View Full Version : Windfarms Forever!! / Lewis windfarm / etc
scotsman1
21-Jan-08, 09:33
Why all the constant moaning about windfarms. Surley something that can produce electricity from an eco-friendly source must be good. Why is it almost always incomers that shout the most about these things. It is about time that we disregarded all their endless drivell and press ahead with the windfarms for the good of the planet. :D :D
NOTE from Moderators: It has been determined that a term originally used in this post, and quoted in subsequent ones, is not acceptable on these forums. The post and subsequent ones have had that term replaced with 'incomers', and a few specific posts regarding that phrase have been removed for continuity.
oh lordy let the battle commence
Battle lines have been drawn and the time for war draws near I think. :eek:
NickInTheNorth
21-Jan-08, 10:06
It's not all of us incomers that have that attitude!
Why all the constant moaning about windfarms. Surley something that can produce electricity from an eco-friendly source must be good. Why is it almost always incomers that shout the most about these things. It is about time that we disregarded all their endless drivell and press ahead with the windfarms for the good of the planet. :D :D
Well I for one agree...even if this goes against the consensus. I was sent a letter when I first moved here more or less telling me that they were a bad thing and to vote against them. Letter went in the general file aka the bin.
ywindythesecond
21-Jan-08, 10:44
Why all the constant moaning about windfarms. Surley something that can produce electricity from an eco-friendly source must be good. Why is it almost always incomers that shout the most about these things. It is about time that we disregarded all their endless drivell and press ahead with the windfarms for the good of the planet. :D :D
The trouble is Scotsman 1 windfarms are not for the good of the planet, they are for the good of the investors in windfarms.
A typical single 2.5MW turbine will get around £300,000 subsidy every year through the Renewables Obligation scheme which the consumer pays for. The developer will probably have to shell out half of that because they are not commercially viable. We also have to pay for their electricity on top of that, and we have to pay for the back -up generation when the wind doesn't blow, or doesn't blow enough.
So an average 20 turbine windfarm will make about £3M for the developer every year for 20 years, blight the lives of hundreds of people, ruin the experience of tourists for generations, have a huge carbon footprint, and we have the privelege of paying for it all.
NickInTheNorth
21-Jan-08, 11:00
The trouble is Scotsman 1 windfarms are not for the good of the planet, they are for the good of the investors in windfarms.
A typical single 2.5MW turbine will get around £300,000 subsidy every year through the Renewables Obligation scheme which the consumer pays for. The developer will probably have to shell out half of that because they are not commercially viable. We also have to pay for their electricity on top of that, and we have to pay for the back -up generation when the wind doesn't blow, or doesn't blow enough.
So an average 20 turbine windfarm will make about £3M for the developer every year for 20 years, blight the lives of hundreds of people, ruin the experience of tourists for generations, have a huge carbon footprint, and we have the privelege of paying for it all.
So why not run an anti-subsidy campaign (which I would support wholeheartedly) rather than campaigning against individual applications (which I do not support)?
If the subsidy is the issue that should be your target. The turbines themselves can and do provide good low polluting electricity.
Why all the constant moaning about windfarms. Surley something that can produce electricity from an eco-friendly source must be good. Why is it almost always incomers that shout the most about these things. It is about time that we disregarded all their endless drivell and press ahead with the windfarms for the good of the planet. :D :D
totally agree i have never had a problem with them.the people who complain about them are probably the same people who go on about how green power is the best.
Green_not_greed
21-Jan-08, 13:33
Why all the constant moaning about windfarms. Surley something that can produce electricity from an eco-friendly source must be good. Why is it almost always incomers that shout the most about these things. It is about time that we disregarded all their endless drivell and press ahead with the windfarms for the good of the planet. :D :D
Finally proves that even day-release patients have access to the internet.....
Where abouts do you live, "Scotsman1"? Is it Caithness, or is it outside the county - where windfarm developers have had to go in order to find any kind of support?
The developer will probably have to shell out half of that because they are not commercially viable.
Did you take that into account when you were planning to develop your own 51MW windfarm at the the Longman site at Inverness?:roll:
http://forum.caithness.org/showpost.php?p=240254&postcount=27
Why all the constant moaning about windfarms. Surley something that can produce electricity from an eco-friendly source must be good. Why is it almost always incomers that shout the most about these things. It is about time that we disregarded all their endless drivell and press ahead with the windfarms for the good of the planet. :D :D
Wind farms supporters for today would have no doubt been the people that supported SLAVERY in the past .RICHES and WEALTH for the few, at the expence of ALL others .You suckled at the breast of the propoganda monster and believe in what they say as the TRUTH more FOOL YOU ...
Green_not_greed
21-Jan-08, 13:43
totally agree i have never had a problem with them.the people who complain about them are probably the same people who go on about how green power is the best.
I guess most other folks living under rocks wouldn't have a problem with them either.....
Last week Councillors agreed that West Caithness is "full" as far as wind turbines are concerned. This was one of the reasons for rejecting the controversial Baillie wind power station.
So are you suggesting that the rest of the county is covered in turbines? Can't see any advantages myself....except for the developers bank balances.
Caithness is being bolstered as a major centre for marine (tidal) power. The target is 1300Mw by 2020. Tidal power is reliable, will create REAL local jobs in engineering and development, and will have no negative effect on the landscape, tourism or peoples houses. I know which I'd rather have.
for all these people against windfarms let me ask you this. what is it you want to see?? more nuclear power plants up and down the land?? are you all toatlly against saving the planet?? windfarms are a better option i support the 100%
Wind farms supporters for today would have no doubt been the people that supported SLAVERY in the past .RICHES and WEALTH for the few, at the expence of ALL others .You suckled at the breast of the propoganda monster and believe in what they say as the TRUTH more FOOL YOU ...
I support them not for commerical gain but because we need a renewable source of energy. All natural forms are going to deplete rapidly over the next few years. I am not sure why people are so against them. They are beautiful to look at, do not as far as I can hear make any noise (although I know other folks on the Cassiemire may disagree) and as far as I know, cheap to run.
Of course people want to make money out them, just as they do oil, gas and coal but as I have said these supplies are finite.
I support them not for commerical gain but because we need a renewable source of energy. All natural forms are going to deplete rapidly over the next few years. I am not sure why people are so against them. They are beautiful to look at, do not as far as I can hear make any noise (although I know other folks on the Cassiemire may disagree) and as far as I know, cheap to run.
Of course people want to make money out them, just as they do oil, gas and coal but as I have said these supplies are finite.That is the main concern of some people as far as I can see that people make money out of it.
They should dry their eyes and realize that it is for our own good that we should find alternative energy sources.
Wind farms supporters for today would have no doubt been the people that supported SLAVERY in the past .RICHES and WEALTH for the few, at the expence of ALL others .You suckled at the breast of the propoganda monster and believe in what they say as the TRUTH more FOOL YOU ...
more FOOL YOU for believing such rubbish. so what if the people putting up the turbines get some money. its not like we would see it. in fact i say give them more for their help in trying to protect and save the world!!
Wind farms supporters for today would have no doubt been the people that supported SLAVERY in the past .RICHES and WEALTH for the few, at the expence of ALL others .You suckled at the breast of the propoganda monster and believe in what they say as the TRUTH more FOOL YOU ...What have wind-farms got to do with slavery? I fully support wind-farms as a renewable energy source so I guess by your deluded reasoning that makes me pro slavery. Smart thinking dozy.[lol]
Big hughie
21-Jan-08, 14:43
Originally Posted by dozy http://forum.caithness.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?p=326857#post326857)
Wind farms supporters for today would have no doubt been the people that supported SLAVERY in the past .RICHES and WEALTH for the few, at the expence of ALL others .You suckled at the breast of the propoganda monster and believe in what they say as the TRUTH more FOOL YOU ...
As someone could not care less about wind farms I take exception to your remark Its just typical of the hysterical bile put on the org by a small element
You really want to take a look around the place where I think that you will
find there are more important issues in Caithness than windmills ,jobs at Dounreay Post Office closures Farm prices Rolls Royce job losses etc etc but no just because some NIMBY might have there view the council /government and populace get inundated with this rubbish
Beeeeeggggg Hugheeeeeeeeeeeee
Originally Posted by dozy http://forum.caithness.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?p=326857#post326857)
Wind farms supporters for today would have no doubt been the people that supported SLAVERY in the past .RICHES and WEALTH for the few, at the expence of ALL others .You suckled at the breast of the propoganda monster and believe in what they say as the TRUTH more FOOL YOU ...
As someone could not care less about wind farms I take exception to your remark Its just typical of the hysterical bile put on the org by a small element
You really want to take a look around the place where I think that you will
find there are more important issues in Caithness than windmills ,jobs at Dounreay Post Office closures Farm prices Rolls Royce job losses etc etc but no just because some NIMBY might have there view the council /government and populace get inundated with this rubbish
Beeeeeggggg Hugheeeeeeeeeeeee
Well said!
Originally Posted by dozy http://forum.caithness.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?p=326857#post326857)
Wind farms supporters for today would have no doubt been the people that supported SLAVERY in the past .RICHES and WEALTH for the few, at the expence of ALL others .You suckled at the breast of the propoganda monster and believe in what they say as the TRUTH more FOOL YOU ...
As someone could not care less about wind farms I take exception to your remark Its just typical of the hysterical bile put on the org by a small element
You really want to take a look around the place where I think that you will
find there are more important issues in Caithness than windmills ,jobs at Dounreay Post Office closures Farm prices Rolls Royce job losses etc etc but no just because some NIMBY might have there view the council /government and populace get inundated with this rubbish
Beeeeeggggg Hugheeeeeeeeeeeee
I do wish you could pull your head out that pot you keep under your bed .I know more about Dounreay, Rolls Royce and Farm prices than you could imagine.Also the renewable energy and power sector .
The blinkered attiude you and the other windys have is sicking .They sit back and spout how green they are and how these Turbines are heaven sent .What they dont take into the equation is where do the materials needed to build these turbines come from.
Let alone the destruction forced on the people in the Rainforest when the ROC are used to fell, clear and DESTROY their ENVIRONMENT.The people whom these ROC are used against have NO say .No power .No voice .No homes .No lights ,No tv's and NO RIGHTS in fact next to nothing .Its the blinkered i'm all right jack mentality thats the problem .All because you've been told its Green so "YOU MUST BE RIGHT ".
Yes stopping the Turbines destroying Caithness might mean that you cant leave your PS2 , Wii or extra Large LCD TV on standby..
Just look at the bigger picture and see that turbines have not and will not help save the planet ,it will however only make Rich men Richer..
