Archaeological survey of baillie farm

[Green_not_greed]

While I am completely against Baillie wind farm and the affect it will have on those living closest to it, there is a fascinating historical study of the area available online at http://www.aocarchaeology.com/Baillie/new/

Its definitely worth a visit.

[2little2late]

Very interesting website. This could be a good argument for "No more windfarms in Northern Scotland, they are spoiling our archaeological sites"

[golach]

Archaeolgical sites or digs will not keep our houses and wee crofties warm and lit, wind turbines will

[Serenity]

Very interesting website. This could be a good argument for "No more windfarms in Northern Scotland, they are spoiling our archaeological sites"

But would the dig have happened without the wind farm? (playing devil's advocate here).

[MerlinScot]

But would the dig have happened without the wind farm? (playing devil's advocate here).Probably not Serenity. I won't open a debate about Archaeology here (given that I studied that subject) so I could write an essay instead of a post, but in Scotland the Archaeological Heritage is still under-reported a lot. If windfarms and road construction are what is necessary to see more archaeological sites discovered..well that is one point in favour of them :)

[Zero]

I agree with merlin! If it were not for this wind farm then what would have Caithness known about the archaeological site. this survey will do well to raise the heads of the archaeological community to the vast wealth of undiscovered undisturbed archaeological sites in Caithness that may hold the key to understanding much more about the megalthic and early bronze age period in gerneral! This would also have a huge tourisim rebound if there were more (well presented) archaeological wonders to visit! Also it wouldnt be a big ask for some of the finacial windfall from the project to fund further surveys of the whole county to better understand the abundance of untouched site dotted about the place!

[MerlinScot]

I agree with merlin! If it were not for this wind farm then what would have Caithness known about the archaeological site. this survey will do well to raise the heads of the archaeological community to the vast wealth of undiscovered undisturbed archaeological sites in Caithness that may hold the key to understanding much more about the megalthic and early bronze age period in gerneral! This would also have a huge tourisim rebound if there were more (well presented) archaeological wonders to visit! Also it wouldnt be a big ask for some of the finacial windfall from the project to fund further surveys of the whole county to better understand the abundance of untouched site dotted about the place!

It is a pity that tourism is never discussed while talking about archaeological sites. That is a growing industry. Look at what the Orkney council is managing to do. The annual financial revenue for their sites is huge.

[Green_not_greed]

But would the dig have happened without the wind farm? (playing devil's advocate here).

Almost certainly not. But MerlinScot made a great point too. There are some fantastic untapped archaeological assets in Caithness which could hugely bolster tourism.

Some of the likely archaeological information for Baille was first made available when the first wind farm Environmental Statement was first published, about 2005. At the time I suggested to Tom Pottinger (Baillie farmer) that it would be far better for everyone in the area if he could develop the site as a heritage trail, with (as an example) several chalets for tourists and (as an example) three smaller turbines to power them and his farm. He decided instead to go for the money.

[2little2late]

Archaeolgical sites or digs will not keep our houses and wee crofties warm and lit, wind turbines will

What a load of dross. Wind turbines are the biggest waste of money ever.

[MerlinScot]

Some of the likely archaeological information for Baille was first made available when the first wind farm Environmental Statement was first published, about 2005. At the time I suggested to Tom Pottinger (Baillie farmer) that it would be far better for everyone in the area if he could develop the site as a heritage trail, with (as an example) several chalets for tourists and (as an example) three smaller turbines to power them and his farm. He decided instead to go for the money.Certainly a bunch of money NOW is a lot more appealing than waiting for the money later on. These farmers are just going for the easy money and personal profit. I could list at least 30 places worth of digging in the area Thurso, Halkirk, Reay, thanks to various field surveys and aerial photography. In some places people are sitting on 'gold mines' without knowing it. If I think how much we paid to visit Orkney and all the archaeological sites plus the economic advantages created by dozens of archaeologists from all over the world staying in Orkney for months on end.... Well, I have a friend with a B&B there and she has never any vacancies. Enough said.

[spurtle]

Note the quote in the Courier from AOC,
"The data set .............constitutes an unparalleled means of preserving the landscape of 21st century Caithness by record"
The landscape is what is important, with its wonderful collection of ritual monuments. See also Yarrows - same weasel words in the paperwork for that famous and beautiful landscape.
In future years you will be able to read about it (preserved by record) if you can find the academic paper. Forget about experiencing it, or using it to boost tourism and so the local economy. It has gone - what did we do to stop it?? Not enough, obviously.
They will pay "community benefit" so that you can refurbish the village hall or have a new playground for the kiddies, but forget any tourism benefits from the really precious thing you once had, because it is no longer available.
Baillie has been a wake-up call for a lot of people who never imagined it could be so huge. Camster the same - Peatland, trees, archaeology - all swept away in the name of clean green energy - the dear Leader's mantra - Does he actually believe this rubbish? Every hilltop in Caithness will be the same as Baillie unless we act now to stop this insanity.

[MerlinScot]

I don't think the dear Leader is worried about the Archaeological heritage at all, spurtle.
Although, I've to add that leaders who care about culture and heritage are really rare nowadays.
And it is such a pity, because Scotland would have as much Archaeology and History as England, if not more. It is a pity that half of it has been already destroyed to be replaced by turbines, roads and even grazing pastures. A few sheep are allowed to enjoy the Archaeological heritage a lot more than we do :(

[Rheghead]

What a load of dross. Wind turbines are the biggest waste of money ever.

Seems not when you look at what is going on around you. Not only do they reduce carbon emissions and provide electricity but they also fund much needed research in order to discover and preserve our heritage.

How could anti wind campaigners get it so wrong?

[olivia]

For crying out loud Rheghead, we all know the only reason the archeology bit came into the Baillie wind farm scenario was because it gave the scheme (which is totally appalling in my opinion) some kudos. 'Oh, look at us aren't we the goody two shoes, not only are we saving the planet but also uncovering its rich heritage'. What about all the stuff that is being trashed at Camster, Yarrows etc. it's totally scandalous and your continuing support for Baillie just makes you look naive and silly. Talk about falling for it hook, line and sinker. (and I make no apologies for the cliches).

[Even Chance]

Saw these awful turbines for the first time today. I couldnt believe how majestic they looked through the early morning mist and light. Rather nice actually!
Loved looking through the lidar images, thanks for that!
Anti wind farm people's:-
We are getting energy from a free source (wind!), and all we have to do is build a simple windmill. Bit of a no brainer I'm afraid. Whats going to power the planet eventually when we've used everything else up? mmmmm?
Spoils my view- keich, they look rather smart, and add something different to the vista.
Theyre noisy - hardly. I'd happily have a big ane on my hoose!
Theyre not very efficient - Eh? get a grip here, yer getting energy from the wind for petes sake. Wind is free, and all you have to do is build a windmill. Nice one.
Destroying the landscape - also keich. We (humans) wrecked it years ago, whats the difference. Not a problem, we all leave a legacy.

[Rheghead]

For crying out loud Rheghead, we all know the only reason the archeology bit came into the Baillie wind farm scenario was because it gave the scheme (which is totally appalling in my opinion) some kudos. 'Oh, look at us aren't we the goody two shoes, not only are we saving the planet but also uncovering its rich heritage'. What about all the stuff that is being trashed at Camster, Yarrows etc. it's totally scandalous and your continuing support for Baillie just makes you look naive and silly. Talk about falling for it hook, line and sinker. (and I make no apologies for the cliches).

