View Full Version : Spittal Hill - Dumbest Place Ever for a Windfarm
Take a look at http://www.spittalwindfarmopposition.co.uk/
Great - dirty great noisy windfarm on a hill slap bang in the middle of the county where all of us (including tourists) can see it (and Causeymire and Dunbeath windfarms and goodness knows how many other proposals) defacing our lovely county.
This takes the cake. Enough's enough. What do other .Orgers think?
tommy1979
27-Apr-07, 23:35
would you rather we just kept burning fossil fuels at an exponential rate then??
lynne duncan
28-Apr-07, 00:01
probably a daft question I am prone to them but why can they not build one large windfarm instead of all these small collections, ie 1 farm with a 1000 or heck 10,000 say 20 miles west of berridale where it cannot be seen from the road( picked there out of the smallest of brain just for example) (though there maybe something there already that would people would object to it going there as well)
would you rather we just kept burning fossil fuels at an exponential rate then??
Tommy,
Yup. With current and future carbon capture techniques (think of it like you probably do nuclear waste - it's just as bad ("exponentially")). There's lots of fossil fuel. There's no longer a lot of Scottish landscape. Or habitat. Or anything that makes Scotland Scotland. And Caithness has a living to make. And its living is not by wind turbines (except for a few landowners/developers/big foreign energy companies seeking mega-government-subsidies-via-ROC'S).
probably a daft question I am prone to them but why can they not build one large windfarm instead of all these small collections, ie 1 farm with a 1000 or heck 10,000 say 20 miles west of berridale where it cannot be seen from the road( picked there out of the smallest of brain just for example) (though there maybe something there already that would people would object to it going there as well)
Lynne,
That's a genius question - not a daft question. They can't build one huge mega-mega-watt windfarm in Caithness where no one can see it because it would be in the Flow Country (which is a something like - so don't quote me right now before I can look it up - proposed World Heritage Site). Seriously, we need to protect the Flow Country because it's world heritage status
Blanket-Bog-unique, and THE LARGEST ON THE PLANET I BELIEVE. However, outwith the Flow Country is "Where People Live in Caithness" land and that's where developers want to put windfarms so they can make millions and move to the Caribbean (joking - but probably Antigua).
One small windfarm - to provide free electricity to Watten or Spittal or Strathy or Wherever - would be great!!! But it won't happen. Wind power will put your electricity bill up - that's all. It costs about 3 times the price of conventional power.
probably a daft question I am prone to them but why can they not build one large windfarm instead of all these small collections, ie 1 farm with a 1000 or heck 10,000 say 20 miles west of berridale where it cannot be seen from the road( picked there out of the smallest of brain just for example) (though there maybe something there already that would people would object to it going there as well)
Maybe you'd like to see this spreading out over the Flow Country.....
http://hometown.aol.co.uk/madpict/images/Windfarmhell.JPG
Oh heck, why not make a tourist attraction of them while we're at it....
http://forum.caithness.org/showpost.php?p=12272&postcount=90
Maybe you'd like to see this spreading out over the Flow Country.....
http://hometown.aol.co.uk/madpict/images/Windfarmhell.JPG
Oh heck, why not make a tourist attraction of them while we're at it....
http://forum.caithness.org/showpost.php?p=12272&postcount=90
Thank you Mad Pict. California right? No different than here soon. I won't post the turbine-kill photos of raptors - it's quite gory.
Don't bother with lodging a verbal or written protest .the deals been done the access roads are in and the turbines have been ordered .So much for planning permission, its all cut and dried
When has your vote in local elections ever helped the Environment..3 more Wind Factories have already been given the nod ,its just the public that have to be fooled into believing that its helping cut Carbon Emissions. China will put 10 million new car in their roads this year alone ..Its a GREAT CARBON CON that we are happy to pay into ...
ruthasuth
28-Apr-07, 09:56
I believe that the access road for the turbines will be the dunn hill road... so no the access roads are not ready for the turbines at spittal, mega changes would have to be made to the bottom of the dunn hill road junction to allow a turbine round the corner. There is a new access road from the Causewaymire into the area of the proposed site but I dont believe that it is for turbines?
There is so much wildlife and birds around spittal hill that will be adversely affected by the wind turbines. It is an undisturbed paradise for the large amount of birds including swan and geese, bats, otters, deer to name just a few.
The windfarms are only viable due to a high government incentive - which us tax payers are contributing to! Windfarms in other countries are now in the process of being taken down due to their inefficiency. Anyone who believes that this is the answer to our power shortage is mistaken. Our current government appear to be trying to tick the "green" box without finding a "real" solution.
All objections are worthwhile and I urge you (where-ever you live) to let your feelings known and raise an objection. The rural community around spittal hill need the support.
Be it peat bog....
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg19125591.600-the-hidden-cost-of-wind-turbines.html
or hilltop...
http://johnrsweet.com/personal/Wind/windpix1.html
...the damage to the environment is not minimal as the wind companies allege......
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~hills/cc/gallery/index.htm
Is this what we want Caithness to look like....
[QUOTE=dozy;217480]Don't bother with lodging a verbal or written protest .the deals been done the access roads are in and the turbines have been ordered .So much for planning permission, its all cut and dried
When has your vote in local elections ever helped the Environment..3 more Wind Factories have already been given the nod ,its just the public that have to be fooled into believing that its helping cut Carbon Emissions.
In response to a lot of pressure from community councils and the general public, Highland Council did try to put an end to what was a complete free-for-all by the wind power companies. This is contained in their Renewable Energy Strategy.
The power companies obviously think this is totally irrelevant, and have come forward with big schemes like Spittal, Dunbeath, Durran, Camster, Stroupster, Strathy - others in the pipeline are Scoolary (Barrogill), Baillie Hill - rumours abound about others lurking. They all breach the strategy. These will all bypass the local planning dept by being under the aegis of the Scottish Executive, for which read a resurrected Strathclyde Council - they don't care what happens here. They don't care about HC's strategy, and don't care what you or I think. So the free-for-all is what you have got.
Pressure needs to be put on the executive to start listening to local government, or what remains of it. (Try ringing Caithness Area offices - you get a call centre in Alness After next week, you'll get a council based in Golspie - great!)
The smaller schemes, including Yarrows, will come under HC. The application for this one was so badly drafted that Historic Scotland can't even respond until a proper survey is done - NPower insisted on the cheapest and most basic bird survey to be done, so that this has to be repeated. One gets the impression they have set up the poor landowner who thinks he is going to make a whack of money out of this scheme. I believe it is standard practice to have a raft of applications whiich include a target sacrificial one to draw the fire off the others. Incompetence at that level is not really believable -
use your voice at the elkection to put them on the spot - Caithness will never be the same again if this lot goes through - say good-bye to tourism, watch property prices tumble and electricity bill go through the roof.
sweetheart
28-Apr-07, 11:21
Caithness is being traded away by the scottish executive to large industry
because large industry is more important than democracy, as we are all just
mere little fleshpods next to the giant gears of global lazyness and war.
China is building a new coal power station every week... the carbon credits
saved are not worth a piss.... the fact is, that the earth's population is simply
too greedy for energy to stop modernising, and as the other 6 billion people
aspire to the only economic lifestyle choice that's been presented to them by
the big corporate industrial complex.
So, it looks like rather the windfarms are a deliberate ploy from edinburgh to
show who rules scotland, to prove that the people in edinburgh own the
scenic highlands, and it doesn't matter what the rural people think at all,
but rather that everyone should be conquored, every landscape spoiled, every
child locked up in a prison and told what to think by endless tapeloops from
the windfarm energy corporations who're devaluing the public goods of the
highlands for another private goldrush.
Frankly, spittal hill is horrible, yarrows is evern worse... that one wrecks
an archeological site that any other nation on earth would keep sacred.
But it seems that the scottish executive is entirely bonkers and out of touch,
i hope labour loses the next poll badly to the libdems.. who will
then continue to follow this path of energy-folly and colonial imperialism
until the planet is 5 degrees hotter and all of england has come up to
cathness and built houses in the only form that will be accepted by planning,
everywhere!; houses shaped like 100 meter tall turbines, tubular
tower blocks with a tiny room on 30 floors and a fast elevator.
The executive needs to stop all the planning applications for parts of the
sacred highlands, as the gold rush will otherwise destroy the only heritage
that has survived all these thousands years of human destructive development.
The largest peatland in *europe* (larger ones in in russia), is doing fine as
carbon sink without being developed. The stupid people are on both
sides of the atlantic following the course of imperial wars and pollution
economics until they've killed off and drowned out a few hundred millions
in low lying lands around the earth. For all its rationality, our society is
more degenerate than any society we used to call primitive, it has become
a malignant tumor that stands to destroy the planet's ecosystem entirely,
and a turbine on spittal hill won't make any lick of difference... so why not
find another way for people in the far north to build an economy besides
resource stripping like in a 3rd world country... why not design and construct
a large world class university for renewable energy system
design, and create a cluster of employment for the long term by not
draining away the brain power of the future economy.
Even america in its foolish destruction of its natural heritage would not
put wind turbines around the grand canyon, and as much, the entire
scottish highland natural zone should be well enough left alone.
[QUOTE=sweetheart;217505] . . . houses in the only form that will be accepted by planning, everywhere!; houses shaped like 100 meter tall turbines, tubular
tower blocks with a tiny room on 30 floors and a fast elevator.
Sweetheart, it is true that if someone wanted to build a house next door to me I would have to be notified. Highland Council would listen to me if light, etc., was excluded from my property. However, I doubt anyone could build a house next door to me, given Highland Council's quite stringent rules for rural development with regard to housing. However, if someone wants to build a windfarm next door to me, they don't have to bother to notify me at all, and they certainly don't have to give any consideration to my well-being, my livelihood, or my environment and the flora/fauna I share it with.
Sorry, Tilter. I really like wind farms - I have been known to drive for miles just to see one. I'll drive miles the opposite way to get away from a nuclear site or a fossil fuel power plant. ;)
Sorry, Tilter. I really like wind farms - I have been known to drive for miles just to see one. I'll drive miles the opposite way to get away from a nuclear site or a fossil fuel power plant. ;)
That's OK Ricco. Whatever floats your boat. You're in luck as you won't have to drive anywhere to see this one. Someone's just given me a pretty picture from the Environmental Statement for Spittal and you'll be able to see it from the Strath to the East coast and from Dunnet to below Dunbeath.
If I were smarter, I could figure out how to post the picture for you. Maybe MadPict could help me? I know the code - and but how do I link the jpg file in the middle?
Unless you upload it to the Org server (has to fit the image size parameters) if you host it on somewhere like imageshack.com they will give you the URL for the image once hosted.
There'll soon be hardly anywhere in Caithness that you can go without seeing wind turbines in one direction or another. Some places you'll be able to see them in several directions at once. Causeymire, Spittal, Yarrows, Camster, Stroupster (rejected but could come back), Scoolary (that's a big one) and so on. Look at the lists on the .org http://www.caithness.org/windfarms/ over on the right. Could be quite a challenge for all those fighter planes zooming over - like an obstacle course. As for birds - turbines aren't called bird mincers for nothing.
cliffhbuber
28-Apr-07, 19:42
There are very legitimate concerns raised over the construction of wind power towers.
One concern that seems to have been underplayed in North America is the disruption to migrating birds.
A recent study showed that one skyscraper in Chicago had a dead bird count of approx. 4000 a year.
The latest info I have seen on wind power suggests that on average only 40% of the potential is achieved the course of a year.
Backup energy sources, probably on a grid, will be needed.
Several groups in Canada have researched over 30 years the use of peat for power, as in Ireland, Denmark, and Finland.
Politicians are hesitant to make a (drastic) shift in what they are used to, or to think independently of the pressure from nuclear and coal lobby groups.
Another recent study reveals that peat bogs give off 45 times more methane to destroy the ozone layer than does CO2.
Peat burns much cleaner than coal, including no metals in the affluent.
Locally developed peat plants would provide employment.
Using peat for power would allow for cheaper energy as well as the opportunity of reclaiming bog sites as wetlands for birds, and even to stock with fish.
Unless you upload it to the Org server (has to fit the image size parameters) if you host it on somewhere like imageshack.com they will give you the URL for the image once hosted.
MadPict, thank you. I've registered but will have to figure out Image Shack later. Also it's a shade too big to simply attach. Apologies too for digressing - I should have put this on a Techy thread.
Another recent study reveals that peat bogs give off 45 times more methane to destroy the ozone layer than does CO2.
Peat burns much cleaner than coal, including no metals in the affluent.
Locally developed peat plants would provide employment.
Using peat for power would allow for cheaper energy as well as the opportunity of reclaiming bog sites as wetlands for birds, and even to stock with fish.
Cliffhbuber, I'm not following your argument re peat. Am I missing something? It is my understanding that peat (lying undisturbed in the ground) is good because as a carbon sink it is three times as efficient as rain forest. (See the excellent New Scientist article to which Mad Pict provided a link earlier in this thread.) Are you suggesting we dig up our peatland for fuel? I have to say, having dug, dried, stacked and burned peat in the past, I'd prefer doing a shift in the salt mines.
You're spot on about turbines killing birds. It's not just that though, it's the destruction of habitat as well.
Really Tilter, I don't know what you are on about. Having now had a good look at the Environmental Statement for the proposed windfarm on Spittal Hill it would appear to be the best place in the world for a windfarm!
No birds, no bats, no potential noise, fits snugly into the landform, doesn't matter that its close to peoples houses, close to Spittal village, etc. etc.
But then isn't that always the case - these consultants who prepare these environmental statements and the bird watchers who do the surveys have to come up with what their masters want.
What about peer review or better still have a truly independant ornithologist spend real amounts of time recording all the Whooper Swan and Geese movements we know that occur (to name just two species)?
Oh, but then it might show that it would have a truly monumental effect on these protected birds and that would never do would it?
Go to www.spittalwindfarmopposition.co.uk (http://www.spittalwindfarmopposition.co.uk) soon to lodge your objection or write a letter and help stop this environmental catastrophe from happening.
ruthasuth
29-Apr-07, 11:05
The bird survey was a joke - the bloke who did it was lying back in his car asleep several of the times I saw him doing the survey! The enviromental statement is not a true independent view as it should be.
The windfarm is a get rich quick scheme (due to huge government subsidy) for the few landowners involved and not a long term strategy for Caithness which is what we need. All these windfarm plans for caithness appear to have arisen since the government introduced incentives - mmmmm wonder why????
Well done to the opposition group www.spittalwindfarmopposition.co.uk (http://www.spittalwindfarmopposition.co.uk/) for getting organised to assist people object to the scheme!
Can someone from the group let everyone on org know when the online objection form is available???
well if the bird survey man was asleep he might have missed the ospreys flying over spittal hill on their way between the lochs in the area. it would be a crying shame to put up a windfarm there as the birdlife and indeed wildlife is unique. ps there's also loads of otters as they've crossed the road in front of my car
The windfarm is a get rich quick scheme (due to huge government subsidy) for the few landowners involved and not a long term strategy for Caithness which is what we need. All these windfarm plans for caithness appear to have arisen since the government introduced incentives - mmmmm wonder why????
CRC, the problem is that the subsidies (Renewable Energy Certificates or ROC's) are being reviewed, reviewed, reviewed and will end up with the developers' cash cow yielding less and less money as we move away from unproductive wind technology. The developers will lose interest along the way, and guess what Caithness will be left with? Yup, lots of dilapidated windfarms.
Remember the forestry. Lots of money there once, and now the powers-that-be are trying to dig it up and restore what was once wild and beautiful land supporting its own ecosystem.
CRC, the problem is that the subsidies (Renewable Energy Certificates or ROC's) are being reviewed, reviewed, reviewed and will end up with the developers' cash cow yielding less and less money as we move away from unproductive wind technology.
The truth of the matter is the complete opposite. As we moved towards more involvement with renewable energy then the market price of the renewable obligation will fall thus making wind technology less profitable. There needs to be more market confidence with insurance and underwriters in other technologies like tidal, offshore wind and wave generators to bring the RO down to a realistic price. The technology is there for wave, it just needs more market confidence to enable it to go forward.
The bird survey was a joke - the bloke who did it was lying back in his car asleep several of the times I saw him doing the survey! The enviromental statement is not a true independent view as it should be.
Well crc that would explain why he didn't see anything on the hill I hope he got paid well for kipping in his car!
Its just as I feared, we, but most importantly the wildlife, are being treated with contempt by these windfarm developers and their associates.