Big hughie
21-Jan-08, 17:33
I do wish you could pull your head out that pot you keep under your bed .I know more about Dounreay, Rolls Royce and Farm prices than you could imagine.Also the renewable energy and power sector .
Why do you have to be offensive???? As for knowledge about the above Maybe (except in one area) but it seems you know it all anyway
(by your own admission )
Ill tell you one thing you dont know though and that is how to conduct a campaign to win people over to your point of view Ive rarely seen such a hysterical bad mouthed set of posters as you and your mates
Beeeeeeg Hugheeeeeeeeeeeeee
ywindythesecond
21-Jan-08, 18:40
Did you take that into account when you were planning to develop your own 51MW windfarm at the the Longman site at Inverness?:roll:
http://forum.caithness.org/showpost.php?p=240254&postcount=27
Who is the bigger fool? The fool or the one who argues with the fool?
Taking your advice Reggy, over and out.
skinnydog
21-Jan-08, 19:04
Lets talk about the wind farms / renewable energy.
I am for renewable forms of energy and have put my money where my mouth is by installing a solar hot water system in my house. Loads of free hot water in the summer, and surprising on a good winters day will still give the tank temperature a lift.
Back onto the wind turbines.
The main problem I have with the wind turbines is the pittance the developers are offering to the local community.
A current proposal is offering £100,000 per year to the community.
Well what can you do with £100k. Not much.
Lets get the developers to give an advance of the yearly development fund.
Lets get them to put up a 25 year advance on the money.
That would be £25m, and you could do a lot of development for that.
But do not wait for their cheque books to open.
Back in the 1970's with the oil boom, Orkney and Shetland would have told the oil companies to sling their hook if they had offered such a pittance for the oil terminals.
johndeere
21-Jan-08, 20:35
[quote=dozy;326954]I do wish you could pull your head out that pot you keep under your bed .I know more about Dounreay, Rolls Royce and Farm prices than you could imagine
I know nothing about dounreay or rolls royce but i do know about farming and clearly understand why farmers want windmills and YES it has to do with money. Sadly over the last few years our returns from farming have been bleak due to foot and mouth and other problems, farmers are encouraged to diversify and windmills seem to give farmers a decent return so why not.
Big hughie
21-Jan-08, 20:55
Aye John It might keep a few going We can only try
Beeeeeeg Hughieeeeeeeeeeeee
IMO windfarms are only viable methods of producing electricity when they are community based and enter the grid at community level, thus reducing the amounts taken from the grid in those communities and obviating the need of expensive and obtrusive pylons carrying the electricity produced down to the South of Scotland/England.
It seems to me that reducing the call on the grid locally on a bigger scale than individual grid connected windmills would allow the grid electricity Caithness isn't using at any time to be distributed elsewhere..and may even make those communities some cash.
ywindythesecond
22-Jan-08, 08:51
IMO windfarms are only viable methods of producing electricity when they are community based and enter the grid at community level, thus reducing the amounts taken from the grid in those communities and obviating the need of expensive and obtrusive pylons carrying the electricity produced down to the South of Scotland/England.
It seems to me that reducing the call on the grid locally on a bigger scale than individual grid connected windmills would allow the grid electricity Caithness isn't using at any time to be distributed elsewhere..and may even make those communities some cash.
Good post Oddquine, and getting back to reality. The Causeymire windfarm is an example of a well sited effective installation. It is in a landscape big enough to accomodate it, on already degraded land through peat extraction, right next to the distribution system, and when it is producing, it saves power having to be brought all the way from Beauly, and it just about caters for all of Caithness's needs. Along with Forss, Buolfruich and Bilbster, Caithness is more than self sufficient already (when the wind blows at the right speed. The rest of the time we rely on traditional forms of generation)
The proposed two turbine windfarm at Bettyhill is at the other end of the scale. Only two turbines, but of such a massive scale, nearly 70 feet higher than those on the Causeymire. They are on degraded ground, the former rubbish tip, but it is the impact on the beautiful landscape that people notice, not the foundations.
If this development was intended to be truly for local benefit, it would comprise a small number of smaller turbines, owned and operated by the community. The site is unobtrusive for smaller units. The community would benefit greatly. The "dancing ladies" on Gigha is a fine model of proper application of windpower benefitting the community and doing its bit for global warming without destroying landscape and community.
The Bettyhill proposal is at the other end of the scale. It is industrialisation for profit with a few crumbs being thrown to the locals.
[quote=dozy;326954]I do wish you could pull your head out that pot you keep under your bed .I know more about Dounreay, Rolls Royce and Farm prices than you could imagine
I know nothing about dounreay or rolls royce but i do know about farming and clearly understand why farmers want windmills and YES it has to do with money. Sadly over the last few years our returns from farming have been bleak due to foot and mouth and other problems, farmers are encouraged to diversify and windmills seem to give farmers a decent return so why not.
Well done Johndeere,its that rare thing called HONESTY.Its NOT about saving the environment it all about the MONEY .Your statement has my greatest respect.The problem for farmers is thats its TAXPAYERS MONEY .We all know that farmers have had a hard time of it but they depend on hand outs from the public purse all the time .Even when you say they are encouraged to diversify,its more taxpayers cash that they are getting .I know that you will come back and say that they all work hard for what they get ,but the whole system is handout based .I can see where you are coming from but the sword you are using is double edged.As stated before the ROC's are helping to destroy the industry and environment you love and care for .The more turbines ,the more ROC's the faster your way of life changes and the faster Farming collapses.We all know the weather and seasons have changed and poor returns are crushing the farming community,but dont be FOOLED into believing that turbines are the answer.For short term financial gain but long term destruction,its a shame that we the Caithness community cant come together and find away forward that Protects the Environment promotes sustainability and recycling with energy reduction and renewable energy production .The Toonies have the engineering and the funding and the farmers the land and the deep seated respect for the countryside.There was a local company that tried to bring these two elements together but those in office harpooned the scheme.
It is industrialisation for profit with a few crumbs being thrown to the locals.
Was your plan to build a 51MW windfarm at the Longman site in Inverness a purely business venture to tap into the tide of dirty money that runs through renewable energy, or did you do it on a purely altruistic point of view to provide energy from remewable sources. I suspect the former as it isn't in your backyard is it?
Why can't we set new building regulations that stipulate that any new build must install solar power, wind power and any other energy saving devices?
Green_not_greed
22-Jan-08, 14:01
Why can't we set new building regulations that stipulate that any new build must install solar power, wind power and any other energy saving devices?
Completely agree!!!!!!
Green_not_greed
22-Jan-08, 14:04
Here's an entertaining wind farm game for the whole family!!!!!!
http://www.socme.org/windgame.html
Was your plan to build a 51MW windfarm at the Longman site in Inverness a purely business venture to tap into the tide of dirty money that runs through renewable energy, or did you do it on a purely altruistic point of view to provide energy from remewable sources. I suspect the former as it isn't in your backyard is it?
Come on ywindy, what's this all about and why don't you answer Rheghead?
ywindythesecond
22-Jan-08, 16:06
Originally Posted by Rheghead http://forum.caithness.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?p=327240#post327240)
Was your plan to build a 51MW windfarm at the Longman site in Inverness a purely business venture to tap into the tide of dirty money that runs through renewable energy, or did you do it on a purely altruistic point of view to provide energy from remewable sources. I suspect the former as it isn't in your backyard is it?
Come on ywindy, what's this all about and why don't you answer Rheghead?
It goes away back to last summer Rupert, Madpict posted:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadPict
Dounreay was built on a brown field site. The windfarms are not.
And I posted :
“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
”
You can see the whole thread if you follow the link Reggy posted.
Reggy, poor benighted soul, believes, or more probably, pretends to believe I am a windfarm developer on the strength of it, and wants to make some mischief no doubt.
I will not give him any credibility by entering into any discussion with him on the subject, and in any case it would just fuel his fantasies which already look a bit unhealthy.
ywindy2
Big hughie
22-Jan-08, 16:51
Well done Johndeere,its that rare thing called HONESTY.Its NOT about saving the environment it all about the MONEY .Your statement has my greatest respect.The problem for farmers is thats its TAXPAYERS MONEY .We all know that farmers have had a hard time of it but they depend on hand outs from the public purse all the time .Even when you say they are encouraged to diversify,its more taxpayers cash that they are getting .I know that you will come back and say that they all work hard for what they get ,but the whole system is handout based .I can see where you are coming from but the sword you are using is double edged.As stated before the ROC's are helping to destroy the industry and environment you love and care for .The more turbines ,the more ROC's the faster your way of life changes and the faster Farming collapses.We all know the weather and seasons have changed and poor returns are crushing the farming community,but dont be FOOLED into believing that turbines are the answer.For short term financial gain but long term destruction,its a shame that we the Caithness community cant come together and find away forward that Protects the Environment promotes sustainability and recycling with energy reduction and renewable energy production .The Toonies have the engineering and the funding and the farmers the land and the deep seated respect for the countryside.There was a local company that tried to bring these two elements together but those in office harpooned the scheme.
Fine words Dozy Now all any farmer needs to do is take a copy of them into the RBS or the Halifax or who ever and they will cut his overdraft just like that !!!
Or prehaps he should take them to Westminster and show the politicians who have ignored his plight through 2 foot and mouth outbreaks ( caused by their own staff) and Im sure they will provide the compensation he justly deserved Ohhh yes im sure they will
The idea of the farmer using his ground to feed his family has been there since day one and these days if he can do it by such eco friendly means as windpower then good luck to him and they deserve as much luck as they can carry
Beeeeegggggg Hugheeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Originally Posted by Rheghead http://forum.caithness.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?p=327240#post327240)
Was your plan to build a 51MW windfarm at the Longman site in Inverness a purely business venture to tap into the tide of dirty money that runs through renewable energy, or did you do it on a purely altruistic point of view to provide energy from remewable sources. I suspect the former as it isn't in your backyard is it?
Come on ywindy, what's this all about and why don't you answer Rheghead?
It goes away back to last summer Rupert, Madpict posted:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadPict
Dounreay was built on a brown field site. The windfarms are not.
And I posted :
“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
”
You can see the whole thread if you follow the link Reggy posted.
Reggy, poor benighted soul, believes, or more probably, pretends to believe I am a windfarm developer on the strength of it, and wants to make some mischief no doubt.
I will not give him any credibility by entering into any discussion with him on the subject, and in any case it would just fuel his fantasies which already look a bit unhealthy.
ywindy2
Come on ywindy, what did you mean by
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?
