/8808949/Eco-friendly-school-left-out-of-pocket-after-unproven-wind-turbine-breaks.html
(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/8808949/Eco-friendly-school-left-out-of-pocket-after-unproven-wind-turbine-breaks.html)
Buckinghamshire http://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/news/4666787.Part_of_wind_turbine_at_Flackwell_Heath_sc hool_fell_off/
(http://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/news/4666787.Part_of_wind_turbine_at_Flackwell_Heath_sc hool_fell_off/)
Skye http://www.windaction.org/news/24196
Norfolk http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1232540/School-wind-turbine-collapses-crushes-contractors-van.html
These are just in the UK. In every case it was sheer luck that no children were near the turbines but you can't rely on luck for ever. Also there have been many other incidents of small turbines failing, they don't always get reported.
After the Raasay incident, which was a Proven turbine (they later ordered all their turbines to be braked before going out of business) the Council recommended an exclusion zone round future school turbines. They made the same recommendation in a recent risk assessment. Why has this never been implemented?
I'm sure you have all seen the speed of the blades when the wind blows. No child should be forced to play near dangerous machinery.
None of those incidents would have caused injury to children even if they were present in the areas to which they were allowed to go.
Quite agree. Children need to be taught to deal with traffic, certainly more of a danger up here than molesters, and it's good to see so many walking to/from school although still too many are ferried short distances in cars. Fun for them, makes them independent and a bit of fresh air and exercise never did anyone any harm. Parents can supervise where necessary. Turbines in playgrounds are another matter; they are used as a teaching aid but the fact is they are potentially dangerous machines. Cars are a necessary part of life these days and children need to respect them; turbines in playgrounds are not necessary and will make no impact on climate change (too small). Children can be taught about the power of wind in much safer ways.
Better demolish all School buildings just in case a tile falls off the roof & hits a kid... Teach them in the open instead but make the area around schools a no fly zone just in case something falls of a plane, or God forbid crashes on the school... Then again, what about the potential dangers of a meteor strike, better move them to underground concrete bunkers... Wait... Scrap that idea... There might be a serious earthquake causing the roof to collapse...
Na... Sod it... To much danger whatever you try to do, just put them all down at birth... ergo... No more children, no more danger... Problem solved.
Mystical Potato Head
11-May-12, 17:34
And if the installation of wind turbines IN SCHOOL GROUNDS is shown to be supported by the pro-wind brigade will they be accused of having a previous history of wanting to put our children at risk just to sell their idea? I have not come out either for or against wind turbines. I am very well aware that we have to either cut our energy usage, each and every one of us (as if), or find alternatives using the resources we have already such as wind and water.
It is the appalling decision to put our children at risk that makes my blood run cold and yes, that was my gut reaction when I saw the turbine in the Bower School playground. I did hear that one of the blades came off that installation but I have no proof. Maybe someone here knows the truth.
Dont know about blades coming off but i do know of one in Caithness that during a strong wind,the blades bent back and mangled on the tower .
Dont know about blades coming off but i do know of one in Caithness that during a strong wind,the blades bent back and mangled on the tower .
That suggests to me that the choice of material to make the blades was wisely done. Ductile or malleable materials are unlikely to shatter under the huge wind resource in Caithness.
oldmarine
11-May-12, 19:56
At last, the "powers that be" have been persuaded to see sense and shut down the wind turbines in school grounds. It is incredible that they thought it a good idea in the first place and shows just how far supporters of turbines are prepared to go in their effort to cover the countryside in these monstrosities.
A suitable replacement for these smaller turbines would be peddle generators designed to go under desks etc., so that the perpetrators of daft and dangerous ideas can use the surplus energy in their windbags to produce enough power to at least warm their offices as their brains seem to be suffering from hypothermia.
Those Wind Turbines turn with great force and could be dangerous to children. Children normally being very curious could be badly injured by one of those large turning blades.