The worry is that the powers that be believe all this twaddle and don't investigate further. We must expose this for the scam it is - come on all you bird and wildlife lovers in this county (and beyond) lets start shouting by objecting to this development.
well if the bird survey man was asleep he might have missed the ospreys flying over spittal hill on their way between the lochs in the area. it would be a crying shame to put up a windfarm there as the birdlife and indeed wildlife is unique. ps there's also loads of otters as they've crossed the road in front of my car
Sweep, glad you brought up the subject of the Ospreys and the Otters. The most northernly nesting Ospreys in Great Britain, flying all this way every year to raise a family, I wonder how long it will be before Daddy Osprey is minced on his way to Loch Toftingall to catch his fish for his wife and babies? And as for the Otters - yes, they do acknowledge there is a strong population on the hill of 'regional importance' but its OK because they have moved those turbines back a shade and everything is rosy. Forget the umpteen lorries that will be trundling backwards and forwards everyday collecting stone from the quarry or the noise and racket the diggers and dumpers will make, or the polluted water courses --- I could go on and on and on----but you get my drift.
They might as well put up the new road sign on the Caithness boundary -
WELCOME TO THE COUNTY OF CAITHNESS
THE LARGEST WIND FARM IN THE UK
ONCE THE HOME OF CAITHNESS GLASS - NOW THE HOME OF CAITHNESS WIND
i really love the bird and wildlife we have in caithness.
how can i object to this proposed disaster and really make a difference?
The bird survey was a joke - the bloke who did it was lying back in his car asleep several of the times I saw him doing the survey! The enviromental statement is not a true independent view as it should be.
How do you know? Are you an expert in this field?
I know the chap and I can say without a smallest doubt that he is very dedicated to his work. He has never imparted to me that he is influenced by wind energy business or environmental concerns, he just records the data impartially. Though being a keen birder he must be for the birds.
We all need sleep and since he is his own boss, he could easily sleep at home rather than take a wee nap on the job at odd hours of the day. It sounds to me he was sacrificing his sleep for the benefit of his work!!![evil]
Hi there Rheghead
Have you been on holiday?
We will never know if birdman was sacrificing his sleep for his work or sacrificing his work for his sleep. However, CRC caught him at it several times. Wish I could have a nap at work when I felt like but I think I'd be shown the door.
The point is, bird surveys for windfarms are inadequate. If they were adequate, there wouldn't be all the collisions etc. that are on record.
How do you know? Are you an expert in this field?
I know the chap and I can say without a smallest doubt that he is very dedicated to his work. He has never imparted to me that he is influenced by wind energy business or environmental concerns, he just records the data impartially. Though being a keen birder he must be for the birds.
We all need sleep and since he is his own boss, he could easily sleep at home rather than take a wee nap on the job at odd hours of the day. It sounds to me he was sacrificing his sleep for the benefit of his work!!![evil]
I think the point that needs to be made here is that Mr Birdman is employed by the developer. I have read the ornithology section of the environmental statement for this development (have you by the way?) and am busy ploughing my way through it for a second time. My reaction has been one of dismay and disbelief. Those who live nearby will tell you that the numbers of swans flying between feeding areas and roost sites on and around Spittal Hill, including the windfarm site itself, can number up to the mid-nineties and the geese can number into the thousands (and I am not exagerating as I have counted them) at any one time. But does it say that in the ES - not on your nelly. One can only assume then that he wasn't there for long enough,(a few hours a month is hardly what I would call a survey), he was asleep (as has already been discussed), he is only seeing what they want him to see or he needs new glasses.
People would have more faith in these bird surveys if they were undertaken by a truly independent ornithologist.
I suggest you photograph said 'bird survey man' asleep on the job and send it to his "employer" and any relevant party who might be interested in the depth of his observations....
If they were adequate, there wouldn't be all the collisions etc. that are on record.
Bird collisions are inevitable with large structures, not just windfarms. A blackbird knocked itself dead by flying into my bungalow house for example last year. The RSPB accepts this and that is why they endorse windfarms in areas where the risk is minimised.
The birdman is truly independent.
Perhaps he was a Napwing?
Or maybe worn out from counting the nocturnal avian residents?
Here goes,
I think I've attached it. I doubt it will be legible but you'll see the outline of Caithness and what's where. The small dark blue areas are where you'll only be able to see between 1 and 7 turbines, going through light blue (8-13 turbines), green (14-19 turbines), orange (20 - 25 turbines) and yellow (the huge area) where you'll have all the benefits of seeing the whole shooting match (26 - 30 turbines).
The ZTV's showing this site in conjunction with the other existing and proposed sites (about 13 I think) to show cumulative impact are too busy and complicated for my poor old eyes so I'll stick with this one.
Perhaps he was a Napwing?
Or a Greater Spotted Snoozer?
i really love the bird and wildlife we have in caithness.
how can i object to this proposed disaster and really make a difference?
you can write or email your objection to -
The Scottish Executive
Energy Consents Unit
2nd Floor
Meridian Court
5 Cadogan Street
Glasgow
G2 6AT
or
energyconsents@scotland.gsi.gov.uk
identifying the proposal (Spittal Hill, Caithness) and specifying the grounds for representation not later than 1st June 2007
Representations should be dated and should clearly state your name (in block capitals) and full return email or postal address
or you can go to www.spittalwindfarmopposition.co.uk (http://www.spittalwindfarmopposition.co.uk) where there will be the facility for an online objection or downloadable form shortly
Sounds to me like this windfarm on Spittal hill will be an ecological disaster that we all pay for in the long term while the developers get rich quick
Most of these windfarms are disasters one way or another. Who in their right minds would build them by the Grey Cairns of Camster or Yarrows Archaeological Trail - both incredibly special places that should be considered sacred and preserved as they have been for thousands of years?
Another aspect of all this is that they set neighbour against neighbour. Those who want them see only the money, those who don't consider other things are more important. Too often the landowners with the money are also employers and landlords and many people are scared to protest openly in case they lose their jobs/houses.
Sounds to me like this windfarm on Spittal hill will be an ecological disaster that we all pay for in the long term while the developers get rich quick
How come? I've walked around Causeymire windfarm and I can't see an ecological disaster. No dead birds, pollution or 'owt.
Pumping zillions of tonnes of coal into the atmosphere sounds like an ecological disaster, mind.
Pumping zillions of tonnes of coal into the atmosphere sounds like an ecological disaster, mind.
Yes it is. Nothing we can do with a few windfarms in Caithness producing next to nothing by way of energy is going to make any difference to what China's chucking into the atmosphere. However, hopefully clean coal, carbon capture and all that will make a difference in future, though it would be better not to use so much in the first place. Then again, you can't stop China wanting to become like us - all developed and civilised (ha!)
Anyway, I still think Spittal's a really daft place for a windfarm for many many reasons I can't get into right now - maybe after I've had my tea.
Do you think Spittal Hill is a good place for a windfarm Rheghead?
Do you think Spittal Hill is a good place for a windfarm Rheghead?
I haven't seen the developer's report in relation to wind speeds and stuff. So I can't say.
I haven't seen the developer's report in relation to wind speeds and stuff. So I can't say.
I believe the developer's Environmental Statement and Technical Summary are in Thurso library, and Spittal garage and Watten P.O if you wish to see them.
I expect the wind speeds are quite good. They're quite good in the whole of Scotland. However, from a planning perspective - landscape and visual impact, cumulative impact, impact on ecology, ornithology, cultural heritage, tourism, etc., it all looks pretty dodgy.
spittal hill a place of tranquil bliss ,will be no more if it is covered with giant turbines, they will be 300ft high and will beat and thrum and vibrate night and day .well if the wind blows.
I believe the developer's Environmental Statement and Technical Summary are in Thurso library, and Spittal garage and Watten P.O if you wish to see them.
I expect the wind speeds are quite good. They're quite good in the whole of Scotland. However, from a planning perspective - landscape and visual impact, cumulative impact, impact on ecology, ornithology, cultural heritage, tourism, etc., it all looks pretty dodgy.
I can see a problem with visual impact but only if you have adopted the idea that windfarms are bad from a visually impact point of view. Plenty of folk don't see a problem.
There is a problem with ornithology but only from the protection of target species eg white tailed eagle (which aren't resident in Caithness).
I can't see a problem with the other things you have stated, the protection of cultural sites and views don't seem to do anything to halt or retard global warming, in fact the oppposite, it just promotes people to get in their cars and gawk at landscapes.
I can see a problem with visual impact but only if you have adopted the idea that windfarms are bad from a visually impact point of view. Plenty of folk don't see a problem.
There is a problem with ornithology but only from the protection of target species eg white tailed eagle (which aren't resident in Caithness).
I can't see a problem with the other things you have stated, the protection of cultural sites and views don't seem to do anything to halt or retard global warming, in fact the oppposite, it just promotes people to get in their cars and gawk at landscapes.
Your right, there is a problem with ornithology and that is because we have a significant number of target species that need protection in the vicinity of this proposed site (although why other poor little birds who are going to get minced do not matter is beyond me).
Of course, don't forget that tourism is Scotland's biggest industry and employs (I believe) one in five people in the Highlands. People come to the Highlands to gawk at the scenery, as you put it, in their polluting cars, but they then stay at the b & bs, hotels, use the pubs and chip shops etc. etc.
The visual impact is another matter - there is a whole lot of difference between viewing a thirty turbine windfarm on a distant hill top as you travel down to Inverness and viewing same size windfarm less than 900 metres away. This, by the way, is the distance one poor person's house is going to be away from it.
There is no getting away from the fact that the siting of this development is unbelievably insensitive to the local community and thats all there is to it.
views don't seem to do anything to halt or retard global warming,
Rheghead
You're being just a teeny bit obtuse again. This windfarm will have nothing to do with global warming. It will have a lot to do with developers making a lot of money off of other people's backs. Wind farms make for very unpleasant next door neighbours. And Spittal hill and its surrounding area have residences, settlements even, all around it. Good places for windfarms, if you believe they are a fantastic weapon against global warming, are where they are well away from people and protected species.
the cumulative impact of such a big wind farm development could have serious and damaging effect on the character of our unique landscape and the health of the inhabitants.could also destroy tourism in Caithness.
the cumulative impact of such a big wind farm development could have serious and damaging effect on the character of our unique landscape and the health of the inhabitants.could also destroy tourism in Caithness.
The reverse is true.
The cumulative impact of everyone who perceives that windfarms will have a damaging effect on the character of our unique landscape and the health of our inhabitants will ironically have the effect of damaging our unique landscape. The experts predict that global temps will rise by 1.4-3.8c over the next 100 years which will devastate our and third world countries. Yes, it is that serious.
..and the teeny tiny bit of difference that turning the UK into one big wind factory will be wiped away in a blink of the eye by the likes of China and India and Africa pursuing their "right" to pollute the planet in the same way the developed world did.......
But that's cool cos we can sit and look out of our windows at the crappy wind turbines which we were forced to accept by politicians and greedy landowners on the ticket of saving the planet......
sweetheart
02-May-07, 07:18
You don't work in any industry that is affected by tourism, for that matter,
your working in nuclear complex hardly makes you an unbias critic. You moved
up here and live on the taxpayer subsidy to nuclear energy, and you're pining
for more big-energy to muck up the landscape as you don't care, its your field.
I'm sure you feel very green every time you drive in to the green tesco's at
wick, where those green solar panels offset the parking lot and all the fuel
all of the north is using to drive there. Your sense that destroying
the last wilderspaces in europe to satisfy an impossible conundrum is
just cynical and destructive.
People are so trusting of the instutitons of democracy, much as so many people
believe that opposing this goldrush will work using traditional instutitons,
or even a highland renewable strategy.... but as we're seeing, there is no
method to the madness... its a pure gold rush, and the big money has
bought off the political parties who all suck on big green lies that you're
helping to spread that destroying the highlands with windfarms will
make *any* impact at all on global warming.
..and the teeny tiny bit of difference that turning the UK into one big wind factory will be wiped away in a blink of the eye by the likes of China and India and Africa pursuing their "right" to pollute the planet in the same way the developed world did.......
Without the west taking the lead on renewable energy then there isn't a cat in Hell's chance that China, India etc will follow. The UN recognises this and that is why they are promoting an 'expansion and contraction' policy on developing country's use of fossil fuels. It is a fact that renewable energy is more expensive than fossil fuel so how do we expect them to go for renewable energy?? Only when China etc are fully developed that they can afford to go fully renewables.
In the meantime, renewable energy will cut our fossil fuel useage and ween us from foreign fuel imports.
You don't work in any industry that is affected by tourism, for that matter,
your working in nuclear complex hardly makes you an unbias critic. You moved
up here and live on the taxpayer subsidy to nuclear energy, and you're pining
for more big-energy to muck up the landscape as you don't care, its your field.
What?? I don't have any connection with the nuclear energy industry!! So your assumption has fallen onto its face...
The "expansion and contraction' policy" won't work.
We contract our dependence on fossil fuels and use even more expensive alternatives while the "third world" expands it's reliance on it's own 'homegrown' natural fossil fuel reserves.
They insist it is their "right" to follow a path of industrial revolution just as we did in the west, using the "don't do as we did but do as we say" argument against any attempt by the first world to stop them from driving the planet into an even worse state.
It's like bailing out a sinking boat with a fork.
The trouble is with wind turbines as a form of renewable energy is that they are inefficient and the energy they produce is poorly predictable. There will always have to be some guy stoking the fire to keep that dirty old fossil fuel station going for when the winds not blowing.
You would have to plaster the whole of Scotland with them to produce anywhere near the amount of energy we all consume. (And don't come back to me and say that would be OK because I cant see many tourists visiting one big wind factory - once you've seen one windfarm you've seen them all). Surely, for example, it would be better to make energy conservation measures in homes, schools and offices compulsory and really cut down on our energy usage.
The developers of Spittal Hill windfarm are doing it purely as a business venture not to save the planet I can assure you.
The trouble is with wind turbines as a form of renewable energy is that they are inefficient and the energy they produce is poorly predictable.
All forms of renewable energy is subject to intermittency problems.
Fuel efficiency means nothing in the context of renewable energy as the fuel is free. And conventional power plants used as back-up can react to a short fall from the wind energy sector in minutes making predictability a weak arguement for the time being.
As Scotland goes for a mad dash for renewables under an SNP government, the Highlands will be exploited with turbines to make up for its anti nuke manifesto. So the biggest problem is storage and distribution of renewable energy to the parts of the country that need it most and when they need it.
Actually no, renewable energy isn't free. The reason so many developers are rushing to cover Caithness in windfarms is because of the ROCs - a system which pays a certain amount for every MW of electricity generated from renewable sources. Yet another bright idea of govt. not sufficiently thought through. The result, as reported by OFGEM, is that -
We fully support the Government's aims of reducing carbon emissions and promoting renewable generation but we think there are cheaper and simpler ways of meeting these aims than the RO scheme which is forecast to cost business and domestic customers over £30bn.
Which is why electricity costs to customers are already soaring.
If it kills off the local tourist business, which it almost certainly will unless future developments are stopped, that is yet another cost to the area with many people simply going out of business.
Actually no, renewable energy isn't free.
You have failed to read my post properly.
I said the fuel is free, not the energy to the customer. Thermal efficiency is totally irrelevent when discussing windfarms. However, the thermal efficiencies of coal, nuke and gas varies from 20-50% depending on age of plant.
However, renewable energy mitigates net fossil fuel energy on the grid so in terms of fossil fuel efficiency, windfarms are 100% efficient apart from the <10% thermal losses which all generators are subject to.
Thankfully there is not enough sun for these to be an option......
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6616651.stm
But like Caithness, it is not the locals who will benefit -
The vision is of the sun-blessed lands of the Mediterranean - even the Sahara desert - being carpeted with systems like this with the power cabled to the drizzlier lands of northern Europe. A dazzling idea in a dazzling location.
Power hungry Europe will get the output....
Comments by Eugene Walter, editor of "Animal Kingdom" in 1988, talking of the flow country and forestry, but he could just as well have been talking about turbines (see this week's Courier Archive for 1988)
"Should plantations fail to live up to foresters' predictions, the tree people can depart, having lost little ... but they will leave behind a mutilated landscape, unattractive to both tourists and birds, offering even fewer employment opportunities than before"
History teaches us that we do not learn from history.
History teaches us that we do not learn from history.
A point that can apply to renewable energy far too appropriately. 20 years ago environmentalists have been warning of the dangers of Global Warming due to us relying on fossils. Since then most years have been the warmest in the last 100.
They are now talking about desertification of some parts of Europe. Every geography student knows that there is transition of flora from desert through to temperate rain forests which in includes savannah, mediterranean and temperate grassland. If deserts are coming to Europe then savannahs are coming as well.
This April/May (not to mention the whole year) has been one of the driest I've seen. Our flow country relies on rain and more rain and is one of the most rarest and sensitive types of ecosystems in the world.