It was more than an idle thought. To be able to quote a specific number of windturbines and the number of MW, you will have had to have made a thorough survey of the site and know the type of turbines you had in mind for the venture. It was only last July so it must be fresh in your mind. And to get to the stage of searching for investor capital, you will have had to have a developed business plan put together.
So come on. we aren't stupid, why would you go to the lengths of lobbying royalty, government and speak reams of antiwind rubbish on the Org then claim to developing a 51MW windfarm in another community which is north of the Beauly Denny line?
Is it a case of "I can't get a windfarm so nobody else will"?
As a high profile spokesman of CWIF, I think their membership requires an explanation from you. From the outset, it looks like the CWIF leadership are using their position of influence to block other wind developments so that they can step in with their own at a later date. The wife of one of the CWIF leaders is employed by a failed wind developer.
I'm a farmer and am struggling with the prices we are getting, but would never think of putting a windmill on my place. Thats not the reason I have my land for, it is there for growing things or feeding animals not planting windmills on. And yes before anyone asks I HAVE been here all my life.
Let's face it, there are a lot of people who are for wind turbines and there are lots of people who think they detract from the landscape.
The electricty that they produce is significantly more expensive than other methods and they are unreliable. Do you want to pay double the price for your electricity? Honest answers only please. For info. I am currently reviewing data on the cost of electricity generation by different methods.
On 10 December 2007, In Australia's The Age, Dr Patrick Moore, a co-founder and former leader of Greenpeace, wrote, "In its recently issued final report for 2007, the IPCC makes a number of unambiguous references to the fact that nuclear energy is an important tool to help bring about a reduction in fossil fuel consumption. Greenpeace has already made it clear it disagrees.
"How credible is it for activists to use the IPCC scientists' recommendations to fuel apocolyptic fund-raising campaigns on climate change and then to dismiss the recommendations from the same scientists on what we should do to solve it? Already the 442 nuclear reactors worldwide are producing 16% of our electricity.
"But Greenpeace's policy is that we should not only build no new reactors, but that we should shut down all the existing ones, thus inevitably forcing us to replace them with fossil fuel power plants. Oh no, says Greenpeace, we can replace them with with wind and solar. Here it is at its most deceitful.
"Greenpeace is deliberately misleading the public into thinking that wind and solar, both of which are inherently intermittent and unreliable, can replace baseload power that is continuous and reliable. Only three technologies can produce large amounts of baseload power: fossil fuels, hydroelectric plants and nuclear power."
On 12 December 2007, The Guardian reported Bob Geldof as saying, "We may mess around with wind and waves and other renewable energy sources, trying to make them sustainable. But they're not. They're Mickey Mouse. To really help the planet, we have to go nuclear fast.
On 13 December 2007, there was a letter in The Scotsman. Dr John Etherington wrote, "So Hunterston B nuclear power station has been reprieved for a few years more. Its capacity is1,190 MW but is presently operating at 60% output because of age. The refurbishment target is 70%, so that would be an average 833 MW.
"The British Wind Energy Association says we have 2,294 MW of installed wind power in the UK which, at an average 28% output, will give 622 MW. So, the clapped out nuclear wreck at Hunterston will give us more electricity than all of the windmills in the kingdom."
Just a quick and devilish thought for today. Can someone please tell me why wind turbines are classed as renewable? Once they have removed energy from the wind, the climate has lost that energy. Is that environmentally friendly?
Margaret M.
22-Jan-08, 19:22
Reggy, poor benighted soul, believes, or more probably, pretends to believe I am a windfarm developer on the strength of it, and wants to make some mischief no doubt.
I will not give him any credibility by entering into any discussion with him on the subject, and in any case it would just fuel his fantasies which already look a bit unhealthy.
ywindy2
It certainly looks like you were planning to develop a turbine project. Were you? If so, why are you so opposed to windfarms now, y windy? I don't want to wade through all the old posts.
Never seen so much hot air(obviously not from a turbine then).
Why can so many people get together and form groups about windmills when there are more important matters on the planet?
If only people got together and done some good rather than campaigning "against" and "for" wind farms we might get somewhere.
One thing I have to admire is the passion that you all have.
My point of view? pointless as i would be shot down quicker than a soldier in stalingrad!..
on another note how comes I cant get a "sig" as big as the anti-wind farm group seem to be able to have on their posts???
Have tried but wont let me do it,anyone know how they can have such big sigs?
Green_not_greed
22-Jan-08, 20:31
... it looks like the CWIF leadership are using their position of influence to block other wind developments so that they can step in with their own at a later date.
Just what planet are you on, boy? This is preposterous - even from you! Go back to smoking the normal stuff.......
The wife of one of the CWIF leaders is employed by a failed wind developer.
And not content with having a go at CWIF you also feel you have to pick on their families? This is not really suitable for a public forum.
Highland Laddie
22-Jan-08, 20:45
Just what planet are you on, boy? This is preposterous - even from you! Go back to smoking the normal stuff.......
And not content with having a go at CWIF you also feel you have to pick on their families? This is not really suitable for a public forum.
Sorry to correct you, but i know for a fact that Rheghead is a non smoker, as i have said in a few other posts, I think he must be standing to close to the chemicals he mixes at work. lol
I'm a farmer and am struggling with the prices we are getting, but would never think of putting a windmill on my place. Thats not the reason I have my land for, it is there for growing things or feeding animals not planting windmills on. And yes before anyone asks I HAVE been here all my life.
Well said Wellies!! It is, I'm sure, only the minority of farmers who are prepared to get involved with windfarms. All this tosh about saving the planet, eco friendly electricity production doesnt come into it - it is purely a business venture - as admitted by one windfarm developer.
As a high profile spokesman of CWIF, I think their membership requires an explanation from you. From the outset, it looks like the CWIF leadership are using their position of influence to block other wind developments so that they can step in with their own at a later date. The wife of one of the CWIF leaders is employed by a failed wind developer.
Rheghead do you not think you are stepping way over the line here? I'm surprised this hasn't been 'moderated' by now.
And not content with having a go at CWIF you also feel you have to pick on their families? This is not really suitable for a public forum.
I wasn't picking on any of the family members, I was just merely stating a fact. It isn't an insult to say someone is employed by a windfarm developer![lol] If that windfarm developer does get the go ahead for a windfarm with less opposition than others then questions should be raised.
Rheghead do you not think you are stepping way over the line here? I'm surprised this hasn't been 'moderated' by now.
I think it is in the Caithness public interest that the CWIF leadership are heavily involved or have financial interests in developing windfarms and that all their hogwash opposition is just talk.
Let's face it, there are a lot of people who are for wind turbines and there are lots of people who think they detract from the landscape.
The electricty that they produce is significantly more expensive than other methods and they are unreliable. Do you want to pay double the price for your electricity? Honest answers only please. For info. I am currently reviewing data on the cost of electricity generation by different methods.Apparently the cost to consumers will be limited by a price cap and the obligation is guaranteed in law until 2027 and roc's being traded as high as £47 per MWh should help with the cost.
I think it is in the Caithness public interest that the CWIF leadership are heavily involved or have financial interests in developing windfarms and that all their hogwash opposition is just talk.
Again, I ask do you not think you are stepping way over the line? You are making serious allegations here. Where is your proof of any of the above?
ywindythesecond
22-Jan-08, 22:32
Apparently the cost to consumers will be limited by a price cap and the obligation is guaranteed in law until 2027 and roc's being traded as high as £47 per MWh should help with the cost.
That's interesting TBH. What do you know about a price cap? How does trading prices in Rocs help with the cost? Im curious, not being picky. BTW ROCS have been traded recently at £49.92. http://www.nfpa.co.uk/ (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.nfpa.co.uk/)
http://www.nfpa.co.uk/nfpas/images/eROC%20logo%20small.jpg (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.nfpa.co.uk/nfpas) http://www.nfpa.co.uk/images/1x1.gif
8-Jan-2008 (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.nfpa.co.uk/id9_info.cfm?pid=15&id=67)
e-ROC auction completed, over 64,000 ROCs (incl co-fired ROCs) auctioned at an average price of £49.92.
(http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.nfpa.co.uk/id9_info.cfm?pid=15&id=67)
Green_not_greed
22-Jan-08, 22:37
anyone know how they can have such big sigs?
I guess we're just big sig guys......:cool:
"I think it is in the Caithness public interest that the CWIF leadership are heavily involved or have financial interests in developing windfarms and that all their hogwash opposition is just talk."
Is this true?
ywindythesecond
22-Jan-08, 23:39
"I think it is in the Caithness public interest that the CWIF leadership are heavily involved or have financial interests in developing windfarms and that all their hogwash opposition is just talk."
Is this true?
The answer is no. Go back to the start of this thread and follow Reggy's posts and answers and make your own mind up.
ywy2
Lets talk about the wind farms / renewable energy.
I am for renewable forms of energy and have put my money where my mouth is by installing a solar hot water system in my house. Loads of free hot water in the summer, and surprising on a good winters day will still give the tank temperature a lift.
Back onto the wind turbines.
The main problem I have with the wind turbines is the pittance the developers are offering to the local community.
A current proposal is offering £100,000 per year to the community.
Well what can you do with £100k. Not much.
Lets get the developers to give an advance of the yearly development fund.
Lets get them to put up a 25 year advance on the money.
That would be £25m, and you could do a lot of development for that.
But do not wait for their cheque books to open.
Back in the 1970's with the oil boom, Orkney and Shetland would have told the oil companies to sling their hook if they had offered such a pittance for the oil terminals.
I think you need to practice your 100,000 times table.
Why all the constant moaning about windfarms. Surley something that can produce electricity from an eco-friendly source must be good. Why is it almost always incomers that shout the most about these things. It is about time that we disregarded all their endless drivell and press ahead with the windfarms for the good of the planet.
I take it you're a developer then Scotsman?
Green_not_greed
23-Jan-08, 11:57
"I think it is in the Caithness public interest that the CWIF leadership are heavily involved or have financial interests in developing windfarms and that all their hogwash opposition is just talk."
Is this true?
Only in the diseased organ within Rheghead's head. He has been trying to discredit CWIF for a while - in fact from about the time he got into cahoots with the Baillie winfarm developer.
He has been trying to discredit CWIF for a while.
On the contrary, if you read my posts carefully instead of taking in the bits that you want, I have often stated that there is a very valid and worthwhile role for CWIF to keep the public informed of windfarm developments. I have a lot of respect for CWIF members, especially ywindy and his other activities in the county. My only main beef with CWIF is that the photomontages run contrary to accepted guidlines thus they emphasise the height of the turbines, in a way, opposite to how the developers methods.