It must be your turn to respond to me according to the CWIF list? It sort of spreads the effort, no? ;)

[MerlinScot]

An article about the topic: http://www.johnogroat-journal.co.uk/News/Aerial-survey-unearths-300-historic-sites-19022013.htm

It is funny because the artcile only talks about the aerial survey, necessary to collect new data.

But there is no money for further excavations so.. Why bother? Archaeologists already knew this area was populated centuries ago...

[Tubthumper]

Baillie's not so bad. Bet you in two year's time people will hardly even notice them.

[Green_not_greed]

Baillie's not so bad. Bet you in two year's time people will hardly even notice them.

Just wait till it starts operating......

[Tubthumper]

Just wait till it starts operating......
Why, is it going to do something one wouldn't expect a windfarm to do?

[ywindythesecond]

Baillie's not so bad. Bet you in two year's time people will hardly even notice them.

Some people will.
http://imageshack.us/scaled/medium/266/baillieacceptable.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/266/baillieacceptable.jpg/)

[Tubthumper]

I think I'd rather have that sight than a nuclear power station or open-cast coal mine.
Other than the 'spoilt' view, what are the downsides?

[ywindythesecond]

I think I'd rather have that sight than a nuclear power station or open-cast coal mine.
Other than the 'spoilt' view, what are the downsides?
Agreed its not the best photo TT but did you see the houses between the camera and the windmills? People live in them. It must be quite worrying for them now because the windmills are very big and in their windows. It must be even more worrying because soon they will be operational and turning. Can you realy not see the difference between a view and a moving rotational interference in your life?

[MerlinScot]

Maybe it is just my 'fashionista' taste but Baillie farm turbines are uglier than the ones in Forrs. Were they made in China and therefore they were cheaper?

[Rheghead]

Agreed its not the best photo TT but did you see the houses between the camera and the windmills? People live in them. It must be quite worrying for them now because the windmills are very big and in their windows. It must be even more worrying because soon they will be operational and turning. Can you realy not see the difference between a view and a moving rotational interference in your life?

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and it seems to me that the ones closest to Baillie wind farm chose not to object to the development.

[Tubthumper]

People live under airport flightpaths. Property prices for homes next to railway lines and main roads remain buoyant. Any industrial undertaking has an element of nuisance for those in close proximity to it; people just get on with it and eventually don’t notice. Why would these wind-turbines be any different?
I was pretty sceptical about the windfarm thing, but after finding out that (a) they don’t shred birds any more than pylon lines or cars (b) they’re not very noisy at all (c) whatever their inefficiency, they still make electricity from the wind although they don’t generate when there’s no wind – but what did you expect (d) It’s nuclear power the Germans are getting rid of (e) although they’re subsidised by customers and taxpayers, so are the solar panels being stuck up on houses around the place. And there’s lots of nuclear subsidising going on too (f) turbines can be got rid of pretty sharpish once they’re done with, and without further enormous subsidies (g) They can be dangerous or unreliable just like any other machine or lorry or industrial process.
Perhaps we’ll never grow to like this windfarm but it’s not about us, is it? It’s about succeeding generations, who will probably just accept them like we accept pylon lines and nuclear power stations in our midst. Get over it.
I’m coming to the conclusion that those who are determined to be outraged will always find a way to achieve their aim.

[Rheghead]

I was pretty sceptical about the windfarm thing, but [..]

You were indeed. I'm glad you've come to realise that the anti-wind position has largely been a misprepresentation and distortion of data. Nobody can tell anyone how ugly or beautiful wind turbines can be, but it is important to not let a judgement of their aesthetic value bleed into an assessment of their other attributes.

It isn't easy to come to terms with such a turn in one's postion.

Well done

[Green_not_greed]

... it seems to me that the ones closest to Baillie wind farm chose not to object to the development.

Absolute crap. The ones closest to the development were either (1) tenants of the developer, who were asked to submit letters of support (or else.......); (2) neighbouring farmers who were taken on board by having turbines on part of their land, so making financial gain; (3) one local who got a new house paid for by the developer, or (4) local people, some living as close as 400m to the turbines, who were very vocal objectors indeed. You were at the public inquiry. Get real !

[Rheghead]

Absolute crap. The ones closest to the development were either (1) tenants of the developer, who were asked to submit letters of support (or else.......); (2) neighbouring farmers who were taken on board by having turbines on part of their land, so making financial gain; (3) one local who got a new house paid for by the developer, or (4) local people, some living as close as 400m to the turbines, who were very vocal objectors indeed. You were at the public inquiry. Get real !

Yes i was and you have obviously taken away a version of events from that inquiry exactly how you wanted it to be.

[Tubthumper]

It's there now so there's not a lot of point in getting agitated about it. It'll soon be generating away steadily, and the £100k per annum will be rolling into the community's coffers.
I'm for a swimming pool, sauna and gym, with a cafe attached. How about you?

[Tubthumper]

Maybe it is just my 'fashionista' taste but Baillie farm turbines are uglier than the ones in Forrs. Were they made in China and therefore they were cheaper? They're a lot bigger certainly. Maybe they should put more effort into designing the wee hoosie bit.

[MerlinScot]

It's there now so there's not a lot of point in getting agitated about it. It'll soon be generating away steadily, and the £100k per annum will be rolling into the community's coffers.I'm for a swimming pool, sauna and gym, with a cafe attached. How about you?

Where did you read that? Because I read one of those reports (the link about the lime kiln farm) and there is no mention of 100k per annum into the community coffers in Caithness.

Given that for nearly one year I was living in another community surrounded by windfarms (Lairg), I also could see the benefits for the community thanks to the windfarm companies investments. I have seen none in Caithness.... The land from Thurso to the Sutherland border has two windfarms, another one waiting for planning permission, and all the communities are dying away... Honestly it should be done something to convince people these windfarms are as useful as believed, given that in our electricity bill it doesn't show at all.

[Tubthumper]

The Causewaymire community trust were in the paper the other month saying they were having trouble shifting the cash that had built up (a lot). I know Reay Hall has had some from Forss, and the Baillie farm has said they'll give up to £100k a year, including into a business startup pot.
That said, I believe the question of what to do with the cash can be a divisive issue for small rural communities. Hope it doesn't cause problems.

[MerlinScot]

The Causewaymire community trust were in the paper the other month saying they were having trouble shifting the cash that had built up (a lot). I know Reay Hall has had some from Forss, and the Baillie farm has said they'll give up to £100k a year, including into a business startup pot.That said, I believe the question of what to do with the cash can be a divisive issue for small rural communities. Hope it doesn't cause problems.I know someone very well who is in the Reay Hall committee and it seems they don't even know how to repair it. There were rumours to shut it down altogether. They didn't get a penny, from anywhere. Where did you get that from? And nearly all Reay residents have voted against planning permission for the Lime kiln windfarm. I don't think they were rejecting the idea of enjoying 100k per annum!