If I was in power then I'd introduce a carbon points system which includes a yearly allowance for each of us. The limit would be set by Government in conjunction with scientific rather than fiscal advice. Small users can freely sell to large users thus making money for themselves thus providing an incentive to cut down their carbon footprint.
Our flow country relies on rain and more rain and is one of the most rarest and sensitive types of ecosystems in the world.
Yet you're quite happy to see it smothered and destroyed by forests of wind turbines?......
Yet you're quite happy to see it smothered and destroyed by forests of wind turbines?......
I can't see how windfarms can destroy the flow country when fossil fuels are doing a much more efficient job. The bogland plants can still grow between the pylons and insect life will not be affected.
The damage to boglands by the introduction of the pylon bases, access roads, maintenance infrastructure, site drainage, is not going to affect them? Where is your evidence tht they will not be affected in the long term?
"is one of the most rarest and sensitive types of ecosystems in the world."
So plough it all up, just as they did to plant the "tax break forests", plant great number of turbines to feed the electricity hungry south with a token benefit to the local communities but with huge wads of cash for the landowners who don't give a flying duck about what goes on in the county as long as their bank balance is healthy?
Hidden Costs of Wind Turbines (http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg19125591.600-the-hidden-cost-of-wind-turbines.html)
The damage to boglands by the introduction of the pylon bases, access roads, maintenance infrastructure, site drainage, is not going to affect them? Where is your evidence tht they will not be affected in the long term?
"is one of the most rarest and sensitive types of ecosystems in the world."
So plough it all up, just as they did to plant the "tax break forests", plant great number of turbines to feed the electricity hungry south with a token benefit to the local communities but with huge wads of cash for the landowners who don't give a flying duck about what goes on in the county as long as their bank balance is healthy?
The area of the pylon bases, access roads etc don't even compare with the area of a forest. Yet windfarms like Causeymire mitigate 85,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year. Bogland grows by 1mm per year which means that the area taken up by 21 causeymire pylons will prevent 0.5 tonnes of peat growing per year for the benefit of the 85,000 tonnes of CO2 being mitigated. That is a good trade off eh?
Mind you, I don't advocate placing windfarms actually on bog, there are other areas such as heathland and arable farm that can be better.
So you have no evidence that long term damage will be done?
Sounds like a good system. Let's just build them, use them and if the peat bogs get damaged it was worth the pathetic amount it will take off the UK's carbon emissions......
So you have no evidence that long term damage will be done?
Where is the long term damage going to come from? I've already pointed out the long term damage posed by excessive reliance on fossil fuels.
By the way, did you know that the biggest single contribution that you can seriously do to preserve the countryside (and regain lost ecosystem types) and to reduce carbon emissions is simply achieved by changing to a meatfree diet?
Are you willing to make the change?:confused
Afterall energy useage is a symptom of 1st world greed.
I followed a meat free diet for about five years. The smell of BBQing burgers got to much in the end......
And I may eat meat once or twice a week now.
Trouble is, following a meat free diet is all well and good - but unless you also follow a "UK sourced food" only diet you are still adding to global warming.
I try to pick only UK veg and fruit when I shop. Luckily my local shop stocks "East Anglian Grown" veg so I know it has only travelled a few miles instead of the 1000's that many others have.
Where does your fruit and veg come from Rheghead?
I'm sorry that I do not subscribe to your green energy at any costs mantra - I see a place for wind energy but not in the last few remaining areas of wilderness in this country. just because no-one lives there or it is flat barren landscape does not mean it is OK to stick 100's of wind turbines on it.
Once you decide that the countryside is just a place to stick things you don't want in your back yard then the countryside is lost.
I'm sorry that I do not subscribe to your green energy at any costs mantra - I see a place for wind energy but not in the last few remaining areas of wilderness in this country. just because no-one lives there or it is flat barren landscape does not mean it is OK to stick 100's of wind turbines on it.
Once you decide that the countryside is just a place to stick things you don't want in your back yard then the countryside is lost.
Hear, hear, Madpict.
By the way, did you know that the biggest single contribution that you can seriously do to preserve the countryside (and regain lost ecosystem types) and to reduce carbon emissions is simply achieved by changing to a meatfree diet?
You may have a point here but that would put all the livestock farmers out of business. So we now have no tourist industry because the Highlands is one big windfarm and no livestock farmers either. Oh dear!
But to get back to the original point of this thread - Spittal Hill, the dumbest place ever for a windfarm - if you too think it is the dumbest place for a windfarm go to www.spittalwindfarmopposition.co.uk (http://www.spittalwindfarmopposition.co.uk) where there now is an online objection facility. All objections have to be in before the deadline of 1 June 2007
Ahem,
Back to the point of the original thread, ladies and gents and avatars, I see I can now happily object to said Dumbest Place Ever for Windfarm on Spittal Hill by objecting on-line at http://www.spittalwindfarmopposition.co.uk/ and we must do so before 1st June. You going to object Rheggers? You should, because tomorrow I'm going to list all the stuff you've said I agree with 100 %. Signing off with cliffhanger as time for bed.
ywindythesecond
03-May-07, 23:30
The area of the pylon bases, access roads etc don't even compare with the area of a forest. Yet windfarms like Causeymire mitigate 85,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year. Bogland grows by 1mm per year which means that the area taken up by 21 causeymire pylons will prevent 0.5 tonnes of peat growing per year for the benefit of the 85,000 tonnes of CO2 being mitigated. That is a good trade off eh?
Mind you, I don't advocate placing windfarms actually on bog, there are other areas such as heathland and arable farm that can be better.
Hi Reggy
Can you please explain using sums how windfarms like Causeymire mitigate 85,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year.
ywindythesecond
Hi Reggy
Can you please explain using sums how windfarms like Causeymire mitigate 85,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year.
ywindythesecond
I took the figure from the CREF website.
ywindythesecond
04-May-07, 21:45
I took the figure from the CREF website.
Must be right then.
The point about these things is that they are in the wrong place. We have all heard the pros and cons of wind farms, but the locations are decided by who comes forward with an offer of land, in exchange for a whack of money.
There then begins a propaganda offensive on the part of the wind farm company, while the landowner sits there and hopes everyone will be fooled by the misinformation that is disseminated, so tha he can then cash in.
Fake montages, inadequate surveys - they always specify the cheapest and most cursory surveys available (carried out by qualified people, who are generally pulled out at assessment stage, when a "competent person" who can cut and paste, will be employed for a day, to put the company's slant on the findings.
The party that has the most to gain produces the "information" to support his plan.
If we meekly accept the sort of rubbish that comes out, then, as Gordon Campbell would say, they have made asses of us.
Since when were the power companies leading the charge to save the environment??
Filling their pockets at our expense is more the idea they had in mind.
They will leave when the inducements come to an end, which will be sooner than you think, and what then??
A disfigured landscape, no tourism, and so more unemployment. Oh, there's always Tesco, I suppose.
Seems like my tongue in cheek graphic about the future look for Caithness might be not so far from the truth....
http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/1305/screenshot4copydf5.gif
http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/9938/windfarmnumberswy9.gif
I followed a meat free diet for about five years. The smell of BBQing burgers got to much in the end......
And I may eat meat once or twice a week now.
Trouble is, following a meat free diet is all well and good - but unless you also follow a "UK sourced food" only diet you are still adding to global warming.
I try to pick only UK veg and fruit when I shop. Luckily my local shop stocks "East Anglian Grown" veg so I know it has only travelled a few miles instead of the 1000's that many others have.
Where does your fruit and veg come from Rheghead?
I'm sorry that I do not subscribe to your green energy at any costs mantra - I see a place for wind energy but not in the last few remaining areas of wilderness in this country. just because no-one lives there or it is flat barren landscape does not mean it is OK to stick 100's of wind turbines on it.
Once you decide that the countryside is just a place to stick things you don't want in your back yard then the countryside is lost.
So you would be in favor of windfarms if they were financially neutral?:roll:
Seems like my tongue in cheek graphic about the future look for Caithness might be not so far from the truth....
http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/1305/screenshot4copydf5.gif
http://www.highland.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/7D7C8DC6-3791-49D3-B0A4-448EA69221F9/0/highland_wind_aug2006.pdf
Yup! looks like a nasty rash to me. We'd better do something about us - wouldn't want to get too near anyway
The point about these things is that they are in the wrong place. We have all heard the pros and cons of wind farms, but the locations are decided by who comes forward with an offer of land, in exchange for a whack of money.
There then begins a propaganda offensive on the part of the wind farm company, while the landowner sits there and hopes everyone will be fooled by the misinformation that is disseminated, so tha he can then cash in.
Fake montages, inadequate surveys - they always specify the cheapest and most cursory surveys available (carried out by qualified people, who are generally pulled out at assessment stage, when a "competent person" who can cut and paste, will be employed for a day, to put the company's slant on the findings.
The party that has the most to gain produces the "information" to support his plan.
If we meekly accept the sort of rubbish that comes out, then, as Gordon Campbell would say, they have made asses of us.
Since when were the power companies leading the charge to save the environment??
Filling their pockets at our expense is more the idea they had in mind.
They will leave when the inducements come to an end, which will be sooner than you think, and what then??
A disfigured landscape, no tourism, and so more unemployment. Oh, there's always Tesco, I suppose.
Well said Spurtle!
Come on all you .orgers go to www.spittalwindfarmopposition.co.uk (http://www.spittalwindfarmopposition.co.uk) for an online objection form (or downloadable one) that you can use to stop the rot. Object to this 30 turbine windfarm proposed for Spittal Hill in the middle of your county - local opposition is our strongest weapon.
So you would be in favor of windfarms if they were financially neutral?:roll:
I am in favour of wind farms in the right place - offshore being one of my preferred choices.
No-one owns the seabed so I guess that would make them financially neutral?[lol]
....the area taken up by 21 causeymire pylons will prevent 0.5 tonnes of peat growing per year for the benefit of the 85,000 tonnes of CO2 being mitigated. That is a good trade off eh?
As far as I'm aware no-one has a clue what level of CO2 is mitigated by wind energy. Any figures quoted by the wind industry, dti and government are guesstimates at best. There is no mechanism in place to measure displacement of fossil fuels by wind. Makes one wonder why. What an opportunity for the wind industry to silence the anti brigade once and for all.
You are eager to gamble away our landscape, environment and heritage on a wish and a prayer. There are many people who recognise the great value of what we have now and are not convinced by the wind argument. These people simply want to preserve our unique landscapes and protect this county/region from exploitation. As do many others across the length and breadth of this country - and quite rightly so.
Some things are too precious to gamble with - some times it's safer to hedge your bets.
what is your views on the s.n.p.policy on wind farms? will the country side be covered with these turbines ? even more so than with the last government it is a worrisome time,only hope folks dont get too depressed.
Countryman
05-May-07, 20:47
The Ormlie Community Association(OCA) wants to put wind turbines at Shebster, against the wishes of the local residents.OCA members are running a petiton in support of this wind farm, members working for social services are asking their clients to sign the petition when they visit them. How can they be allowed to do this ?
The Ormlie Community Association(OCA) wants to put wind turbines at Shebster, against the wishes of the local residents.OCA members are running a petiton in support of this wind farm, members working for social services are asking their clients to sign the petition when they visit them. How can they be allowed to do this ?
Countryman,
You have a real problem there. Suggest you start a new thread about OCA/Shebster to get it the attention it needs. I once went to an OCA meeting re its windfarm proposal but couldn't really figure it all out. Perhaps you can explain? I don't understand why you can live in Ormlie and make money off of a windfarm by sticking it in Shebster where no one wants it.
Who is the boss of "members working for social services?" I do know petitions aren't counted if they are against a windfarm. I expect they are probably given credence if they are in support. Anyway, said "members working for social services" need to be stopped. I think there's an Ombudsman to whom you can register a formal complaint? I do know that a neighbour of mine who is a carer was threatened with disciplinary action after being seen distributing "anti-windfarm leaflets" in Halkirk. So what's sauce for the goose is definitely not sauce for the gander.
No-one owns the seabed so I guess that would make them financially neutral?[lol]
I think maybe Moray eels and very odd-looking-to-us-creatures believe they own the seabed?
As Scotland goes for a mad dash for renewables under an SNP government, the Highlands will be exploited with turbines to make up for its anti nuke manifesto.
You are so right, Rheghead. With you all the way.
By the way, did you know that the biggest single contribution that you can seriously do to preserve the countryside (and regain lost ecosystem types) and to reduce carbon emissions is simply achieved by changing to a meatfree diet?
Rhegmeister,
You are 100% spot on again here.
I think maybe Moray eels and very odd-looking-to-us-creatures believe they own the seabed?
I suspect they use wave energy rather than wind....
I dare say someone will raise the point about damaging marine life/sea floor by building offshore wind farms.
Well from what I have seen, the sea has a strong ability to actually populate objects left in the water. Artificial reefs have been created by dumping old cleaned vehicles with life moving in within days of being left in place. Ships have been sunk to provide habitat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_reef
I suspect they use wave energy rather than wind....
I dare say someone will raise the point about damaging marine life/sea floor by building offshore wind farms.
Well from what I have seen, the sea has a strong ability to actually populate objects left in the water. Artificial reefs have been created by dumping old cleaned vehicles with life moving in within days of being left in place. Ships have been sunk to provide habitat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_reef
You're right of course, but I do think you got my point.
But shouldn't we worry about dolphins/whales/whatever's heads being done in by submarines and the like? Isn't the US Navy killing these creatures that are probably a bit smarter than us?
Putting wind turbines out at sea can almost (but not quite) be as dumb as sticking them on Spittal Hill. I saw a film recently about the numerous wind turbines that have been and will be built just off of the west coast of Norway. They are causing devastating consequences to birds on migrations routes. Also, lots of locals have had their beautiful seascapes ruined. Lets face it these huge whirling monstrosities don't really fit in anywhere.
Madpict,
Sorry - I forgot to say in last post - I meant danger to sea mammals via pile-driving or whatever you have to do to put in the concrete founds for off-shore turbines - excuse the pun but I'm out of my depth here (waiting to here from Rheghead . . .).
OCA members are running a petiton in support of this wind farm, members working for social services are asking their clients to sign the petition when they visit them. How can they be allowed to do this ?
This sounds highly dodgy to me Countryman - I bet their bosses don't know its happening - maybe you should let them know! The whole issue over OCA and Shebster is an absolute disgrace, if they want wind turbines they should have them in their own back yard not someone else's.
Putting wind turbines out at sea can almost (but not quite) be as dumb as sticking them on Spittal Hill. I saw a film recently about the numerous wind turbines that have been and will be built just off of the west coast of Norway. They are causing devastating consequences to birds on migrations routes. Also, lots of locals have had their beautiful seascapes ruined. Lets face it these huge whirling monstrosities don't really fit in anywhere.
The wind turbines off the coast of East Anglia are about 20 miles out to sea. They are barely visible from the shore. I know where I would prefer them to be.
Birds are going to be affected wherever they are placed without a doubt.
Re pile driving - I expect it will drive some species out of the area while it is gong on - but will it cause any more distress than the continual drilling for oil and gas in the North Sea?
Madpict,
Sorry - I forgot to say in last post - I meant danger to sea mammals via pile-driving or whatever you have to do to put in the concrete founds for off-shore turbines - excuse the pun but I'm out of my depth here (waiting to here from Rheghead . . .).
Well no one has actually quantitated the risk to sea mammals from tidal energy.
I don't think tidal generators are what Tilter means - it's the wind turbines out at sea.
Wind turbines at sea could put certain species of seabirds at risk, out of sight, out of mind must be much better for the environment:roll: . Nothing is without an ecological rub except turning off your wasteful appliances.
Solar takes 10-15 years to achieve an economic/energy payback then it will probably need to be replaced due to degradation of the panels.
Wind turbines at sea could put certain species of seabirds at risk, out of sight, out of mind must be much better for the environment:roll: . Nothing is without an ecological rub except turning off your wasteful appliances.
What I have never been able to understand is the apparent contradiction in law where it is illegal to harm a protected bird in any way and yet when a windfarm is built if a golden eagle gets minced thats OK.
Harming rare and protected species of birds can never be an acceptable ecological rub.
Spittal Hill windfarm will have a serious effect on a number of rare and protected species, therefore it should never be built. Object now - go to www.spittalwindfarmopposition.co.uk (http://www.spittalwindfarmopposition.co.uk) to help save our birds.
What I have never been able to understand is the apparent contradiction in law where it is illegal to harm a protected bird in any way and yet when a windfarm is built if a golden eagle gets minced thats OK.