In other words, CWIF aren't the Caithness Windfarm Information Forum, they are the Caithness Windfarm Misinformation Forum.
As for the leadership of CWIF being involved or have financial interests in windfarm developments, can you explain why ywindy has stated that he is planning to develop a 51MW windfarm on the Longman tip at Inverness? Are you in on it too? And don't you think that if someone is married to an employee of a windfarm developer, that can be classed as a financial interest in windfarms?
As for the diseased organ, I am disappointed that you always resort to insults instead of answerring the issues, you don't do yourself or the CWIF any favors.
ywindythesecond
23-Jan-08, 13:29
My only main beef with CWIF is that the photomontages run contrary to accepted guidlines thus they emphasise the height of the turbines, in a way, opposite to how the developers methods.
In other words, CWIF aren't the Caithness Windfarm Information Forum, they are the Caithness Windfarm Misinformation Forum.
.
Reggy, how do you explain this?
"From: rheghead
To: ywindy
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 2:35 AM
Subject: Re: Reay and Baillie
Thanks Stuart,
I think you have now faithfully represented the heights of the turbines on your photo montage as is as accurately possible in relation to the horizon. I agree that there was no intention on your part to misrepresent the heights of turbines in relation to the Shebster hill horizon. I am happy to say that in public. However, I do think that the enlarging and cropping does mislead in relation to the visual impact of the proposal though, I would think the publishing of the full montage vista would be more representative.
Thank you for cooperating with my concerns.
Cheers
R"
The picture he was referring to is the Reay Golf Club one on the CWIF website, after I had taken on board his concerns and worked it through with him.
One of the turbines was wrong in that it was too high, and I corrected it. I also redid all the turbines individually, and the net result is that there is now more turbine on the image than it was before he complained about it, but he is satisfied with it, as you see from his e-mail above. The reason for turbines in general now appearing larger is that I deliberately understate them so that I cannot be accused of sensationalising them. It works for reasonable people.
Ywindythesecond
“Endorsed by Rheghead”
Green_not_greed
23-Jan-08, 13:31
I have a lot of respect for CWIF members, especially ywindy and his other activities in the county.
From your posts it certainly doesn't appear that way. If you believe that, then please show it. I've seen no respect from you towards CWIF - or their families.
As for the leadership of CWIF being involved or have financial interests in windfarm developments, can you explain why ywindy has stated that he is planning to develop a 51MW windfarm on the Longman tip at Inverness? Are you in on it too?
Ywindy has already been over this with you and has posted it on the .org
As for "leadership of CWIF" having financial interests in windfarms I can assure you that is complete cloud-cuckoo land territory. Lay off the magic mushrooms for a while, will you? Some of us have morals - and as far as I'm concerned my morals completely forbid taking any financial interest in anything that I feel so passionately against.
I am disappointed that you always resort to insults instead of answerring the issues
I'm simply using your own tactics against you. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.
I'm simply using your own tactics against you. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.
Err excuse me but give me an example of where I have given you a personal insult! You can't that is why, so stop claiming the highground when you don't deserve it.
Now you are all going to start shouting my dad's bigger than your dad.[lol]
Reggy, how do you explain this?
"From: rheghead
To: ywindy
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 2:35 AM
Subject: Re: Reay and Baillie
Thanks Stuart,
I think you have now faithfully represented the heights of the turbines on your photo montage as is as accurately possible in relation to the horizon. I agree that there was no intention on your part to misrepresent the heights of turbines in relation to the Shebster hill horizon. I am happy to say that in public. However, I do think that the enlarging and cropping does mislead in relation to the visual impact of the proposal though, I would think the publishing of the full montage vista would be more representative.
Thank you for cooperating with my concerns.
Cheers
R"
The picture he was referring to is the Reay Golf Club one on the CWIF website, after I had taken on board his concerns and worked it through with him.
One of the turbines was wrong in that it was too high, and I corrected it. I also redid all the turbines individually, and the net result is that there is now more turbine on the image than it was before he complained about it, but he is satisfied with it, as you see from his e-mail above. The reason for turbines in general now appearing larger is that I deliberately understate them so that I cannot be accused of sensationalising them. It works for reasonable people.
Ywindythesecond
“Endorsed by Rheghead”
The photomontage in question had an angle of view of 16 degrees. A standard camera shot has an angle of view of around 40 degrees. I can assure you that SNH guidelines laid out in the http://www.thevisualissue.com/ clearly show that a visual representation that far exceeds the recomended angle of view will mislead the viewer. That is why I said the full montage would be more representational. In the end you never did it.
Margaret M.
23-Jan-08, 14:52
It certainly looks like you were planning to develop a turbine project. Were you? If so, why are you so opposed to windfarms now, y windy? I don't want to wade through all the old posts.
Well, since you didn't answer my question, I waded and it was a waste of time because I failed to find where you have ever addressed that question.
ywindythesecond
23-Jan-08, 16:23
[quote=ywindythesecond;327887]Reggy, how do you explain this?
Remember writing this Reggy?
"Thanks Stuart,
I think you have now faithfully represented the heights of the turbines on your photo montage as is as accurately possible in relation to the horizon. I agree that there was no intention on your part to misrepresent the heights of turbines in relation to the Shebster hill horizon. I am happy to say that in public. "
Ywindythesecond
“Endorsed by Rheghead”
[quote=ywindythesecond;327887]Reggy, how do you explain this?
Remember writing this Reggy?
"Thanks Stuart,
I think you have now faithfully represented the heights of the turbines on your photo montage as is as accurately possible in relation to the horizon. I agree that there was no intention on your part to misrepresent the heights of turbines in relation to the Shebster hill horizon. I am happy to say that in public. "
Ywindythesecond
“Endorsed by Rheghead”
Another body-swerve, well done!
Highland Laddie
23-Jan-08, 18:07
Why all the constant moaning about windfarms. Surley something that can produce electricity from an eco-friendly source must be good. Why is it almost always incomers that shout the most about these things. It is about time that we disregarded all their endless drivell and press ahead with the windfarms for the good of the planet. :D :D
NOTE from Moderators: It has been determined that a term originally used in this post, and quoted in subsequent ones, is not acceptable on these forums. The post and subsequent ones have had that term replaced with 'incomers', and a few specific posts regarding that phrase have been removed for continuity.
I think this pc correctness has hit a new low, when you now seemingly can't use those words (opposite of black, opposite of riser)
Why don't we just send our messages straight to the moderators tell them what we're thinking, and they can type it out and change any terminology they don't agree with?
Dam and blast
Since I was a small boy and Adam was a man, WHITE SETTLER was not a racist remark; it was local terminology for someone new moving into the area
Has common sense left the building completely!
warn me, ban me, it's getting to a state you can't say a word anyway.
Seems it's now 'White Flighters' Highland Laddie an Scotsman1..
Siol nan Gaidheal:
Some time ago, when the flood of English incomers into our rural areas was yet only a trickle, these intruders were humorously nicknamed "White [incomers]". This was largely as a result of their general haughty disregard for local culture, specifically language and social convention. It was noticed that they were behaving as if they were in Kenya or some Indian hill station with the inscrutable Scotch natives, just another genre of contemptible tribesmen - "The Rudyard Kipling Syndrome". Now many a true word is spoken in jest, and since the humorous epithet "White [incomers]" was first coined the trickle has become a deluge of alarming proportions. Due to the emotive nature of the word "[incomer]", they have been re-termed "White Flighters", as often they claim to be fleeing some imagined take-over of their own native land. The White Flighter issue is a live and crucial contention in which Siol nan Gaidheal presents an established and constructive agenda pertaining to the essential survival of our people as an ethnic and cultural community.
(and they don't like wind farms!)
http://www.siol-nan-gaidheal.com/demog.htm (http://www.siol-nan-gaidheal.com/demog.htm)
Big hughie
23-Jan-08, 18:57
NOTE from Moderators: It has been determined that a term originally used in this post, and quoted in subsequent ones, is not acceptable on these forums. The post and subsequent ones have had that term replaced with 'incomers', and a few specific posts regarding that phrase have been removed for continuity.
Pity the Mods were not so active when the Poles were getting slagged on here and mostly by "guess who" Pure double standards No wonder most of the best posters (like Fred Gleeber Peter MacDonald etc) are no where to be found nowadays
Beeegggggg Hugheeeeeeeeee
Bobinovich
23-Jan-08, 19:10
I write this with my Mod hat on.
To the last three posters I put to you this scenario. If sufficient people complain about a phrase which has been used, and then the consensus of Moderators agree that the term, while not racist, is derogatory and therefore unacceptable, then are we supposed to simply ignore their complaints?
While it would have been the easier option, instead of removing the whole thread - with subsequent calls of over-moderation - the phrase was simply reworded in such a way as to allow the rest of the thread topic to continue to be discussed.
It's the old "damned if we do, damned if we don't" scenario.
ywindythesecond
23-Jan-08, 19:50
[quote=ywindythesecond;328043]
Quote:
Originally Posted by ywindythesecond http://forum.caithness.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?p=327887#post327887)
Reggy, how do you explain this?
Remember writing this Reggy?
"Thanks Stuart,
I think you have now faithfully represented the heights of the turbines on your photo montage as is as accurately possible in relation to the horizon. I agree that there was no intention on your part to misrepresent the heights of turbines in relation to the Shebster hill horizon. I am happy to say that in public. "
Ywindythesecond
“Endorsed by Rheghead”
Another body-swerve, well done!
Self-congratulation Reggy.
I co-operated with your concerns about the Reay Golf Club photomontage, and you wrote an email to me, mextract as above. I did my bit , you reneged on your bit.
I will address your concerns about proper presentation of photomontages publicly because I cannot now trust you, after you have explained the above quoted e-mail to watchers of this thread.
ywy2
"Endorsed by Reggy"
Big hughie
23-Jan-08, 19:53
My post makes a simple comment Why did the thread about the Poles last summer go so long when it was overtly racist??? Why didnt the mods get in there right away when the guy made the comment about Wickers a week or two ago??
Ive no problems with you censoring the W S bit but please make sure you are even handed in your moderation
Beeeeeg Hugheeeeeeeeee
Bob the Mod: "To the last three posters"
Hey don't tar me with the same brush; I AM a 'White flighter' that posting was tongue in cheek, and I do believe the term previously mentioned can be derogative. Don't seem to see that term used by the English when the Scotch come down to live 'south of the border' though...
Cinderella's Shoe
23-Jan-08, 20:00
My post makes a simple comment Why did the thread about the Poles last summer go so long when it was overtly racist??? Why didnt the mods get in there right away when the guy made the comment about Wickers a week or two ago??
