View Full Version : Nice scene! But which thing is the most visually intrusive?
Which thing in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_3pIgz2k8Y) is the most visually intrusive?:confused
Metalattakk
10-Jul-07, 02:39
Well, it's pretty obvious, but it still doesn't mean that windfarms are the answer, either aesthetically or for the problem of electricity generation. ;)
Lolabelle
10-Jul-07, 04:38
Obvioulsy the windfarms don't grab you attention like the other does. But I don't mind the look of the windfarms anyway. That's not to say that I would like one in my back yard, so I can't say I blame anyone who doesn't want them too near theirs.
Which thing in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_3pIgz2k8Y) is the most visually intrusive?:confused
Comparing Dounreay and windmills together in the same area then obviously Dounreay is what catches the eye, but that is not comparing like with like...if Dounreay wasn't there, then you'd see the windmills.
However Dounreay, or any nuclear power station only visually despoils one fairly limited area.........while windmills in the sheer numbers proposed for Caithness will be seen from wherever you stop to admire the views.
I am against nuclear energy, because of the waste problems, and rather like the look of windmills............but I'm beginning to think, as I see the sheer numbers of farms and associated windmills being proposed on our landscape, that one nuclear reactor to produce the same amount or more, of electricity and more reliably, is looking like an option to be preferred.
In fact, I'd be inclined to the idea that if we are going to become the powerhouse of the UK, as it is beginning to appear, then even a few nuclear reactors would have less visual impact than hundreds of windmills.
Bobinovich
10-Jul-07, 10:45
Neither - it's the big yellow STF building at Vulcan [lol]!!!
However try looking outside the box - it's not just about visual impact. Dounreay and Vulcan have provided many thousands of direct jobs over their lifespans, and thousands more of indirect ones.
You can't say the same for windfarms?
That's just another blinkered view of looking at the subject...
Nice trick, but I know that one also, it so old it has grown hairs. An object in the foreground taken from fairly close up will always dominate a picture and make anything in the background look unobtrusive by comparison.
Film-makers, photographers and illusionists have used that trick to make models look full sized and real almost as soon as they were invented.
I doubt Dounreay can be "visually intrusive" from 20 miles away but 20 - 30 - 50 or however many they manage to cram into one area certainly will be.
Nice trick, but I know that one also, it so old it has grown hairs. An object in the foreground taken from fairly close up will always dominate a picture and make anything in the background look unobtrusive by comparison.
A trick?
If this is a trick then what do you call this which was taken from the CWIF site?
http://www.caithnesshost.co.uk/CWIF/montage.jpg
At least the video of Dounreay is genuine.
I have to say that the windmills look great. I find them majestic and spectacular.
Dounereay looks ugly but it was never designed to be aesthetically pleasing.
Jeemag_USA
10-Jul-07, 14:20
A trick?
If this is a trick then what do you call this which was taken from the CWIF site?
http://www.caithnesshost.co.uk/CWIF/montage.jpg
At least the video of Dounreay is genuine.
I like the way they painted those an olive drab so you can hardly see them. Nice wee shed too, I assume its connected with the windmills. I'd have to say if I lived there I'd be moving.
(PS was being sarcastic about the colour, they stick out like a zit on the point of your nose)
I suspect the colour is part of the problem. Making the turbines stark shiny white means you can't miss them from any distance where there is a line of site. Even Electricity Pylons can become hard to see from a distance provided they are not on a skyline. Perhaps if the turbines were made in a colour which was less stark so they blended into the scenery a little better they might be more acceptable.
At least with Dounreay it is confined to one small area. If there were mini-Dounreays splattered all over Caithness so that you saw one where ever you looked then I would find that to be equally unacceptable.
My objections to Turbines is not simple Nimbyism, the usual accusation made to objectors, but Niebyism because the things will be in Everybody’s Back Yard.
There will be nowhere you will able to go to avoid them.
Just as a matter of interest, I notice that one of the Turbines out at the Beatrice Rigs is turning away. Does anybody know if that one is actually operational now or is it still in the preparation stage?
Bobinovich
10-Jul-07, 16:01
I like the way they painted those an olive drab so you can hardly see them. Nice wee shed too, I assume its connected with the windmills. I'd have to say if I lived there I'd be moving.
Hi Jeemag
No the 'wee shed' is a building at Janetstown and is to do with the Dounreay decommissioning - I understand it didn't require planning permission as it's classed as a temporary building but it is a very visible landmark in the area.
The montage taken from the CWIF site "compares the Test & Trials Facility at Janetstown (27m high), Dunnet Church (12m high), a proposed Strathy North Turbine (110m high), and an existing Forss turbine (78m high)" so that people can make a comparison for themeselves between existing landmarks and the size of the turbines currently in place & proposed.
Maybe if we could superimpose a few into the area of the Dounreay site it would give a far more even view than Rhegheads fleeting video...
sassylass
10-Jul-07, 17:01
All in all, the windfarms mar the landscape more than Dounreay.
Tom Cornwall
10-Jul-07, 19:05
it doesn't make any difference what is being discussed, there will always be 'fors' and 'againsts'. and it is very difficult to change peoples minds if they are set against something.
Just the same old same old from the Environmentally Stupid Steel Tower Huggers.
If we say that Dounreay had a 250mw capacity 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and 52 weeks a year (IF IT WAS A FULL RUNNING POWER STATION)
Lets say we convert the power produced into turbines ,giving a rough guide of 125x 2mw turbines muliplied by 3.5 due to poor turbine efficiency ,thats 125x2=250 x3.5 total 438 turbines
So now we have a figure that will allow us to calculate how much countryside we will have to ripe up to accommodate these 438 plus turbines ,now compare ....
By the way the figure of 438 is low ,the true figure is closer to 600 ...
it doesn't make any difference what is being discussed, there will always be 'fors' and 'againsts'. and it is very difficult to change peoples minds if they are set against something.
It depends, Tom........I have always been very against nuclear power stations because of the waste problem.............but the numbers of farms and turbines proposed for Caithness (and Sutherland) is making me wonder if it mightn't be better to have just one eyesore rather than hundreds of them producing electricity this county will never use in a month of Sundays.
If this windmill proliferation continues, I'll probably join the pro-nuclear lobby. I quite like the Causeymire windfarm, but dozens of Causeymires are overkill and almost completely useless....... imo.
Just the same old same old from the Environmentally Stupid Steel Tower Huggers.
If we say that Dounreay had a 250mw capacity 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and 52 weeks a year (IF IT WAS A FULL RUNNING POWER STATION)
Lets say we convert the power produced into turbines ,giving a rough guide of 125x 2mw turbines muliplied by 3.5 due to poor turbine efficiency ,thats 125x2=250 x3.5 total 438 turbines
So now we have a figure that will allow us to calculate how much countryside we will have to ripe up to accommodate these 438 plus turbines ,now compare ....
By the way the figure of 438 is low ,the true figure is closer to 600 ...
And then you consider that mining of uranium is one of the most polluting industrial process known to man, both in Co2 and other pollutants.
That's not in Caithness though so we should not consider this.
Glad I don't live in Namibia or was a Native American on big Mountain though.
The carbon footprint is significant before you consider the waste. If it was not I would be a supporter of the atom. I believe there is not much global uranium left, anyone know?
Colin Manson
10-Jul-07, 20:48
Just the same old same old from the Environmentally Stupid Steel Tower Huggers.
If we say that Dounreay had a 250mw capacity 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and 52 weeks a year (IF IT WAS A FULL RUNNING POWER STATION)
Just a small point if it was replaced today by a modern reactor you would be looking at 1500MW, you should recalculate your number of turbines based upon that. ;)
By the end of the calculation we'll be lucky to have a wee square of Caithness left to live on. As for the Uranium mining - the core lasts between 15 and 20 years and it's hardly a huge amount of Uranium by any standards.
I think Rheghead's point might have been more convincing if he had created a montage of all the turbines proposed in Caithness and Sutherland against Dounreay (over 700) - although don't quite know how they would all fit in. The windfarm shown is one of the smallest, hardly a windfarm at all by current standards, more a windpatch. Why not try again with the latest proposal - 77 turbines in Strathy all 110m. high? (see last weeks' Groat). You'd hardly see Dounreay against that lot.