Well, it should be a trade-off Rupert. Mince a few birds but get lots of lovely clean renewable energy. Which takes us back to the old saw of turbines not producing enough energy to negate emissions during construction, destruction of habitat, loss of amenity and all that.
No pain no gain. I doubt there will be any way of estimating what sort of ecological damage the installation of tidal schemes will produce till they're up and running. At least they sound like they'd give us a much better return than wind. If we can ever get one up and running but the govt. is not putting enough money into tidal to get the R&D done I believe - it's all going in subsidies to wind.
It's very very worrying Salmond not wanting nuclear for Scotland.
What I have never been able to understand is the apparent contradiction in law where it is illegal to harm a protected bird in any way and yet when a windfarm is built if a golden eagle gets minced thats OK.
Harming rare and protected species of birds can never be an acceptable ecological rub.
Millions of birds per year get minced by road traffic including rare species. By your reasoning, cars should be illegal.
If we can ever get one up and running but the govt. is not putting enough money into tidal to get the R&D done I believe - it's all going in subsidies to wind.
Incorrect.
No R&D money is required on the level at which you suggest. The technology to produce renewable energy via wave/tidal is already well established.
The issue that is holding back this energy sector is the lack of market confidence due to the operational infancy of the industry in bringing that energy to the Grid from a marine environment.
Ironically, the only way forward would seem to be increased sudsidies in the form of under-writing the industry which seem counter to your original arguement...
Millions of birds per year get minced by road traffic including rare species. By your reasoning, cars should be illegal.
Road traffic and other man-made interventions can always cause problems. I think the point was that wind-farms can have a devastating effect on migration routes.
If you factor in the importance of the Peatlands for seabirds the effect could catastrophic if care is not taken with their placement.
Millions of birds per year get minced by road traffic including rare species. By your reasoning, cars should be illegal.
There is a slight difference between cars a few feet off the ground and moving turbine blades up to 110 metres high placed in the flight paths of migrating birds (which also fly at night).
Millions of birds per year get minced by road traffic including rare species. By your reasoning, cars should be illegal.
Many more birds get killed every year by people's pet cats. Nobody's saying that birds are not killed by cars and cats and that they should be illegal, what needs to be said is that a windfarm the size of the proposal for Spittal Hill is an additional non-justifiable risk to birds. Its too high a price to pay for a wee squirt of electricity every now and again. I wonder how much electricity Causeymire and all the others up and down the country were producing during this recent good spell of weather?
Please go to www.spittalwindfarmopposition.co.uk (http://www.spittalwindfarmopposition.co.uk) to object to Spittal Hill windfarm before the deadline of 1 June 2007.
ruthasuth
08-May-07, 20:59
Have heard rumour that if enough object to the spittal windfarm on www.spittalwindfarmopposition.co.uk (http://www.spittalwindfarmopposition.co.uk) then a certain group of locals are going to stage a naked protest on top of the hill with their banners!!!! :eek:
So come on guys help them to make the front page of the groat and the org and get objecting in support of their cause :lol:
it might be a bit chilly in caithness for that sort of thing but all that naked flesh sounds a lot nicer than a load of ugly wind turbines. count me in please
Many more birds get killed every year by people's pet cats. Nobody's saying that birds are not killed by cars and cats and that they should be illegal, what needs to be said is that a windfarm the size of the proposal for Spittal Hill is an additional non-justifiable risk to birds. Its too high a price to pay for a wee squirt of electricity every now and again.
I have read that up to 30% of animal species are threatened with extinction due to Global Warming. That is a lot of birds.
But it is true that if the UK only achieve their 20% target for renewable energy then that will only offset Global Carbon dioxide emissions by a paltry ~0.2%.
Chicken feed perhaps? Carbon dioxide isn't even the main cause of GW, it is 40% responsible.
Still, 0.08% of 30% of the World's birds is a lot of birds which makes the 5 birds per turbine per year mortality rate rather insignificant.
By adopting a more balanced view of onshore wind farms we will take the first steps onto the path of hope rather than the trail of fear.
sweetheart
09-May-07, 14:30
If nuclear powered submarines are such useful things in carbon-terms why
is the public goodwill being squandered on fear, nuclear power at vulcan too.
Fear of security, fear that the huge waste dump of toxic bile at dounreay will
get out again, no mention of the cancer clusters and hidden airial releases
of plutonium gas in past screwups... i agree rheghead that wind power is
a vital part, but the turbines are the path of fear, that 's where you've got
it wrong.
IF you want the path of hope, then spend that same development money
in insulation and passive solar features on to housing. More local jobs will be created and the energy not-burned will exceeed what the turbines would
have generated by a mile.
And the difference with the sound is that its constant, a car comes and goes,
traffic stops at night. Wind turbines run 24x7 and never take a holiday,
they are a blight on the landscape and should not be sited anywhere near
a coastline, a populated area by miles, and any natural preserve.
You're just apologizing for big corporate exploitation that is unnecessary.
sweetheart, submarines good in terms of carbon terms? who claimed or even mentioned that? please deal with the issue and not non-sequittars. I don't know what hazy point you are trying to make.
sweetheart
09-May-07, 15:14
The support of the war(s), is the carbon emitter to start with. The military
complex and its justifiers in right wing thinking are the emitters, and a
flock of turbines is just a whitewash, a public hairshirt to flagellate.
Then people will feel pompous and arrogant about how wise they are, when
they take a holiday on easyjet to ski on artificial snow, that they paid it back
by suffering those bloody turbines, after all that flicker, who wouldn't need a
holiday.
...a public hairshirt to flagellate.
Eh......................
Have heard rumour that if enough object to the spittal windfarm on www.spittalwindfarmopposition.co.uk (http://www.spittalwindfarmopposition.co.uk) then a certain group of locals are going to stage a naked protest on top of the hill with their banners!!!! :eek:
So come on guys help them to make the front page of the groat and the org and get objecting in support of their cause :lol:
come on guys get stripping as well! this is getting exciting! when is the weather improving? Also how much tax is levied on the folks leasing out their ground to the wind farm developers is it 40%?
Also how much tax is levied on the folks leasing out their ground to the wind farm developers is it 40%?
I don't know how much they are taxed. Does anyone know? Do you have to pay tax on windfalls? (Aaaarggghhhh)
Also how much tax is levied on the folks leasing out their ground to the wind farm developers is it 40%?
Don't know much about tax issues - but is it because its unearned income? Maybe its not so lucrative after all.
[quote=hilary;221453]come on guys get stripping as well! this is getting exciting! when is the weather improving? [quote]
I've just seen a weather forcast for snow soon - its going to be pretty cold up Spittal Hill!
The support of the war(s), is the carbon emitter to start with.
From my point of view the complete opposite is true. You have jumped on a gas guzzling plane from the far side of the US to be in self-imposed political asylum and you spend hours on your coal burning computer. That is not very green to me, and the hair shirt for flagellation sounds too much like hot air as well.;)
I for one know that it isn't windfarms we are talking here but a difference in our political ideologies. I am sorry but the 'war' on Global Warming should be apolitical but I am not so naive to think it isn't. The wider international issue is how differing political spectrums can come together in reducing carbon emissions. Science is apolitical, what I do find rather disturbing is making those steps to reduce carbon emissions which have been put in place from a current political framework as a vehicle for political attack.
Bill Fernie
10-May-07, 08:38
come on guys get stripping as well! this is getting exciting! when is the weather improving? Also how much tax is levied on the folks leasing out their ground to the wind farm developers is it 40%?
The tax rates are the same for everyone. It all depend on whether your total income reaches the level to pay at 40%.
For 2006-07 the rates were
£2150 @10%
£2151 - £33,300 at basic rate 22%
then Higher Rate of 40% on over £34,000.
For 2007-08 the rates are
£2230 at 10%
£2231 - £34,600 at 40%
First you have to deduct the personal allowance which for the current taxt year is £5225 and any married couples allowance currently £2440 (given at the 10% rate).
There may be other factors such as is the income coming in to the individual personally or through a partnership, company, trust or other set up. There are many variations but simple one might be that a husband and wife share the income and if one partner does not have any other income that will reduce the liability to the higher rate tax as the above allowances will kick in for the half that goes to the other partner/spouse. This is no different to any other income situation.
So someone gaining £60,000 a year income from wind turbines might pay some level of higher rate but if the income is only £30,000 due to a sharing arrangement then the charge would all be at the lower and basic rate with no higher rate of 40% being involved. It should be remembered that the split would depend on ownership of the land or capital but it is quite straightforward for anyone to gift away an asset. This may be done to maximise the use of allowances and get the lowest possible tax rates and is quite normal practice.
That is very simple expalanation and there are many other factors that might be included. For example the wind turbines might be owned by a limited company with husband and wife directors or indeed other people or members of a family. The company would of course be liable to corporation tax so you would need to consider another set or rules to cover that.
You might then make pension contributions that attract tax relief.
If a company was involved then payments to directors would be under PAYE and any dividends from the comapany would be taxed intially at the basic rate and subject to higher rates 40% via the self-assesment process.
Again that is cutting a very complex issue very short.
So would the landowners with wind farms pay at 40%? The answer is maybe depending on the amounts involved and the many variable circumstances and tax planning carried out by the persons accountant or financial adviser unless they are very good at it themselves. Every case will be different.
So, while on one hand, they are doling out money hand over fist to develop windfactories, they are reducing the amounts to individuals to help with micro systems. I would have though it far more important to encourage people to generate their own power (at point of use) rather than the current system of building vast wind factories 100's of miles away from the 'customers'. Make people as self sufficient as possible.
Changes to the Low Carbon Buildings Programme mean that future applicants will be limited to £2,500 for domestic micro-generation projects.
Previously, grants of up to £15,000 and £5,000 were available for solar energy and micro-turbine schemes respectively.
Ministers said the changes would enable more people to participate.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6640233.stm
"Ministers said the changes would enable more people to participate."
Really? The length of time it takes to recoup your money on the average installation of solar panels previously was about 15 years. If they now reduce the grants thereby making the time taken to 'repay' the outlay even longer I can see people just saying "Why bother?"
For £9000 (nine panels) you can equip the average British home with the latest in green energy which should reduce their electricity bill by around a half.
Only problem is it will take you 30 odd years to actually get your money back.
If you take advantage of subsidies offered by the govt. your actual cost is reduced to around £4500 - but it will still take 15 years to recoup your money....
Original Post (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?p=118102&highlight=solar+panel#post118102)
First you have to deduct the personal allowance which for the current taxt year is £5225 and any married couples allowance currently £2440 (given at the 10% rate).
I thought married couples allowance was scrapped yonks ago??:confused
I have heard (or read somewhere) that the landowner who leases out land to the developer to put his wind turbines on is responsible at the end of the 25 year period for reinstating the site - they would cost a pretty bob too. Do they know what they are getting into? It all sounds so wonderful at first but it seems to me that the only person who makes massive amounts of money is the developer and he is just exploiting everyone, including the landowner, to get rich quick and whizz off to the Bahamas to live.
I have heard (or read somewhere) that the landowner who leases out land to the developer to put his wind turbines on is responsible at the end of the 25 year period for reinstating the site - they would cost a pretty bob too. Do they know what they are getting into? It all sounds so wonderful at first but it seems to me that the only person who makes massive amounts of money is the developer and he is just exploiting everyone, including the landowner, to get rich quick and whizz off to the Bahamas to live.
A pattern that is emerging is, that the landowner sells his interest or indeed the land plus the interest, to a third party, and moves on - I imagine the obligation carries on with the new owner, but this would be worth checking.
If something is too good to be true, then it probably is.
The whole thing is so short-sighted. What are these people's next generation going to do with the ground? Presumably they are the ones to have to shell out for reinstatement.
I suppose if it has been sold to big business, then it is irrelevant. Caithness will end up belonging to big corporate faceless landowners. You may not like the bunch you have now, but it could be worse .....
well - if it was me, here's what I'd do: I'd become a corporation (possibly - not sure on that - with several dodgy others), get as much money as I could from my windfarm, spend it and have a nice life somewhere else of course, or salt it away in an untouchable place, or gift it to my kids. Then, when my elderly windfarm is in a highly dilapidated state and I'm no longer getting any subsidies, I'd declare bankruptcy. But then who would pay to return my site to greenfield? Would the Council pay for it?
An engineering friend of mine told me that the huge concrete turbine bases stay in the ground forever and then nothing ever grows on them. Its apparently to costly to take them out, so its not really reinstatement is it? Just another con job.
Caithness will end up belonging to big corporate faceless landowners. You may not like the bunch you have now, but it could be worse .....
Sounds like the Highlands have been here before - remember the clearances!
An engineering friend of mine told me that the huge concrete turbine bases stay in the ground forever and then nothing ever grows on them. Its apparently to costly to take them out, so its not really reinstatement is it? Just another con job.
The concrete is chemically inert so there will be no problem with relandscaping afterwards if the land is prepared properly. Mind you, there are hundreds of miles of old roads in the Highlands that have been left to be grown over after Euro money has been pumped into provide an 'improvement'. Nobody seems to go on about that though and the problem is several magnitudes bigger.
Sorry, Tilter. I really like wind farms - I have been known to drive for miles just to see one. I'll drive miles the opposite way to get away from a nuclear site or a fossil fuel power plant. ;)
Well I haven't quite driven for miles to see windfarms but I do agree that they are a rather beautiful sight. I love going past the Causeway Mire windfarm. Such a sight. And there is nothing better than seeing them at sunset. I think a great idea would be to have spotlights underneath lighting them up at night. That way we can show how proud we (or at least some of us) are that we are using renewable energy sources. Of course there are always some people who instead of seeing these horrific contraptions lit up at night would rather the nice health green glow of Sandside beach....
I think a great idea would be to have spotlights underneath lighting them up at night.
Don't worry, thats quite unnecessary, they will have lovely red lights on top to stop all the planes flying into them!
Ok not quite what I meant. Although it could be a disaster if planes flew into them. What I meant was spotlights to light them up to be.... visually pleasing.
Of course there are always some people who instead of seeing these horrific contraptions lit up at night would rather the nice health green glow of Sandside beach....
We're really,really lucky in Caithness - we don't have to choose between illuminated turbines and green glows off beaches, do we? We get both - whether we like them or not.
If we had spotlights underneath them, red lights on top and green glowing beaches we would have our own version of the Northern lights: maybe then all the tourists would come back to visit who were put off by all the windfarms - thats what I would call real diversification.
Of course there are always some people who instead of seeing these horrific contraptions lit up at night would rather the nice health green glow of Sandside beach....
Mr Me, I think the more you learned about windpower and the more you learned about nuclear, the more you might lean toward the latter.
Anyway, here's something controversial, assuming a hypothetical situation where I was given a choice, and given the fact that I live not too distant from Spittal Hill:
I would object if a large-scale windfarm was built on Spittal Hill.
I would NOT object if a modern nuclear power plant was built on Spittal Hill.
Why?
Because:
(1) A nuclear plant would provide a decent, reliable and stable amount of clean energy.
(2) It would therefore do some good in the world by combatting climate change so I'd be happy to put up with it.
(2) It would take up a fraction of the space of a windfarm and wouldn't be seen for miles.
(3) It would provide employment for local people.
(4) If I decided after all I didn't want to live next door, I could still sell my home and move, given that people always want to buy homes close to their work.
(5) I am not afraid of nuclear energy or nuclear waste - in fact I'm less afraid of it than I am of GHG etc.
I would object if a large-scale windfarm was built on Spittal Hill.
I hope you are going to object before the deadline of 1st June! Everyone can object by going to www.spittalwindfarmopposition.co.uk (http://www.spittalwindfarmopposition.co.uk) and using the online objection facility.
Mr Me, I think the more you learned about windpower and the more you learned about nuclear, the more you might lean toward the latter.
I know much more about nuclear power but I still prefer windpower. My dad is high up in the wind turbine 'industry' so I can get a lot of information from him and I have around 10 family members in Dounreay, as well as doing plenty of research online for debates and talks etc. I made sure I was in Dounreay for my work experince too so I could get some opinions on the matter too. To make it clear I am not against nuclear power, I would just prefer wind power.
(1) A nuclear plant would provide a decent, reliable and stable amount of clean energy.
Definately. But you also have to remember windpower is much cheaper and safer. Not to mention clean too.
(2) It would take up a fraction of the space of a windfarm and wouldn't be seen for miles.
You forget how much of an area Dounreay actually does take up. Not to mention the large no fishing area surrounding it. It wouldn't be seen from as far away but it would attract more attention. How many times have we seen our local windfarm on the news compared to Dounreay?
(3) It would provide employment for local people.
I am quite happy to give you this one. The windfarms provide manual labour when being constructed but then only take few people to maintain them.