Ive no problems with you censoring the W S bit but please make sure you are even handed in your moderation
Beeeeeg Hugheeeeeeeeee
I missed the Poles post (wasn't a member then) but completely agree with Beeeeg Hugieeeeeeeeeeeee above about the recent "Weeeeecker" posting. And I'm from Thurso!
Bob the Mod: "To the last three posters"
Hey don't tar me with the same brush; I AM a 'White flighter' that posting was tongue in cheek, and I do believe the term previously mentioned can be derogative. Don't seem to see that term used by the English when the Scotch come down to live 'south of the border' though...
How true you speak Bekisman
Highland Laddie
23-Jan-08, 20:29
I write this with my Mod hat on.
To the last three posters I put to you this scenario. If sufficient people complain about a phrase which has been used, and then the consensus of Moderators agree that the term, while not racist, is derogatory and therefore unacceptable, then are we supposed to simply ignore their complaints?
While it would have been the easier option, instead of removing the whole thread - with subsequent calls of over-moderation - the phrase was simply reworded in such a way as to allow the rest of the thread topic to continue to be discussed.
It's the old "damned if we do, damned if we don't" scenario.
But surely common sense has to come into the equation somewhere; this pc clap trap has gotten completely out of control. It’s ending up no more a public forum but a censored forum.
Don't seem to see that term used by the English when the Scotch come down to live 'south of the border' though...
"Scotch" is a drink and you can send as much as you like 'south of the border'.
As for the Scots, Corby is overflowing with them - visiting there is like visiting Glasgow....[lol]
Highland Laddie
23-Jan-08, 20:32
Bob the Mod: "To the last three posters"
Hey don't tar me with the same brush; I AM a 'White flighter' that posting was tongue in cheek, and I do believe the term previously mentioned can be derogative. Don't seem to see that term used by the English when the Scotch come down to live 'south of the border' though...
No, when we were in devonport working for 6 weeks, we were always refered to as those scottish sounds like Barstewards !!!!
which is the worst !!!!!
MadPict: "Scotch" is a drink and you can send as much as you like 'south of the border'" No offence meant, just took it from the posting earlier #66 (Siol nan Giadheal - the Scottish Cultural and Fraternal Organisation. Dedicated to the concept of a free and independent Scotland)
Suppose they had their own reasons.
I do know that I've seen and old photo showing a previous owner of our house, with the comment; "Angus; now, he was a real scotchman"...
The reason I requested a "Definition" of the term originally was not because of the actual term itself. The fact that the term would apply to somebody from Carlisle who moved into Caithness but not somebody from Gretna I find rather more pathetic than abusive or insulting.
And to clarify, and I will also check with other people from various parts of England to be certain, it is not a term I have ever heard used there despite the allegation made indicating that it is common there. In fact, it is not a term I have heard used other than in Caithness. That is not to say that there are no derogatory terms for people originating from other areas used in England.
The manner in which the term was used in the first place was, in it's effect, to say nothing other than people falling into that category should shut up and keep their nose out of Caithness affairs. Well, tough, this one won't stay silent just because he wasn't born here. I am here because of my decision, not because of a decision made by my parents.
One thing I have found extremely interesting over the last few days is that there is a proposal, in England, to use Tidal Power in order to produce a large quantity of Electricity.
And who is screaming loudest to prevent it happening? Well, blow me down, it's the Environmentalists!
I can't decide if I should scream in frustration or fall about laughing at the irony of it.
It seems the Ecos only want "Environmentally Friendly" power sources when they fall into a category which suits their own particular narrow view of things and under no other. I must admit that from experience of similar things it doesn’t surprise me in the least! :roll:
I do know that I've seen and old photo showing a previous owner of our house, with the comment; "Angus; now, he was a real scotchman"...
Aye, I'm a real scotch man too - none of those pretend drinks for me ;)
[quote=ywindythesecond;328043]
Another body-swerve, well done!You having a wee body swerve yourself there rheghead.
ywindythesecond
23-Jan-08, 23:00
Margaret M. (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/member.php?u=444) vbmenu_register("postmenu_327971", true);
.Orger
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Here and there
Posts: 414
Quote:
Originally Posted by Margaret M.
It certainly looks like you were planning to develop a turbine project. Were you? If so, why are you so opposed to windfarms now, y windy? I don't want to wade through all the old posts.
Well, since you didn't answer my question, I waded and it was a waste of time because I failed to find where you have ever addressed that question.
OK Margaret M, lets deal with this issue once and for all.
I would like to ask you to consider the probability of the following:
A windfarm developer needs about £60M so he advertises for it on Caithness.org forums.
Percentage probability? ---------------------
A “leading Caithness anti windfarm campaigner” wants to feather his own nest so he advertises for funds on the media he uses to peddle his anti- windfarm propaganda on.
Percentage probability?---------------------------
See the following map extracts for Longman Tip and Baillie Windfarm.
http://img106.imageshack.us/img106/6008/longmanandbaillieey9.jpg
The entire Longman Area including Caley Thistle’s ground and the traveller’s site is just under 0.4 square miles. The 21 turbine Baillie windfarm would conservatively occupy about 0.9 square miles.
You can’t physically get 17no 3MW turbines on the Longman site.
Now here is the real truth.
It was a joke. I was quite pleased with my humour at the time.
I never for a moment that anyone would be taken in by it, and I don’t for one moment believe Reggy was.
But did you really believe it?
And just for a finale, Reggy sent me this PM on 30th November 2007
Private Message: Longman site
30-Nov-07, 22:10
Rheghead (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/member.php?u=1217) vbmenu_register("postmenu_", true);
1K.Orger
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Thumbsupster,Caithness
Posts: 5,289
Longman site
Just wondered, did you get any progress with making a wind farm proposal with the Longman site and do you still want fellow investors?
__________________
Who is the bigger fool? The fool or the one who argues with the fool?
If you read something that you think is incorrect then it pays to check it up.
rheghead
So it seems he wanted a piece of the action himself?
ywy2
“Endorsed by Rheghead”
Now here is the real truth.
It was a joke. I was quite pleased with my humour at the time.
I never for a moment that anyone would be taken in by it, and I don’t for one moment believe Reggy was.
http://forum.caithness.org/showpost.php?p=311257&postcount=86
Regarding my search for venture capital to develop a windfarm on the former Longman Tip in Inverness, I wondered what you were up to when you PM-ed me about it two weeks ago. Little did I suspect you were plotting the downfall of CWIF on the strength of it! I would not have replied "Thanks. I remember now. No interest in it I'm afraid so I have dropped my plans."
You must be very pleased to get the chance to drop this bombshell so soon after your keen inquiring mind discovered this skeleton in the cupboard!
Well it sounds like a change of tune and a backtrack to me, why didn't you just say it was a joke then? People can make their own minds up.
Another thing is the business about that viewing platform and your position on the 'Caithness Windfarm Tourism Steering Committee' which was about enhancing the Caithness tourism with a interpretive windfarm centre. Sounds very pro-windfarm to me.
ywindythesecond
23-Jan-08, 23:34
http://forum.caithness.org/showpost.php?p=311257&postcount=86 (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/showpost.php?p=311257&postcount=86)
Well it sounds like a change of tune and a backtrack to me, why didn't you just say it was a joke then? People can make their own minds up.
Another thing is the business about that viewing platform and your position on the 'Caithness Windfarm Tourism Steering Committee' which was about enhancing the Caithness tourism with a interpretive windfarm centre. Sounds very pro-windfarm to me.
Well now Reggy, I am very happy to talk about the Caithness Windfarm Tourism Steering Committee's failed attempt to obtain Planning Permission for a Windfarm Viewing platform and Interpretative Centre on Coupar Hill because it really happened. I am grateful to you for the opportunity to possibly revive the prospect. In fact I think I will start a new thread!
ywindythesecond
24-Jan-08, 00:34
The photomontage in question had an angle of view of 16 degrees. A standard camera shot has an angle of view of around 40 degrees. I can assure you that SNH guidelines laid out in the http://www.thevisualissue.com/ (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.thevisualissue.com/) clearly show that a visual representation that far exceeds the recomended angle of view will mislead the viewer. That is why I said the full montage would be more representational. In the end you never did it.
Deal with "in the end you never did it" first. I told you on 4th January that the image had been on the CWIF website front page since November. You must have visited the CWIF website for your "research" but never saw it?
Porkies?
http://forum.caithness.org/showpost.php?p=317953&postcount=112 (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/showpost.php?p=317953&postcount=112)
Regarding photomontage, see this again
http://forum.caithness.org/showpost.php?p=318931&postcount=120 (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/showpost.php?p=318931&postcount=120)
An interesting fact about what is referred to as SNHs Good Practise Guidance for Visualisations of Windfarms is that it was actually prepared for SNH, The Scottish Renewables Forum, and the Scottish Society of Directors of Planning.
On the Steering Group were none other than Rob Forrest and Jason Ormiston of the Scottish Renewables Forum and John Rennilson, former Director of Planning, Highland Council. So the adoption of my method for windfarm visualisation has been endorsed by Rheghead, SNH, Highland Council, the Scottish Renewables Forum, and by association through membership, Baillie Wind Farm.
Thanks Reggy for giving me the opportunity to point that out.
ywy2
"Endorsed by Rheghead" and other lesser mortals.
Seem to remember someone proposed putting a few turbines on Salisbury Craigs - by Arthur's Seat in Edinburgh, it was good to see the reaction; "can't have those things there!"
Why not? it's near the area that needs the power..
Well it sounds like a change of tune and a backtrack to me, why didn't you just say it was a joke then? People can make their own minds up.
He didn't say it was a joke because it so obviously was a joke! :roll:
Such a joke, in fact that nobody believed it, so didn't pick up on it in the five pages that followed.........not even you!
Deal with "in the end you never did it" first. I told you on 4th January that the image had been on the CWIF website front page since November. You must have visited the CWIF website for your "research" but never saw it?
Porkies?
http://forum.caithness.org/showpost.php?p=317953&postcount=112 (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/showpost.php?p=317953&postcount=112)
I never tell a porkie unless I'm fed one in the first place.
May I remind you.
Here is the full photomontage from Reay Golf Clubhouse.
http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/732/bailliefromreaygolfclubjc9.jpg (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/732/bailliefromreaygolfclubjc9.jpg)
http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/732/bailliefromreaygolfclubjc9.jpg
This was the size of montage that I recommended you should have posted but with the heights of the turbines corrected.
