View Full Version : Camster windfarm - what does everyone think?
I see there is to be an exhibition in both Watten and Lybster Primary Schools on Wednesday 5th and Thursday 6th March respectively to show the new access road proposal for the proposed 25 turbine wind farm at Camster. There is so much 'for' and 'against' feelings on the .org about windfarms at the moment I just wondered what everyone thought of this particular proposal?
Sorry folks it is Watten Hall not primary school for exhibition.
Do you know what times the exihibition is open, please?:confused
Valerie Campbell
03-Mar-08, 16:00
Caithness is going to be renamed Windfarm County at this rate. The ways it's going the whole area is going to be covered with them.
I'm getting sick o' the site o' 'em.
Gonna get meself a hacksaw and do some pruning I think[evil]
I can see the new ones at Bilbster from my window and when I look at them each rotating different to one another it makes me feel physically sick after a while. Sorry, I know this thread is meant to be about Camster - awful thought, I'll probably be able to see all of those as well! When I last visited the Grey Cairns of Camster it was such a peaceful, atmospheric place - will the windfarm be near to them does anyone know? If it is it will ruin the place.
ywindythesecond
03-Mar-08, 19:00
Caithness is going to be renamed Windfarm County at this rate. The ways it's going the whole area is going to be covered with them.
This is what it will look like from the east end of Loch Watten.
http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/2091/camsterfromwattenreconsig5.jpg
A lot will be screened locally by trees at this particular viewpoint, but move out in the open and you would see all the turbines I show below the photo.
Highland Laddie
03-Mar-08, 19:07
I hope that's an accurate representation
before my m8 Rheggy gets a hold of it. :lol:
i love windmills. the more the better
Boozeburglar
03-Mar-08, 20:04
Sure, put them in the middle of Stonehenge too.
After all, Camster has only been there a few thousand years, what respect do our ancestors deserve?
If anyone feels strongly about this or any other windfarm proposal in the county there is still time to send in your letter of representation to the Highland Council or if its one of the very big ones both the Highland Council and the Energy Consents Unit in Glasgow. Objection forms can be found at the CWIF website www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk) or the one for spittal www.spittalwindfarmopposition.co.uk (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.spittalwindfarmopposition.co.uk).
anneoctober
03-Mar-08, 21:39
i love windmills. the more the better
Guess who's in the "doghouse" ?!!! And it ain't me........:lol:
Sure, put them in the middle of Stonehenge too.
After all, Camster has only been there a few thousand years, what respect do our ancestors deserve?
Is the proposal to put them up on top of the cairns?:confused
I gather this windfarm will not be very far from the proposed Burn of Whilk windfarm. There has been a big hue and cry about the potential ruination of archeology and ambience over the B of Whilk proposal. Could there not be lots of undiscovered archeology near Camster windfarm as well? How do they propose to not destroy it if its there? Seems to me we should be promoting archeology tourism rather than filling the place with wind farms.
Could there not be lots of undiscovered archeology near Camster windfarm as well?
With respect of preventing windturbines being developed on the premise of he preservation of the yet undiscovered doesn't seem to me to be very cost effective somehow?!?!:lol:
However, I am sure if there is something discovered whilst the foundation piles are put in then there will be a delay until there has been an excavation carried out. However, if there is something undiscovered nearby and the windturbines aren't actually sitting on them then the archaeological value of the discovery will still be preserved.
With respect of preventing windturbines being developed on the premise of he preservation of the yet undiscovered doesn't seem to me to be very cost effective somehow?!?!:lol:
However, I am sure if there is something discovered whilst the foundation piles are put in then there will be a delay until there has been an excavation carried out. However, if there is something undiscovered nearby and the windturbines aren't actually sitting on them then the archaeological value of the discovery will still be preserved.
What has cost got to do with it? If an area is known to be rich in archeological remains such as around the Yarrows trail or possibly Camster then maybe a cautious approach should be taken with regard to planning consent. I wonder what Historic Scotland's view is on this proposal or the Burn of Whilk - would you happen to know?
What has cost got to do with it?
Cost involves everything. If the landowner gets the development refused then it has costed him a lot in the development.