The visible impact of windfarms is a very subjective issue and being visible doesn't mean that they are intrusive. Some orgers see them as intrusive but some see them as elegant and a symbol of a cleaner and brighter tomorrow. If the GPO put thousands of green telephone boxes all over the countryside in the 1930s and then replaced them with red ones in 2007, there would be a national outcry of ugly red boxes blighting our town and country areas. So all in all, the visual impact is in the eye of the beholder in the spirit of the times. Things change. I think there is a place for windfarms.
Incidentally, if anyone is interested, I have quantified what level of windfarm proliferation that I would tolerate in Caithness. Of course this is a purely personal preference but it amounts to a total capacity of 240MW. I think that is more than enough which is the equivalent of 5 of the Causeymire-size windfarms. I wouldn't want Caithness to be inundated with the bloomin' things.
Is it not the case that man should have by now come up with a lifestyle that both he and the planet can live with .
All the generating systems are pretty crap and having pylons running all over the country just goes to show that "stupid is as stupid does"
Question:TO ALL?
Is it now the case that we should be looking to restrict the amount of energy each house consumes so when the lights go out , its you fault .
Would this not lead to houses having to produce their own green energy and therefore reduce Carbon footprint...
For the turbine supporters .
China is now the Biggest producer of CO2 they will put 10 million new cars on there roads this year alone ,and where does the steel and base materials for the turbines came from ...you 've got it CHINA...
Bobinovich
10-Jul-07, 22:43
Rheghead
So, you say you would accept 5 Causewaymire (21 turbines) sites = 105 turbines for Caithness.
Causewaymire (21) + Forss + Extension (6) + Buolfruich (15) +
9 others already approved = 51 out of your 105 turbines already taken into account.
Now say then that Spittal Hill (30) & Camster (25) get the go ahead that would exceed your allowed 105.
Would you then start campaigning against any further windfarm developments in Caithness?
However, what if all the developments proposed are approved because Hey! Caithness already has 7 windfarms, why not put up more 'cos there's been so little resistance from the locals?...
...and suddenly Caithness is littered with them. You won't be able to look in any direction without seeing these whirling monstrosities. Look at the map on the Windfarm Sites page of CWIFs site (http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk) - they're spread throughout the county so no one will be unaffected.
This county already has 42 turbines installed, another 9 approved, and a horrendous 212 proposed. Sutherlands figures (17, 38 & 304) are also cringeable.
Now tell me. Will you look back at your pro-windfarm stance and think that maybe you should have added a dissenting voice earlier instead?
Just a little food for thought.
Dounreay was built on a brown field site. The windfarms are not.
I wouldn't want Caithness to be inundated with the bloomin' things.
It seems that this is the developers aim.......£££££££££££££££££££££££££
Incidentally, if anyone is interested, I have quantified what level of windfarm proliferation that I would tolerate in Caithness. Of course this is a purely personal preference but it amounts to a total capacity of 240MW. I think that is more than enough which is the equivalent of 5 of the Causeymire-size windfarms. I wouldn't want Caithness to be inundated with the bloomin' things.
Where would you suggest we put these extra four Causeymire sized windfarms then Rheghead? I suspect anywhere apart from your backyard. It never ceases to amaze me how people spout off about how elegant and environmentally friendly these things are and how anyone who dares say they dislike them is branded as an 'anti' or 'nimby' or something even more derogatory that couldn't be printed here. Why is it so wrong to not want one of these factories towering over your backyard when you once had a lovely view of the wonderful Caithness landscape? Maybe there is a place for onshore windfarms (I personally don't believe there is) but that place is certainly not close to people's homes who do not want them. It was assumed, quite wrongly, that the people of the Watten community would jump at the chance of all that money that was being dangled infront of them and that the vocal minority was, as usual, just that. The results of the community ballot were announced last night and the Watten community have voted against the windfarm proposed for Spittal Hill. The vocal majority have at long last been allowed to be heard.
The visible impact of windfarms is a very subjective issue and being visible doesn't mean that they are intrusive. Some orgers see them as intrusive but some see them as elegant and a symbol of a cleaner and brighter tomorrow. If the GPO put thousands of green telephone boxes all over the countryside in the 1930s and then replaced them with red ones in 2007, there would be a national outcry of ugly red boxes blighting our town and country areas. So all in all, the visual impact is in the eye of the beholder in the spirit of the times. Things change. I think there is a place for windfarms.
Ach, Rheghead...........nobody would complain about the red telephone boxes........unless they were going to put 20 upwards at a time on every public park in Caithness towns.
ywindythesecond
11-Jul-07, 00:22
The visible impact of windfarms is a very subjective issue and being visible doesn't mean that they are intrusive. Some orgers see them as intrusive but some see them as elegant and a symbol of a cleaner and brighter tomorrow. If the GPO put thousands of green telephone boxes all over the countryside in the 1930s and then replaced them with red ones in 2007, there would be a national outcry of ugly red boxes blighting our town and country areas. So all in all, the visual impact is in the eye of the beholder in the spirit of the times. Things change. I think there is a place for windfarms.
Incidentally, if anyone is interested, I have quantified what level of windfarm proliferation that I would tolerate in Caithness. Of course this is a purely personal preference but it amounts to a total capacity of 240MW. I think that is more than enough which is the equivalent of 5 of the Causeymire-size windfarms. I wouldn't want Caithness to be inundated with the bloomin' things.
I think we are seeing progress here Reggy. A quota for Caithness, or any other area as a realistic share of the problem is a brilliant idea, but we are being put upon! To go one step further, your 240MW should be placed in locations best suited and least obtrusive. Where did you have in mind?
ywindythesecond
11-Jul-07, 00:30
Dounreay was built on a brown field site. The windfarms are not.
I am in favour of brownfield windfarm development. I am looking for venture capital to develope a 17 turbine 51MW project on the former Longman Tip Site in Inverness. Please PM me with investment offers.
ywindythesecond
Rheghead
So, you say you would accept 5 Causewaymire (21 turbines) sites = 105 turbines for Caithness.
Causewaymire (21) + Forss + Extension (6) + Buolfruich (15) +
9 others already approved = 51 out of your 105 turbines already taken into account.
Now say then that Spittal Hill (30) & Camster (25) get the go ahead that would exceed your allowed 105.
Would you then start campaigning against any further windfarm developments in Caithness?
However, what if all the developments proposed are approved because Hey! Caithness already has 7 windfarms, why not put up more 'cos there's been so little resistance from the locals?...
...and suddenly Caithness is littered with them. You won't be able to look in any direction without seeing these whirling monstrosities. Look at the map on the Windfarm Sites page of CWIFs site (http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk) - they're spread throughout the county so no one will be unaffected.
This county already has 42 turbines installed, another 9 approved, and a horrendous 212 proposed. Sutherlands figures (17, 38 & 304) are also cringeable.
Now tell me. Will you look back at your pro-windfarm stance and think that maybe you should have added a dissenting voice earlier instead?
Just a little food for thought.
Your figure of 105 turbines has little to do with MW capacity because there are different size of turbines available. Incidentally, the larger the turbines are and the more pronounced topographically they are, the more efficient they are. So ironically, anti wind campaigners should be campaigning for larger and bigger turbines to cut down the need for turbine proliferation.
It was assumed, quite wrongly, that the people of the Watten community would jump at the chance of all that money that was being dangled infront of them and that the vocal minority was, as usual, just that. The results of the community ballot were announced last night and the Watten community have voted against the windfarm proposed for Spittal Hill. The vocal majority have at long last been allowed to be heard.
As far as I see it, only just 46% of the electorate voted, so that means 54% couldn't care less or couldn't.
I see that as a strong vote for the Spittal development.
I think we are seeing progress here Reggy. A quota for Caithness, or any other area as a realistic share of the problem is a brilliant idea
Thanks :)
your 240MW should be placed in locations best suited and least obtrusive. Where did you have in mind?
I am quite easy about it, but it really should be up to just the landowners to decide, a rather laissez faire approach would stop a lot of heartache.
As far as I see it, only just 46% of the electorate voted, so that means 54% couldn't care less or couldn't.
I see that as a strong vote for the Spittal development.
Really? Well, those who couldn't be bothered to vote for whatever reason, forfeited their vote. As with all elections it is only the voting group that count. Therefore, the result is against the windfarm and the community council are objecting to it - sorry but you've lost this one.
Really? Well, those who couldn't be bothered to vote for whatever reason, forfeited their vote. As with all elections it is only the voting group that count. Therefore, the result is against the windfarm and the community council are objecting to it - sorry but you've lost this one.