You didn't post this full background and the corrections on the CWIF in November. This image's angle of view is more in keeping with how the human eye sees the view and not expanded and cropped, though it still hasn't got a 3X2 ratio. Instead you just posted a photomontage with the turbine height corrections but with a slightly larger angle of view from the original of 25 degrees, still quite short of the standard, demanded by the recommended guidlines for visual representations of windfarms.
In the end you never did it what I said.
But take heart, that little exercise we did will only improve your montages, even if it is only because you started using Memory-map which I was using and which you seem to be in love with now.
Can't see that it makes a lot of difference myself. The windmills are still obvious however you display them..and the folks living near to them don't have the luxury of seeing them across fields.
And just imagine the impact if there has to be more/much larger pylons in place of the ones already there to take all the electricity to the people who actually need it.
By the way, Rheghead, didn't you do much the same thing with your photo of Dounreay by taking it at an angle which gave an impression to suit your agenda?
By the way, Rheghead, didn't you do much the same thing with your photo of Dounreay by taking it at an angle which gave an impression to suit your agenda?
Yes, I did. But that that was the whole point why I did it, to test public opinion over than that what was truely visually impacting.:roll:
ywindythesecond
25-Jan-08, 10:38
I am getting really fed up now Reggy. This will be my last post on this thread so lets clear up some loose ends.
Reay Montage.
You challenged my montage of Baillie Wind Farm from Reay Golf Club.
I co-operated with you and between us we worked together to arrive at a photomontage which was acceptable to both of us.
You confirmed that
“I think you have now faithfully represented the heights of the turbines on your photo montage as is as accurately possible in relation to the horizon. I agree that there was no intention on your part to misrepresent the heights of turbines in relation to the Shebster hill horizon. I am happy to say that in public.”
But you never did. This is about the fifth time I have published this commitment from you. The followers of this thread if there are any left will have noted that you have neither addressed the question nor denied that these are your words, and that you have failed to honour your commitment.
I am not going to ask again, your non-response speaks louder than words.
And after all that, as Oddquine says re Reay montage “Can't see that it makes a lot of difference myself.”
Photomontages.
You have dipped into a 198 page technical document on windfarm visualisation and consider yourself an expert through selection of phrases out of context.
“Visual Representation of Windfarms Good Practise Guidance” has adopted my method of presenting larger sized images for public viewing (as all my montages are constructed). SNH, the Scottish Renewables Forum, and the Scottish Society of Directors of Planning for whom the Guidance was prepared, now consider my method to be “best practice”.
I have given evidence to the Beauly Denny Inquiry on behalf of the Association for the Protection of Rural Scotland , the John Muir Trust, the Mountaineering Council for Scotland , the National Trust for Scotland, Ramblers Association Scotland and the Scottish Wild Land Group (collectively as the Beauly Denny Landscape Group), and separately for John Muir Trust.
I have prepared photomontages for an estate for display at the Cairngorm National Park Session of the Beauly Denny inquiry (one of them seventeen feet eight-and-a- half inches long).
I have been subjected to three and a half hours of hostile questioning by the QC for the BD applicants backed up by one of Scotland’s foremost landscape architects, and while much was said about me, not once was any criticism of my photomontages offered, and believe me if there had been a reason for criticism, I would have been shredded.
If my work is good enough for them, it is more than good enough for you.
Quote Reggy
“But take heart, that little exercise we did will only improve your montages,even if itis only because you started using Memory-map which I was using and which you seem to be in love with now.”
Interesting statement Reggy.
“even if itis only because you started using Memory-map which I was using and which you seem to be in love with now.”
Said with the assurance of someone secure in the knowledge that he is right! Who could doubt the truth of this statement?
But I have never seen, never mind used, “Memory Map”. You bought it to check my montages, I said I was impressed when you described its capabilities. End of story.
By a stroke of luck, Bobinovich was in my office when I viewed your post. He knows a bit about computers, so I asked him to search my machine for “Memory Map”. He will confirm that he found no trace of it.
Your interesting, apparently reliable statement, has no basis in fact. It is an invention.
So next time Reggy, and possibly stretching far into the future, whenever you make a statement “with the assurance of someone secure in the knowledge that he is right”, as you are prone to do, readers of this thread will always have that… little………..nagging………………………..doubt?…?………………?……………. .?
YWY2
THE END
I am getting really fed up now Reggy. This will be my last post on this thread so lets clear up some loose ends.
Reay Montage.
You challenged my montage of Baillie Wind Farm from Reay Golf Club.
I co-operated with you and between us we worked together to arrive at a photomontage which was acceptable to both of us.
You confirmed that
“I think you have now faithfully represented the heights of the turbines on your photo montage as is as accurately possible in relation to the horizon. I agree that there was no intention on your part to misrepresent the heights of turbines in relation to the Shebster hill horizon. I am happy to say that in public.”
But you never did. This is about the fifth time I have published this commitment from you. The followers of this thread if there are any left will have noted that you have neither addressed the question nor denied that these are your words, and that you have failed to honour your commitment.
I am not going to ask again, your non-response speaks louder than words.
With your habit of publishing private emails, you have had more than enough opportunity to show that I have approved the changes to the heights of the turbines on the Reay montage.
I had no reason to repeat what you have already shown.
But for the zillionth time, that is not the main issue I have, and I don't care if the flipping Queen approves of your misleading montages, I just want to point out that you expanded and cropped the Baillie windfarm montage in a way as to give the impression that they were bigger than they would actually be. The angle of view was 16 degrees. Your Boulrouich/Dunbeath montage was 26 degrees, your Spittal Hill montage was similiar. You would be soon to bellyache about any developer's montages that had a wide-angle shot (like in the Beauly-Denny Inquiry)so why don't you just admit that you are misleading us in a short sentence in regards you are producing a narrow-angle shot of the Baillie windfarm. Just say sorry, have done with it, move on, and take an honest piece of criticism on the chin, is it too much to ask? It is a pity that you did't adopt the best practice when creating the CWIF montages. Looking back on our differences, you could have done this and nipped this debate in the bud without wasting yours and my time and not taken this thing so personally, like a spoilt child.[evil]
Have just caught the tail-end of the lunchtime news and it looks like the 141 turbine windfarm planned for Lewis is going to be turned down by Scottish Ministers.
Could we have all the threads about wind-farms merged as there seems to be quite a lot. How about a wind-farms sub-forum?;)
Yes you're right; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/highlands_and_islands/7208991.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/highlands_and_islands/7208991.stm)
Well seeing that 5,000 letters of objection were received by the scottish Executive - shows it was a Democratic action..
On BBC Ceefax it says that environmental reasons led to the turning down of the Lewis windfarm. It also said there were 5000 objectors. Could it be that there has been a serious outbreak of common sense among the decision makers and that they have seen through the propaganda spread about by windfarm developers?
Could we have all the threads about wind-farms merged as there seems to be quite a lot. How about a wind-farms sub-forum?;)
Don't think it would pass the planning application...
As a resident of Lewis at present all I can say is thank goodness they may be seeing sense and stopping this very large commercial venture. The people who were mainly for it on Lewis were the councillors - for the money it would bring in to them.
No thought or consideration what residents here wanted.
The electricity which was going to be produced on Lewis was to be sent down to middle England for their consumption, we were being left with turbines, pylons, roads to turbines and pylons, and the money accepted by the councillors for the desecration of the island.
They have the Lake District and Peak District which is much nearer in which to build windfarms if they wish where there is plenty of wind and not many people.
Hope this is the end of the Lewis Windfarm.
Do not mind small turbines for small communities or personal use.
Cannot understand why they do not use wave power more - the one project here on Lewis was shipped to Portugal for testing????
Green_not_greed
25-Jan-08, 19:48
On BBC Ceefax it says that environmental reasons led to the turning down of the Lewis windfarm. It also said there were 5000 objectors. Could it be that there has been a serious outbreak of common sense among the decision makers and that they have seen through the propaganda spread about by windfarm developers?
I'm seriously glad its not going ahead - it would have ruined the island.
I'm also glad to see that the stance taken by local developers and pro-wind supporters recently has been knocked for six - i.e. that 5000 letters of objection apparently means that the rest of us 5 million Scots actually support it!
Common sense? Hope its the start of a new era. These ministers have to think abour re-election, after all.......
npower are trying to push through a windfactory development not far from me - turbines are going to be 416 feet high - the tallest mainland turbines so far I believe.
Locals are already voicing objections...
ywindythesecond
25-Jan-08, 21:12
npower are trying to push through a windfactory development not far from me - turbines are going to be 416 feet high - the tallest mainland turbines so far I believe.
Locals are already voicing objections...
Glad to hear locals are voicing objections, and congratulations on holding the record MadPict, the proposed turbines at Dunbeath are only 410 feet high.
Meh, blight the landscape and make money....
http://www.npower-renewables.com/landowner/index.asp
Word goes round that up to £5m per year is the potential yield for local communities if the big wind farm in Barvas moor on the Isle of Lewis was to be built. Hundreds of jobs are to be created during construction and a substantial amount of jobs will be continuously, for maintenance and upkeep of the site.
Also this development is a great chance for the steel fabrication yard at Arnish in Stornway, as it is agreed in principle that a lot of the work involved in producing the towers and foundations of he turbines will be allocated to that yard.
I would like to start a discussion about the impact of the economics of such a development for local communities. Surely, with the right negotiating skills the financial incentives for the local communities could be increased. But even with the figures promised to date, there are a lot of benefits in for the local communities.
Make no mistake, fuel poverty is very real on the Isle of Lewis and a lot of folk worry about many things but the view over the muirland at this time of the year.
How could or should the Western Isles be compensated for the rejection of the planning permission of Europe’s biggest wind farm? (BTW 'The biggest wind farm of Europe' is a good selling point to attract tourists to the island)
Cinderella's Shoe
27-Jan-08, 11:47
(BTW 'The biggest wind farm of Europe' is a good selling point to attract tourists to the island)
Compared to one of the last desolate and unspolit landscapes full of wildlife being killed off everywhere else? I doubt it
Sapphire2803
27-Jan-08, 13:06
Could we have all the threads about wind-farms merged as there seems to be quite a lot. How about a wind-farms sub-forum?;)
That's really not a bad idea, maybe with a small warning that discussion may become rather heated and maybe moderated in a fairly easy going manner, so that those who feel strongly about it can bicker away to their hearts content and those who couldn't care less will know where NOT to go :)
Rambler: "Word goes round that up to £5m per year is the potential yield for local communities if the big wind farm in Barvas moor on the Isle of Lewis was to be built. [Campaigner Dinah Murray, who organised a petition among crofters in north Lewis which warned they were opposed to the plan, said she would be shocked if approval was given to the wind farm in its present form, She added: "This is very, very important and well designated area of land." *1.]