What has cost got to do with it? If an area is known to be rich in archeological remains such as around the Yarrows trail or possibly Camster then maybe a cautious approach should be taken with regard to planning consent. I wonder what Historic Scotland's view is on this proposal or the Burn of Whilk - would you happen to know?
The Archaeology Unit in Inverness and Historic Scotland will have been consulted on both proposals. You could probably get a copy of their responses by writing to them. The Arch Unit can obviously only respond on what is known to be there.
I believe some planning consents stipulate an archaeologist must be present during certain times of digging out or whatever, but I don't know if that applies to windfarms.
ywindythesecond
04-Mar-08, 22:41
Is the proposal to put them up on top of the cairns?:confused
No.
Zoom in on the note in the bottom right corner just above the Loch of Yarrows for a laugh!
http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/2619/page18bk6.jpg
The wood will come in use for either fuel or construction and the clearing of the forest areas will relieve the pressure on vital species like the greenshank.
Sure, put them in the middle of Stonehenge too.
After all, Camster has only been there a few thousand years, what respect do our ancestors deserve?
was only an opinion. would u like me to change it to suit you?
No.
Zoom in on the note in the bottom right corner just above the Loch of Yarrows for a laugh!
http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/2619/page18bk6.jpg
ywindy is it possible to show on your map where Bilbster, Burn of whilk and Achairn windfarms are/will be? I've a feeling this whole area will end up as one enormous windfarm. Rumour is they want to extend the Bilbster one to nine.
Boozeburglar
05-Mar-08, 00:00
was only an opinion. would u like me to change it to suit you?
Could you?
That would be awfully nice of you, thanks!
:)
ywindythesecond
05-Mar-08, 01:34
ywindy is it possible to show on your map where Bilbster, Burn of whilk and Achairn windfarms are/will be? I've a feeling this whole area will end up as one enormous windfarm. Rumour is they want to extend the Bilbster one to nine.
Its not my map, it is from the developer's submission.
Bilbster Windfarm and part of the Yarrows ( Burn of Whilk) Windfarm sites are located in this section of the map, and Achairn would be just off the map.
I think talking about "one enormous windfarm" is a distortion which detracts attention from the fact that Caithness is being targetted for windfarm development well above its reasonable share, even allowing for the better wind resource of the area.
There is no doubt that proposed windfarm development in Caithness gives the impression of one enormous windfarm, but geographically at least, it is not true. It is however, enormously disproportionate.
ywy2
Approval of the Camster and Burn of Whilk wind farms would be disastrous for Caithness's strategy for promoting its archaeology. The key thing is our untouched archaeological landscapes in Caithness. Alredady from the Yarrows Hill, Bilbster and Causewaymire are clearly visible. Camster is VERY near to Burn of Whilk, and would enclose that very special vista between the Grey Cairns and Yarrows.
Nothing will stop these greedy people - there is just too much money in it, and too many investors in the background waiting to take advantage of the guaranteed returns provided by you the taxpayer, and you the electricity and gas user, who already pay for this in every bill you receive.
Remember the early days of the forestry plantations - the very same incentives are pushing the whole wind farm thing along.
Consider that Orkney Islands Council have given the nod to the Merrablo wind farm, within the bounds of their World Heritage area. If that goes ahead, towering over the beautiful Ring of Brodgar, then you have to conclude that nothing is sacred
What idiots - do they think that they can have it all? The value to the Orkney economy of having that world-recognised accolade is way beyond any advantage from putting up a wind farm, and they run the very real risk losing the designation, and the huge tourist draw that it represents.
Let's not make the same gaffe here in Caithness.
Thanks, Olivia
I sometimes think I could power the whole of Caithness with the steam coming out of my lugs at the outrages that keep coming forward
Could you?
That would be awfully nice of you, thanks!
:)
very well.
i think we should get rid of all things that generate energy after all we dont have any tvs, lights, mobile phone chargers,pcs etc. we should show our ancestors more respect and live like they did. lets all move into cairns!:)
Big hughie
05-Mar-08, 19:28
What do I think of Camster windfarm???? Compared with the state of Wick High ,the closure of Lybster nursery , the closure of Charlie Mansons Post Office in Canisbay Miss Gunns one in Latheron and all the others.The fact you can hardly get a dentist in Caithness (at a realistic price) the rundown of Dounreay , the Macleod case ,Gordon Brown s tax hike on the 1st of April ,his opposition to giving part time employees the same rights as full time ones etc etc etc
Basically I dont think of it
Beeeeeg Hugheeeeeee
we should show our ancestors more respect and live like they did. lets all move into cairns!:)
Indeed, that's what these antiwindies want afterall.