I am afraid that they weren't running a 'first past the post vote' in Watten like in a parliamentary election.
The vote only showed that there are more people who have an explicit opinion against the development as opposed those who have an explicit opinion in favour for the development. The results of the vote were roughly 60% against, 40% for. In the overall picture, that means 28% were against the development leaving 72% who are either for the development or have no opinion for whatever reason.
What the vote really proved was that the anti feeling is very much in the minority of Watten residents.
You should have been in politics Rheggers....
Spin Doctor or what?......
Rheghead.
Question ; How long have you lived in the county ???
I am afraid that they weren't running a 'first past the post vote' in Watten like in a parliamentary election.
The vote only showed that there are more people who have an explicit opinion against the development as opposed those who have an explicit opinion in favour for the development. The results of the vote were roughly 60% against, 40% for. In the overall picture, that means 28% were against the development leaving 72% who are either for the development or have no opinion for whatever reason.
What the vote really proved was that the anti feeling is very much in the minority of Watten residents.
OK, maybe I got the terminology wrong, sorry not election I meant ballot, but as I said before the only ones that count are the people who voted, the ones as you say with an explicit opinion. The result was just over 62% against by the way. The decision has been made, the community council is objecting to the windfarm - end of story and end of my posts on this particular subject. The 'antis' won this battle.
i dont care to much for the windfarms myself, BUT i think that they would be a damn sight easier to dispose of than dounereay
I am quite easy about it, but it really should be up to just the landowners to decide, a rather laissez faire approach would stop a lot of heartache.
Um, what on earth are you talking about? Landowners to decide where windfarms should go? This would stop heartache?
Bobinovich
11-Jul-07, 22:55
Your figure of 105 turbines has little to do with MW capacity because there are different size of turbines available. Incidentally, the larger the turbines are and the more pronounced topographically they are, the more efficient they are. So ironically, anti wind campaigners should be campaigning for larger and bigger turbines to cut down the need for turbine proliferation.
I'm not quite sure you've turned my post into MW capacity - I was quoting number of turbines!
However, as you've mentioned it, you said you reckoned 240MW would be an ample figure for Caithness to produce - the windfarms I listed actually total over 255MW.
Caithness consumes 60MW .SSE Figures.
I'm not quite sure you've turned my post into MW capacity - I was quoting number of turbines!
However, as you've mentioned it, you said you reckoned 240MW would be an ample figure for Caithness to produce - the windfarms I listed actually total over 255MW.
I do not quite understand the point (if any) you were making, but in my book the larger a windfarm is, the more efficient it is and so overall, the less visual impact there will be across an area.
I would rather have fewer windfarms consisting of >4MW giant turbines than lots of 1MW jobbies.
Bobinovich
11-Jul-07, 23:21
Well Rheg, since you didn't bother answering either of my queries, I thought it hardly worthwhile understanding why you were harping on about MW capacity, or windfarm or turbine sizes, especially seeing they weren't relevant to my post!!!
Lets go through my two queries again shall we, and then I'll think about windfarm and turbine sizes?
If a total of 105 turbines/240MW+ capacity were built in Caithness, would you then start campaigning against any further windfarm developments in Caithness?
and
Should the above happen and then further windfarms start getting approved and built, will you look back at your pro-windfarm stance and think that maybe you should have added a dissenting voice earlier instead?
I am afraid that they weren't running a 'first past the post vote' in Watten like in a parliamentary election.
The vote only showed that there are more people who have an explicit opinion against the development as opposed those who have an explicit opinion in favour for the development. The results of the vote were roughly 60% against, 40% for. In the overall picture, that means 28% were against the development leaving 72% who are either for the development or have no opinion for whatever reason.
What the vote really proved was that the anti feeling is very much in the minority of Watten residents.Oh dear, that old chestnut. "Those who didn't other to vote are obviously not against it so they must be for it."
Sorry, it is equally arguable that those who didn't vote knew there would be a majority who would represent their views and as a result didn't make the effort to partake.
Assuming that non-voters are all of one opinion either way is a complete non-starter because it "proves" absolutely nothing except wishful thinking.
Makes one wonder about the results of Rhegheads Poll - what spin will he put on the 100's of Org members who didn't vote. Pro Windies or Anti Windies?...
...or couldnae-be-bothered-windies....
Oh dear, that old chestnut. "Those who didn't other to vote are obviously not against it so they must be for it."
I never said anything of the sort.
As far as I see it, only just 46% of the electorate voted, so that means 54% couldn't care less or couldn't.
What the vote really proved was that the anti feeling is very much in the minority of Watten residents. Seems clear enough to me. The assumption is that the 54% who didn’t vote “couldn’t care less” about Turbines being placed in their area and therefore can be considered not to be against them.
That is a very big assumption to make with nothing to give it credence.
Seems clear enough to me. The assumption is that the 54% who didn’t vote “couldn’t care less” about Turbines being placed in their area and therefore can be considered not to be against them.
That is a very big assumption to make with nothing to give it credence.
It is like when the owner of the plot over road notified me of his plans to put up a house. I wasn't expressly in favour of it, I wasn't particularly against his plans so I didn't register any objection. Therefore the house is getting built. The people who didn't vote certainly didn't feel any strong objection to the windfarm being built, I don't think that is a big assumption. It certainly backs up my judgement that the anti wind brigade are a very vocal minority. The non-voters certainly didn't feel motivated enough to have their objections be heard.
Ah but if he wished to plant 50 turbines over the road from you, and you did not benefit one volt from it, would you be as happy every time you stepped out side your door?
A house is not an 'industrial development'....
Ah but if he wished to plant 50 turbines over the road from you, and you did not benefit one volt from it, would you be as happy every time you stepped out side your door?
A house is not an 'industrial development'....
Obviously there is threshold of tolerance for any neighbour of a windfarm. I don't think over the road would be suitable for me or any other residents. However, anything over 200m would be ok for me but for the nimbys who knows? Probably no distance is great enough.
And anyway, industrial developments have been built next to housing since the industrial revolution or rather visa versa. It is something that we get used to. After 2000 years there is not one piece of land that hasn't been changed by the human race, so I don't think that arguement is valid.
Whitewater
12-Jul-07, 12:46
Obviously the power station, but the reason is quite simple, the power station is in focus, the windmills are not.
After 2000 years there is not one piece of land that hasn't been changed by the human race,
I'm sure if we looked hard enough we could find some...
ywindythesecond
12-Jul-07, 20:52
Obviously there is threshold of tolerance for any neighbour of a windfarm. I don't think over the road would be suitable for me or any other residents. However, anything over 200m would be ok for me but for the nimbys who knows?
The closest turbine to the road at Causeymire is 250 metres away. Are you really suggesting that you would choose to live 50 metres closer to it, or not be a little bothered if a windfarm was planned so close? Not that they are, but you seem to be saying that is acceptable? Probably no distance is great enough.
And anyway, industrial developments have been built next to housing since the industrial revolution or rather visa versa. It is something that we get used to. Where do you live that you have got used to it!!??After 2000 years there is not one piece of land that hasn't been changed by the human race, so I don't think that arguement is valid.
Reggy, you have no credibility!
ywindythesecond
...Incidentally, if anyone is interested, I have quantified what level of windfarm proliferation that I would tolerate in Caithness. Of course this is a purely personal preference but it amounts to a total capacity of 240MW. I think that is more than enough which is the equivalent of 5 of the Causeymire-size windfarms. I wouldn't want Caithness to be inundated with the bloomin' things.
Glad to see you don't want to see Caithness inundated with the 'bloomin' things'.
Are you prepared to take any action to prevent that from happening?
240MW? An installed capacity of 240MW would displace around 80 MW of conventional generating capacity. Does the tiny carbon benefit of this course of action outweigh the substantial cost (both to the countryside and our pockets)? Might there not be other less 'costly' solutions available - with a little will and a ROC like incentive?
The HRES has set a target for of 1400 MW of onshore wind by 2020
(2900 MW by 2050). Caithness target 250 MW.
Do you consider this reasonable? Do you think this target discourages landowners and windfarm developers from exploiting the Highlands?
What about our neighbours in SE Sutherland - for example? A target of 1300 MW by 2050.