(4) If I decided after all I didn't want to live next door, I could still sell my home and move....
You could do that if a windfarm was built next door too?
(5) I am not afraid of nuclear energy or nuclear waste - in fact I'm less afraid of it than I am of GHG etc.
Unfortunately there are many people who are though and they are quite right. It is very dangerous. No more so that GHG's are to the planet but dangerous none the less. Nuclear waste has more direct effects on people than GHG's do though.
I do not wish to change your views on the matter. I just wish to express mine. I don't mean to cause any offence and any comments on my post are welcome.
Mr Me19 - A good response - very fair and balanced. A few things I'm not convinced about though-
Wind cheaper than nuclear?? I don't think there's agreement on that - the last report I read (sorry can't find it at the moment) suggested that if you take into account ROC's, the cost of conventional generation needed as back up and the grid upgrades needed for wind then nuclear is considerably cheaper.
Cleaner? I think they're much the same, MW for MW.
Dounreay does take up quite a large area but to generate an equivalent level of electricity from wind as that of a nuclear power station - you'd need many, many large windfarms (an installed capacity 3 times that of the generating capacity) located across the length and breadth of the country in order to capture the wind resource as often as possible. Keep in mind the site for the Spittal Hill Windfarm will occupy an area of 980 hectares. No contest.
I just can't see how you can argue that nuclear is more dangerous to humans than climate change. Driving a car and flying are much more dangerous than nuclear. Surely climate change is by far the biggest threat to this planet. No contest there either, IMO. Unless you mean badly managed nuclear power stations as in Chernobyl?
I'm not arguing for nuclear and I respect your views but wind is not all it's cracked up to be.
My dad is high up in the wind turbine 'industry' so I can get a lot of information from him
Oh dear - the trouble is with windfarms in populated areas, such as the one proposed for Spittal Hill, is that they are foisted upon people who do not want them. It just so happens that some people have a plot of land and can see what a cash cow the wind industry is and to hell with their neighbours! It is the most selfish, devisive, community wrecking project that can happen to an area - and thats talking from experience.
NickInTheNorth
12-May-07, 15:07
Putting my cards on the table.
1) I love the look of windfarms. I think they can positively enhance some landscapes
2) I believe that renewable energy resources should be developed, but not just windpower, tidal energy should be tapped, as should sunlight. And what about geothermal energy, used to produce hydrogen from water as the Icelandic people are now doing
3) I believe that as a country we would be better off investing in more nuclear, and using less oil, gas, or coal
The thing that I do not like is that it is necessary to pay corporations large sums of money to develop windfarms. Why does the government always use the carrot and never the stick?
Make the fossil fuel generators pay to make their plants clean, make them make the plants more efficient. Punish them for breaches of pollution limits. Impose a "carbon tax". When fossil fuel generation pays it's full bill it won't be necessary to subsidise renewables, they will be a genuinely cheaper option.
Yes, it will cost us more for electricity. But that may just persuade the dinosaurs that we should cut back on the amount of electricity each one of uses. I lived quite happily with a 2kw supply for many years, with all the modern conveniences.
As to Spittal Hill, probably not a good idea. What would be far better would be to use the government subsidies to create many small "community renewables" schemes. Invest in communities futures, not in big businesses profits.
Dounreay does take up quite a large area...
Don't forget that Dounreay was built on a brownfield site - the old RAF station.
Now if the siting of windfarms was done in a similar way, using many of the old airfields now lying redundant across the UK I would have less of a problem with the impact they have...
I do agree with that. Its just a shame that most airfields etc. don't have the right geography.
Mr Me,
You certainly didn't cause me any offence with your post. It was a good response, and we'll agree to differ, though I think there's a lot we could agree on too. I apologise if I inferred you were uninformed.
Re the amount of space taken up, I think you're thinking too much along the lines of the Dounreay Dinosaur and not a modern nuclear plant. It's main purpose in life was experimental and it was never created to produce energy, although it did because it could. I shouldn't think any thought was given to the amount of space taken up at the time it was created - they had carte blanche. So we're agreed - space taken up: windpower nil points.
Windpower cheaper? I'm going with Kitty Mae and Nick OTN on that one.
Windpower safer? I think Chernobyl is bound to come up here. However, nuclear v. wind, judged MW for MW - windpower can come up with some rather nasty safety stats in exchange for what it produces. See http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/
Could I still sell my home and move if I didn't like my neighbouring windfarm? Well according to your dad's BWEA pages, yes - no problem, though they do admit that house selling difficulties may exist during the planning stages before a windfarm becomes operational. Yes - and planning stages can last for years. What if I want to move now? What if I have to move now for my job? What if I'm 75 and don't have years to wait? At the other end of the scale, some house surveyors estimate a house can devalue by 25 to 30% because of proximity to an operational windfarm, let alone the uncertainty surrounding a potential windfarm. In Caithness terms that probably averages out at ~£40K. A fair amount to give up to enable someone else to make money. Of course no one likes to mention that in case it makes them look - horror of horrors - nimby. Why not? I'd choke if someone asked me to hand over 40 grand for nothing (even assuming I had it to hand over).
OK - let's go with BWEA and assume I could move whenever I wanted and realise the full market value of my home. Discussing windpower v. anything else wasn't really the point of my thread. I don't think some turbines in some places look so bad, if we absolutely must have them because Holyrood says so. I do think Spittal Hill is a terrible place to put 30 of them.
May I ask you if you live in the town or the country Mr Me? It usually makes a big difference to your opinion of wind farms. If you look at the environmental statements produced by developers, they usually show photomontages (which are all skewed by the way) from distances of ~4 km to ~20 km. Some houses around Spittal Hill will only be 1000 metres away but you don't see developers bandying about photomontages of 1 km distance. Go to Causewaymire and take 1000 long strides from a turbine and see if you'd like to build a house there and live in it for the rest of your life. There are just too many houses and settlements situated around the perimeter of this site which will be overwhelmed by the sheer size of the turbines. Nick OTN finds them beautiful. Possibly, in the distance. Up close, I find them very intimidating because of their sheer size. I'd not like to live close to them in winter with a nice fresh Caithness breeze blowing. Or in summer with our northern sun strobing through the blades - it would be mega-headache time.
Phew - this is the longest post I've ever done. As with Mr Me - it's my opinion only and no offence intended to anyone. (Actually it's so long it probably won't get read!)
Don't they? Many WWII airfields were located away from population areas and more often than not on top of high ground. Ideal for aircraft taking off and landing - so why not plonk the wind factories on these brownfield sites?
The whirling of turbine blades could even be seen as a form of 'monument' to the brave aviators who flew from these places, day after day, in the defence of their country and freedom from facism.
Now if the siting of windfarms was done in a similar way, using many of the old airfields now lying redundant across the UK I would have less of a problem with the impact they have...
What about tethering a turbine to every pylon, since you have to have pylons anyway. Could the elec. go straight into and out of it? Have I read that somewhere? Maybe my other half was wittering on about it. Wouldn't work anyway - not enough wind in the S. of England, lucky devils.
Well you could 'tie' these to them....
http://www.magenn.com/
Well you could 'tie' these to them....
http://www.magenn.com/
Um - thanks for that MP. Not quite what I had in mind - hey, maybe it would work. Although all that blurb fails to state how much power is generated. You got carried away with my bad choice of word "tether." I thought more a conventional rigid turbine with a connecting rigid brace somewhere. Your balloons need a horizontal base too.
How about turbines down motorways instead of street lights? Motorways are ugly anyway. No - there'd be safety issues. Well, how about taking out the street lights on motorways and therefore not needing turbines?
It gives the output here - http://www.magenn.com/products.php
At present each unit is 2kW rising to 4kW next year and up as technology improves I expect.
These are not intended for farming the wind on a large scale - more a portable method replacing diesel generators.
But you also have to remember windpower is much cheaper and safer. Not to mention clean too.
I disagree, every cost breakdown that I've read shows that windpower is more expensive. I think this has a lot to with the RO, problems with supply and demand from turbine manufacturers, and legal problems with windfarms in the planning stage.
However, cost is relative and I am not sure if all costs have been factored into the cost of conventional energies.
For years, the nuclear industry and petroleum industry have been subsidised under nationalisation. It would be very unclear to work out what the true cost of conventional energy would be to the end user (per kWh) if those subsidies were hypothetically removed, even in today's prices.
Certainly the renewable energy sector does not receive subsidies through taxation and it is being rolled out as a triumph of privatisation. However the RO is a subsidy set up by Government in any case.
What I am really saying, is that it is unclear one way or the other if wind is cheaper or not.
peter macdonald
13-May-07, 10:07
"Originally Posted by spurtle View Post
Caithness will end up belonging to big corporate faceless landowners. You may not like the bunch you have now, but it could be worse ...."
How do you mean ?? there is only a very small percentage of people in Caithness who have enough ground in the right place to be able to sell to wind farm developers These are large hill farmers or estate owners and therefore it is ONLY people within this group who can SELL on "to big corporate faceless landowners" The vast majority in Caithness have absolutly no say in what goes on these estates whether they are bought or sold either wholly or piecemeal
PM
there is only a very small percentage of people in Caithness who have enough ground in the right place to be able to sell to wind farm developers These are large hill farmers or estate owners and therefore it is ONLY people within this group who can SELL on "to big corporate faceless landowners" The vast majority in Caithness have absolutly no say in what goes on these estates whether they are bought or sold either wholly or piecemeal
PM
Even more reason for everyone to stand up and start shouting about the desecration of Caithness' unique landscape by a few landowners without any thought for all the other residents who will have their amenity ruined. I really do not think people realise what is going on behind their backs. Go to www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk (http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk) for a map of all the windfarm developments in the pipeline - it is very scary. You can make a difference by objecting to all of these planning applications before its to late.
Sorry about the following post. I'm in a bit of a rush and don't really have time to do individual quotes etc. I just want to make a few points. About the abandoned air strips. They do seem like a great place at first but the lay of the land around them has to be taken into account. The wind cant be too weak and it also cant be funneled by hills creating winds too strong for the turbines. Windpowers biggest flaw there. Too much wind and it doesn't work?
As for the cost. It is roughly 1 million pound per turbine. Not a small sum i know. But it is between a quarter and a third of a BILLION for a nuclear plant. Now people will say "yes but the nuclear plant produces more power". It certainley does. But it takes seven years for a nuclear plant to produce the energy that just went into building it!!!
Sorry about the quick haphazzard post.
Go to www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk (http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk) for a map of all the windfarm developments in the pipeline - it is very scary.
Don't forget that the round spots on the map on that site are totally out of proportion, it is drawn up like that to scaremonger.
Don't forget that the round spots on the map on that site are totally out of proportion, it is drawn up like that to scaremonger.
I think you're picking a nit there Rheghead, it does actually tell you how many turbines are at each location (although must admit Spittal Hill is out of date - its now only 30 instead of the original 47) that'll make us all sleep easier!!
Don't forget that the round spots on the map on that site are totally out of proportion, it is drawn up like that to scaremonger.
OK, augment the dots with actual turbine figures...How about this?....
http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/8066/windfarmnumbers2dm4.gif
In Caithness nearly 300 have either been applied for, approved/under construction, refused, built/operational, appealed or "scoping opinion"....
How many more can the landscape support without making the county look like a industrial site?
So a site with 21 turbines deserves the same size spot as one with 2 turbines? I calculated the area of the spot to be 6km². Even the Causeymire windfarm sits on an area between its turbines of <2km².:roll:
So a site with 21 turbines deserves the same size spot as one with 2 turbines? I calculated the area of the spot to be 6km². Even the Causeymire windfarm sits on an area between its turbines of <2km².:roll:
The site area for the proposed windfarm on Spittal Hill is quoted in the environmental statement as 980 hectares. I personally, couldn't care less what size the flipping spot is on the CWIF map - its whats happening on the ground that matters. At least CWIF are letting people know about the rape of this county by windfarm developers.
So a site with 21 turbines deserves the same size spot as one with 2 turbines? I calculated the area of the spot to be 6km². Even the Causeymire windfarm sits on an area between its turbines of <2km².:roll:
Your reply is ridiculous - next you'll be claiming you drove out to Forss to see if there is a big green spot on the site!!!!
The size of the spot is irrelevant, though the spot sizes are as offered up on the Highland Council Map Of Wind Applications which can be found here (http://www.caithness.org/windfarms/index.htm), so I hardly see that as "scaremongering" by the people supposed to be impartial in this?
By adding the numbers of turbines to the area indicated by the "spot" makes it clearer as to the size of the developments. The option is to read a list on a separate page or table.
So of course Spittal Hill with FORTY SEVEN turbines will have more impact on the landscape than Olgrinmore Moss with TWO.
By the way, is the A9 painted green in real life?.......
ywindythesecond
13-May-07, 21:48
Your reply is ridiculous - next you'll be claiming you drove out to Forss to see if there is a big green spot on the site!!!!
The size of the spot is irrelevant, though the spot sizes are as offered up on the Highland Council Map Of Wind Applications which can be found here (http://www.caithness.org/windfarms/index.htm), so I hardly see that as "scaremongering" by the people supposed to be impartial in this?
By adding the numbers of turbines to the area indicated by the "spot" makes it clearer as to the size of the developments. The option is to read a list on a separate page or table.
So of course Spittal Hill with FORTY SEVEN turbines will have more impact on the landscape than Olgrinmore Moss with TWO.
By the way, is the A9 painted green in real life?.......
Madpict
Spittal windfarm is now down to 30. For a while it was 31. This might not be true, but I want to believe it is. Last Autumn, the application was imminent, but nothing happened. I have heard that the wife of one of the landowners involved found out that she would see a windmill from her house and went spare about it. Hence the reason for the long delay, and now down to 30.
Regarding how much space a windfarm takes up, I will tell you, but first please answer this:
HOW MANY FOOTBALL FIELDS DOES AN AVERAGE WIND TURBINE TAKE UP?
ywindythesecond
If they get 30 then they will try for more - so the numbers aren't set in concrete unlike the bases of these things....
HOW MANY FOOTBALL FIELDS DOES AN AVERAGE WIND TURBINE TAKE UP?
Four?
ywindythesecond
13-May-07, 22:20
If they get 30 then they will try for more - so the numbers aren't set in concrete unlike the bases of these things....
Four?
Nope.
Twenty four and a half.
Ask me why.
ywindythesecond
HOW MANY FOOTBALL FIELDS DOES AN AVERAGE WIND TURBINE TAKE UP?
ywindythesecond
I give up windytwo. Pray do tell.
(It can't be that many - I know a jumbo jet fits into the blades, but a football field is .............. ummm ............ Leeds United I seem to recall has (had?) biggest - 100 yds or so? No, I can't go on. I'm not an engineer and I don't know what spread of found it would take for a 110 metre structure to make it stand up straight. Definitely give up.
Ask me why.
ywindythesecond
You were all discussing this while my poor brain was rumbling around.
Why?
ywindythesecond
13-May-07, 22:37
I give up windytwo. Pray do tell.
(It can't be that many - I know a jumbo jet fits into the blades, but a football field is .............. ummm ............ Leeds United I seem to recall has (had?) biggest - 100 yds or so? No, I can't go on. I'm not an engineer and I don't know what spread of found it would take for a 110 metre structure to make it stand up straight. Definitely give up.
Sorry Tilter, need someone with a keen analytical brain to ask the question. No offense, but you effectively ruled yourself out.
ywindythesecond
Madpict
This might not be true, but I want to believe it is. Last Autumn, the application was imminent, but nothing happened. I have heard that the wife of one of the landowners involved found out that she would see a windmill from her house and went spare about it. Hence the reason for the long delay, and now down to 30.
Oh, I think you can safely say it's true - amazing isn't it, can't cope with one but the rest of us have to put up with thirty! I hope she's got good ear plugs and sunglasses.
Go on then ywindy - why oh why?
Sorry Tilter, need someone with a keen analytical brain to ask the question. No offense, but you effectively ruled yourself out.
ywindythesecond
See http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?p=223021#post223021
ywindythesecond
13-May-07, 22:53
Oh, I think you can safely say it's true - amazing isn't it, can't cope with one but the rest of us have to put up with thirty! I hope she's got good ear plugs and sunglasses.
Go on then ywindy - why oh why?
Thanks rupert
If you look at wind farm planning applications in Caithness in detail and study the distribution of turbines, a pattern emerges for the larger (100-110m turbines) of around 350 metres between each turbine.
So each turbine occupies a space equivalent on average to 350m x 350m.
Now football enthusiasts must please bear with me, because there is no defined size for a football field that I can find.
But, if a football field was 100m x 50m, then the turbine would stand in a space three and a half football fields long by seven football fields wide = twenty-four and a half football fields.