Mystical Potato Head
11-May-12, 21:04
That suggests to me that the choice of material to make the blades was wisely done. Ductile or malleable materials are unlikely to shatter under the huge wind resource in Caithness.
It suggests to me there was a lack of structural integrity unless there is a cop out clause of " this wind turbine is liable to breakage under gale force winds."
Btw,whilst the blades didn't shatter they weren't exactly in one piece either.
I often have a laugh at the warnings on some of our foodstuffs.
Like, "Nutella" - this product may contain nuts.
I view wind turbines and wind farms in a different light.
I'm not anti-windfarm or anything like it but I don't see any real reason to have these windmills in close proximity to our communities and especially our childrens' playgrounds. They may be safe enough, I remain to be convinced. Meantime, let's position them well away until their safety record improves.
secrets in symmetry
12-May-12, 13:50
I think the pro-windies are making a (potentially huge) publicity mistake by supporting wind turbines in schools. They are alienating a lot of thoughtful "neutrals" (such as Torvaig and Moira) - yet small school turbines don't generate much electricity, and they are handing the populist high ground to thoughtless anti-windies such as Brenda Herrick and the assorted know-nothings on this forum.
There are far more important battles to be fought over large windfarms and (in the future) mass storage systems such as new hydro, not to mention tidal and wave farms
And what pray is it that makes people who view turbines as expensive eyesores 'know nothings'? They have a view as valid as yours and yet the vehemence that meets their opinions seems totally unneeded if it is as self evident as you imply that windpower is a good thing!
secrets in symmetry
12-May-12, 15:00
That's simple - know nothings know nothing. :cool:
ywindythesecond
12-May-12, 20:26
I think the pro-windies are making a (potentially huge) publicity mistake by supporting wind turbines in schools. They are alienating a lot of thoughtful "neutrals" (such as Torvaig and Moira) - yet small school turbines don't generate much electricity, and they are handing the populist high ground to thoughtless anti-windies such as Brenda Herrick and the assorted know-nothings on this forum.
There are far more important battles to be fought over large windfarms and (in the future) mass storage systems such as new hydro, not to mention tidal and wave farms
Would you care to come out of the shadows and introduce yourself sis? Have you met Brenda Herrick? Have you had any discussion or correspondence with her? Have you any grounds to believe that she is "thoughtless" other than that her views don't accord with your apparently omnipotent and unassailable views.
You have missed the point here which is nothing to do with wind energy, it is to do with what is a reasonable risk and what is not a reasonable risk. If there is a risk that a small turbine might disintegrate and injure a child, the precautionary principle says don't take it.
Life is full of risk and it can't be avoided in many circumstances, but who in their right mind would recognise a small but potential risk to a child and impose it when there is no good or overriding reason to do so?
Would it be a good idea if those who post on this forum with strong views on either side had a public debate in Thurso chaired by Bill? I am up for it sis, how about you? Step out from the shadows. I am Stuart Young.
That's simple - know nothings know nothing. :cool:
And Big-Heads know it all!!!.....(Or so they think)!!
C3..................:roll:[disgust]
Would you care to come out of the shadows and introduce yourself sis? Have you met Brenda Herrick? Have you had any discussion or correspondence with her? Have you any grounds to believe that she is "thoughtless" other than that her views don't accord with your apparently omnipotent and unassailable views.
You have missed the point here which is nothing to do with wind energy, it is to do with what is a reasonable risk and what is not a reasonable risk. If there is a risk that a small turbine might disintegrate and injure a child, the precautionary principle says don't take it.
Life is full of risk and it can't be avoided in many circumstances, but who in their right mind would recognise a small but potential risk to a child and impose it when there is no good or overriding reason to do so?
Would it be a good idea if those who post on this forum with strong views on either side had a public debate in Thurso chaired by Bill? I am up for it sis, how about you? Step out from the shadows. I am Stuart Young.
Well for one, I'm convinced that Brenda Herrick et al and yourself are against wind turbines even if safety towards kids was not an issue. You'll rarely admit that your core reason to be against turbines is that don't like the look of them. You can't argue against that, can you?