[Tubthumper]

Try these;
http://www.forss-windfarm.co.uk/local-benefits/community-fund.aspx
http://www.rwe.com/web/cms/en/310868/rwe-innogy/sites/wind-onshore/united-kingdom/in-operation/local-community/
http://www.bailliewindfarm.co.uk/community_benefit_fund.php
(http://www.bailliewindfarm.co.uk/community_benefit_fund.php)http://www.limekilnwindfarm.co.uk/benefits.aspx
Perhaps Reay Hall had cash from the old Dounreay Fund - I could be mistaken.

[Tubthumper]

I know someone very well who is in the Reay Hall committee and it seems they don't even know how to repair it.
It seems in good enough nick to me. I wonder who could have said that?

[olivia]

it seems to me that the ones closest to Baillie wind farm chose not to object to the development.

Yet again, hook, line and sinker. You know that for a fact do you? And you know the reasons why?

I would like Mr Russell to come to Caithness, when Baillie is running and see for himself what he has inflicted on this community 'for the greater good'.

[Tubthumper]

It's a windfarm. It's hardly going to result in desolation, death and the end of community life as we know it now, is it?

[Rheghead]

It seems in good enough nick to me. I wonder who could have said that?

Yes, well I think the person is on the comittee judging by the address on the preformed objection letter that I received yesterday. Talk about biting the hand that feeds yer.:roll:

Should she really have a valid position on that comittee if she is working against Reay Hall's best interests?

[Tubthumper]

It's the children of the area I feel sorry for.

[golach]

Yes, well I think the person is on the comittee judging by the address on the preformed objection letter that I received yesterday. Talk about biting the hand that feeds yer.:roll:

Should she really have a valid position on that comittee if she is working against Reay Hall's best interests?

Rheg, surely no alleged skulduggery going on in the Reay Hall comittee? Thought that only happened in places like Halkirk allegedly :eek:

[gleeber]

I havnt been out that way since they started to erect them. Surely a study needs to be done about these things and the effect it has on peoples lives. Not liking them is no defence but if theres a noise or air distortion within the boundary of your house surely then those people should be compensated before any other community benefits are decided?

[secrets in symmetry]

For goodness' sake gleeber, people have been studying the effects of these erections for years. Have you not been paying attention to the millions of threads on this forum?

[Green_not_greed]

It's a windfarm. It's hardly going to result in desolation, death and the end of community life as we know it now, is it?

Sadly, it could result in some pretty horrific health effects to the local community once it starts running. This is now acknowledged as a world-wide phenomenon when turbines are placed too close to residential properties. So far, only one accident at Baillie, at least that is known about. Glad to say no deaths to date, though those are usually during installation or maintenance.

[Green_not_greed]

Yes i was and you have obviously taken away a version of events from that inquiry exactly how you wanted it to be.

And just remind us all which side of the inquiry you chose to sit at ? Just how close were you to the developers pockets?

[gleeber]

For goodness' sake gleeber, people have been studying the effects of these erections for years. Have you not been paying attention to the millions of threads on this forum?
For goodness sake SiS you make it difficult to like you.
I'm not sure whether your a knowledgable man of science with an unfavourable manner or a bloody chancer.
I suppose you could be both.:eek:

[secrets in symmetry]

For goodness sake SiS you make it difficult to like you.
I'm not sure whether your a knowledgable man of science with an unfavourable manner or a bloody chancer.
I suppose you could be both.:eek:Why are you trying to make this personal?

[ywindythesecond]

I havnt been out that way since they started to erect them. Surely a study needs to be done about these things and the effect it has on peoples lives. Not liking them is no defence but if theres a noise or air distortion within the boundary of your house surely then those people should be compensated before any other community benefits are decided?

Quite right Gleeber. I said either earlier on this post or another one that the first thing community benefit should be spent on is buying out the houses of the people who will find living in them unbearable once they get going. And Tubs, you are not as thick as you are appearing in this thread. I cant help you if you think that Baillie WF will have no other serious detrimental impact other than a slight spoiling of the view. Nothing I can say will change your mind but you can help yourself by getting yourself better educated on the matter.
For you and anyone else who thinks that windfarms are a benign and useful way of generating electricity under the caring oversight of a benevolent and technically clued up government, and that the wind is free, I recommend this;http://www.windfarms.me.uk/wind8.html and the file attached.
The first is a presentation by me and the second is a critical paper by me so I expect some flak from the numpties. I am happy to explain or defend anything I say or write but please keep any discussion calm and logical.

[Rheghead]

And just remind us all which side of the inquiry you chose to sit at ? Just how close were you to the developers pockets?

Why do you keep groundless insinuations that I was paid by wind developers? Although I'm flattered that you think my expertise is worth paying for. I've already told I wasn't. You are sailing very close to the wind. And I know who you are.

[Rheghead]

Sadly, it could result in some pretty horrific health effects to the local community once it starts running. This is now acknowledged as a world-wide phenomenon when turbines are placed too close to residential properties.

That is total rubbish. There is not one peer-reviewed report that stands up to scrutiny that wind turbines cause adverse health effects.

[MerlinScot]

It seems in good enough nick to me. I wonder who could have said that?Yeah from the outside. Inside I have never seen it, but they also don't organise anything inside most of the time. So apparently they don't have funds or they don't know how to use them or in plain European fashion those funds disappear and the community doesn't benefit of anything at all.I don't get the poor children either, a community hall is not just for the children. In Sutherland they organise courses and events of any kind, mostly for adults. Why Forss, Reay, Westfield, and all the villages west of Thurso are in decay? Even Melvich seems more 'alive' (it is already in Sutherland though).

[Green_not_greed]

There is not one peer-reviewed report that stands up to scrutiny that wind turbines cause adverse health effects.

More crap. Try this for starters http://www.noiseandhealth.org/article.asp?issn=1463-1741;year=2012;volume=14;issue=60;spage=237;epage= 243;aulast=Nissenbaum

[Rheghead]

More crap. Try this for starters http://www.noiseandhealth.org/article.asp?issn=1463-1741;year=2012;volume=14;issue=60;spage=237;epage= 243;aulast=Nissenbaum

Just calling something peer-reviewed doesn't mean it is. We need to know who reviewed it
, what their qualifications, what they said about and what their relationship was to the author.

Here is a quote describing the report "not scientifically defensible"

Here is a peer review of that Nissenbaum report.

http://www.canwea.ca/pdf/Intrinsik-Review-of-Nissenbaum-2012.pdf


Overall, in our opinion the authors extend their conclusions and discussion beyond the statistical
findings of their study. We believe that they have not demonstrated a statistical link between
wind turbines – distance – sleep quality – sleepiness and health. In fact, their own values
suggest that although scores may be statistically different between near and far groups for sleep
quality and sleepiness, they are no different than those reported in the general population. The
claims of causation by the authors (i.e., wind turbine noise) are not supported by their data.

Says it all.

[Green_not_greed]

Just calling something peer-reviewed doesn't mean it is. We need to know who reviewed it
, what their qualifications, what they said about and what their relationship was to the author.

And I would refer that to your "review". As it was paid for by the American Wind Energy Association it's not exactly independent, is it ?

[Rheghead]

And I would refer that to your "review". As it was paid for by the American Wind Energy Association it's not exactly independent, is it ?