Hundreds of jobs are to be created during construction [ they will be bought in from elsewhere, as with other wind farm construction] and a substantial amount of jobs will be continuously, for maintenance and upkeep of the site.[32 was the figure I saw] Also this development is a great chance for the steel fabrication yard at Arnish in Stornway, as it is agreed in principle that a lot of the work involved in producing the towers and foundations of he turbines will be allocated to that yard." [cheaper from Danmark]
I would like to start a discussion about the impact of the economics of such a development for local communities. Surely, with the right negotiating skills the financial incentives for the local communities could be increased. But even with the figures promised to date, there are a lot of benefits in for the local communities. [money to pay for 'things' the Council is responsible for]
Make no mistake, fuel poverty is very real [sorry, but electricity costs will not go down you know!] on the Isle of Lewis and a lot of folk worry about many things but the view over the muirland at this time of the year. How could or should the Western Isles be compensated for the rejection of the planning permission of Europe’s biggest wind farm? (BTW 'The biggest wind farm of Europe' is a good selling point to attract tourists to the island)"
[The visitor centre at Cold Northcott in Cornwall closed within 2 years of opening due to the low number visitors. Whatever happened to the Delabole Gaia Centre? Wasn't it supposed to be a "Centre of Excellence" for promoting renewable energy and attract 1000's of visitors to the area? "A tourist attraction in Cornwall which cost £5m to build has shut just three years after opening. The Gaia Energy Centre at Delabole, which is on the site of Britain's first commercial windfarm, was supposed to attract 150,000 visitors a year. However, only a tenth of that number actually toured the centre." *2 .
I'm in the tourism industry, at the sharp end, (are you?) and I've yet to find anyone who remotely likes the things - folk come to Scotland for the remoteness, scenery, wide open spaces, not to see an industrialised landscape ruined for the benefit of a few land owners and developers whilst a mere pittance is thrown as crumbs to the locals and the power courses overhead to England.. Nobody but the wind industry and its most zealous supporters believes that wind developments will encourage tourism. The notion that visitors from England will drive past hundreds of turbines in the Borders and the central belt in order to look at some more in the Highlands—and vice versa—is nonsense..
[As an industry, tourism is worth £4.5 billion per year to the Scottish economy, with estimates predicting this economic value to grow to £6.0 billion by 2015. In terms of employment, Scottish tourism has created jobs for almost 200,000 people, about nine per cent of the total workforce (13 per cent in the Highlands and Islands). In fact, tourism pays the wages of more people than the oil, gas and whisky industries combined. The importance of tourism cannot be understated] *3
*1.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/highlands_and_islands/7191285.stm
*2. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/3701894.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/3701894.stm)
*3. http://www.hie.co.uk/tourism/facts-and-figures.html (http://www.hie.co.uk/tourism/facts-and-figures.html)
Word goes round that up to £5m per year is the potential yield for local communities if the big wind farm in Barvas moor on the Isle of Lewis was to be built. Hundreds of jobs are to be created during construction and a substantial amount of jobs will be continuously, for maintenance and upkeep of the site.
Also this development is a great chance for the steel fabrication yard at Arnish in Stornway, as it is agreed in principle that a lot of the work involved in producing the towers and foundations of he turbines will be allocated to that yard.
I would like to start a discussion about the impact of the economics of such a development for local communities. Surely, with the right negotiating skills the financial incentives for the local communities could be increased. But even with the figures promised to date, there are a lot of benefits in for the local communities.
Make no mistake, fuel poverty is very real on the Isle of Lewis and a lot of folk worry about many things but the view over the muirland at this time of the year.
How could or should the Western Isles be compensated for the rejection of the planning permission of Europe’s biggest wind farm? (BTW 'The biggest wind farm of Europe' is a good selling point to attract tourists to the island)
Rambler, not sure about my facts here and please correct me if I'm wrong, but was it not the case that 700+ crofters were going to take this to the land court over the loss of their crofting land should the windfarm be given permission? Surely, this group of people and their families are part of the local economy, as much as fabrication workers, construction workers etc. etc.? Obviously such a big development would create a serious amount of work for quite some time - but what about when its built? How many maintenance jobs would there be exactly? I really don't think there would be that many tourists travelling the distance to Lewis to see this large windfarm and once they have seen it what then? It wouldn't bring them back. There are also serious concerns about destruction of European protected habitats and wildlife are there not? Maybe, if the development had been much smaller there wouldn't have been such a stink.
ywindythesecond
27-Jan-08, 13:33
Word goes round that up to £5m per year is the ...
I would like to start a discussion about the impact of the economics of such a development for local communities. Surely, with the right negotiating skills the financial incentives for the local communities could be increased. But even with the figures promised to date, there are a lot of benefits in for the local communities.
Make no mistake, fuel poverty is very real on the Isle of Lewis and a lot of folk worry about many things but the view over the muirland at this time of the year.
How could or should the Western Isles be compensated for the rejection of the planning permission of Europe’s biggest wind farm? (BTW 'The biggest wind farm of Europe' is a good selling point to attract tourists to the island)
If the people of Lewis want to make money from renewable energy, they could form a cooperative and develop small scale sensitively sited wind or hydro projects at diverse locations throughout the area. In this way, all profits would remain in the community, power used locally would mean more power available on the mainland, diverse location and generation technology would provide a higher reliability of supply than all your eggs in one basket and it wouldn't destroy haitat or lives. Nor would it require hundreds of millions of pounds for infrastructure which would spread the destruction over hundreds of mile to get the power to its point of use.
A huge manufacturing facility camnnot be served by local employment. How many welders are presently unemployed in Lewis? It would require an imported workforce. Small-sclae energy development would provide long term real, worthwhile jobs for local people.
ywy2
...A huge manufacturing facility camnnot be served by local employment. How many welders are presently unemployed in Lewis? It would require an imported workforce. Small-sclae energy development would provide long term real, worthwhile jobs for local people.
ywy2
I don't think there are many unemployed welders in Lewis at present. But I do know that a lot of people from Lewis are working offshore. Some of them would be very happy to find professional employment locally.
Of course it would be far nicer to build a number of community owned smaller windfarms to benefit the local economy. But due to a lack of enthusiastic investors on a local level it is unlikely for this to happen anytime soon.
All the construction worker that were required for a number of years need hotels, B&Bs, food, etc. So that would also be a boost for the local economy as a side effect.
Following the required grid upgrade for the big wind farm, more smaller community owned renewable energy projects will be able to conect to that grid too. Something which is not possible at many places with the existing grid.
I'm in the tourism industry, at the sharp end, (are you?) and I've yet to find anyone who remotely likes the things - folk come to Scotland for the remoteness, scenery, wide open spaces, not to see an industrialised landscape...
I have stopped counting how many times people that drove past the Causeymire have told me how impressed they were by the stunning scenery. A lot of people think that those turbines just look great.
Even wih the prospect of 181 wind turbines scattered over the outskirts of the Barvas moor, the whole area will still remain remote and scenic and there will still be plenty of wide and open spaces. I have not suggested that tourists will come to the Western Isles only to look at turbines. But if the marketing is done in the right way a visit to the biggest wind farm of Europe could be another selling point for tourists that are unsure whether to travel over the Minch or not.
I'm da Mamma
27-Jan-08, 15:07
If the people of Lewis want to make money from renewable energy, they could form a cooperative and develop small scale sensitively sited wind or hydro projects at diverse locations throughout the area. In this way, all profits would remain in the community, power used locally would mean more power available on the mainland, diverse location and generation technology would provide a higher reliability of supply than all your eggs in one basket and it wouldn't destroy haitat or lives. Nor would it require hundreds of millions of pounds for infrastructure which would spread the destruction over hundreds of mile to get the power to its point of use.
A huge manufacturing facility camnnot be served by local employment. How many welders are presently unemployed in Lewis? It would require an imported workforce. Small-sclae energy development would provide long term real, worthwhile jobs for local people.
ywy2
Just wanted to say, this is the first sensible positive suggestions i've seen posted in all the w/farm forums. Every community should consider this option. A small-scale development of some sort seems to be the only way to get true community benefit. I do not agree with big utility companies coming in to our county and exploiting our assets. I am not taken in by a local farmer pretending to give financial benefits and at the same time "saving the planet" either. Communities should be pro-active on these issues and stop the bully-boys and perhaps develop a true community scheme.
Rambler: "But if the marketing is done in the right way a visit to the biggest wind farm of Europe could be another selling point for tourists that are unsure whether to travel over the Minch or not."
Refer to this 'Centre of Excellence'
The visitor centre at Cold Northcott in Cornwall closed within 2 years of opening due to the low number visitors. Whatever happened to the Delabole Gaia Centre? Wasn't it supposed to be a "Centre of Excellence" for promoting renewable energy and attract 1000's of visitors to the area? "A tourist attraction in Cornwall which cost £5m to build has shut just three years after opening. The Gaia Energy Centre at Delabole, which is on the site of Britain's first commercial windfarm, was supposed to attract 150,000 visitors a year. However, only a tenth of that number actually toured the centre."
I seem to think that in Danmark (for example) with any small Turbine 'farm' the money goes not to the community but to the individuals, which makes it more acceptable..
Green_not_greed
27-Jan-08, 21:27
Read
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3257728.ece
then decide whether developers are in it for the chance to save the planet or for money. Half a million per turbine per year, huh? Who needs the lottery....
Rambler: "Make no mistake, fuel poverty is very real [sorry, but electricity costs will not go down you know!]...
Nobody claims electricity costs will go down because of windfarm developments.
At present council run schemes like the "home repair grant scheme" and others do not accept new applicants as there is no money left. The monetary contribution from the windfarm development could go a long way to open those schemes again.
To tackle fuel poverty it is not necessary to lower the price of energy. To help with costs of insulation and upgrades of boiler systems, i.e. to convert open fireplaces to central heating systems or closed fireplaces is far more important and effective than simply reducing the costs of energy.
Green_not_greed
27-Jan-08, 21:57
Nobody claims electricity costs will go down because of windfarm developments.
At present council run schemes like the "home repair grant scheme" and others do not accept new applicants as there is no money left. The monetary contribution from the windfarm development could go a long way to open those schemes again.
To tackle fuel poverty it is not necessary to lower the price of energy. To help with costs of insulation and upgrades of boiler systems, i.e. to convert open fireplaces to central heating systems or closed fireplaces is far more important and effective than simply reducing the costs of energy.