Mystical Potato Head
12-May-12, 23:18
Would you care to come out of the shadows and introduce yourself sis? Have you met Brenda Herrick? Have you had any discussion or correspondence with her? Have you any grounds to believe that she is "thoughtless" other than that her views don't accord with your apparently omnipotent and unassailable views.
You have missed the point here which is nothing to do with wind energy, it is to do with what is a reasonable risk and what is not a reasonable risk. If there is a risk that a small turbine might disintegrate and injure a child, the precautionary principle says don't take it.
Life is full of risk and it can't be avoided in many circumstances, but who in their right mind would recognise a small but potential risk to a child and impose it when there is no good or overriding reason to do so?
Would it be a good idea if those who post on this forum with strong views on either side had a public debate in Thurso chaired by Bill? I am up for it sis, how about you? Step out from the shadows. I am Stuart Young.
Would never part with the bravado anonymity provides.
ywindythesecond
12-May-12, 23:43
Would never part with the bravado anonymity provides.
Shame on you MPH! Of course sis will step up to the mark and publicly debate the wind issue at all levels in Caithness. Apologies to Bill for nominating him as Chair but I am sure he will oblige.
Mystical Potato Head
12-May-12, 23:47
Well for one, I'm convinced that Brenda Herrick et al and yourself are against wind turbines even if safety towards kids was not an issue. You can't argue against that, can you?
And whats wrong with that? Its not a crime to be against them no matter the reason.You're every bit as commited,in fact you're totally blinkered in your support of wind farms.Check post#31 of this thread for proof.
Proof you support them no matter what so why cant others be against them....no matter what.
secrets in symmetry
13-May-12, 00:14
I forgot something....
Brenda Herrick thinks nuclear power is renewable! Lol!
*Stops and thinks*...
Ok, I suppose a supernova is harmless - if you're willing to host it in your back garden. Wait, I have a better idea.... Why not put the supernova in the school playground? Supernovae are harmless to primary school children- aren't they?
And whats wrong with that? Its not a crime to be against them no matter the reason.You're every bit as commited,in fact you're totally blinkered in your support of wind farms.Check post#31 of this thread for proof.
Proof you support them no matter what so why cant others be against them....no matter what.
Well that just goes to prove that you only see what you want to see.
It is a matter of record on this forum that I have repeated my view that I do not particularly like the look of turbines.
And you will never see me challenge anyone's opinion who thinks they look awful on the landscape.
Go on MPH, search my posts and back up your rubbish rebuke!! ;)
ywindythesecond
13-May-12, 00:38
Well for one, I'm convinced that Brenda Herrick et al and yourself are against wind turbines even if safety towards kids was not an issue. You'll rarely admit that your core reason to be against turbines is that don't like the look of them. You can't argue against that, can you?
I don't have an issue against wind turbines. I have an issue against the rationale for imposing an inefficient, unsustainable, hugely expensive subsidised form of generation on the British consumers, paid for by the consumers, which will ultimately lead to extensive impoverisation of the consumers for the enrichment of those fortunate enough to be able to invest in wind turbines. Or PV panels.
I don't have an issue against wind turbines. I have an issue against the rationale for imposing an inefficient, unsustainable, hugely expensive subsidised form of generation on the British consumers, paid for by the consumers, which will ultimately lead to extensive impoverisation of the consumers for the enrichment of those fortunate enough to be able to invest in wind turbines. Or PV panels.
So you don't support Power stations ????? These are hugely expensive and subsidised If I am correct in saying this 10 would be constructed in UK would our electricity bill come down?
I don't have an issue against wind turbines. I have an issue against the rationale for imposing an inefficient, unsustainable, hugely expensive subsidised form of generation on the British consumers, paid for by the consumers, which will ultimately lead to extensive impoverisation of the consumers for the enrichment of those fortunate enough to be able to invest in wind turbines. Or PV panels.