It doesn't matter who pays for it so long as the report is scientifically justified.

Here is another critique of wind turbine syndrome, comissioned by the State of Massachusetts, presumably they are not biased.

http://www.mass.gov/dep/energy/wind/turbine_impact_study.pdf


the Panel
concludes that there is limited evidence suggesting an association between exposure to wind
turbines and annoyance.


the Panel concludes that there is insufficient
evidence to determine whether there is an association between noise from wind turbines
and annoyance independent from the effects of seeing a wind turbine and vice versa.


the Panel
concludes that there is limited evidence suggesting an association between noise from wind
turbines and sleep disruption and that further study would quantify precise sound levels
from wind turbines that disrupt sleep.


the Panel concludes the weight of
the evidence suggests no association between noise from wind turbines and measures of
psychological distress or mental health problems.


the
Panel concludes that none of the limited epidemiological evidence reviewed suggests an
association between noise from wind turbines and pain and stiffness, diabetes, high blood
pressure, tinnitus, hearing impairment, cardiovascular disease, and headache/migraine.

[Tubthumper]

And Tubs, you are not as thick as you are appearing in this thread. I cant help you if you think that Baillie WF will have no other serious detrimental impact other than a slight spoiling of the view. Nothing I can say will change your mind but you can help yourself by getting yourself better educated on the matter.

I'll thank you not to accuse me of being not thick!
That aside, there's a distinct whiff of something here - not sure if it's arrogance or that strange internet paranoia that overcomes people when they become obsessed. It'll be shape-shifting illuminati lizards next!
Anyway, I know what I see, hear and feel. And if you're determined to scoff at every attempt to state how things actually are regarding your pet hate, nothing I can say will change your mind.
But you can help yourself by getting better educated on the matter.

[Tubthumper]

Yeah from the outside. Inside I have never seen it, but they also don't organise anything inside most of the time. So apparently they don't have funds or they don't know how to use them or in plain European fashion those funds disappear and the community doesn't benefit of anything at all.I don't get the poor children either, a community hall is not just for the children. In Sutherland they organise courses and events of any kind, mostly for adults. Why Forss, Reay, Westfield, and all the villages west of Thurso are in decay? Even Melvich seems more 'alive' (it is already in Sutherland though).Why are you criticising a hall you've never been in? Perhaps your 'source' is mistaken, or has some kind of alternative viewpoint.
As for why these Caithness halls don't ever organise anything... I'll ask the next time I'm shooting, attending the Christmas treat, Burns supper or Halloween party at Lieurary Hall, Westfield. Maybe the decay will have caused it to collapse by then though.
Or you could simply return to Sutherland, it seems better all round. In any case I'd say this is for a thread of its own.

[ywindythesecond]

I'll thank you not to accuse me of being not thick!
That aside, there's a distinct whiff of something here - not sure if it's arrogance or that strange internet paranoia that overcomes people when they become obsessed. It'll be shape-shifting illuminati lizards next!
Anyway, I know what I see, hear and feel. And if you're determined to scoff at every attempt to state how things actually are regarding your pet hate, nothing I can say will change your mind.
But you can help yourself by getting better educated on the matter.

Why don't you have a look at the items I posted and write a measured criticism of them? I'm all set up to be shot down you know, go ahead and do it.

[Tubthumper]

Why don't you have a look at the items I posted and write a measured criticism of them? I'm all set up to be shot down you know, go ahead and do it.
Why would I do that when they've been reviewed by scientists and found wanting? And anyway, nothing I could say would convince you that you're wrong. That's a dangerous place to be, you know.
The anti-windfarm propaganda had me convinced that wind turbines were inefficient, noisy and dangerous. I now know that's not the case and I'm quite happy. Nothing that happens will convince you of anything regarding windpower except what you choose to believe, so you can never be happy. That's not a good thing.
What worries me is that, since all the 'standard' anti-windfarm claims have been debunked, some people are retreating into the realms of the metaphysical, i.e. windfarm neighbours are subject to forces that cannot be sensed nor understood. The next step is the tinfoil hat.

[Tubthumper]

So far, only one accident at Baillie, at least that is known about. Glad to say no deaths to date, though those are usually during installation or maintenance. If we're talking about statistics here surely we should have some consideration of other similar activities. So how many accidents have happened at the Thurso distillery, on the Grid upgrade project or the new interconnector? Or at Dounreay? Also, what kind of accidents are we talking about here? A broken leg? A bruised thumb?
Industrial accidents, especially those involving work at height, are sadly all too common in the UK. I reckon that, considering the use of multiple-crane lifts and the nature of the loads being moved and worked on, one accident is pretty good for an undertaking of this size. I just hope it was minor.
As for the maintenance issue (speaking as a long-term maintainer of complex industrial equipment) a lapse of concentration or some safety item forgotten by worker or manager, mean it's all too easy to get dragged into the works, so to speak. On any large rotating item, anywhere.
Your statement smells a bit of casually dropping in some unqualified titbit to amplify the negative vibe which causes those who are determined to be outraged to get outraged.
'What - An accident?? I just KNEW that windfarm was dangerous, and now I know for sure!'
Sad really.

[MerlinScot]

Why are you criticising a hall you've never been in? Perhaps your 'source' is mistaken, or has some kind of alternative viewpoint. As for why these Caithness halls don't ever organise anything... I'll ask the next time I'm shooting, attending the Christmas treat, Burns supper or Halloween party at Lieurary Hall, Westfield. Maybe the decay will have caused it to collapse by then though.Or you could simply return to Sutherland, it seems better all round. In any case I'd say this is for a thread of its own.

Apart from the fact that someone already defined you as thick in an elegant way, I would add rude and impolite too.

The most polite answer I can think of could be 'because my husband has always lived in Caithness and he never had any intention to move to Sutherland'.
However, fun for hunters, deer stalking, Burns reading and disguising as a skeleton once a year are not entertainment/education for most of the population. Or would you make us believe that the benefits given by the windfarms are useful just for you to shoot a target or an animal somewhere?
The main topic was criticising the benefits supposedly given by windfarms to communities. I told you Reay hall could be a good example, it is a fact I was aware of. Then, if the residents there are letting it to crumble down to the ground is not any of my business, nor that I care anything about it either.

[Tubthumper]

The shooting I spoke of was target shooting, there are no animals in Lieurary Hall (except late on during the autumn Ball, and they're usually OK the next day!).
You claimed that Reay and all the other halls west of Thurso were falling into disrepair and were unused. That's patently not the case. You were rude about our halls, now you're being impolite about my intelligence. That does your case no favours.
Regarding courses etc, Thurso has both a library and a college, perhaps that explains why there is no need to run courses in halls within 10 miles, on regular bus routes.
I've checked and Reay Hall is neither crumbling to the ground, nor is it unused by the community. It has had grant aid from various sources. So you were off the mark there as well.
It strikes me that a community hall will be used as the community deems necessary, not because it's there and must be filled. And please, just because you don't find our activities appealing, don't miscall them. They make our bairns and pensioners happy.
And if you're not happy here, and you don't fancy Sutherland, I don't know what advice to offer.