Interestingly, the toy turbines at Buolfruich are generally spaced at 175 metres, presumably because they are only half the size of proper ones like Spittal.
ywindythesecond
Now football enthusiasts must please bear with me, because there is no defined size for a football field that I can find. [/SIZE][/FONT]
No, there isn't. Between 95 and about 105 I think.
Your Pea-Brained Friend
Interestingly, the toy turbines at Buolfruich are generally spaced at 175 metres, presumably because they are only half the size of proper ones like Spittal.
ywindythesecond
Well I'm glad to here we're in the big boys league and not faffing around with diddy turbines - if we're going to have a windfarm lets have the biggest and the best!!
But, if a football field was 100m x 50m, then the turbine would stand in a space three and a half football fields long by seven football fields wide = twenty-four and a half football fields.
The last time I looked at Causeymire, each pylon stood on a round base approximately 5m wide. Which means you could get 255 turbines on a football field.
Statistics and then there are damned lies...[lol]
The last time I looked at Causeymire, each pylon stood on a round base approximately 5m wide. Which means you could get 255 turbines on a football field.
Statistics and then there are damned lies...[lol]
What are you talking about Rheghead? I seem to remember from the Spittal Hill planning application that your 5m wide turbine bases have 40 metre long blades twizzling around at the top.
One thing about these windfarms is that they do make them so neat and tidy, all in straight rows and columns making a really pretty pattern - I just hope all those Icelandic swans and geese know how to fly in formation between these mincing machines.
Save the hill, save the birds, save Caithness from this madness - object now go to www.spittalwindfarmopposition.co.uk (http://www.spittalwindfarmopposition.co.uk) for an online objection facility or a form to print and post before the deadline of 1 June.
ywindythesecond
15-May-07, 00:14
The last time I looked at Causeymire, each pylon stood on a round base approximately 5m wide. Which means you could get 255 turbines on a football field.
Statistics and then there are damned lies...[lol]
Disappointing Reggy, doesn't do you justice. Think you should read my post again, but in the meantime, I was was talking space between turbines, nothing to do with pylons, and as regards size of bases, please check this: http://www.caithness.org/windfarms/photogallery/index.php?gallery=15&image=4.
ywindythe second
Disappointing Reggy, doesn't do you justice. Think you should read my post again, but in the meantime, I was was talking space between turbines, nothing to do with pylons, and as regards size of bases, please check this: http://www.caithness.org/windfarms/photogallery/index.php?gallery=15&image=4.
ywindythe second
I was just being intentionally disingenuous because I took your post as being that as well re the 24.5 football pitch claim. It was obviously more misinformation. Obviously sarcasm was being wasted there.:roll:
A wind turbine with a 100m swept diameter would stand upon 1.57 football pitches. If there are 2 windturbines which are 350m apart, then each windfarm would stand upon 3.3 football pitches. If there were 3 turbines which are 350m apart then each turbine would stand on 2.52 football pitches.
Why this obsession with football pitches - too big for me to visualise so many all laid out. How about tennis courts?
Meanwhile, if we're going to have turbines on land and in the sea (watch out for Beatrice) why not in the sky as well so we're completely surrounded
http://skywindpower.com/ww/index.htm ? Very soon we won't be able to look in any direction horizontally without seeing whirling turbines so the only way to look will be up. I'm sure that could soon be sorted.
Why this obsession with football pitches - too big for me to visualise so many all laid out. How about tennis courts?
Meanwhile, if we're going to have turbines on land and in the sea (watch out for Beatrice) why not in the sky as well so we're completely surrounded
http://skywindpower.com/ww/index.htm ?
Have only just had time to skim the home page of your link - sounds good. I also liked Mad Pict's link to a similar balloon-type device which, says the blurb, would be ideal for remote areas or third world countries, all depending on cost I suppose. Perhaps YWindy can tell me how many football pitches high the different devices would be, as I can now only think in those terms.
By the way, I've had some very good responses via private messaging re offers of a brain. I just need to ensure I select the right one. Then, be prepared to be amazed.
ywindythesecond
15-May-07, 23:33
I was just being intentionally disingenuous because I took your post as being that as well re the 24.5 football pitch claim. It was obviously more misinformation. Obviously sarcasm was being wasted there.:roll:
A wind turbine with a 100m swept diameter would stand upon 1.57 football pitches. If there are 2 windturbines which are 350m apart, then each windfarm would stand upon 3.3 football pitches. If there were 3 turbines which are 350m apart then each turbine would stand on 2.52 football pitches.
I hate these angels for ever having danced on a needle! As you are still being intentionally disingenuous ( I hope!), I will explain once again that I was talking about the space between wind turbines, ie within a windfarm occupying a certain area, and therefore each turbine being allocated on average its proportion of the whole area.
The proposed turbines at Spittal Hill are spaced at between approx 280m (between turbines 24 and 28), and approx 420m (between turbines 26 and 30).
Taking a line from turbine to turbine, the perimeter of the turbines is 6264 metres long, and the enclosed area is 1,860,172sq m. Allowing a perimeter space of 150m gives a total area of 2,799,722 sqm divided by 30 turbines equals 93326 sqm, equal to a space 305 metres by 305. Access tracks still to be added.
Going back to the start of this particular conversation, the size of dots on maps indicating windfarms was called into question as being unrepresentative. This is true of Lieurary with only two proposed, and equally true of Scoolary with 48 proposed and covering an area equivalent to Dunnet Head north of a line between Dunnet and Brough.
Anyone want proof?
ywindy the second
Badger, what size is a tennis court?
Just as a "spot" on a map might indicate a town it may not give an accurate size or outline of the town.
When I drew up the map that Rheghead complained about the spots were intended only to indicate the area of the county the windfarms were going to be located in relation to the main known landmarks such as Wick or Thurso.
As I already said the number of turbines indicated on each "spot" will give the reader an idea of the actual size of the site. So a site with 2 turbines will be significantly smaller than one with 30 or 40. Is it such a hard thing to visualise?
If I had access to the actual site plans to transpose accurately onto a map for posting on the forums, I suspect the size of the actual image would be huge.
If such a document exists on a site somewhere please link me to it (I do have the site plan for Spittal so don't need that link ta.)
A tennis court is 78' x 36'......
Thank you MadPict - I was about to have to confess ignorance and I know Ywindy likes precision. It's just easier to visualise a tennis court, for me anyway. I can picture a few yards but not miles - maybe I have a small brain. Will see what's left over when Tilter has selected a new one.
1,400 ton concrete per turbine base , 2,300 lorries of it to be driven to site from bower quarry unless they batch it up the hill.plus the lorries have to return empty to refill .So much for saving energy?
the woman thats worried about a turbine spoiling her view should be concerned about the poor souls that have to look at 30 of the x things.
she surely has not heard of the house that is suffering from vibrations!
1,400 ton concrete per turbine base , 2,300 lorries of it to be driven to site from bower quarry unless they batch it up the hill.plus the lorries have to return empty to refill .So much for saving energy?
the woman thats worried about a turbine spoiling her view should be concerned about the poor souls that have to look at 30 of the x things.
she surely has not heard of the house that is suffering from vibrations!
Well said Hilary. Also, do they not have to bring in ingredients to make the concrete - more lorries, dust, noise, pollution. Its not just what it will be like once its built, its the building of it too that people will have to put up with - and that could go on for a minimum of eighteen months. But then there's lots of lovely money involved .......
you are right rupert forgot to mention the sand to be delivered to the quarry.there could be a lorry passing every 12 mins and theres children that live beside that road
you are right rupert forgot to mention the sand to be delivered to the quarry.there could be a lorry passing every 12 mins and theres children that live beside that road
Someone was telling me today that they will need much bigger turbine foundations and loads more steel reinforcing for Spittal Hill compared to the Causeymire because there is not a great depth before you reach the bedrock. So more habitat destroyed, more ingredients stuck in the ground forever and more lorry loads adding carbon to the atmosphere. Maybe, when the winds blowing a hooly in the middle of January they'll all come crashing down if they don't anchor them well enough!
This month's "Field" has a beautifully illustrated article on fishing in Caithness - features Toftingall, Watten, St. John's etc.. "Loch Watten is probably the finest wild trout loch in the UK.............."
People who come from all over the world to enjoy fishing in this beautiful scenery haven't a clue that the stunningly beautiful open landscapes around the lochs of Caithness are under threat of disfigurement and banality - Watten, Watenan, Yarrows etc etc
Also in this edition, incidentally, some very enticing pictures of Watten Estate on the market - no word of wind-farms in the blurb, - they had better move fast, or the price will drop like a stone, much as everyone else's property in the vicinity will.
- if you care anything for this your birthright - get objecting now - 1st June is the deadline - the simple way to do it is to clock into www.spittalwindfarmopposition.co.uk,
where there is an on-line form for submissions.
I do have the site plan for Spittal so don't need that link ta.)
Mad Pict, could you possibly post the site plan using that uploading website? (as I've not got it figured out yet). I have site plan too, but can't simply attach it, even having made the file smaller, as I seem to have used up my tiny forum attaching space with the ZTV I posted earlier.
BTW I like your little windfarm mannie.
This month's "Field" has a beautifully illustrated article on fishing in Caithness - features Toftingall,
They've started doing their bird surveys at Toftingall. Gamesa (Spanish) is the energy company involved.
Also in this edition, incidentally, some very enticing pictures of Watten Estate on the market - no word of wind-farms in the blurb, - they had better move fast, or the price will drop like a stone, much as everyone else's property in the vicinity will.
Mr Pottinger, the developer/landowner of Spittal and Baillie windfarms, assured us in today's John O'Groat Journal that property prices will not be affected.
Spurtle, going back to your "Field" magazine theme - if Spittal windfarm is approved (which I personally can't see happening), then it's open season for every windfarm application (genuine and spurious) in Caithness. If Spittal is approved, in spite of visual impact, cumulative impact, proximity to residences and settlements, impact on ornithology, hydrology, ecology, geology, archeology, then there's no reason for any other windfarm application in Caithness to be refused.
Mr Pottinger, the developer/landowner of Spittal and Baillie windfarms, assured us in today's John O'Groat Journal that property prices will not be affected.
I wonder why he made no mention of the fact that he is also the Spittal Hill windfarm developer in the paper today? Maybe, thats a touchy subject.
I wonder why he made no mention of the fact that he is also the Spittal Hill windfarm developer in the paper today? Maybe, thats a touchy subject.
Why? (Apparently this reply is too short to send according to our forum meisters so I say again, why?)
Mad Pict, could you possibly post the site plan using that uploading website? (as I've not got it figured out yet). I have site plan too, but can't simply attach it, even having made the file smaller, as I seem to have used up my tiny forum attaching space with the ZTV I posted earlier.
BTW I like your little windfarm mannie.
http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/8396/sitelayoutcd6.th.jpg (http://img341.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sitelayoutcd6.jpg)
Thank you Mad Pict.
You know, this seems to be taken from the same OS map I have - ND 05/15, which states it "has been compiled from . . . maps published 1962 - 1976 which were made from surveys dated 1961 - 1974." There are obviously many, many more houses built since 1974 which will be affected by said windfarm. Can't really blame this on the developer, but it helps distort some truths as to how many people will be afected.
How often do OS surveys get done? They must be very short staffed.
If anyone is in any doubtas to the effect on tourism, read the gentleman from Cambridge, writing in the 'Groat - pretty well saying - forget it - if you go ahead with all this, we will not be visiting Caithness again.
The proliferation of wind farms in an area like ours, which does not have the grand scale of mountain terrain into which they might fit (I don't think they should be anywhere near such wild, magnificent areas either) is going to be a massive turn-off for visitors, causing businesses like B & Bs, hotels, tackle shops, outdoor activity places, visitor centres , wildlife and scenic tour guides etc etc to lose business or even go t*ts up. Who is going to clear them up afterwards anyway?? The Spittal Hill site is going to be filled up with giant concrete bases even if the superstructures come down. It covers a massive 2,000+ acres for we old-fashioned folk who can't get our heads round hectares - what a disaster!
If anyone is in any doubtas to the effect on tourism, read the gentleman from Cambridge, writing in the 'Groat - pretty well saying - forget it - if you go ahead with all this, we will not be visiting Caithness again.
Acht, it was obviously a set-up to play mind games with us. His name was Angus Ballantyne for pity's sake..
Why would having a good Borders name negate his opinion, I wonder? Come on, Rheghead - you can do better than that.
Acht, it was obviously a set-up to play mind games with us. His name was Angus Ballantyne for pity's sake..
You are unbelievable Rheghead. Just cause the guy's got a Scottish name but happens to live in Cambridge makes it a set-up? Do you think no Scots have ventured south of the border then? The point he makes is very valid and if you can't see the potential consequences to the tourist industry by the proliferation of windfarms you need a good optician. I'm beginning to wonder if you're not a set-up!
yes Reghead, beginning to wonder if your name is really tom??!!
They've started doing their bird surveys at Toftingall. Gamesa (Spanish) is the energy company involved.
Its becoming a free-for-all! As one of the landowners leasing his land for turbines on Spittal Hill has said 'there's money in turbines'! To hell with everyone else. Anyone with a pocket handkerchief of land here thinks he can exploit us all and be quids in. Its a very sad and selfish world we live in.
I see that in the Groat on friday Spittal Windfarm Ltd have submitted an application for the renewal of their planning permission for that anenometer mast stuck up there on the hill. As far as I can see it should never have been given permission in the first place - we all knew didn't we that they intended to build a windfarm there - and yet the planners would have you believe that 'an anenometer mast doesn't mean there's going to be a windfarm' - duh?? Do they think we are all stupid?
yes Reghead, beginning to wonder if your name is really tom??!!
possibly Geoffrey??:roll:
The point he makes is very valid and if you can't see the potential consequences to the tourist industry by the proliferation of windfarms you need a good optician.
In my experience of people, those tourists that cherish the countryside realise that the biggest threat to it comes from burning fossil fuels.:eek:
In my experience of people, those tourists that cherish the countryside realise that the biggest threat to it comes from burning fossil fuels.:eek:
Wind farms are not going going to reduce the number of coal/gas/oil-fired power stations, even in the national context, and certainly going to make no difference whatsoever to emissions in the global context - China is commissioning a new coal-fired station every month. Most of us would accept some deficit in the quality of our surroundings if it made any difference to emissions. The only difference wind farms will produce is to the developer's/.landowner's bank balance. Anyone involved in tourism will see the reverse effect, and that is a lot of people.
A quick squint through the Register of Sasines in Edinburgh will see a number of potential wind-farm beneficiaries sharing out their landed possessions between as many of the family as possible, to avoid getting into the 40% tax bracket, so they obviously think they are a) going to earn squillions of dollars, or b) cop a massive capital gains tax burden when they sell on, which is the most likely scenario in most cases.
Wind farms are not going going to reduce the number of coal/gas/oil-fired power stations, even in the national context, and certainly going to make no difference whatsoever to emissions in the global context - China is commissioning a new coal-fired station every month. Most of us would accept some deficit in the quality of our surroundings if it made any difference to emissions. The only difference wind farms will produce is to the developer's/.landowner's bank balance. Anyone involved in tourism will see the reverse effect, and that is a lot of people.
A quick squint through the Register of Sasines in Edinburgh will see a number of potential wind-farm beneficiaries sharing out their landed possessions between as many of the family as possible, to avoid getting into the 40% tax bracket, so they obviously think they are a) going to earn squillions of dollars, or b) cop a massive capital gains tax burden when they sell on, which is the most likely scenario in most cases.
Windfarms will make a tangible difference in fossil fuel usage. Why do you think they are building them?? China will be responsible for their carbon emissions and seem to be more keen to indulge in renewable energy than the UK. Currently, 1% of the UK's energy is generated by windfarms, which would have been generated by coal and gas. That is a 0.3% reduction in UK carbon emissions. The problem is the number of windfarms being stuck in the planning stage, hopefully, the new system will iron out those problems.
Comments about money are immaterial because people are getting rich from fossil fuels, have you seen the price of oil lately?
China will be responsible for their carbon emissions and seem to be more keen to indulge in renewable energy than the UK.
Three Gorges Dam? Renewable energy fo' sho' - but at what expense? Over a million people have been moved from their homes (with 80,000 more still to move) to make way for the project and more than 1,200 towns and villages wiped out.
Ah but the Chinese government can have green power for their palaces and country retreats which the average Chinese citizen could only dream about.
What's the saying "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely"? Seems like those in charge in China have honed that down to a fine art...
Government "officials" grab land from farmers to build $1m homes. It's OK though cos we will ave green energy.