Is it OK with you to cover Sutherland in the 'bloomin' things' then?
peter macdonald
13-Jul-07, 10:37
What ever the result it is good that the people of Watten had THEIR say on this
.Its just a pity more did not exercise the option to do so . I hope the powers that be will listen to their views (whether they take heed is another matter as re the mast over at Durran where the community councils objections were Hmmm "noted") with more sensitivity than the "Angry of Home Counties North" style serial objectors which this subject attracts
PM
Glad to see you don't want to see Caithness inundated with the 'bloomin' things'.
Are you prepared to take any action to prevent that from happening?When the capacity exceeds 250MW, I may consider it
240MW? An installed capacity of 240MW would displace around 80 MW of conventional generating capacity. Does the tiny carbon benefit of this course of action outweigh the substantial cost (both to the countryside and our pockets)? Might there not be other less 'costly' solutions available - with a little will and a ROC like incentive? I think it will be a large carbon displacement therefore of great benefit to the environment
The HRES has set a target for of 1400 MW of onshore wind by 2020
(2900 MW by 2050). Caithness target 250 MW.
Do you consider this reasonable? Do you think this target discourages landowners and windfarm developers from exploiting the Highlands?
What about our neighbours in SE Sutherland - for example? A target of 1300 MW by 2050.
Is it OK with you to cover Sutherland in the 'bloomin' things' then?
I don't think 240/250MW of capacity would be classified as Caithness being inundated in turbines. Sutherland is a much larger county, similarly, it won't seem like it is inundated in turbines either provided that they are sited appropriately. Where the developers get it wrong then they shouldn't be allowed to build. But there is a new planning process out soon, that should sort out all the hold ups in the planning stage.
But there is a new planning process out soon, that should sort out all the hold ups in the planning stage.
Meaning the developers won't have to suffer the public objecting?........
I don't think 240/250MW of capacity would be classified as Caithness being inundated in turbines. Sutherland is a much larger county, similarly, it won't seem like it is inundated in turbines either provided that they are sited appropriately. Where the developers get it wrong then they shouldn't be allowed to build. But there is a new planning process out soon, that should sort out all the hold ups in the planning stage.
Sutherland may be larger than Caithness but the target is for South East Sutherland - therefore 'inundated' is applicable in this instance.
So size matters, does it? In that case you'll be expecting to see 2 turbines in England for every one in Scotland. What's the chances? Maybe pigs do indeed fly!
I'm disappointed though Rheghead. You haven't thanked the 'nimbys' for all their hard work. Highland Council had much bigger windy plans for Caithness in their draft HRES. Thankfully some people in this county chose to fight to close the gate BEFORE the horse had bolted. Were it not for the 'nimbys' Rheghead the Caithness target would have been three times greater than the 250 MW you consider acceptable.
The trouble is the developers are completely ignoring the HRES - can you believe that? Now, we've got to wait and see how much weight HRES carries with the Scottish Executive. So what to do? Pro-active and we might stand a chance. Re-active - oh dear, too late.
The trouble is the developers are completely ignoring the HRES - can you believe that?
I can believe that because the onus is not on the developers to go along with it. It is the job of the powers that be who approve plans to take it into consideration.
As for the targets in the draft HRES, they were ambitious but nobody had any conceived ideas that they weren't. Global Warming is a very serious threat, over the next century about a third of the World's species will be threatened, so ambitious plans need to implemented. As I said in my previous posts, windfarm impact is a purely personal thing, if nobody felt that way about them then htere would be no problem.
What means more to you? A third of all species on the planet or the mere inconveniance of a bit visual impact in the Highlands??:confused
Meaning the developers won't have to suffer the public objecting?........
If that means the windfarms can be fast-tracked then surely that is a good thing? The clock is ticking...
Sorry Rheggers but fast tracking any development which might have an impact on peoples lives or 'the landscape', riding roughshod over a persons right to object is wrong. The government has attempted to do this already with a 'simplification' of the planning process down here. Basically your rights to object to any development is severly restricted. That is not a good thing. Would you be happy if they decided to build a prison or paedophile refuge next to you? How about a meat rendering plant or landfill? All these things would get approved in your 'fast track' world and you would have no choice but to accept them, along with the loss of value on your property, the degradation of your quality of life (enshrined in the HRA) and possibly your health.
But that's OK, cos the planning system is so much easier when no-one can object.....[disgust]
Sorry Rheggers but fast tracking any development which might have an impact on peoples lives or 'the landscape', riding roughshod over a persons right to object is wrong.
No, under the next system, the objections will be heard and considered but the whole process will be speeded up. A 'No' from the anti brigade, no matter how many times it is said, still counts as a single 'No' when the decision for approval is made.
Are you happy to pay as a tax payer for things to be drawn out as they are now? :confused
Boozeburglar
14-Jul-07, 14:49
The fact you had to take it from Sandside to get that perspective, to lend any weight to your point, says it all. Dounreay disappears from view once over any nearby hill. I can't see Dounreay from Dunnet Head.
Freakin windmills. They are inefficient, they bring no work, they are a a straw man for the Nuclear lobby, nothing more.
Pathetic.
They are inefficient.
wrong.
In terms of thermal efficiency they can be 500% efficient.
They will be used to mitigate the fossil fuel useage from the most inefficient plants eg coal which can be <20% thermally inefficient. IOW, it takes 5 times of chemical energy to produce one unit of electrical energy.
How can this be deemed to be inefficient?:confused
The fact you had to take it from Sandside to get that perspective, to lend any weight to your point, says it all.
The fact that the vote is so close when I had done so says it all too...
The question was 'what has the most visual impact in this scene?' the fact that nearly half have voted for the least most visually impacting thing ie windfarms just exposes the blinkered perception of windfarms.
No, I am happy as a taxpayer that if I wish to object to a development my objection is considered, and if 300 people object or 3,000, then they are considered as that number and not as one objection (if I understand what you are saying).
The speeding up of the objection process was felt by many as a way for developers to get their plans through with the minimum of delay, short circuiting the process if you will, and removing the option of members of the public submitting any objections.
Now maybe I have read the process incorrectly but can only repeat what I have heard/read down here in the south. It was seen as the Labour government and in particular Prescott being able to over rule any local objections to any developments THEY wanted pushing through...
Boozeburglar
14-Jul-07, 19:21
Wind turbines are at best 25% efficient and if they were to provide electricity 100% of the time during their life they would become ‘carbon neutral’ only after two thirds of it. In reality, they are very sporadic in production of power so backup power sources run inefficiently on standby, waiting to fill the frequent gaps in production. With this figured in, wind turbines never achieve carbon neutrality.
Their installation is permanently destroying the fragile ecosystems they frequently inhabit. There is little reason why we cannot use them somewhere but they should be sited much more carefully. Peat bogs are not ideal sites. Brownfield sites near major centres of energy consumption are.
I won't be taking lessons in environmental concern from someone who obviously has no appreciation of the surrounding natural beauty in Caithness, judging by their taste for its destruction.
Wind turbines are at best 25% efficient and if they were to provide electricity 100% of the time during their life they would become ‘carbon neutral’ only after two thirds of it. In reality, they are very sporadic in production of power so backup power sources run inefficiently on standby, waiting to fill the frequent gaps in production. With this figured in, wind turbines never achieve carbon neutrality.
Windfarms mitigate the same amount of carbon that took to produce them within 6 months of operation, that is even taking into account of the 25% efficiency that you so gleefully keeping reminding me about.
I won't be taking lessons in environmental concern from someone who obviously has no appreciation of the surrounding natural beauty in Caithness, judging by their taste for its destruction.
There won't BE any original beauty of Caithness given the rate that we are burning fossil fuels. How many reports of new sightings of southern dwelling wildlife and gardeners being able to grow more exotic species in their gardens does it take for us to appreciate that? Also, I am seeing more garden escape plants up on drumhollistan, is that just a coincidence? No more wild heath/bogland eh?
Apart from the beauty of Caithness, global Warming is changing the fabric of our society. For one, Morven Ski Club has packed in due to lack of snow, we are seeing more people coming to Caithness to retire from the south who are not put off by the dreaded cold, the heather fires get more out of control each year because the ground is drier, there is probably more if I thought about it.
Come on, lets get real about Global Warming!! Every tangible action no matter how small is better than a million good intentions!
ywindythesecond
16-Jul-07, 00:04
[quote=Rheghead;241936]Windfarms mitigate the same amount of carbon that took to produce them within 6 months of operation, that is even taking into account of the 25% efficiency that you so gleefully keeping reminding me about.