Well that is probably one of the most disingenuous and/or intentionally humorous posts you've ever made. So I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and had a wee chuckle to myself.:lol:
So you don't support Power stations ????? These are hugely expensive and subsidised If I am correct in saying this 10 would be constructed in UK would our electricity bill come down?
No, but at least the lights would stay on, unlike if we relied solely on the stupid turbines!!!
C3..............[disgust]
No, but at least the lights would stay on, unlike if we relied solely on the stupid turbines!!!
C3..............[disgust]
Nobody in the energy industry, politics or the general green movement is suggesting that the UK or Scotland is going to be solely relying upon wind energy..............except the anti-wind brigade who are creating this myth then destroying it by stating that variability will put the lights out.
ywindythesecond
13-May-12, 19:03
So you don't support Power stations ????? These are hugely expensive and subsidised If I am correct in saying this 10 would be constructed in UK would our electricity bill come down?
Scout,
I am guessing that you have left the out word "Nuclear" in respect of Power stations in your post. I am in favour of Nuclear power but I am not going to debate it with you on this thread which is about safety issues around small wind turbines in school playgrounds. Reggy was suggesting that I oppose all turbines just because of their looks. Reggy knows my views on for example the Causeymire Windfarm but he has an extremely selective process of recollection. I should just ignore him.
Reggy knows my views on for example the Causeymire Windfarm .
I'm not going to disagree with you on that one. But, Causeymire wind farm was given planning permission well before you were involved with CWIF. So you may as well say that Causeymire wind farm is OK because you cannot turn the clock back.
secrets in symmetry
14-May-12, 00:27
Any Brenda Herrick fans might like to read this document (http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_EconomyEnergyandTourismCommittee/Inquiries/Herrick_Brenda.pdf).
The first answer is wrong.
The second answer is wrong.
The rest is just waffle and crapology.
She should take lessons from Gregg Braden if she wants people to believe her crapology. He is an expert in crapology.
None of this has much bearing on supporting wind turbines in school playgrounds, which in my opinion is handing the moral high ground on a silver platter to the crapologists.
ywindythesecond
14-May-12, 01:22
Any Brenda Herrick fans might like to read this document (http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_EconomyEnergyandTourismCommittee/Inquiries/Herrick_Brenda.pdf).
The first answer is wrong.
The second answer is wrong.
The rest is just waffle and crapology.
She should take lessons from Gregg Braden if she wants people to believe her crapology. He is an expert in crapology.
None of this has much bearing on supporting wind turbines in school playgrounds, which in my opinion is handing the moral high ground on a silver platter to the crapologists.
Folks, read the document this document (http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/S4_EconomyEnergyandTourismCommittee/Inquiries/Herrick_Brenda.pdf). and judge for yourself.
Sis will you come out of the shadows and have an open public debate? I haven't asked Bill yet if he would chair it but if you are on for it I will ask him. I will be happy to pay for half the cost of the venue if you pay the other half. Actually, I will pay the full cost if you take it on.
Stuart Young aka ywy2
Sis will you come out of the shadows and have an open public debate? I haven't asked Bill yet if he would chair it but if you are on for it I will ask him. I will be happy to pay for half the cost of the venue if you pay the other half. Actually, I will pay the full cost if you take it on.
Stuart Young aka ywy2
Good post Stuart.
I wouldn't hold your breath though as I don't think SiS is brave enough for an open public debate.
C3...............:eek::roll:
John Little
14-May-12, 06:53
Good post Stuart. I wouldn't hold your breath though as I don't think SiS is brave enough for an open public debate.C3...............:eek::roll:Reggie might if you ask him...
Reggie might if you ask him...
Well the document falls flat on its face at the first hurdle where Brenda Herrick claims that nuclear is renewable. :eek:
I'm well experienced in reading Ywindy's ability to twist things out of all logical recognition but I'm all ears to see if he can back up Brenda's claim. lol
Well... She did get this bit right...