I suspect that Rhegheads avatar reflects his view on this topic - it's upside down! :D
If you can't see the potential consequences to the tourist industry by the proliferation of windfarms you need a good optician. I'm beginning to wonder if you're not a set-up!
I work in the tourist industry in Edinburgh and talk to many visitors to our country, and yes I do brag I am Caithness born and advise them to visit the county.
We have Wind farms all over Scotland and not one visitor has mentioned that they are an eyesore. So why would they be a deterrant at Spittal...just how many visitors visit the Spittal area? Not many I would think.
We need some form of renewable energy or my Grandchildren will be paying the cost in the near future.
So what are you anti wind farmers going to replace them with?
IMO you anti's are suffering from NIMBYism
It's WINDY-ism Golach......
And while I am anti wind factories in Caithness I am not anti wind factories elsewhere. I see Caithness as a place to be protected from over development and small wind generators providing power to the local community is something I could quite happily accept.
Not the replacement of the old Forestry Commission tax break eyesore with even more monstrous tax break eyesores feeding the rapacious energy needs of the larger conurbations. Those fir trees were out of place then and the wind generators will be out of place tomorrow.
We have Wind farms all over Scotland and not one visitor has mentioned that they are an eyesore.
Maybe they don't stand out like a sore thumb elsewhere? Hidden by rolling hills or tree lines they may 'blend' in better. But Caithness doesn't have many rolling hills or tree lines to hide them behind. You can see from one side of the county to the other on a clear day. Well, if the likes of Spittal go ahead that will be a distant memory, unlike the sodding great line of metal whirly things you will see from everywhere....
I work in the tourist industry in Edinburgh and talk to many visitors to our country, and yes I do brag I am Caithness born and advise them to visit the county.
We have Wind farms all over Scotland and not one visitor has mentioned that they are an eyesore. So why would they be a deterrant at Spittal...just how many visitors visit the Spittal area? Not many I would think.
We need some form of renewable energy or my Grandchildren will be paying the cost in the near future.
So what are you anti wind farmers going to replace them with?
IMO you anti's are suffering from NIMBYism
Well I suppose if you live and work in Edinburgh where there isn't a hope in hell of any large scale windfarms being built like the one proposed for Spittal Hill you can spout off about how everyone else should suffer them to help your grandchildren!! Give me a break.
Caithness, or haven't you been back lately, already has its fair share of windfarms built, being built, or approved and to be built in the near future. Calling people NIMBYS who will have to suffer 110 metre turbines less than 1000 metres from their homes with all the associated and recognised problems with wind turbines such as noise, strobe effect, shadow flicker and vibration is just insulting. I also think if you asked these residents they would say 'Not in anyone's backyard'. I wonder what you would do if the same was threatening your lifestyle in good old Edinburgh.
looks like tom is in a panic,calling people names .photomontages on his presentations were very cloudy to say the least.and not all directions covered.well not presentedto view.
China will be responsible for their carbon emissions
Rheghead, please expand and back up your statement. How is China being responsible for its carbon emissions? Has it installed carbon capture for its one-new-coal-fired-power-station-per-month?
Comments about money are immaterial because people are getting rich from fossil fuels, have you seen the price of oil lately?
Why are comments about money immaterial? People are getting rich from windfarms and fossil fuels are they? Two wrongs making a right here Rheghead?
Well I suppose if you live and work in Edinburgh where there isn't a hope in hell of any large scale windfarms being built like the one proposed for Spittal Hill you can spout off about how everyone else should suffer them to help your grandchildren!! Give me a break.
Caithness, or haven't you been back lately, already has its fair share of windfarms built, being built, or approved and to be built in the near future. Calling people NIMBYS who will have to suffer 110 metre turbines less than 1000 metres from their homes with all the associated and recognised problems with wind turbines such as noise, strobe effect, shadow flicker and vibration is just insulting. I also think if you asked these residents they would say 'Not in anyone's backyard'. I wonder what you would do if the same was threatening your lifestyle in good old Edinburgh.
Well said Olivia, I couldn't agree with you more
Interesting to see that Dounreay is not being considered as a suitable site for a fresh-generation nuclear power station for, among other reasons the fact that transmission losses dictate that it would not be cost-effective, situated so far away from the end users. Surely the same reasoning works for on-shore wind factories.
Stick with what we have got - we have enough installed capacity to supply every home in Caithness several times over, if intermittently, already.
Realise that this argument is irrelevant to the T.Pottingers and other similar who have a finger in the pie.
Two wrongs making a right here Rheghead?
Why is making money wrong? Have you anti-capitalist leanings? Don't take that personally but I think anti-windfarmism has many facets, one being anti-capitalism. Not sure if the real subject being discussed was windfarms or not.
Not so long ago, badger quoted that £30 billion had been paid out in RO for windfarm energy. The true figure is actually £1.7 billion, cheap at half the price.
Why is making money wrong? Have you anti-capitalist leanings?
Anti-capitalist leanings? Um probably. I knew I'd not said that quite right and you'd get me. So oil barons are rich. Does that make it OK to make an obscene amount of money from windfarms and in so doing give Mr Ordinary Joe Blow Public grief from having to live under a windfarm? An extreme example would be whether it's OK to make money from a diamond mine and exploit workers enduring slave conditions. Is it OK to own a diamond ring in that case? Is it OK to make money from gun manufacturing if said weapons end up employed by children in the Congo or whatever it's called now? I could go on, but back to windfarms. If you've read today's Groat you'll see that a Mr Young writes that farmer/landowners have been offered £8K - £10K per turbine per annum by the developer of Spittal Hill windfarm. He goes on to state that the developer himself gets about £250K per turbine per annum (through subsidies which are added directly to our electricity bills). Multiply that by 30! Wow. Sounds like a diamond mine or better to me. I'd be asking that developer for a bit of an increase.
Not sure if the real subject being discussed was windfarms or not.
What do you think was the real subject? (I may have lost the plot here.)
Not so long ago, badger quoted that £30 billion had been paid out in RO for windfarm energy. The true figure is actually £1.7 billion, cheap at half the price.
OK, Badger and Rheghead, could you both please back up your claims with references? I don't know where this Mr Young gets his figures from either. Perhaps other DotOrgers can shed light.
This is a dreadful shame: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/05/24/nsuicide24.xml
While the death of this farmer is indeed sad, many farmers commit suicide because of the worries and strain of trying to make ends meet.
The link between his death and the "rural terrorists" sounds like a finger being pointed unfairly at the persons campaigning against wind farm developments.
Figures from the Office of National Statistics in 2001, reveal that 74 farmers took their own lives in England and Wales in 1999.
http://www.channel4.com/health/microsites/0-9/4health/stress/saw_farmers.html
The link between his death and the "rural terrorists" sounds like a finger being pointed unfairly at the persons campaigning against wind farm developments.
This stood out for me: Henry Bellingham, the Tory MP for North West Norfolk, said: "Mr Herbert's death is an absolute tragedy. I fear it could be an indication of the amount of stress and pressure building up in a community that is absolutely furious about what is going on over these wind farm proposals."
I just thought, what a pretty pass we have come to - these installations are causing such emotions in staid English villagers that this happens. In France they're setting fire to turbines, though it must be said the French set fire to lots of things when they get a strop on. (No badmouthing intended there - I've got a lot of time for France and French people.)
This stood out for me: Henry Bellingham, the Tory MP for North West Norfolk, said: "Mr Herbert's death is an absolute tragedy. I fear it could be an indication of the amount of stress and pressure building up in a community that is absolutely furious about what is going on over these wind farm proposals."
Its the same old thing again - someone has a piece of land, they've heard how others are making, or going to, make a fortune out of windfarming, so off they go and jump on the bandwagon - no thought for the rest of the community who may not want their open flat (and I mean flat in the case of the Fens) landscape filled with whirling windmills.
It really is not surprising that the rest of the community get so upset by thoughtless landowners treading all over them.
Now where did I see an anenometer mast . . . . . .
Its the same old thing again - someone has a piece of land, they've heard how others are making, or going to, make a fortune out of windfarming, so off they go and jump on the bandwagon - no thought for the rest of the community who may not want their open flat (and I mean flat in the case of the Fens) landscape filled with whirling windmills.
It really is not surprising that the rest of the community get so upset by thoughtless landowners treading all over them.
Now where did I see an anenometer mast . . . . . .
Rupert,
That's beside the point. For someone to take their own life because of this carry on - it sickens me.
Spittal Hill - Dumbest Place Ever for a WindfarmIs there a smart place for a windfarm or am I the only one who understands the true signficance of this?
The only long term solution to our energy needs is to harness the power that drives us all, the power of the Sun.
Is there a smart place for a windfarm
Absolutely. For example, in a community where the majority wants a community windfarm, where the electricity generated benefits only that community and possibly even makes them self-sufficient and the power goes directly to the community, bypassing the National Grid, and where that community's turbines do not impact on another community, and where there's enough wind, and where there's not too much damage done to habitat and flora/fauna.
or am I the only one who understands the true signficance of this?
I don't know. What is your understanding of the true significance of determining a smart place for a windfarm?
The only long term solution to our energy needs is to harness the power that drives us all, the power of the Sun.
Do you mean fusion?
Rupert,
That's beside the point. For someone to take their own life because of this carry on - it sickens me.
I'm afraid thats how it is - people take their lives for all sorts of reasons, like Madpict said earlier, many farmers committed suicide during the BSE crisis and then the foot and mouth epidemic, equally as sickening. But of course there is one difference - BSE and the foot and mouth epidemic was not of their own making.
Absolutely. For example, in a community where the majority wants a community windfarm, where the electricity generated benefits only that community and possibly even makes them self-sufficient and the power goes directly to the community, bypassing the National Grid, and where that community's turbines do not impact on another community, and where there's enough wind, and where there's not too much damage done to habitat and flora/fauna.Great answer, but don't forget that your community will need a connection to the Grid for windless and stormy days when those you tilt at will stand motionless on the skyline. Baseline, baseline, baseline; backup, backup, backup. You know what I mean. ;)
I don't know. What is your understanding of the true significance of determining a smart place for a windfarm?Your thread title was clearly political. Spittal Hill is not the dumbest place ever for a windfarm: it's a windy hill for goodness' sake. :roll:
Practicalities aside, I am with you politically. I knew Tom Pottinger decades ago; evidently he hasn't changed much in the intervening years.
Do you mean fusion?Of course. Fusion made us: we are stardust (http://www.krysstal.com/stardust.html), we are golden (http://www.artsandmusicpa.com/music_pages/woodstock69.htm). We are the children of Mother Earth, and the Earth is the Child of the Stars. Let us worship their Creation and use their power to enable our Children to journey to Them, on a kind of modern pilgrimage.
ywindythesecond
27-May-07, 07:01
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rheghead http://forum.caithness.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?p=226665#post226665)
Not so long ago, badger quoted that £30 billion had been paid out in RO for windfarm energy. The true figure is actually £1.7 billion, cheap at half the price.
Some time ago I recommended to Rheghead that he reads OFGEM's response to the Government's Consultation on the future of the ROCs. Well he has obviously read it and once again has cherrypicked the bits he wants to hear. The response says that the present ROCs regime HAS ALREADY COST US £1.7 BILLION, AND WILL EVENTUALLY COST US £30 BILLION if it is allowed to continue. How cheap is that for virtually no gain Reggy? Does it sound like a good strategy?
ywindythesecond
I have been reading a number of the articles and arguments for and against wind farms. I also read and watch many of the discussions about the need for more use of renewable energy. There seems to be a gross dichotomy of opinions- most thinking people agree that continuing to burn fossil fuels is not a good idea... and that they will run out ere long anyway. Most thinking people also agree that countries should be doing more about using renewable energy sources.
However, the sad fact is that the number of thinking people is a small fraction of the population and that the greater part of the populace couldn't actually give a monkey's just so long as they can have all their lights on, run all of their electronic gadgets at the same time (whether they are using them or not), fill their chav wagons full of petrol and tear around burning it back up again as quick as possible. Some of the comments I hear that they make about those of us who care about the environment cannot be repeated here.
I am afraid that most people care only about 'me', 'now' and 'why should I give a monkey's whatsit'.
My comments above do not refer to any orgers (we are all so sensible that we join forums and discuss our views and opinions) but refer instead to the bulk of the population (mostly English) who have an 'Im alright, Jack' attitude.
Those poeple who cut down that anamometer mast are a prime example of this ignorance. For all they knew this measuring device would have actually proved that a wind farm there would be pointless. Such a shame...:~(
Stumbled across this -
http://www.caithness.org/atoz/thurso/windsock.htm
While 'doctored' it still made me chuckle. Perhaps change "Thurso" for "Spittal"?
Or Caithness.....
Those poeple who cut down that anamometer mast are a prime example of this ignorance. For all they knew this measuring device would have actually proved that a wind farm there would be pointless. Such a shame...:~(
I am not condoning in any way the destruction of the anenometer mast in Norfolk - it is pointless vandalism. However, maybe these people were at the end of their tether the same as the poor farmer who committed suicide. It is just an example of how large scale windfarm proposals (which I believe this one was, twenty odd turbines I think) divides a community which I've no doubt was rubbing along quite nicely before some bright spark had the idea for a windfarm.
Please do remember that windfarms are only one form of renewable energy, and a very inefficient one at that. It seems to me the ignorance lies in people who believe windfarms will save the planet and forget all the other things we could be doing such as energy conservation, clean coal, carbon capture, wave/tidal power, small community windfarm projects etc. etc.
I am not condoning in any way the destruction of the anenometer mast in Norfolk - it is pointless vandalism. However, maybe these people were at the end of their tether the same as the poor farmer who committed suicide. It is just an example of how large scale windfarm proposals (which I believe this one was, twenty odd turbines I think) divides a community which I've no doubt was rubbing along quite nicely before some bright spark had the idea for a windfarm.
Please do remember that windfarms are only one form of renewable energy, and a very inefficient one at that. It seems to me the ignorance lies in people who believe windfarms will save the planet and forget all the other things we could be doing such as energy conservation, clean coal, carbon capture, wave/tidal power, small community windfarm projects etc. etc.
Fully with you on that one, Olivia. Considering the large-scale input some countries put into their renewable energy programmes, our Gov't is stingey to the extreme. Personally, I have insulated my loft (but have additional ideas afoot), am getting a Class A boiler system installed, have had cavity wall insulation put in, have plans to insulate those areas where it was impossible to do cavity wall - such as the integral garage, and wish to install a domestic wind turbine. However, I am having great trouble getting some answers over this last one.... such as the life span of home turbines, what the carbon debt is by manufacturing one (will it actually be balanced by its use during its lifetime), etc. It would be nice to get some answers on voltaic cell electric generation as well - are these long term effective? How much do they cost? etc.
peter macdonald
27-May-07, 17:57
"I am not condoning in any way the destruction of the anenometer mast in Norfolk - it is pointless vandalism."
Good thats exactly what is was ...and illegal
"However, maybe these people were at the end of their tether the same as the poor farmer who committed suicide. It is just an example of how large scale windfarm proposals (which I believe this one was, twenty odd turbines I think) divides a community which I've no doubt was rubbing along quite nicely before some bright spark had the idea for a windfarm."
Well you seem to be providing an excuse for those events that caused a man to take his life
"maybe these people were at the end of their tether " over what exactly ??
A spoilt view?? A fear that their house prices maybe hit ?? A five minute delay in getting to work because of a lorry backing up??
I dont know what the farmers motives were for wanting the windfarm and its none of my business.. it could be greed or it could have been his last chance to clear debt from the foot and mouth or BSE disasters farmers had .As I said it aint my business ..but there is one thing for sure it was not worth his life
After all these protesters could always move on somewhere else which is more than that poor soul can
Good grief if that is what folks get to "the end of their tether" with then they should get out more and see the real problems of the world
PM
[quote=peter macdonald;227129
After all these protesters could always move on somewhere else which is more than that poor soul can
Good grief if that is what folks get to "the end of their tether" with then they should get out more and see the real problems of the world
PM[/quote]
What do you mean by 'these protesters could alway move on somewhere else'? Why should they have to leave their area, that maybe their families have lived in for generations, to accomodate another persons wish to make lots of money? Residents who have the prospect of large windfarms being built very close to their homes have genuine fears and worries, such as immense visual impact, noise, strobe effects, shadow flicker etc. etc. Your flippant comments obviously come from someone who just doesnt understand the real issues involved.
NickInTheNorth
27-May-07, 19:44
<content snipped>
However, I am having great trouble getting some answers over this last one.... such as the life span of home turbines, what the carbon debt is by manufacturing one (will it actually be balanced by its use during its lifetime), etc. It would be nice to get some answers on voltaic cell electric generation as well - are these long term effective? How much do they cost? etc.