[MerlinScot]

The shooting I spoke of was target shooting, there are no animals in Lieurary Hall (except late on during the autumn Ball, and they're usually OK the next day!). You claimed that Reay and all the other halls west of Thurso were falling into disrepair and were unused. That's patently not the case. You were rude about our halls, now you're being impolite about my intelligence. That does your case no favours.Regarding courses etc, Thurso has both a library and a college, perhaps that explains why there is no need to run courses in halls within 10 miles, on regular bus routes. I've checked and Reay Hall is neither crumbling to the ground, nor is it unused by the community. It has had grant aid from various sources. So you were off the mark there as well.It strikes me that a community hall will be used as the community deems necessary, not because it's there and must be filled. And please, just because you don't find our activities appealing, don't miscall them. They make our bairns and pensioners happy.And if you're not happy here, and you don't fancy Sutherland, I don't know what advice to offer.I think that you are off the mark as well, because I think you are speaking on behalf of people/halls you don't know anything about.

[Tubthumper]

I think that you are off the mark as well, because I think you are speaking on behalf of people/halls you don't know anything about.Where do I live?

[MerlinScot]

Where do I live?In a dessert, as you appropriately indicated on your location.

[Green_not_greed]

There is not one peer-reviewed report that stands up to scrutiny that wind turbines cause adverse health effects.

And here's an article on another. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/9653429/Wind-farm-noise-does-harm-sleep-and-health-say-scientists.html

J (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/9653429/Wind-farm-noise-does-harm-sleep-and-health-say-scientists.html)ust because it doesn't agree with your blinkered views doesn't mean it is wrong. What is wrong is siting industrial sized turbines close to communities. There is plenty undeveloped and unoccupied land in the UK where they should be put. The main reason they are not put in such remote locations is that the greedy developers don't want to pay for new grid connections. Instead they want to use the ones that already exist - which carry electricity to existing homes.

[secrets in symmetry]

Rubbish, more rubbish, and yet more rubbish from greed_not_green.

What's it like being wrong about everything all the time?

Whose turn is it to post your rubbish next? Olivia? The tilted one?

[ywindythesecond]

Why would I do that when they've been reviewed by scientists and found wanting?

Can you give me references to these reviews please.

[Tubthumper]

Can you give me references to these reviews please. Rheghead already did earlier in the thread.

[Tubthumper]

In a dessert, as you appropriately indicated on your location.Hah! Good one! Actually I was a bit confused; you state you think I'm lying about having any knowledge of these Halls, which implies you know where I live and it's nowhere near them.
However you might look a bit daft if, despite what you claimed, I lived West of Thurso and attended these halls on a fairly regular basis. It would make you look a complete numpty in fact.
What made you think I was a liar?

[Tubthumper]

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/9653429/Wind-farm-noise-does-harm-sleep-and-health-say-scientists.html)Just because it doesn't agree with your blinkered views doesn't mean it is wrong. I agree completely.

[ywindythesecond]

Rheghead already did earlier in the thread.

I have searched the thread and not found them. Not surprising because my work is not scientific, it is observational, and everything I publish can be checked by anyone with an internet connection.
So Tubs if you choose to condemn what I write or say, then please give a reasoned argument for doing so. Don't just do a "your mind is made up, what's the point". Put your reasons for the conversion which has overcome you. Tell us just exactly what made you realise that people who oppose windfarms have it all wrong. Tell us the defining moment when you knew you were right.
..
.

[cptdodger]

I'm not from Caithness, so I have a question for people who are old enough to remember. Was there this much opposition to Dounreay being built ? And if not, why not ? I was reading Highland Archives (http://www.internet-promotions.co.uk/archives/dounreay/doun3.htm) regarding Dounreay, and the following is actually stated in this paper -

"Dounreay was chosen chiefly because of the assumed risk that, in the event of a catastrophic control system failure leading to core meltdown, a release of radioactivity to the environment was a likely consequence. This would result in the necessary evacuation of people living in the vicinity of the reactor, possibly within a radius of a few miles. The population density around Dounreay was very low, lower than that of West Cumbria. If it hadn't been, the fast reactor would have certainly gone to Windscale. To its credit, the UKAEA has never made any secret of its prime reason for coming to Caithness."

Basically, what that says to me is, if the worst had happened, you were collateral damage, because by the time you were evacuated, the damage would have been done. So, compared to the risk of what could have happened, I would rather have 100 windmills than one of these places.

[golach]

I'm not from Caithness, so I have a question for people who are old enough to remember. Was there this much opposition to Dounreay being built ? And if not, why not ? I was reading Highland Archives (http://www.internet-promotions.co.uk/archives/dounreay/doun3.htm) regarding Dounreay, and the following is actually stated in this paper -.
Kaithnessians needed jobs then, and not like today, wanted work first and foremost, we were a different breed then, unlike today. I blame the nanny state.

[cptdodger]

Fair enough, I was just horrified when I read that. I think it was more the fact they were willing to risk your lives by building something that could be catastrophic to the area, if it had gone wrong, and for generations. I can't for the life of me see that wind farms could cause anywhere near the damage a nuclear plant could do.

Having said that, maybe people were not made aware of the dangers, as in, it was put here because of the low density of people in the area if it went wrong.

[ywindythesecond]

I'm not from Caithness, so I have a question for people who are old enough to remember. Was there this much opposition to Dounreay being built ? And if not, why not ? I was reading Highland Archives (http://www.internet-promotions.co.uk/archives/dounreay/doun3.htm) regarding Dounreay, and the following is actually stated in this paper -

"Dounreay was chosen chiefly because of the assumed risk that, in the event of a catastrophic control system failure leading to core meltdown, a release of radioactivity to the environment was a likely consequence. This would result in the necessary evacuation of people living in the vicinity of the reactor, possibly within a radius of a few miles. The population density around Dounreay was very low, lower than that of West Cumbria. If it hadn't been, the fast reactor would have certainly gone to Windscale. To its credit, the UKAEA has never made any secret of its prime reason for coming to Caithness."

Basically, what that says to me is, if the worst had happened, you were collateral damage, because by the time you were evacuated, the damage would have been done. So, compared to the risk of what could have happened, I would rather have 100 windmills than one of these places.

That is a refreshing observation cptdg, but Dounreay is over 50 years old, and Armageddon never happened.
Your preferred option of 100 windmills has been realised and exceeded.
Industrial scale turbines in Caithness already built total 48 big windmills.
Currently under construction are 51 big windmills.
Approved but not yet constructed are 33 big windmills.
Applied for but not yet determined are another 72 big windmills.
In “scoping”, the early stage of planning application, there are another 187 big windmills.
And there are myriads of small windmills popping up and even more in the process.

Ask yourself why now? Why if wind energy is such a good idea we are only doing it now and haven’t been doing it since wind and electricity was invented?
Ask who pays for the “windfall.”
To check the numbers go to www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk (http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/) .

[cptdodger]

[QUOTE=ywindythesecond;1011182]That is a refreshing observation cptdg, but Dounreay is over 50 years old, and Armageddon never happened.
Your preferred option of 100 windmills has been realised and exceeded.

Yes, Dounreay, is over 50 years old, and thankfully for the people here, nothing did go wrong, but, the point I was trying to make is, before it was built, they did'nt know that nothing was going to go wrong.