Show me the sums please Reggy
ywindythesecond
Show me the sums please Reggy
ywindythesecond
Please show me your sums to prove otherwise. There are plenty of references from the wind industry (http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/env/enpaybk.htm)to support this.
I have already gone through mine in a previous post on another thread (which independently calculates the energy balance from first principles and which closely supported the info from the wind industry), none of which were refuted, just rubbished. In terms of carbon savings it is like spending a penny to save a pound!!
http://www.members.aol.com/sabbytut/banghead.gif
This Report (http://www.rics.org/NR/rdonlyres/66225A93-840F-49F2-8820-0EBCCC29E8A4/0/Windfarmsfinalreport.pdf) provides interesting reading. Not all doom and gloom...
Bobinovich
16-Jul-07, 13:49
...but the report you have linked to itself says "More than half (60%) of those surveyors involved in residential property transactions affected by a wind farm development (i.e where a wind farm is visible from the property), reported that values were lower than for comparable properties which were unaffected" which may sound gloomy enough for some.
Anyway, based on the response rates, and factoring in the low percentage of surveyors who have had any experience in post-windfarm transactions, I consider that it'll take a fair while longer before the the results are truly reflective.
Wow, 32 to 32 - seems like the no's may have it...or is it the ayes.. .or is it a draw... or whatever....
George Brims
16-Jul-07, 21:15
http://www.conergy.com/epuron/derwind.swf
Just an amusing wee thing (you need to have flash installed to watch it). Not taking a position either way on this complicated issue. Well not today anyway...
...but the report you have linked to itself says "More than half (60%) of those surveyors involved in residential property transactions affected by a wind farm development (i.e where a wind farm is visible from the property), reported that values were lower than for comparable properties which were unaffected" which may sound gloomy enough for some.
.
Even so, either way.....cheaper housing in rural areas must be a boon for those locals who are struggling to get on the house market...
Definitely the windfarm. Vulcan's Yellow Submarine & the UKAEA's Golfball don't go spinning around distracting my attention from the road when I'm driving by. So that's 37/34.
Definitely the windfarm. Vulcan's Yellow Submarine & the UKAEA's Golfball don't go spinning around distracting my attention from the road when I'm driving by. So that's 37/34.
As the turbines are hardly visible, it just goes to show how out of proportion the mindset of anti windfarm people are.
Really, take another look, do you really think that the most visually impacting is the windfarm?
If they were a little dot on the landscape, would the vote be any different.
The vote is not about approval of windfarms, it is about this scene and this scene alone.
Rheghead -the poll question is :-
"Nice scene! But which thing is the most visually intrusive? "
I've answered that question, albeit from the view I normally have driving by. You are making assumptions about my opinion of windfarms which I have not stated here.
I have not suggested in my post that the vote is about the approval of windfarms or otherwise, though that is what the thread has become - was that your intention in setting the poll up?
I have not suggested in my post that the vote is about the approval of windfarms or otherwise, though that is what the thread has become - was that your intention in setting the poll up?
My hopes and intention for the poll has been vindicated. My poll was literally what it was, just about the scene but the result has shown that people (to use an artist's lingo) have used their left-hand side of the brain to assess the video. They see a windturbine, they know what they are and they have voted accordingly upon what they have been told or learned rather than what they see. If we were to use the right hand side of the brain, it is obvious that the most dominating thing in the picture is the Dounreay site, without being prompted, probably 90% of orgers wouldn't have noticed the windturbines in the background.
Since, visual appreciation is dominated by the right hand side of our brains and that we now know it is not being used (right hand side brain activity is less dominant in most adults, it is normal btw), do you think that people's view of windturbines is corrupted by anti-windfarm propaganda rather than the true visual impact of them?
If however, I had taken the video from east of Forss looking west with Dounreay in the background, then I would expect the windfarm vote to be even more prominent though I would expect the non-righthandside-brain-users to vote for Dounreay only if they were anti nuke. It is interesting exercise from that aspect if nowt else, how one's point of view and individual bias can affect what they think they see rather than what they actually see.
ywindythesecond
17-Jul-07, 21:53
Please show me your sums to prove otherwise. There are plenty of references from the wind industry (http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/env/enpaybk.htm)to support this.
I have already gone through mine in a previous post on another thread (which independently calculates the energy balance from first principles and which closely supported the info from the wind industry), none of which were refuted, just rubbished. In terms of carbon savings it is like spending a penny to save a pound!!
http://www.members.aol.com/sabbytut/banghead.gif
This Report (http://www.rics.org/NR/rdonlyres/66225A93-840F-49F2-8820-0EBCCC29E8A4/0/Windfarmsfinalreport.pdf) provides interesting reading. Not all doom and gloom...
The report you refer to is dated 1995. Please provide a link to your previous post with calculations from first principles.
ywy2
ywindythesecond
17-Jul-07, 22:02
My hopes and intention for the poll has been vindicated. My poll was literally what it was, just about the scene but the result has shown that people (to use an artist's lingo) have used their left-hand side of the brain to assess the video. They see a windturbine, they know what they are and they have voted accordingly upon what they have been told or learned rather than what they see. If we were to use the right hand side of the brain, it is obvious that the most dominating thing in the picture is the Dounreay site, without being prompted, probably 90% of orgers wouldn't have noticed the windturbines in the background.
Since, visual appreciation is dominated by the right hand side of our brains and that we now know it is not being used (right hand side brain activity is less dominant in most adults, it is normal btw), do you think that people's view of windturbines is corrupted by anti-windfarm propaganda rather than the true visual impact of them?
If however, I had taken the video from east of Forss looking west with Dounreay in the background, then I would expect the windfarm vote to be even more prominent though I would expect the non-righthandside-brain-users to vote for Dounreay only if they were anti nuke. It is interesting exercise from that aspect if nowt else, how one's point of view and individual bias can affect what they think they see rather than what they actually see.
Interesting reply Reggy.
Most pollsters are independent, and take no part in the debate.
Where does that leave you on a score of 1-10 for "independent and impartial?"
Interesting reply Reggy.
Most pollsters are independent, and take no part in the debate.
Where does that leave you on a score of 1-10 for "independent and impartial?"
No pollster is truly impartial.:) BTW I really can't be bother to trawl though all my posts on windfarms to get those calculations, it would take me hours, I just don't have time atm, got me hands full! :)
This is quite interesting as well.
http://www.thevisualissue.com/The%20Visual%20Issue.pdf
The report you refer to is dated 1995.ywy2
My apologies it should be Report (http://www.rics.org/NR/rdonlyres/63D1BF3E-A608-45CD-8086-A6E7924D7F14/0/WindfarmsFiBREversionthreelowres.pdf)
Welcomefamily
18-Jul-07, 08:44
You got windfarms in caithness? I lived here a number of years and have never noticed, but then coming from Cornwall you only consider it to be a windfarm when its a bunch of 50 or more turbines.
This is quite interesting as well.
http://www.thevisualissue.com/The%20Visual%20Issue.pdf
Is that all you have to say? It seems to prove that the windfarm industry is pulling the wool over the eyes of the public during the planning process. It seems the SNH have climbed into bed with the windfarm developers. Nice and cosy in there are we?
At least the CWIF use objects in their montage which a person might be able to relate to (Dunnet Church).
Or are you going to use a well known tactic of a certain orger and turn it around to point the finger of blame at the anti-windfarm element because they also use these flawed visual assessments of windfarm developments?
Or does it vindicate your use of such an image for your poll?
Looks like the Davidstow "Community" Windfarm is using this very visual trick....
http://img412.imageshack.us/img412/6779/picture1rb2.th.png (http://img412.imageshack.us/my.php?image=picture1rb2.png)
Now while I applaud them (albeit with one hand) for using a brownfield site they are actually only locating half of the 20 turbines on the old airfield despite them stating "Turbine locations have been designed to stand within abandoned taxi-ways and runways."
Tsk tsk tsk....
You got windfarms in caithness? I lived here a number of years and have never noticed, but then coming from Cornwall you only consider it to be a windfarm when its a bunch of 50 or more turbines.
Before long Caithness will probably resemble Cornwall with its wind factories. Cornwall only has 7 sites, with a total of 103 turbines, only one site has 22 (Cold Northcott) and the average site has 12 turbines so I guess by your reckoning Cornwall has NO wind factories?