Often get decent answers on this site (http://www.cat.org.uk) to such questions.
peter macdonald
27-May-07, 20:18
"Your flippant comments obviously come from someone who just doesnt understand the real issues involved."
Flippant ---- a man died because of this-- please read that again
Im not being flippant Please compare "have genuine fears and worries, such as immense visual impact, noise, strobe effects, shadow flicker etc. etc." and -----death----
Im sorry but you want to get a grip
Last post on this
In fact Im so sickened Im out of here period
PM
Fully with you on that one, Olivia. Considering the large-scale input some countries put into their renewable energy programmes, our Gov't is stingey to the extreme. Personally, I have insulated my loft (but have additional ideas afoot), am getting a Class A boiler system installed, have had cavity wall insulation put in, have plans to insulate those areas where it was impossible to do cavity wall - such as the integral garage, and wish to install a domestic wind turbine. However, I am having great trouble getting some answers over this last one.... such as the life span of home turbines, what the carbon debt is by manufacturing one (will it actually be balanced by its use during its lifetime), etc. It would be nice to get some answers on voltaic cell electric generation as well - are these long term effective? How much do they cost? etc.
I have never understood why solar panels in peoples roofs have never really taken off. Many years ago, like back in the 80's, my forward thinking neighbours installed solar panels in their roof. I think they cost quite a bit but they swore it made all the difference to the bills. Why doesn't the government subsidise this form of renewable energy (or do they already)? Surely, if we all went for solar panels, the price would come down and the manufacturers would have loads of business.
Personally, I have insulated my loft (but have additional ideas afoot), am getting a Class A boiler system installed, have had cavity wall insulation put in, have plans to insulate those areas where it was impossible to do cavity wall - such as the integral garage, and wish to install a domestic wind turbine, though we should. However, I am having great trouble getting some answers over this last one.... such as the life span of home turbines, what the carbon debt is by manufacturing one (will it actually be balanced by its use during its lifetime), etc. It would be nice to get some answers on voltaic cell electric generation as well - are these long term effective? How much do they cost? etc.
Ricco,
Your energy conservation tactics are laudable. We have pretty much the same thing, except we've not looked into a wind turbine. I think the problem is that a lot of people can't afford to do all that, and the government isn't stepping in adequately where it should be - at the bottom, with the simple things.
Please come back to me with what you've found out about domestic turbines. From what I've read they don't seem to be all they're cracked up to be, e.g., hardly able to boil a kettle and even causing cracks or stress in house walls. And it always seems impossible to find out how much energy is expended in the process of manufacturing anything.
We had solar roof panels on a house we owned in the 1980's. It worked well but it only produced hot water, and we had an immersion heater backing it up when the sun didn't shine enough. I would imagine they're a lot better these days, but it did save money.
it's a windy hill for goodness' sake.
Most of Scotland's a windy hill. Do we have to have them mucking up a place where quite a lot of people live?
Anyway, Crayola, we have no argument. Hey, thanks for the link:
we are golden (http://www.artsandmusicpa.com/music_pages/woodstock69.htm).
I never knew the words to that - just the chorus. It's a great song/poem.
Ricco,
Your energy conservation tactics are laudable. We have pretty much the same thing, except we've not looked into a wind turbine. I think the problem is that a lot of people can't afford to do all that, and the government isn't stepping in adequately where it should be - at the bottom, with the simple things.
You can get a grant for around £400 from the DTi.
Please come back to me with what you've found out about domestic turbines. From what I've read they don't seem to be all they're cracked up to be, e.g., hardly able to boil a kettle and even causing cracks or stress in house walls. And it always seems impossible to find out how much energy is expended in the process of manufacturing anything.
I must confess that stressing the walls had not occurred to me - must look into that one
We had solar roof panels on a house we owned in the 1980's. It worked well but it only produced hot water, and we had an immersion heater backing it up when the sun didn't shine enough. I would imagine they're a lot better these days, but it did save money.
I hope to get more up-to-date info soon.
Fenland Landscape Against Turbines
With regards to the "rural terrorism" which was supposed to be responsible for the death of this fenland farmer the commitee involved in the campaign against the development have issued a press release in light of the allegations by the developers about hostility towards consortium speakers at recent meetings and the 'felling' of the anemometer mast.
http://www.flat-group.co.uk/press-releases/2007-05-26.html
Fenland Landscape Against Turbines
With regards to the "rural terrorism" which was supposed to be responsible for the death of this fenland farmer the commitee involved in the campaign against the development have issued a press release in light of the allegations by the developers about hostility towards consortium speakers at recent meetings and the 'felling' of the anemometer mast. http://www.flat-group.co.uk/press-releases/2007-05-26.html
Well - there goes another community. The things should be banned if only for the bad feelings they arouse neighbour to neighbour. My own experience of dealing with developers and consultants, and the sheer quantity of spin they arrogantly produce - spin often crossing the line into misinformation - makes me lean towards FLAT's version of event. But calling them rural terrorists would be a bit steep by anyone's standards.
It is interesting to note that the meeting only became “rather heated” after the consultants had introduced themselves as “the enemy” and told the audience that “they had never lost the fight with any wind farm that they had been involved with and did not intent to break their record with this one”! From then onwards they continued to both antagonise and alienate the audience and at one point even told one questioner to “shut up”.
Way to go to win the battle for hearts and minds....
ywindythesecond
29-May-07, 22:56
Fenland Landscape Against Turbines
http://www.flat-group.co.uk/press-releases/2007-05-26.html
What ever made us think that only Caithness was targetted?
I haven't read it but I understand the recent Energy White Paper proposes double ROCs for offshore wind to promote offshore development, not half ROCs to reduce onshore wind development. ( Got a link please MadPict?)
ywindythesecond
In case you missed this morning's Courier: http://www.johnogroat-journal.co.uk/news/fullstory.php/aid/2287/Community_divided_on_Spittal_spin-off_talks.html . Watten COmmunity Council's chairman has done nothing but promote this scheme regardless of what anyone else, including his fellow councillors, think, and has never taken any active steps to seek out community views, i.e., has refused to hold a ballot, refused to hold a public meeting, refused to disseminate any information on the scheme, etc.
He says he's talked to a lot of people. According to the Association of Scottish Community Councils Best Practice guidelines, that's not good enough. They specifically state at http://www.ascc.org.uk/page.aspx?pg=HowGoodIsYourCC.aspx that "word of mouth and informal personal contact is a common practice, and has its place. It is the least objective method of discovering the community's views and should not be relied upon in making important decisions."
And one of the COuncillors has close family with a financial interest in the scheme apparently.
I don't understand what's going on here.
just got back from hols and saw the latest on proposed plans at spittal. it's a real shocker that watten cc chair has a vested financial interest in this and has been trying to push it through .surely he cannot continue in this com council any longer. how very embarrassing!!!!
Green_not_greed
31-May-07, 14:25
If as Sweep says and is reported in the local media that some of Watten CC are representing themselves (or their family) and not the views of the community then I suggest that the community hold their own meeting and hold a vote of no confidence in the existing community council. I'm unsure of the rules but with the media involved and a clear majority against the current CC surely they can be forced to restand - possibly against truly independent representative candidates?
I haven't read it but I understand the recent Energy White Paper proposes double ROCs for offshore wind to promote offshore development, not half ROCs to reduce onshore wind development. ( Got a link please MadPict?)
ywindythesecond
Paper is at www.dtistats.net/ewp/ . I've not had a look through it yet either. Saving it for a bout of insomnia.
Oh, and here's what we think about it: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2007/05/31171000
yes seen the paper seems the chairman approves blackmail as well.thats w.cc.I am discussing .I believe there was no decision taken at that last meeting to approve the wind farm,as they are open meetings .Cant wait to see the minutes of that meeting.Feel sorry for the Watten community being denied their right to have a say in what goes on.
yes seen the paper seems the chairman approves blackmail as well.thats w.cc.I am discussing .I believe there was no decision taken at that last meeting to approve the wind farm,as they are open meetings .Cant wait to see the minutes of that meeting.Feel sorry for the Watten community being denied their right to have a say in what goes on.
What's going on at Watten Community Council is totally wrong. How dare that Chairman state in the paper (Courier 30 May) 'We have made our position clear that we will not be objecting to the windfarm and that we're keen to look into the possibility of community involvement'! Has he asked his community if they want to be involved, has he heck. He has gone behind peoples backs, including fellow councillors, negotiating with the developer without even trying to find our what his community thinks to the whole business. Community councillors are supposed to represent their community and do the best for their community provided the minority do not suffer subsequently. He has made no attempt whatsoever to consult his community whether it be a public meeting or postal ballot. The excuses he makes about it costing to much are rubbish. He could easily call a public meeting, how much would that cost? Just lies, damn lies. Me thinks he doth protest too much. Or is he just corrupt?
Most of Scotland's a windy hill. Do we have to have them mucking up a place where quite a lot of people live?How many people live there? It's been some time.
Anyway, Crayola, we have no argument. Hey, thanks for the link: (to Joni Mitchell's Woodstock lyrics)
I never knew the words to that - just the chorus. It's a great song/poem.I enjoyed it again too.
We are stardust, we are golden,
We are billion year old carbon.
That chorus is as poignant today as it was back then. Perhaps more so. Not that I was old enough to understand back then. We won't have made real progress until we can tame the light of the stars.
I don't believe we've learned a lot in the intervening years or we wouldn't allow evil doers to desecrate our landscape with profitable but pointless windmills.
cant say rightly how much ,but there are lots not as much as thurso ,but there is village called spittal +lots smallholdings and houses. Its like the highland clearances folk had no say replaced gy sheep now the same thing is happening again only turbines are being put there instead.
Tom pottinger could be remembered in history as being one of the many responsible for destroying scotland.and the chairman of watten C.C and his relations that are on the council
johndeere
03-Jun-07, 12:06
Why are people blaming Watten community council for taking the rights of the people of Watten away? The community council is there to serve the people of there community.
Wcc have obviously discussed the proposed windfarm at a community council meeting and they are in favour of it, but it is not a fait accompli, how many Watten residents actually have spoken or written to there community councillors to let them know how they feel and if there is enough support against ask them to hold a public meeting, so the people of Watten can decide how they want there councillors to proceed, instead of moaning that they were never asked for there opinion.
your right johndeer, time people got pen to paper the sec. is anne alexander perhaps ask for a puplic meeting or postal vote
Why are people blaming Watten community council for taking the rights of the people of Watten away? The community council is there to serve the people of there community.
Wcc have obviously discussed the proposed windfarm at a community council meeting and they are in favour of it, but it is not a fait accompli, how many Watten residents actually have spoken or written to there community councillors to let them know how they feel and if there is enough support against ask them to hold a public meeting, so the people of Watten can decide how they want there councillors to proceed, instead of moaning that they were never asked for there opinion.
Well, johndeere let me update you with some facts. The Community Council have been written too to ask them how they are going to consult their community over the last year, to which, I understand they have never bothered to reply. They have been asked to hold a public meeting on several occasions, which they have refused to do, the previous chairman stating 'it would just turn into a riot' (I wonder why he thought that?). They have had a presentation to them by a section of their community who are against the windfarm, and yet still they assume that they can go ahead and support the windfarm. If you get a chance read the article on the front page of the Courier dated 30 May and you will see for yourself the attitude of the present Chairman. One more thing - how can he think it is OK for a councillor who has a financial interest to take part in discussions on the windfarm? This man is not representing his community he is representing his family's financial interests - if I was being cynical I would say that it is probably the reason for him becoming a councillor in order to influence the vote.
Lastly, the figures from the Energy consents unit on Friday afternoon (the closing date for representations about the windfarm, but apparently they will accept late ones for the next 10 days) were as follows -
Letters of support for the windfarm - 10
Letters of opposition to the windfarm - 890
I think that says it all.
Wonder how many of the 10 'in support' will benefit financially from the wind factory?
Does anyone know what date Spittal windfarm has been allocated space for connection to the grid? I heard 2013 but don't know if this is correct. Not sure if further connections are reliant on the controversial Beauly to Denny upgrade. Anyone know?
Any ideas where to find this info for all north of scotland windfarms?
peter macdonald
03-Jun-07, 14:33
I wonder how many of the objections came from folks from within Watten CC area ??? That would be a better view of opinions
Nice to see a name popping out in this thread instead of people poking accusations about impropriety from behind "org" names
Surely there IS a lawful planning formula to go through before a decision is made either way .....and if you are not happy with that then go see your MP and MSP and if not then try the House of Lords after that if you want to break the law ....well thats what the Highlands constabulary is for isnt it?? I think its the way they do things in our society or have I missed 800 years of history ??
But hey its much easier to whisper on a web site ...or complain about unpaid local volenteers who give their time to try to help their community on Community Councils........ especially other peoples CCs
You know not all of Caithness is covered by CCs ..some folks could not be hacked with the hassle ...and I dont blame them reading the comments on here
PM
Nice to see a name popping out in this thread instead of people poking accusations about impropriety from behind "org" names
PM
Errr, not sure what you are getting at? I had an .org name before windfarms were even dreamt of at Spittal. And I suspect that "johndeere" is not their "real name".......
And if the council are truly riding rough shod over the community they are supposed to represent, and possibly doing it for ulterior motives, then it should be highlighted.
I am not sure of the exact purpose or standing of the Watten Community Council but if the anything like the Parish Councils down here, if a councilor has a conflict of interests they should declare it or resign.
And to me it sounds like a conflict of interests and I don't need to post that under a 'real name'.
[disgust]
peter macdonald
03-Jun-07, 17:20
Errr, not sure what you are getting at? I had an .org name before windfarms were even dreamt of at Spittal. And I suspect that "johndeere" is not their "real name".....
What Im getting at are folks on here are making accusations about impropriety
whilst hiding behind "other" non real names or org monikers what ever you call them If they were to use there own names for some of these accusations of underhand dealings ,blackmail etc would they then not be liable for legal action if the accusations were false ????
"And if the council are truly riding rough shod over the community they are supposed to represent, and possibly doing it for ulterior motives, then it should be highlighted."
I would also like to point out you have used the word "possibly " so you obviously have realised why I posted this Also how do you know the council are riding roughshod over the views of their constituants ?? The views of a vocal view (many of whom are NOT from Watten according to their profiles)on here are not representative of a diverse community many of whom are not on this forum but if the anything like the Parish Councils down here, if a councilor has a conflict of interests they should declare it or resign. and never have been
"I am not sure of the exact purpose or standing of the Watten Community Council
Easy I would hazard a guess at " to represent ALL of the constituants of Watten to the best of their abilities "
"but if the anything like the Parish Councils down here, if a councilor has a conflict of interests they should declare it or resign."
Yes I would think it would be the same( if there is evidence to the fact) wherever you are.... where ever that is
Now personally I dont care if they put windmills on Spittal Hill or not Im looking at some now as i write this along with an oil rig and some peat banks and none of which puts me one bit up or down but I think it is terrible that folk who are trying to do some good (for no gain )for the small community they live in are getting torn up like this by some faceless typists on the net
Also I have found that after a heck of a lot of reading that community councils input into the decision making process for wind farms through out Scotland is basically sod all so I suggest you find the right targets to chuck your bile at
PM
Well we agree that IF a member of the WCC DOES have some interests which could cause them to step out of the WCC that should be the case.
And so if someone who does live in the catchment area of WCC feels that such a conflict of interests exists they should contact the Highland Council ASAP to voice their concerns.
Funnily enough one of the 2 of the FAQ's in the PDF "Planning Matters For CCS" is regarding windfarms development. If they have "sod all" to do with such matters why put it in there?
Obviously there must be some opposition otherwise the JOGJ would not have run the story -
http://www.johnogroat-journal.co.uk/news/fullstory.php/aid/2287/Community_divided_on_Spittal_spin-off_talks.html
"SWOG has also questioned the position of community council member John Swanson, who farms at Bylbster, near Watten. Mr Swanson took part in the council discussion earlier this month even though there could be a direct financial benefit to members of his family if the wind farm gets the go-ahead." I think I would question his position too......
"Community council chairman Jim Macdonald insisted the criticism was unjustified."
"Mr Swanson yesterday acknowledged that croftland near Dunn owned by his son Liam and daughter Morag is the proposed site for one of the turbines. However, he did not think this should debar him from taking part in the community council discussions on the wind farm." So he thinks that is not a conflict of interest?
Perhaps the use of the word "blackmail" by some posters is wrong, but there certainly seems to be something going on which needs looking into.
Wonder how many of the 10 'in support' will benefit financially from the wind factory?
MP, 8 farmers are financially involved with Mr Pottinger's scheme. Add in Mr P and his brother (co-developer) = 10.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.