I think windfarms look lovely in selected places, (Cassiemyre etc) they are there for a reason and yet people talk about them like someone is trying to "spoil their view" with a big pile of dog mess? If people are going to waste so much of their time gassing and protesting against things, can it not be for a decent cause, such as cruelty to animals, children, or stopping the war? Grrr
Poppy is right.
There are far more worrying things going on in the world without worrying about putting up some windfarms.
Renewable energy should be embraced and utilised to the fullest.
Boozeburglar
05-Mar-08, 20:38
If people are going to waste so much of their time gassing and protesting against things, can it not be for a decent cause, such as cruelty to animals, children, or stopping the war?
I am for stopping the war, and have been involved in that campaign.
Children happen anyway.
I don't agree with cruelty to animals, so I won't be campaigning for that.
What exactly makes the Causeymire an ideal location to select for a windfarm?
What exactly makes the Causeymire an ideal location to select for a windfarm?
I do however have an opinion on Causewaymire Windfarm.
It is located on land previously exploited for peat extraction therefore does not add to existing damage.
When it is generating, it makes enough electricity for Caithness, and saves bringing it up from Beauly.
It is right next to the grid connection therefore does not add distribution infrastructure.
It is on low land, not a hilltop, and although it can be seen from many unexpected places, Keiss Harbour for example, it is not widely obtrusive.
In my opinion Causeymire is an appropriate place for a windfarm in Caithness.
But it is the only one.
ywindythesecond
Ywindy and I almost agree.:eek:
ywindythesecond
05-Mar-08, 20:55
What exactly makes the Causeymire an ideal location to select for a windfarm?
For
It is built on already degraded land through peat extraction.
It is right next to the grid.
It is in a landscape which can handle it.
It provides power to Caithness when it is working thus saving power having to be imported from Beauly.
It produces power at the point of demand.
It does not physically dominate communities.
It is on low-lying land relative to the surrounding area.
It does not generally detract from the skyline views.
It provides part of the generation mix which is required for a balanced energy supply.
But
It stops when the wind stops. No point building more in Caithness to make up for it as they will stop as well. And there is intrusion in the lives of those who live near to it.
So not totally ideal, but try using these points when you look at the rest of the proposals for caithness.
ywy2
I didn't say it was an ideal location, its an example of somewhere i personally love to watch them, i think they are amazing. I think it adds to the eery beauty of the Cassymyre, not distracts from it or blocks it.
Obviously everyone is intitiled to their own opinion on windfarms (It's actually become quite a tedious subject on these threads, to be honest) i just thought i'd comment as i can't understand how people can inject so much of their time and energy into something that is not causing somone or something direct harm/threats? Like i mentioned before, supporting a charity would seem like a much better idea.
If you are against animal cruelty, Boozebulgar, why don't you support a charity like the SSPCA? I wasn't suggesting you campaign FOR it, silly. :D
Boozeburglar
05-Mar-08, 21:36
It is built on already degraded land through peat extraction.
It is in a landscape which can handle it.
It does not physically dominate communities.
It is on low-lying land relative to the surrounding area.
It does not generally detract from the skyline views.
I appreciate where you are coming from, but all the points I have left in this quote are arguable, and 2 and 5 are hugely subjective. I strongly disagree.
My opinion is that the flat and open nature of the landscape cannot 'handle' the intrusion, and that there are many positions from which they are an enormous white elephant on the skyline.
The extraction of peat is relatively unobtrusive, aesthetically at least.
The fact is there are many beautiful remote places where there are few people living, and where there is little community to 'dominate'. That is no argument for destroying those landscapes. I would rather see wind power factories, if they are to be built, occupying land adjacent to the towns and cities that use the energy they occasionally provide.
Just how do you arrive at the conclusion that the land used is low lying relative to the surrounding area?
How much of Caithness is lower?
Are you confused by the hills nearby, that once towered majestically over a flat to gently undulating landscape, before it was turned into an industrial site?