If all the wind factory schemes for Caithness went through/won appeal there would be almost 3 times the number that Cornwall has.
Just because Caithness and Cornwall are so similar in landscape doesn't mean that Caithness should become the mirror image of Cornwall...[disgust]
http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/8066/windfarmnumbers2dm4.gif
Green_not_greed
18-Jul-07, 16:39
Alistair Campbell would have been proud of his spin predecessor, one Joeseph Goebbals, who said "“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
This is exactly the tactics being used by windfarm developers in the UK, pushed by Al Gore and fully backed by the UK Government (who also control the purse strings for so-called independent statutory consultees e.g. SNH, HSE and MoD).
Lies and more lies, repeated ad nauseum. Windfarms are unobtrusive? Blend well into the landscape? Quiet? Safe? Good for the community? Welcomed by the silent majority? Cost effective? Please give us all a break! At least my eyes are wide open on this one.
This is all about screwing more and more money from the public through invisible taxes to pay for it all. Hand-in-hand with the government, and several local councillors, the developers are laughing all the way to the bank.
It is worth adding a little extra carbon footprint to take a tour of some of the viewpoints in and around the County on several clear days - e.g. Dunnet Head (by the House of the Northern Gate), Sletill Hill (just over the border - but a smashing view), Morven and Ben Dorrery not to mention some of the higher sections of roads throughout the County. You quickly get a feel from several of these sites what impact the current wind farms have.
If you have a good map it is worth then adding what is proposed and has already obtained permission but is yet to be built and imagining what it will look like from your chosen vantage point.
If nothing else you will have a nice day out exploring the nook and crannies of the County - but it will provide a better guide on which to base comments on visual intrusion than any photomontage.
This thread has certainly brought about some argument - but what is it all about.
GLOBAL WARMING!!! - this happened to end the ICE AGE - otherwise we would all be under several hundred feet of ice. What goes around - comes around.
My answers to some of the points raised:-
The Turbines on the picture with Dounray looked out of place, because D'ray has been there for ever.
The Causemire windfarm can be seen for miles in almost any direction, as can the eyesore up at Janets place outside Thurso.
As to the ballot - I always understood that the most votes won on any subject - won.
If you want to feel the Wind turbines, go to Causemire and listen to the noise they make.
Nobody in their right mind can say that they enhance the view or the landscape. They are a shambles and an eyesore wherever they are put.
Don't take my word for it - look at them - even at Forss they look a mess.
They are not necessary - and if we are short on power - the cleanest and obvious answer is to turn Dounray into a Nuclear Power Station.
And for those that asked the question - I have lived in Caithness for two and a half years, and love it and it's people, and should have come years ago.
Lies and more lies, repeated ad nauseum. Windfarms are unobtrusive? Blend well into the landscape?
I think you need to develop your right hand side of your brain a wee bit more...
Nobody in their right mind can say that they enhance the view or the landscape. They are a shambles and an eyesore wherever they are put.
.
That purely of an individual's opinion. I don't like the smell of coffee flavoured icing on cakes, it wrenches me but I appreciate that some people love it, i wouldn't want to ban it. Similiarly, some people hate and love windturbines. At the end of the day, they provide valuable renewable energy that has proven itself in the marketplace and in the environment.
Global warming is the biggest threat to our society.
http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/8066/windfarmnumbers2dm4.gif
There is a wee bit of empty space in the SW of caithness devoid of coloured dots, what a waste!
[quote=Rheghead;243750]That purely of an individual's opinion. I don't like the smell of coffee flavoured icing on cakes, it wrenches me but I appreciate that some people love it, i wouldn't want to ban it. Similiarly, some people hate and love windturbines. At the end of the day, they provide valuable renewable energy that has proven itself in the marketplace and in the environment.
WHERE and WHEN???
WHERE and WHEN???
Use your eyes, windturbines produce ~carbon free electricity and emit no pollution and are highly profitable for the developers. Everyone is a winner, no?
Use your eyes, windturbines produce ~carbon free electricity and emit no pollution and are highly profitable for the developers. Everyone is a winner, no?
no!
If we give the Developers some more profit, we may cover Caithness in these things, and still be short on Electricity.
I can't help but see them - every time I go out.
I am going to breed a special type of Beaver that likes to chew through the bottom of them.
Green_not_greed
19-Jul-07, 13:25
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rheghead http://forum.caithness.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?p=243772#post243772)
Use your eyes, windturbines produce ~carbon free electricity and emit no pollution and are highly profitable for the developers. Everyone is a winner, no?
And no again!
The only reason developers are in this game is for profit - its nothing to do with being green, its all about money.
Its money from us UK taxpayers which is going directly into developers pockets. As things are, most of us are losers, not winners.
I'd like to see those subsidies cut for wind turbines as the technology is now "proven". Profits should be channeled into R&D for wave and tidal power, where the funds are needed. If the government was serious about dealing with CO2 reduction in the long term, that would be the best way forward. As it is, we are all paying for a bunch of useless ivory towers.
Highland Council issued a Renewable Energy Strategy last year. It put a target of wind generation capacity for Caithness as between 10-100MW. We are already in excess of 85MW, and so any remaining Caithness turbines should be solely for small, community-based schemes.
And as for "carbon-free electricity" and "no pollution", who's brain is seriouly addled? Turbines have to be manufactured, ore mined and purified for the steel, components shipped from Denmark then transported by road - there is a huge carbon cost just to get the things in place. You can't create something for nothing!
And once they are past their sell-by date, the huge concrete bases are simply left in place, continuing to leach alkalis into the surrounding soil for hundreds of years, affecting waterways and local habitats.
Use your eyes indeed, if they're not already too blinkered......
...As for the targets in the draft HRES, they were ambitious but nobody had any conceived ideas that they weren't.
Ambitious!! Well I suppose that's one way of putting it. I interpreted it rather differently.
Please can you explain why the 'ambitious' draft target set for SE Sutherland is now the actual target. Anything to do with the fact that only about a dozen people took part in the consultation on the draft strategy in Sutherland?
As I said before, thankfully hundreds of people in Caithness were aware of the 'ambitious' Caithness target and chose to take the time and the effort to make their views known. Hence, vastly reduced target. Hope you were one of the hundreds, Rheghead. If so, thankyou.
Global Warming is a very serious threat, over the next century about a third of the World's species will be threatened, so ambitious plans need to implemented. As I said in my previous posts, windfarm impact is a purely personal thing, if nobody felt that way about them then htere would be no problem.
What means more to you? A third of all species on the planet or the mere inconveniance of a bit visual impact in the Highlands??:confused
I take issue with your suggestion that windfarm impact is purely personal. What about Caithness - this magnificent county we live in? Do you not consider it worthy of protection from exploitation?
Your stance on the threat of global warming is commendable. I agree ambitious plans are required. I just don't believe the wind turbine could ever be described as 'ambitious'. Nope, just had another think, definitely not ambitious.
Do you really believe that the developers give a toss about climate change or the Highlands or Caithness? The same goes for landowners selling out, councils and community benefit - the majority don't give a stuff about the warming planet or the dying species.
Are you suggesting that a third of all species on the planet are to be saved by turbines in the Highlands?
Could you please expand on the benefits (reversing climate change) of Highland taking such extreme onshore wind measures if the rest of the UK don't act similarly.
Just a thought, but let's suppose across the UK onshore windfarms were developed at the same level of concentration as is proposed for Highland.
What would be the installed wind capacity in the UK?
What about the problem of intermittancy at that level of wind penetration?
Do you want to see a 'fair' spread of development (if we must) - across the length and breadth of the UK.
BTW - watched your video clip and voted that Dounreay is more visually intrusive than the Forss turbines from the point at which the video was taken. Have no idea what the poll's about though.
I take issue with your suggestion that windfarm impact is purely personal. What about Caithness - this magnificent county we live in? Do you not consider it worthy of protection from exploitation?
In there lies the weakness of your complete nimbyist arguement. It is not just you but nimbys that want to preserve their own piece of turf without a a jot of consideration that there is a world that is burning up fossil fuels that harm your environment.
The only reason developers are in this game is for profit - its nothing to do with being green, its all about money
Come on Greed, use your noggin, money is king, it will always be so.
There is no other source of renewable energy iow tidal, wave solar etc that isn't determined by the green stuff....
no!
If we give the Developers some more profit, we may cover Caithness in these things, and still be short on Electricity.