I will take your word about how many windmills there are, and are going to be, I have never counted them, as I have said on other threads, they do'nt bother me.

I can only imagine the reason they have not been using wind as energy since electricity was invented (as far as I'm aware nobody invented wind) was because the technology was not in existence to get the power that is generated from the turbines to wherever it ends up.

[ywindythesecond]

[QUOTE=ywindythesecond;1011182]That is a refreshing observation cptdg, but Dounreay is over 50 years old, and Armageddon never happened.
Your preferred option of 100 windmills has been realised and exceeded.

Yes, Dounreay, is over 50 years old, and thankfully for the people here, nothing did go wrong, but, the point I was trying to make is, before it was built, they did'nt know that nothing was going to go wrong.

I will take your word about how many windmills there are, and are going to be, I have never counted them, as I have said on other threads, they do'nt bother me.

I can only imagine the reason they have not been using wind as energy since electricity was invented (as far as I'm aware nobody invented wind) was because the technology was not in existence to get the power that is generated from the turbines to wherever it ends up.

I tried. But sadly, another ostrich.

[cptdodger]

[QUOTE=cptdodger;1011194]

I tried. But sadly, another ostrich.

You tried what exactly ? I think you have an awful nerve calling me an "ostrich" when the people of Caithness were quite happy to live with the threat of being blown sky high for the sake of money. THAT is burying your head in the sand and hoping for the best.

[cptdodger]

" www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk (http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/) "

And if that is a website designed to stopping the building of wind farms, you're not doing a very good job really, are you ? And that is just based on your numbers.

[cptdodger]

Apologies if I have offended anyone (with the exception of ywindythesecond) I just take offence at being called names, just for asking a question and having an opinion.

I do understand why jobs were important, especially in this area, so this is not a dig at that. As I said, I was just horrified by the fact that the reason Dounreay was placed here was because they thought that peoples lives here were expendable, and it's that, that really bothers me.

[spurtle]

Caithness, by virtue of its insignificant electoral power, will always be vulnerable to exploitation to fulfil government experimentation. Dounreay at least provided significant employment over a long period of time. Windmills have a life of , from the most optimistic figure, 25 years. We now learn that the reality is around 15.
There is very little work associated with them, apart from initial large-scale contracting work which is soon over. ( bog standard work is being contracted out to firms who bring migrant workers in. (we had a bunch of Punjabi lads in accommodation locally (no English - unsuitably dressed for the weather etc - brought in to pour concrete) I am told that the companies cannot find people up here who will do that type of work, but neither have I seen any recruitment advertisements in the local paper.
We no longer choose the way we want to go (did we ever, I wonder?) and have become a community that sees benefit in getting windfalls/handouts for village halls etc rather than working to boost the economy. We are experts at being victims. However, the people of Reay, however much they might desire a spanking new village hall, have voted 300+ to 0 not to blight their lives, tourist economy, heritage, peatland etc for the sake of the mess of pottage on offer.

Apologies if I have offended anyone (with the exception of ywindythesecond) I just take offence at being called names, just for asking a question and having an opinion.

I do understand why jobs were important, especially in this area, so this is not a dig at that. As I said, I was just horrified by the fact that the reason Dounreay was placed here was because they thought that peoples lives here were expendable, and it's that, that really bothers me.

[olivia]

Whose turn is it to post your rubbish next? Olivia? The tilted one?

I'm quite capable of posting my own rubbish, thanks very much! Fancy you thinking of Tilter, you must be keeping a log. Sad or what?

[ywindythesecond]

Apologies if I have offended anyone (with the exception of ywindythesecond) I just take offence at being called names, just for asking a question and having an opinion.

I do understand why jobs were important, especially in this area, so this is not a dig at that. As I said, I was just horrified by the fact that the reason Dounreay was placed here was because they thought that peoples lives here were expendable, and it's that, that really bothers me.

cptdodger, please accept my apology for offending you.
Your point about Caithness being seen as expendable when Dounreay was planned is very valid. It is the same reason why Caithness was initially targeted for windfarm expansion but that is no longer the case. Almost everywhere is in the same boat. Ayrshire and the Borders are particularly under threat. If I blew off at you it was not you particularly but I am very frustrated that people cannot or will not see what is being done to them in the name of "green".

Did you know for example that “the Energy Bill (currently passing through the Westminster Parliament) is designed to unlock up to £110 billion investment energy infrastructure across the UK.” That was written by Ed Davey the Westminster Energy Minister to the Scottish Government Environment Enterprise and Tourism Committee.

The £110 billion is to be spent on reconfiguring the electricity transmission mostly to allow us just to use the wind generated energy. It will ultimately be paid for by the 63.2 million consumers in the UK. That is £1741.50 from every man woman and child in the land. Are you happy with that? Did any Party tell you about it when you were asked to vote at the last General Election? And that is the tip of the iceberg.

[Tubthumper]

Did you know for example that “the Energy Bill (currently passing through the Westminster Parliament) is designed to unlock up to £110 billion investment energy infrastructure across the UK.” That was written by Ed Davey the Westminster Energy Minister to the Scottish Government Environment Enterprise and Tourism Committee.
The £110 billion is to be spent on reconfiguring the electricity transmission mostly to allow us just to use the wind generated energy. It will ultimately be paid for by the 63.2 million consumers in the UK. That is £1741.50 from every man woman and child in the land.
How much of that will be taxpayer money? And that grid reinforcement (including that nearing completion locally) will be designed to accommodate the contribution of non onshore wind, for example tidal power from the Pentland Firth.
Please stop lobbing in these half-truths - it makes you look silly.

[Tubthumper]

Apologies if I have offended anyone (with the exception of ywindythesecond) I just take offence at being called names, just for asking a question and having an opinion.

I do understand why jobs were important, especially in this area, so this is not a dig at that. As I said, I was just horrified by the fact that the reason Dounreay was placed here was because they thought that peoples lives here were expendable, and it's that, that really bothers me.
Unfortunately that seems to be what happens when people feel they're losing the argument. Another point you could throw in is the £67.5 Billion and rising of purely taxpayers money that will be needed to restore the Sellafield nuclear site. It doesn't take much to restore a wind turbine site after its useful life is over (although I'm sure there will be claims of unknown and unquantifiable forces involved that could cause distress to some.)

[Rheghead]

The £110 billion is to be spent on reconfiguring the electricity transmission mostly to allow us just to use the wind generated energy. It will ultimately be paid for by the 63.2 million consumers in the UK. That is £1741.50 from every man woman and child in the land.

Yes and in your perfect nuclear world we'd still have to firm up the Beauly Denny line and Grid to take the electricity from a commercial reactor in Caithness. How much would that cost us? But then you keep telling us that we have enough wind energy for our needs, so by your argument then the nuclear reactor would only be a very small one. Stop telling us stuff that we can see right through as blatant propaganda.

