PDA

View Full Version : Wind Turbine Collapse Causes Concern



dozy
10-Nov-07, 12:11
See todays P&J page 2 www.thisisnorthscotland.co.uk (http://www.thisisnorthscotland.co.uk)

peter macdonald
10-Nov-07, 12:19
Aye but take a look at this
http://news.scotsman.com/inverness.cfm?id=1583282007

And I know which one i would be worried out ...health wise and pocket wise
It may be an idea to actually read what Rheggers is posting IE The solution to power supply in the UK/Scotland is many fold Nuclear Wind Wave Fossil (clean coal tech is available and there is a heck of a lot of coal in the UK/Scotland ) Hydro etc What we should be driving at is self suffiency of supply as cleanly as possible To spell this out if you look where oil supplies are readily available then you start looking at the middle east Venezuela Nigeria and Iran ..not the most politically stable parts of the world eh?? Do you want to be dependent on events in any of these areas???? If wind power will help to keep us out of the power supply crisis we are looking at in the next decades then so be it
PM

dozy
10-Nov-07, 15:38
Mr Macdonald ;
Why do the WINDYS alway site Dounreay as the EVIL within.
Question;
What benefit will i get from Developers siting Turbines in my home county?

Rheghead
10-Nov-07, 15:52
Mr Macdonald ;
Why do the WINDYS alway site Dounreay as the EVIL within.
Question;
What benefit will i get from Developers siting Turbines in my home county?

Who says windys always say that? The Dounreay experiment was a success and proved the fast breeder technology to be feasible.:confused

peter macdonald
10-Nov-07, 21:28
Mr Dozy
1) Please see Rheggers response
2) What do you mean by a "windy" ?? Some one who does not get hysterical if he has a windmill within his line of site ?? If so please dont ever visit Denmark .the west of Sweden or the Netherlands because there are a multitude of windys in these parts
3) A balanced power supply as described may just give this country UK/Scotland a future power supply independent of the muses of Iranian etc politics and if that means sacrificing the view over a piece of useless bog at Camster so be it
4) I notice you didnt answer my comment about kick backs to Councillors I am quite interested in this as no doubt are some of the folks who run the Org
PM

JAWS
11-Nov-07, 11:53
Mr Dozy
UK/Scotland a future power supply independent of the muses of Iranian etc politics and if that means sacrificing the view over a piece of useless bog at Camster so be it
Typical example of the "I don't see a use for it so why not destroy it" mentality.
Destroying the countryside just to feed the power guzzling greed of the ever more demanding urban areas is not the answer. If the Urban areas stopped demanding more and more power to feed a never ending increase in demand for more and more totally unnecessary air conditioning in office blocks and literally countless millions of street lights blazing away there would be no problem.

As for power production, I notice there is never any clamour for the power to be produced where it is mainly used. Coal, gas, nuclear and wind power should be placed in the centres of cities and towns where the power is demanded.
When was the last power station of any kind opened in a City Centre? Yet these are the very people who are only too ready to scream “Nimby” at everybody else.
“We’ve completely ruined the area where we live so why shouldn’t your area be ruined as well?”

Coal fuelled power stations? They will kill more people and do more harm to the ecology every year than nuclear power has in the last fifty years, and that included Chernobyl before anybody brings that up. Just because they can hide the pollution now doesn’t mean to say it isn’t there.
Coal and gas used to create electricity are all massively destructive of the atmosphere and cause the very thing the promoters of wind power claim it is intended to prevent.

The only reason for massive wind farms is not that they are either efficient or required but simply that they are very visible and as such are a great political advertisement for the “Lets pretend we are really doing something about Climate Change so we can justify more tax grabs”.
It is the same mentality that says you don’t bother spending money on drains because the voters don’t see them. It’s better to spend money on something visible, like painting the grass green!

Rheghead
11-Nov-07, 12:18
Typical example of the "I don't see a use for it so why not destroy it" mentality.

Surely he does see a use for it?

Incidentally, earlier this year, I was visiting a burial mound (which was within 500 metres of a wind farm) with some of my archeological friends and none of them thought that the windfarm detracted from the serenity of the mound. In fact, they spoke very highly of the need for renewable energy.

christina
11-Nov-07, 13:03
i laughed at one off the comments on the dounreay clean up link, is robot a polish surname lol:lol:

JAWS
11-Nov-07, 16:56
Surely he does see a use for it?