I can't help but see them - every time I go out.
I am going to breed a special type of Beaver that likes to chew through the bottom of them.
cf my response to GReen not greed. Without profit there will be no success stories
In there lies the weakness of your complete nimbyist arguement. It is not just you but nimbys that want to preserve their own piece of turf without a a jot of consideration that there is a world that is burning up fossil fuels that harm your environment.
Rheghead,
I can honestly say I am not arguing from a NIMBY viewpoint. In fact I am 600 miles away from Caithness so I'd not see the damn things.
But I am arguing from the standpoint that Caithness is a wonderful landscape to be preserved not subjected to industrialisation on a grand scale. And the wind factory advocates say that they are not industrial developments but I am afraid that they are.
I would be happy for brownfield sites down here to be utilised for this cause if I knew it was going to spare places like Caithness or other areas of outstanding natural beauty.
Sadly IMO in Caithness and Sutherland it is driven by a desire to make money and not a desire to save the planet...
In there lies the weakness of your complete nimbyist arguement. It is not just you but nimbys that want to preserve their own piece of turf without a a jot of consideration that there is a world that is burning up fossil fuels that harm your environment.
Did you only read the first sentence in my post?
You are correct in your assumption that I want to see Caithness/Highland protected from exploitation. I feel exactly the same about Lewis - for example.
Yes, we'll do our bit, Rheghead, but we must ensure that the rest of the country also do their bit. A fair and even spread of onshore wind across the whole country.
I really don't understand how you can label that nimbyism. You, yourself have shown some nimby tendancies by suggesting a limit of 250MW of installed onshore wind capacity for Caithness. Why stop at 250MW?
Why not stop at 100MW? If the rest of the country did likewise we'd be sorted.
The problem of climate change can't be solved by onshore wind turbines - if that were the case it wouldn't be a problem, would it? We could just bang up the turbines across the world.
We all need educated in how to reduce our energy usage. We need local/community heat and power schemes. We need local/community renewable schemes. We need people to be aware and care enough about the huge waste in electricity distribution and usage to take real action. We need individuals and communities to buy into a renewable less wasteful future. We need firm and reliable large/commercial renewable generation types. We need to clean up and make more efficient our traditional fossil fuel generators.
Targeting certain areas of the country for onshore wind development does nothing to address the real problems. A short term 'supposed' fix does not solve the long term problems.
Sadly IMO in Caithness and Sutherland it is driven by a desire to make money and not a desire to save the planet...
I see your opinion as unworthy of any further brain process,the two are mutually synergetic. If wind energy wasn't helping the fight against climate change or they weren't making money for the developers then there would be a discussion.
I really don't understand how you can label that nimbyism. You, yourself have shown some nimby tendancies by suggesting a limit of 250MW of installed onshore wind capacity for Caithness. Why stop at 250MW?.
My figure of 240MW is based upon the total energy generation of the UK, the area of the UK and the proportion of generation that onshore wind is expect to take up the mix and the area of Caithness.
I did say I might consider voicing concerns if capacity goes above that. So far, generation in Caithness is no where near 240MW so I don't see a place for nimbyism until we reach that level.
I see your opinion as unworthy of any further brain process, the two are mutually synergetic.
I see your stance as not worthy of anymore consideration then - you are obviously tied to the apron strings of the wind power industry and therefore your opinion is not worth spending the time reading....
If wind energy wasn't helping the fight against climate change or they weren't making money for the developers then there would be a discussion.
Wind energy is hardly even scratching the surface of the climate change problem - it is a sop to the green lobby to try and make it look like the government gives a toss about the climate.
And surely the fact that wind energy IS making money for the developers IS worthy of discussion? Why else are so many landowners jumping onto the green energy band wagon?
[disgust][disgust]
The question was "which is more Visually Intrusive" ,well it must be the Turbines as landowners are selling off as many building plots as possible before the dam things go up and the values hit rock bottom.
Yes! they are people thick enough to buy houses with a view full of Turbines, but they're just plain stupid and dont unstand how much damage these towers really do .
I have been speaking to some English folk or are upping sticks because they have had enough .
They came here because the Highlands was one of the places that was more or less untouched ,but no more ...
We are looking at the Turbines though rose tinted glasses ,but the truth will come out sometime .
Maybe we should let Mr T Hall run the PR machine for the Turbine Companies .
He himself has given the best reason for the Council to revoke the planning on his Turbine Factory ASAP..
My figure of 240MW is based upon the total energy generation of the UK, the area of the UK and the proportion of generation that onshore wind is expect to take up the mix and the area of Caithness.
I did say I might consider voicing concerns if capacity goes above that. So far, generation in Caithness is no where near 240MW so I don't see a place for nimbyism until we reach that level.
What proportion of the mix is onshore wind expected to take up? Exactly what is the mix? Please direct me to your information source.
A rough calculation (assuming certain factors (see above)) has led me to believe that Scotland has now met your target for onshore wind - operational, under construction and consented.
So, do you agree, that we in Scotland should now stop onshore wind development until the rest of the UK catches up?
We can use the time to concentrate on the serious business of reducing consumption, community initiatives and research and development of alternative renewables that can/will actually replace traditional generators. Leading to self sufficiency in clean/cleaner electricity production and sustainable long term reductions in carbon.
Otherwise, we end up with a country covered in wind turbines but reliant on dirty traditional generators to provide us with the electricity we need!
So, do you agree, that we in Scotland should now stop onshore wind development until the rest of the UK catches up?
Turbines should go up as quickly as possible and without any delay to mitigate fossil fuel useage at the coal stations, so I see no need to wait for anyone to catch up. Where we can, then we should. We should concentrate on our own backyard or we would be guilty of nimbyism...
I think I read that 60% of renewables is the target for 2050, a third of that is expected to come from onshore wind. I am not sure where I read it, i think in the HRES. So that means 20% overall is expected to come from onshore wind. Please reduce your lecky use to reduce the need for turbines/fossil fuels.
Green_not_greed
20-Jul-07, 15:17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rheghead http://forum.caithness.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?p=244185#post244185)
My figure of 240MW is based upon the total energy generation of the UK, the area of the UK and the proportion of generation that onshore wind is expect to take up the mix and the area of Caithness.
Its time for a reality check here....
All data below has been taken from todays information from the national grid and census offices.
ON A UK BASIS:
Current electricity demand (now!) = 43,000 MW
UK Population = 60.2 million
Caithness population = 25,200
This is 0.042% of the UK population, so....
..we should be generating our fraction, which is... 18MW based on todays electricity need.
Even if the peak need is 2.6 time this (worst case), we should only require to generate 47MW to cover our share.
Alternatively, ON A SCOTTISH BASIS:
Measured demand (now) = 1,600 MW
Peak demand (estimated) = 4,200 MW
Scottish population = 5,094,000
Caithness population = 25,200
This is 0.495% of the Scottish population, so....
..we should be generating our fraction, which is... 7.9MW based on todays electricity need, and 20.8MW based on peak need.
Caithness' generation capacity based on all approved and operational windfarms is over 85MW.
To summarise, we already generate far more than we actually need (which is not the basis of the above figures), and more than our "share" using a population basis.
I've no idea where "240MW" came from, but its way off.....
Green_not_greed
20-Jul-07, 15:21
Incidentally, its England's shortfall which is driving further demand from Caithness.
Todays national grid figures show Scotland supplying 6,700 MW to England, together with a further 300 MW from France and Northern Ireland.
How many low energy lightbulbs do you have in your home then Rheggers?
Scotlands Renewable Energy Generation Capacity has now reached 2.6 GW. With another 1.5 GW of onshore wind either under construction or consented that's 4.1 GW of renewable capacity. If my sums are correct that's approx 68% of peak demand in Scotland (approx 6 GW).
So we nimbys in Scotland aren't doing so badly, are we? We've already exceeded your 2050 target.
I'm afraid the same can't be said for the rest of the UK though. They're lagging way, way behind. Probably nimbys blocking developments in the south.
With grid losses amounting to around 7.7% when generating at distance from the consumer it's not sensible to continue to develop windfarms in these remote locations. Dounreay is ruled out as a possible site for a nuclear power station as it's too remote from the centers of demand - this also applies to wind energy.
We need to see the action where it's needed most now and that's not Caithness, Highland or Scotland.
How many low energy lightbulbs do you have in your home then Rheggers?