[Tubthumper]

I have searched the thread and not found them. Not surprising because my work is not scientific, it is observational, and everything I publish can be checked by anyone with an internet connection.
So Tubs if you choose to condemn what I write or say, then please give a reasoned argument for doing so. Don't just do a "your mind is made up, what's the point". Put your reasons for the conversion which has overcome you. Tell us just exactly what made you realise that people who oppose windfarms have it all wrong. Tell us the defining moment when you knew you were right.
..
.
Working back through the posts, just came across this. Sorry, I was referring to the documents posted by the other anti-windfarm obsessive. I will have a look as soon as I can and get back to you.
I have to say my work is not scientific, it is observational and everything I claim can be verified by anyone with working eyes and feet. Rather than simply claiming 'I'm right, everyone else is wrong, me against the world' I simply base my opinion on what I have personally observed and understood. And if I appear 'thick', well that's your opinion - I'd rather appear thick than obsessive.
My moment of enlightenment? It was watching Donald Trump on TV, banging on about windfarms and the damage they were doing to Scotland. And verified by his tweet about 'bird-shredders'. I'm for anything that bouffanted billionaire buffoon is against.

[Tubthumper]

Caithness, by virtue of its insignificant electoral power, will always be vulnerable to exploitation to fulfil government experimentation. Dounreay at least provided significant employment over a long period of time. Windmills have a life of , from the most optimistic figure, 25 years. We now learn that the reality is around 15.
There is very little work associated with them, apart from initial large-scale contracting work which is soon over. ( bog standard work is being contracted out to firms who bring migrant workers in. (we had a bunch of Punjabi lads in accommodation locally (no English - unsuitably dressed for the weather etc - brought in to pour concrete) I am told that the companies cannot find people up here who will do that type of work, but neither have I seen any recruitment advertisements in the local paper.
We no longer choose the way we want to go (did we ever, I wonder?) and have become a community that sees benefit in getting windfalls/handouts for village halls etc rather than working to boost the economy. We are experts at being victims. However, the people of Reay, however much they might desire a spanking new village hall, have voted 300+ to 0 not to blight their lives, tourist economy, heritage, peatland etc for the sake of the mess of pottage on offer.
I had a few pints with some guys who are working on Baillie the other week. Scottish and Geordie they were. And I understand the tracks and founds at Baillie were done by local contractors using highland labour. I'm sure the B&B proprietors and the restaurant & pub owners are quite happy with the lift in takings.
I thought Rheghead lived in Reay. If so, I'm pretty sure the vote won't be 300+ to 0 for the Limekilns project. So your estimate is a bit off.
And there are going to be 5 decent jobs created by Baillie. That's more than would be created by nothing. And some people will very soon be clamouring for jobs once the bite really starts to take effect at Dounreay. And if the lifespan is only 15 years? Well that's another load of work to be done replacing them or at the very least removing them for recycling.
A community windfall to improve the lot of we and our kids? So you'd rather have nothing at all, and remain smug about your principles? Well I'd rather see my grandkids getting some advantage that has not been there before (or perhaps MerlinScot will tell us I have no grandchildren).
As for the tourism thing - yeah right.

[ywindythesecond]

http://forum.caithness.org/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by ywindythesecond http://forum.caithness.org/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?p=1011249#post1011249)
Did you know for example that “the Energy Bill (currently passing through the Westminster Parliament) is designed to unlock up to £110 billion investment energy infrastructure across the UK.” That was written by Ed Davey the Westminster Energy Minister to the Scottish Government Environment Enterprise and Tourism Committee.
The £110 billion is to be spent on reconfiguring the electricity transmission mostly to allow us just to use the wind generated energy. It will ultimately be paid for by the 63.2 million consumers in the UK. That is £1741.50 from every man woman and child in the land.


How much of that will be taxpayer money? And that grid reinforcement (including that nearing completion locally) will be designed to accommodate the contribution of non onshore wind, for example tidal power from the Pentland Firth.
Please stop lobbing in these half-truths - it makes you look silly.

If you read my post again you will see I said "mostly to allow us just to use the wind generated energy". The cost will be fed in to electricity bills over time.
Ultimately all of that cost will be met by consumers because electricity bills met by industry commerce and even Government are passed on to those who buy the goods or services. You are right, Government's electricity bills will be met through taxation, but it is the same 63.2 million people who foot the bill.

[Tubthumper]

The main reason they are not put in such remote locations is that the greedy developers don't want to pay for new grid connections. Instead they want to use the ones that already exist - which carry electricity to existing homes. What, as opposed to homes which don't exist?
Seeing as you're in the know about these kinds of things, what grid connection is Baillie's output being fed to?

[Tubthumper]

http://forum.caithness.org/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by ywindythesecond http://forum.caithness.org/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?p=1011249#post1011249)
Did you know for example that “the Energy Bill (currently passing through the Westminster Parliament) is designed to unlock up to £110 billion investment energy infrastructure across the UK.” That was written by Ed Davey the Westminster Energy Minister to the Scottish Government Environment Enterprise and Tourism Committee.
The £110 billion is to be spent on reconfiguring the electricity transmission mostly to allow us just to use the wind generated energy. It will ultimately be paid for by the 63.2 million consumers in the UK. That is £1741.50 from every man woman and child in the land.



If you read my post again you will see I said "mostly to allow us just to use the wind generated energy". The cost will be fed in to electricity bills over time.
Ultimately all of that cost will be met by consumers because electricity bills met by industry commerce and even Government are passed on to those who buy the goods or services. You are right, Government's electricity bills will be met through taxation, but it is the same 63.2 million people who foot the bill. But then isn't everything that makes our Country great ultimately paid for by that same set of people?

[ywindythesecond]

Yes and in your perfect nuclear world we'd still have to firm up the Beauly Denny line and Grid to take the electricity from a commercial reactor in Caithness. How much would that cost us? But then you keep telling us that we have enough wind energy for our needs, so by your argument then the nuclear reactor would only be a very small one. Stop telling us stuff that we can see right through as blatant propaganda.

I have never said we have enough wind energy for our needs. No matter how much wind energy we have it will never be enough because it stops frequently.
"Enough" means enough when you need it, not when it is thrown at you whether you need it or not.

[Tubthumper]

The £110 billion is to be spent on reconfiguring the electricity transmission mostly to allow us just to use the wind generated energy. It will ultimately be paid for by the 63.2 million consumers in the UK. That is £1741.50 from every man woman and child in the land. Gosh, on TOP of the £1068.04 they'll each be shelling out to sort out Sellafield (never mind all the other UK nuclear sites).

[Rheghead]

I have never said we have enough wind energy for our needs. No matter how much wind energy we have it will never be enough because it stops frequently.
"Enough" means enough when you need it, not when it is thrown at you whether you need it or not.

Well you have said we have enough wind energy already on many occasions. I'm not going to argue with you.

[ywindythesecond]

Gosh, on TOP of the £1068.04 they'll each be shelling out to sort out Sellafield (never mind all the other UK nuclear sites).

There is nothing you can do about Sellafield etc now but you can do things to shape the future.

[Rheghead]

There is nothing you can do about Sellafield etc now but you can do things to shape the future.

That's the thing though isn't it? You don't want the future to be shaped. Carry on as normal, a recipe for inaction over climate change and energy security.

[Tubthumper]

That's right. Like reinforcing the grid so it can accommodate anything our kids choose to throw at it. And making sure they have a range of energy sources available so that, wherever they choose to spend their lives, their personalities (improved by life-forming activities subsidised in part by private enterprise) can grow in a manner we would be proud of.