Incidentally, earlier this year, I was visiting a burial mound (which was within 500 metres of a wind farm) with some of my archeological friends and none of them thought that the windfarm detracted from the serenity of the mound. In fact, they spoke very highly of the need for renewable energy.I wasn't the one describing it as "a piece of useless bog at Camster". Digging it all up on an industrial scale and burning the peat is seeing a use for it also.
What archaeologists see in a site and what the average tourist sees are vastly different.

Scotland, despite England having had them for fifty or more years, saw no need for National Parks until immediately prior to the question of Wind Farms came up. If Wind Farms are not a problem when it comes to their sighting then why was there such a rush to make the Trossachs a National Park? Why do we suddenly have a Cairngorms National Park?

First announce the wonderful idea that Scotland should follow England and create National Parks then announce that it is a good idea to swamp the Country in Wind Farms. Needless to say, there is in effect a blanket ban on placing Wind Farms in National Parks. Not that I would suspect that the timing of the announcements were oh so convenient, I don’t believe any Politician would be so cynically deceitful.
If they are so wonderful a draw for tourists and do nothing to harm the natural beauty of an area why don’t they plaster them all over the National Parks? I would have thought they would be the ideal places to have them.

I have a wonderful view of a Wind Farm, the turbines are massive and it’s no problem at all. Of course, they cost a little more to erect and cost a little more to connect to the grid but this is about the environment, isn’t it, it’s definitely not about huge profits and grabbing massive grants, or is it?
Oh yes, the location of the massive turbines. They are miles off shore near the rigs where they are almost totally unobtrusive and bother nobody, but that would never do, would it!

Rheghead
11-Nov-07, 17:04
If they are so wonderful a draw for tourists and do nothing to harm the natural beauty of an area why don’t they plaster them all over the National Parks? I would have thought they would be the ideal places to have them.

Errr[para]......you have been reading too much pro-windfarm literature, they actually do detract from the natural beauty, you will get no arguement to the contrary from me on that, that is why they aren't placed in National Parks. Would you really want a reversal of that decision?:confused

Don't you think there should be some areas in Scotland where we can't see them?

JAWS
11-Nov-07, 18:38
No, certainly not. But if they are intrusive in designated National Parks why should they not be intrusive in other areas with unique landscapes which is something which Caithness most certainly has.
The only difference is that Caithness is not close enough to be a weekend playground for the Central Belt so who cares about it?
It is almost certain that the same attitude will be taken about much of the Borders which are in the same fairly isolated position.

Rheghead
11-Nov-07, 19:28
No, certainly not. But if they are intrusive in designated National Parks why should they not be intrusive in other areas with unique landscapes which is something which Caithness most certainly has.
The only difference is that Caithness is not close enough to be a weekend playground for the Central Belt so who cares about it?
It is almost certain that the same attitude will be taken about much of the Borders which are in the same fairly isolated position.

Certainly Caithness has some uniqueness but in the areas where it is unique, there aren't any developments planned. So your arguement doesn't hold water I'm afraid unless you know something I don't?

Certainly the bog around the Causeymire farm is not threatened by the development. It was still there the last time I looked;)

And Caithness hasn't been deemed to have National Park status so it ideal for wind energy development with its wind resource. You do want them to be efficient, I take it?:confused

There are plenty of developments planned in the 'weekend playgrounds' nearer to the central belt so I fail to see the arguement, we aren't being victimised if that is your point?

It is interesting that the biggest factor that precludes any development is topography and distance to a major grid connection. It is these aspects that preclude much of the west coast rather than a contrived National Park status. And the need for National Park status was born chiefly out of a desire to preserve the uniqueness of an area from the effects of demographic influx and changes in agricultural practices. Feel free to decide why for which reasons Caithness needs National Park status....

Munro
11-Nov-07, 20:00
When we were at the top of Cairngorm in September there was a very visible
wind farm not so many miles away, maybe outside the park but still in your face.

Rheghead
11-Nov-07, 20:04
When we were at the top of Cairngorm in September there was a very visible
wind farm not so many miles away, maybe outside the park but still in your face.

If they were in your face, how much of your field-of-view did they occupy?

50% 75%?:confused