100% low energy bulbs at chateau Rheg.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rheghead http://forum.caithness.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?p=244185#post244185)
My figure of 240MW is based upon the total energy generation of the UK, the area of the UK and the proportion of generation that onshore wind is expect to take up the mix and the area of Caithness.
Its time for a reality check here....
All data below has been taken from todays information from the national grid and census offices.
ON A UK BASIS:
Current electricity demand (now!) = 43,000 MW
UK Population = 60.2 million
Caithness population = 25,200
This is 0.042% of the UK population, so....
..we should be generating our fraction, which is... 18MW based on todays electricity need.
Even if the peak need is 2.6 time this (worst case), we should only require to generate 47MW to cover our share.
Alternatively, ON A SCOTTISH BASIS:
Measured demand (now) = 1,600 MW
Peak demand (estimated) = 4,200 MW
Scottish population = 5,094,000
Caithness population = 25,200
This is 0.495% of the Scottish population, so....
..we should be generating our fraction, which is... 7.9MW based on todays electricity need, and 20.8MW based on peak need.
Caithness' generation capacity based on all approved and operational windfarms is over 85MW.
To summarise, we already generate far more than we actually need (which is not the basis of the above figures), and more than our "share" using a population basis.
I've no idea where "240MW" came from, but its way off.....
That is a very nimby way of calculating what Caithness should generating. If counties are to be responsible for their own plot based on their residential population stats then the UK has no chance of meeting its targets because the bulk of the population is concentrated in urban areas and quite frankly there is no space to put the turbines.
Here is the proper way...
Average power generation of the UK's generators is 43GW
UK area 245,000 km²
Caithness area 1776 km²
Load factor of windturbines = 25%
Expected target of renewables by 2050 = 60%
Onshore wind is expected to generate a third of the 60% therefore 20% of total is expected to come from wind.
(43GW X (1776/245000))/(0.25 X5)= 249 MW of onshore generating capacity should be operating in Caithness. I may have been using old data for small discrepancy in the final answer.
There is no way the UK fight against Climate Change will be successful on a strategy based on Scottish population, the CO2 doesn't respect national borders and Scotland will suffer due to England's emissions.
100% low energy bulbs at chateau Rheg.
http://www.nvmdigital.com/photos/lelset.html
http://www.nvmdigital.com/photos/lelset.html
It is healthy thinking to question the claims but he really hasn't proven anything. My experience of these low energy bulbs is that they do last a long time. Incidentally, one went on me 2 weeks ago and I remember buying it about 15 years ago.
One minute you say my opionion is not worthy of further brain process now you say I show healthy thinking?
Think my light bulb just went out......
I've just been reading the Environmental Statement for the proposed 77 turbine wind farm at Strathy South. Now, I know that a lot of people think Deer are a nuisance and just a pest, but I happen to think they are beautiful creatures and have a place in this world the same as everything else. Because the windfarm site is surrounded by part of the Caithness and Sutherland Peatlands Special Area of Conservation they are going to kill the Deer that live in the forest before they cut down the forest to build the turbines so the Deer, who have now lost their home, dont damage the peatlands. Has this world gone mad? How environmentally friendly is that? And all for making profit - I am sickened and disgusted by all of this.
(43GW X (1776/245000))/(0.25 X5)= 249 MW of onshore generating capacity should be operating in Caithness. I may have been using old data for small discrepancy in the final answer.
Wait a cotton pick'n minute here Rheghead. If you use your impressive formula to calculate onshore wind generating capacity for the whole of the UK the result is 34GW of onshore wind.
Scotland - 11 GW (approx)
Rest of UK - 23 GW (approx)
Rather more than a small discrepancy. Not even the most ardent supporters of the turbine are suggesting anything of this magnitude.
Maybe I've got the maths wrong. Could someone please check and correct/edit as required.
Wait a cotton pick'n minute here Rheghead. If you use your impressive formula to calculate onshore wind generating capacity for the whole of the UK the result is 34GW of onshore wind.
Scotland - 11 GW (approx)
Rest of UK - 23 GW (approx)
Rather more than a small discrepancy. Not even the most ardent supporters of the turbine are suggesting anything of this magnitude.
Maybe I've got the maths wrong. Could someone please check and correct/edit as required.
There is no mistake, 34GW is the installed capacity to provide 20% of the UK's energy. Perhaps I may have got the share of the mix wrong and this includes offshore wind generation as well. Since Caithness has little suitable sites for offshore then 250MW of onshore still would be appropriate.
There is no mistake, 34GW is the installed capacity to provide 20% of the UK's energy. Perhaps I may have got the share of the mix wrong and this includes offshore wind generation as well. Since Caithness has little suitable sites for offshore then 250MW of onshore still would be appropriate.
Come on Rheghead that's a monumental mistake. The BWEA reckon about half of the intended wind capacity will come from ONSHORE wind. We were discussing ONSHORE wind not Offshore.
Everyone makes mistakes though and if you do a quick recalculation I think you'll find that your target for Caithness drops to around 125MW.
And did you forget about Beatrice? Caithness' contribution to UK target for offshore wind.
Another problem you overlooked - according to the BWEA - is intermittancy at installed capacity of between 10% and 20% (includes onshore and offshore).
Your method of calculating the level of wind energy for the UK would result in an installed capacity of over 75%. How do you envisage the grid will be balanced at that level of wind penetration?
Come on Rheghead that's a monumental mistake. The BWEA reckon about half of the intended wind capacity will come from ONSHORE wind. We were discussing ONSHORE wind not Offshore.
Everyone makes mistakes though and if you do a quick recalculation I think you'll find that your target for Caithness drops to around 125MW.
And did you forget about Beatrice? Caithness' contribution to UK target for offshore wind.
Another problem you overlooked - according to the BWEA - is intermittancy at installed capacity of between 10% and 20% (includes onshore and offshore).
Your method of calculating the level of wind energy for the UK would result in an installed capacity of over 75%. How do you envisage the grid will be balanced at that level of wind penetration?
I think you should look over your figures a little more carefully. It is obvious that you have not looked at the data carefully regarding the intermittency, 25% is the accepted figure, even the DTI accepted 24.1% some years ago.
Can you clarify what you mean by 75% installed capacity, that is measured in W not %
Green_not_greed
22-Jul-07, 12:49
Rheghead said:
That is a very nimby way of calculating what Caithness should generating. If counties are to be responsible for their own plot based on their residential population stats then the UK has no chance of meeting its targets because the bulk of the population is concentrated in urban areas and quite frankly there is no space to put the turbines.
What a load of complete twaddle!
Rather than basing our energy production on what we actually need, I based it on our contribution toward the national need on a per-head basis. If that's not fair then I don't know what is. And it certainly isn't "Nimby" - which would to have based it on what Caithness actually uses in terms of electricity - which is A LOT LESS than the figures I provided.
Regarding the bulk of population baing based in urban areas, then: (1) they should be encouraged to become more efficient and use a lot less energy; (2) have you never heard of micro-renewables (roof-top solar panels, roof-top turbines, fitting PSG windows) or locally shared CHP systems, and; (3) industrial power stations including wind should be sited much closer to these population centres. Government grants should be used to fund the bulk of (2) - not the pittances offered these days.
If you've ever driven on the M4 past Reading you'll see that industrial sized wind turbines are being integrated into city areas. Many schools and shops such as Tescos all have micro turbines fitted. However, given accidents (school and Tesco turbines losing blades, thankfully with no-one hurt), this practice has been a little restrained.
Siting large turbines into industrial parks (such as Forss) has also been the practice in France, though in the past year the French planning authorities have stopped all further applications after a series of lost blades and tower collapses. They are now looking at an exclusion zone around all turbines.
If the risks can be designed around, then there are no reasons why London and areas which need the bulk of the power can't be surrounded by turbines.
Of course, the political fall-out of this would be to transfer all the issues that we in rural areas are now facing with these monsters directly into Labour's heartland.
[I]
Rather than basing our energy production on what we actually need, I based it on our contribution toward the national need on a per-head basis..
I am afraid that science doesn't allow us that luxury, I wish it did. Rather, our ability to harness renewable energy ultimately is governed by the laws of nature, and the amount of energy from renewable sources is limited by a function of the Earth's surface (solar energy =~1.4kw/m²)
Therefore any strategy to harness renewable energy that is based upon where the demand is, ie cities is doomed to failure.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.