Councils should be instructed to take expert advice before embarking on wasteful schemes such as.... ....the present one in Castletown where coal fires are being removed from council houses to be replaced by air source heating with its huge demand for electricity which is sending tenants’ bills soaring.
Well... She did get this bit right..Re:Councils should be instructed to take expert advice before embarking on wasteful schemes such as.... ....the present one in Castletown where coal fires are being removed from council houses to be replaced by air source heating with its huge demand for electricity which is sending tenants’ bills soaring.
Has she? I accept there will be an increase in resident's electricity when they move to air source heating but she is not telling the full picture because she doesn't mention the resident's savings on their coal bills.
Everyone who I know who have paid for an air source pump in private houses rate them next to sliced bread in terms of energy price savings as they get 3.5 kWh of heat out for every electrical kWh in.
Has she? I accept there will be an increase in resident's electricity when they move to air source heating but she is not telling the full picture because she doesn't mention the resident's savings on their coal bills.
Everyone who I know who have paid for an air source pump in private houses rate them next to sliced bread in terms of energy price savings as they get 3.5 kWh of heat out for every electrical kWh in.
Air source is the cheap cop-out... if they where really intent on energy efficiency they would have gone for the ground source pumps instead, especially with the Caithness climate being as it is, but that would have cost more money, they just wanted to be seen doing something at as cheap a price as possible.
It will be interesting to see what those who got it installed will think of it after a severe Caithness winter.
One more point... Coal might be expensive, but your not restricted to just burning coal on a fire.
You are right it is cheaper (that is a positive point btw) and the heat recovery ratio is not as good as ground source but air source is more versatile and easier to fit to a wider variety of buildings which may not have ground to lay pipes. So there may be practical reasons for air source over ground source.
As with anything, the first step to save money and energy is better insulation every time, hands down.
John Little
14-May-12, 19:41
Well the document falls flat on its face at the first hurdle where Brenda Herrick claims that nuclear is renewable. :eek: I'm well experienced in reading Ywindy's ability to twist things out of all logical recognition but I'm all ears to see if he can back up Brenda's claim. lolRenewable in the sense that fast breeders make their own fuel?
Several of you have hi-jacked this thread.
Do you have any answers for the OP of this thread and my own questions?
....Do you have any answers for the OP of this thread and my own questions?
That was 4 pages & 4 days ago... Do you really expect a thread to stay on topic that long?
secrets in symmetry
16-May-12, 11:44
You are right it is cheaper (that is a positive point btw) and the heat recovery ratio is not as good as ground source but air source is more versatile and easier to fit to a wider variety of buildings which may not have ground to lay pipes. So there may be practical reasons for air source over ground source.
As with anything, the first step to save money and energy is better insulation every time, hands down.Agreed - on all points.
Renewable in the sense that fast breeders make their own fuel?That's not renewable in the sense that wind, wave, tide, solar, ground/air source heat pumps are. Besides, there are no working breeders in the country, and there are no plans or designs to build any. Scotland's working reactors are AGRs, and the planned new builds in England and Wales are PWRs, neither of which make their own fuel.
Speaking of which, I hear rumours that EDF may pull out of the UK new builds following the election of Hollande. This would put the new nuclear programme in a real mess - because the German companies have already pulled out. Westinghouse anyone?
Several of you have hi-jacked this thread.
Do you have any answers for the OP of this thread and my own questions?With respect, Moira, the OP didn't ask any questions, and you only asked one:
Perhaps not, but I'd rather see our schoolchildren safe in their playgrounds than be factually or politically correct.
What happened to the rooftop windy things at Tescos, Wick?
I'd rather err on the side of caution and have wind turbines in Caithness confined to a safe distance from us all, especially our children, until a 110% safety record is achieved.I wouldn't put turbines in schools in the first place, for reasons I explained previously.
What did happen to Tesco's rooftop windy thingies? Those silly wee things made the turbines in playgrounds look ambitious!
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.