[Tubthumper]

I'm not convinced that climate change is exclusively driven by human activity. But the energy security issue is one that's likely to become more and more of an issue in the near future.

[ywindythesecond]

I'm not convinced that climate change is exclusively driven by human activity. But the energy security issue is one that's likely to become more and more of an issue in the near future.

We are talking about one and the same thing now!

[Tubthumper]

Perhaps, but I think Baillie's not so bad. In a couple of years people won't even notice it.

[Rheghead]

Perhaps, but I think Baillie's not so bad. In a couple of years people won't even notice it.

Perhaps but I think it will be more likely that we'll become proud of our windfarms because as a small community we can still make a huge contribution to cutting carbon emissions.

[ywindythesecond]

I'm not convinced that climate change is exclusively driven by human activity. But the energy security issue is one that's likely to become more and more of an issue in the near future.
The near future is here and now. At one point yesterday more than 7000MW of Scottish onshore and English offshore wind power was managing only 29MW, 0.41% of its rated capacity. If we had ten times the number of windmills we would have got 290MW, still only 0.41% of its rated capacity.
Can someone please explain to me how windpower contributes to security of energy supply?

[Tubthumper]

The near future is here and now. At one point yesterday more than 7000MW of Scottish onshore and English offshore wind power was managing only 29MW, 0.41% of its rated capacity. If we had ten times the number of windmills we would have got 290MW, still only 0.41% of its rated capacity.
Can someone please explain to me how windpower contributes to security of energy supply?
It's all to do with Watts and things. The windmills need wind to make them go round. If there is no wind they don't go round. But, when there is wind they go round and make Watts. It's a bit like solar power - when the sun goes to bed at night, there's no Watts being made.
That means, when Watts are coming from somewhere else, we don't need to use other dirty stuff like coal and that to make our telly work. So that when the bairns grow up there might be some coal left for them, and the sky might not be as dirty.
And I think it's fair to say that energy security will come about as a result of diversity of sources - hydro, offshore wind, onshore wind, tidal, wave, coal (clean hopefully), gas, nuclear and oil may all have a place in the mix so that regardless of the weather we should always have adequate & suitable means of generation available. The Danes and Germans seem to manage OK.
You can correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not very clever at this stuff.

[ywindythesecond]

It's all to do with Watts and things. The windmills need wind to make them go round. If there is no wind they don't go round. But, when there is wind they go round and make Watts. It's a bit like solar power - when the sun goes to bed at night, there's no Watts being made.
That means, when Watts are coming from somewhere else, we don't need to use other dirty stuff like coal and that to make our telly work. So that when the bairns grow up there might be some coal left for them, and the sky might not be as dirty.
And I think it's fair to say that energy security will come about as a result of diversity of sources - hydro, offshore wind, onshore wind, tidal, wave, coal (clean hopefully), gas, nuclear and oil may all have a place in the mix so that regardless of the weather we should always have adequate & suitable means of generation available. The Danes and Germans seem to manage OK.
You can correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not very clever at this stuff.

Hydro is great but its use is limited to response when needed. If it was used to fill the gap for wind, it wouldn’t be available when required. Onshore and offshore wind and waves follow the same pattern very frequently, no wind ,no waves. The tide stops twice a day. 10 years after opening the marine test centre in Orkney we still have no commercial wind or wave generators operating in UK waters. Cockenzie coal power station is to close down in 2016 because of an EU directive. Clean coal technology hasn’t been invented yet on a viable commercial scale. Gas is great because it is very responsive but unless we get it from fracking or the North sea we become dependent on foreign countries and remember Russia has already switched off Ukraine’s gas. Mr Salmond says no new nuclear in Scotland and though he graciously allows us to continue to use the output from them, they have a limited future lifespan. There are few oil generators and they are only used when there is nothing else because they are so dirty, and I believe they too are to close in 2016.

The Danes export their surplus wind generated electricity to Norway at knock-down prices where it is used for pumped storage. When the Danish wind stops, Denmark imports pump storage electricity from Norway at commercial rates. Denmark’s electricity prices are the dearest in Europe. Germany has the biggest concentration of wind turbines in the world. It is getting rid of its clean non-polluting nuclear power stations in a knee-jerk reaction to Fukushima and building I think 12 new “dirty” coal fired stations.

You are right, security of supply comes from a diversity of generating technologies but UK to some extent and Scotland in particular has the one basket of eggs and the handle is severely frayed.

Scotland is normally an exporter of electricity to England. During the recent cold still spell we imported from England an average of 800MW over a period in excess of 5 days. In wind industry cant, 800MW is “enough to meet the needs of” two thirds of the homes in Scotland.

UK has no energy plan. Scotland has a plan which will ruin us.

[Rheghead]

The Danes export their surplus wind generated electricity to Norway at knock-down prices where it is used for pumped storage. When the Danish wind stops, Denmark imports pump storage electricity from Norway at commercial rates. Denmark’s electricity prices are the dearest in Europe.

You said that as if wind is causing the higher energy prices. tsk tsk.

[ywindythesecond]

You said that as if wind is causing the higher energy prices. tsk tsk.

I said that in answer to Tubs posting "The Danes and Germans seem to manage OK."

But you are right, wind is causing higher energy prices, not all on its own, but its share of our bills is an avoidable imposition. Correction, it is no longer avoidable, the damage has already been done.
Allowing the damage to get much worse is avoidable though.

[cptdodger]

I said that in answer to Tubs posting "The Danes and Germans seem to manage OK."

But you are right, wind is causing higher energy prices, not all on its own, but its share of our bills is an avoidable imposition. Correction, it is no longer avoidable, the damage has already been done.
Allowing the damage to get much worse is avoidable though.

Okay, we have ascertained you do'nt like wind or tidal power - fine. Supplies of coal, gas and oil, will eventually run out . Dounreay is closing, and after the absolute catastrophe at Fukushima, I for one would be happier if the government did'nt build anymore nuclear power stations (just to quantify that, I have family in Japan, so that is just my personal opinion)

So, what is your answer, when all of the above have run out, where would you like the power to be sourced from?

[ywindythesecond]

Okay, we have ascertained you do'nt like wind or tidal power - fine. Supplies of coal, gas and oil, will eventually run out . Dounreay is closing, and after the absolute catastrophe at Fukushima, I for one would be happier if the government did'nt build anymore nuclear power stations (just to quantify that, I have family in Japan, so that is just my personal opinion)

So, what is your answer, when all of the above have run out, where would you like the power to be sourced from?

Baseload has to come from nuclear coal and gas. Hydro and pump storage hydro provide instant response. Gas and coal are used for daily and seasonal fluctuations. Gas is kept in reserve for major outages. Nothing else that works on a big enough scale has been invented yet and until it has been, these are all we have that work.

Wind and wave absented itself a couple of days ago and does so frequently. I have just heard on the radio that Wavegen is pulling out of the UK because there is no investment coming forward. Renewables simply don't work when you are trying to power a nation.

Like it or not that is the reality at present. My beef is that our governments are spending our money hand over fist on a technology which can't succeed rather than own up to the fact that for years everyones head was in the sand, and they still don't have the guts to face it. Meanwhile we are trashing the country and unforgiveably imposing the likes of Baillie Windfarm on the people who live there.