So the Government should get rid of subsidies for what is "proven technology" and put the money into helping those under fuel poverty and into R&D into wave, tidal and other promising and undeveloped renewable sources.
So the Government should get rid of subsidies for what is "proven technology" and put the money into helping those under fuel poverty and into R&D into wave, tidal and other promising and undeveloped renewable sources.
You may well get your way. I read somewhere that a ROC will be awarded for every 0.5MWh of marine renewable energy. Offshore wind will get a ROC for every 0.75MWh.
As onshore wind matures, it is quite conceivable that less ROCs will be awarded for every MWh until the Government decides to phase them out altogether. But to be honest, it is not the RO that is driving up fuel bills, it is competition for fuels from the Eastern economies. Incidentally, it will be a low-carbon economy that will keep our fuel bills affordable in the future.
I'm da Mamma
28-Jan-08, 09:18
You may well get your way. I read somewhere that a ROC will be awarded for every 0.5MWh of marine renewable energy. Offshore wind will get a ROC for every 0.75MWh.
I'm very intertested in reading the article that you refer to, can you post the link or let me know where you read it, thanks.
As onshore wind matures, it is quite conceivable that less ROCs will be awarded for every MWh until the Government decides to phase them out altogether. But to be honest, it is not the RO that is driving up fuel bills, it is competition for fuels from the Eastern economies. Incidentally, it will be a low-carbon economy that will keep our fuel bills affordable in the future.
Where did you get this info, is it complete hear-say? You would be taken to pieces in a court of law if you made such claims! If you have written proof would i be able to get a copy. many thanks in advance.
I'm da Mamma
28-Jan-08, 09:21
You may well get your way. I read somewhere that a ROC will be awarded for every 0.5MWh of marine renewable energy. Offshore wind will get a ROC for every 0.75MWh.
Could you let me have the link to this article or let me know where you read it - i am very interested in reading it. thanks
If you come to Lewis you will find small community windturbines supplying halls, schools and houses, in various parts of the islands. They fit in with the communities and certainly do not look out of place, the community also are happy feeling they are doing a small part to help themselves and being environmentally helpful.
Admittedly there could be more small turbines but it does take time to get the idea and money implanted into minds and pockets. Fuel poverty is a very serious problem here and not just for the elderly, we do take the issue very seriously. Still most people on Lewis do not wish to have the 400' wind turbines placed here to destroy the environment on the island, whatever the cost may be. Many folk are talking about getting their own small turbines but after fighting against the big ones they wish to ensure they are not coming before erecting more small neighbourly ones.
Last time Arnish was used to build turbine/wave energy machines the majority of the welding work force came from Poland - they were being paid £7 per hour whilst the locally living welding workforce employed were being paid £13.50 per hour, think that was about 2 years ago.
Who do you think will be getting employed if the work did come to Lewis - cannot imagine an employer paying the full price of £13.50 per hour when they can get folk who are very happy to work for £7 an hour, double the cost for labour?
The impact of the proposed windturbines, pylons, roads to access them, quarries to build the roads on peat, interfering with drainage of the peat and moorland and the massive amounts of CO2 this will release, interfering with wildlife on such a massive scale - big sellout of the island for many many years to come for a very small payout by the people who want to build the windfarms.
My main concern is some island folk who would have lost some of their land, had roads, pylons, turbines build on the land they use as crofters, they would have lost their income due to the loss of use of land their families have used for generations, they would have had no real input in the decision to build these windfarms - it was a coucil executive decision, not a community decision (I know we elect these people but sometimes they try to ride roughshod over us and try to do what they think is best!!! - make money).
I personally hope we have seen the end of this massive proposal.
My other concern is about the folk who make their living from the main industry - tourism, I am one of the people trying to earn a living from visiting people, earning my living is not my main concern, it is environment protection for future generations.
...I am one of the people trying to earn a living from visiting people, earning my living is not my main concern, it is environment protection for future generations.
I agree with everything you said above (and previously (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?p=192186#post192186)) but you have to live and have to put food on the table etc.
No-one would blame you for trying to protect the natural habitats of the island on which you live from industrialisation.
Those making money from this windfactory no doubt have an escape plan! Nice villa in Spain, second home somewhere wind turbines will never be built perhaps?....
Could you let me have the link to this article or let me know where you read it - i am very interested in reading it. thanks
I think the necessary info is here, though I read it in a magazine publication.
http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file34470.pdf
If you want more info, just google "2 ROCs per MWh"
"Councillors from the Western Isles are to take their campaign backing the construction of a major wind farm on Lewis to the European Union" *
Well I think most people expected it, why aren't these people listening to the people who voted them in? (they're not Thurso Councillors parachuted in are they by any chance?)
* http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/highlands_and_islands/7212750.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/highlands_and_islands/7212750.stm)
"Councillors from the Western Isles are to take their campaign backing the construction of a major wind farm on Lewis to the European Union" *
Well I think most people expected it, why aren't these people listening to the people who voted them in? (they're not Thurso Councillors parachuted in are they by any chance?)
* http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/highlands_and_islands/7212750.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/highlands_and_islands/7212750.stm)
And slightly more in depth in today's P&J. Invite Salmond to dinner and get the thing through regardless. The "Trump" card all over again.
http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=149235&command=displayContent&sourceNode=149218&contentPK=19687468&moduleName=InternalSearch&formname=sidebarsearch
"Councillors from the Western Isles are to take their campaign backing the construction of a major wind farm on Lewis to the European Union" *
Well I think most people expected it, why aren't these people listening to the people who voted them in? (they're not Thurso Councillors parachuted in are they by any chance?)
* http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/highlands_and_islands/7212750.stm (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/highlands_and_islands/7212750.stm)
They are listening to the people that voted them in. There is a fair number of people on Lewis in favour of a wind farm development in the Barvas Moor. I can't quote exact figures, but I do get an idea from talking to folk on a daily base.
Further the councilllor's job is also to ensure economic growth and welfare within their constituency. It's cold on the isles in the winter and there is a lack of jobs. These are issues that councillors have to address. The propesed wind farm development would go a long way in supporting the economy of Lewis. Also as a side effect it would create the grid connection required for community run schemes.
Rambler, not sure about my facts here and please correct me if I'm wrong, but was it not the case that 700+ crofters were going to take this to the land court over the loss of their crofting land should the windfarm be given permission? Surely, this group of people and their families are part of the local economy, as much as fabrication workers, construction workers etc. etc.? Obviously such a big development would create a serious amount of work for quite some time - but what about when its built? How many maintenance jobs would there be exactly? I really don't think there would be that many tourists travelling the distance to Lewis to see this large windfarm and once they have seen it what then? It wouldn't bring them back. There are also serious concerns about destruction of European protected habitats and wildlife are there not? Maybe, if the development had been much smaller there wouldn't have been such a stink.
Hi Rupert
Thanks for your reply and apologies for the late answer.
I have also heard that up to 700 crofters were to go to take legal action in case the wind farm development was approved. But I was not able to substantiate that claim by any means. Most of the area affected by the wind farm is currently classified as common grazings. There is no reason why there should not be any sheep or cattle continue to use thoses grazings following completion of the works. Sheep and cattle seem to be quite happy to shelter behind the towers at bad weather. There will be a fair amount of rent to be paid for the usage of the common grazings by the wind farm operators.
So I can't see how and why the crofters economic prosperity should be impacted by this development. There will also be better access roads to the grazings.
I have also serious doubts whether there are 700+ active crofters in the area in question, there may be 700 crofts, but most of them won't be used in the traditional way anyway.
I see your point and think it's a good one, but from what I can hear and see on the Isle of Lewis, there is a lot of support for industrial development. If this is going to be provided by wind farms, then that's fine with a lot of folk.
As a result of the improved grid connection I believe there will be a huge knock on effect for future marine energy developments and also further manufacturing contracts for the Arnish yard.
And the protected habitat and wildlife? Of course that has to be addressed very carefully to ensure that everything is in order. Maybe more work has to be done to satisfy those issues, but they should not completely prevent economic growth on island communities I think.
Rambler, would you happen to know how many of the 4000+ (I think) objections there were to the windfarm were from Lewis residents? What is the total population of Lewis? If its a large proportion of the local community against the windfarm then I don't feel it should be pushed through at the cost to this community. I do feel strongly that habitats and wildlife that have been given the highest level of protection, ie by European directives should be given that protection. There is no point in having a special protection area if it affords no protection. I'm sorry, but I cannot believe the propaganda put about by wind farm developers that windfarms do not kill birds. A huge development such as that proposed for Lewis, on a migration route for Whooper swans, will pose a massive risk, particularly I believe, as they fly both at night and during conditions of poor visibility. Are not SNH and RSPB still opposed to the development? With regards to the better grid connection and work at the Arnish yard, could this not go ahead for marine projects without the windfarm?
I’ve been told that from a toal of 7,000 objections around 2,000 were from residents of the Isle of Lewis. Quite a few of the objections came from abroad and most of the letters from Lewis were based on a similar standard template (wich is perfectly in order). Not sure if that is true, but that’s what i’ve heard (from quite well informed sources that is).
Now what about birds? I have seen plenty of whooper swans in Iceland and also in Lewis. Great birds, but are they and others species really worth £5,000,000 or more to island communities? And if not is there any chance of compensaton for islanders for preserving the natural habitat of those birds?
Also bear in mind that the essential grid upgrade for the proposed development would be paid for by the developer. Grid upgrades for community schemes will have to be footed by the tax payer.
The original plan was to build the windfarm inside the Barvas Moor to get the best performance. Taking into account initial concerns from environmentalists, the number of turbines was reduced and the location of those turbines was changed from the moor closer to the common grazings. Now folk are complaining the turbines are to close to the roads. The same folk complained previously that the turbines were to destroy the muirland.
The Arnish yard needs a proper contract to ensure the production facility is in line with modern requirements. This requires a lot of investment and this investment is only viable if a contract such as the Lewis Wind Farm is going to go ahead.
Thanks for all that Rambler. 2000 locals objecting sounds an awful lot to me. Regarding the birds - surely the developers should never have proposed such a big scheme in such an environmentally rich place in the first place? Did they really think that they could get over the European legislation issue? Obviously the vast sums of money on offer would have a significant effect on the island's facilities/infrastructure etc. but isn't that something the government should be providing anyway? I think I'm right in saying that Europe has stepped into the fray over the habitats issue and there could be serious fines imposed if the government goes against their wishes. Sorry, but whether you are a bird lover or not these areas and species were given protection before the windfarm developers set their sights on Lewis.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.