Obviously everyone is intitiled to their own opinion on windfarms (It's actually become quite a tedious subject on these threads, to be honest) i just thought i'd comment as i can't understand how people can inject so much of their time and energy into something that is not causing somone or something direct harm/threats? Like i mentioned before, supporting a charity would seem like a much better idea.
You're right Poppy windfarms are an extremely tedious subject but unfortunately, for some of us, they are likely to destroy our residential amenity, quality of life etc. due to many proposals being to close to homes. Thats why there is such a lot of 'hot air' around at the moment over windfarms. I, for one, would love nothing more to never have to think about them again, I'm sick to death of them - but I will not have mine and my neighbour's lives ruined by some greedy landowners without putting up a damn good fight! Oh, and by the way, I whole-heartedly support various charities.
ywindythesecond
05-Mar-08, 22:51
I appreciate where you are coming from, but all the points I have left in this quote are arguable, and 2 and 5 are hugely subjective. I strongly disagree.
My opinion is that the flat and open nature of the landscape cannot 'handle' the intrusion, and that there are many positions from which they are an enormous white elephant on the skyline.
The extraction of peat is relatively unobtrusive, aesthetically at least.
The fact is there are many beautiful remote places where there are few people living, and where there is little community to 'dominate'. That is no argument for destroying those landscapes. I would rather see wind power factories, if they are to be built, occupying land adjacent to the towns and cities that use the energy they occasionally provide.
Just how do you arrive at the conclusion that the land used is low lying relative to the surrounding area?
How much of Caithness is lower?
Are you confused by the hills nearby, that once towered majestically over a flat to gently undulating landscape, before it was turned into an industrial site?
Boozeburglar, first time I have ever been attacked for being a pro-windy!
My point was that Causeymire does not "dominate" the landscape so that it is largely inescapable from. It is big in the closer views, and pops up from unexpected viewpoints. And apart from close up there are very few locations where it occupies the skyline. The Watten to Mybster road is in my view the worst example, but it is only over a short distance.
I made no argument in favour of destroying landscapes!
I made the point that Causeymire does supply the local need!
Causeymire Windfarm sits in a plain surrounded on most sides by higher land which limits skylined views. In that respect it is low lying relative to most of the area from which it is visible. There is a corridor of view to as far away as Reiss harbour, but the distance from most viewpoints make it relatively unobtrusive and certainly not dominant.
I am not confused, but I obviously have not made my point clearly. It is this.
· All other proposed windfarms in Caithness are superfluous to Caithness power requirements.
· All intrude on non-industrial land.
· All are skylined developments.
· All will dominate local communities.
· All will require grid infrastructure which will bring further intrusion.
· Spittal, Lieurary, Baillie, Camster and Shebster will be skylined on the rim of higher land surrounding Causeymire, as does Buolfruich already.
· Spittal, Durran, Bilbster, Achairn and Stroupster will line the Wick/ Thurso corridor.
· Dunnet to Gills will be dominated by Scoolary.
· Scoolary and Stroupster will dominate from Castletown to Wick.
· Watten will be surrounded by 147 wind turbines if they all go ahead.
· Baillie ,Shebster, and Lieurary and will tower over West Caithness.
If you have to have a windfarm, and there is a place in the energy mix for them, Causeymire to me is by far the best of a truly bad bunch.
Me? A pro-windy?
ywy2
i say stick them in london ... there nothing but a blight on the landscape......:lol:
Hells bells - ywindy nearly a 'pro-windy' and Reggy and ywindy nearly agreeing on something - what is the world coming to!
Me? A pro-windy?
ywy2
You know you want to be...you seem to know all the arguements why they are a viable source of energy wrt geographical diversity.
[lol]
ywindythesecond
06-Mar-08, 01:27
You know you want to be...you seem to know all the arguements why they are a viable source of energy wrt geographical diversity.
[lol]
Reggy, I do recognise the arguments for geographical diversity of windfarms, but you simply blank out the arguments against windfarms being a viable source of energy wrt geographical concentration.
And you blank out arguments against an over-dependence on any single source of energy, particularly one over which there is no control.
ywy2
And you blank out arguments against an over-dependence on any single source of energy, particularly one over which there is no control.
ywy2
Like oil and gas you mean?
Seriously though, control over wind, an intermittent energy source, seems to be of little concern to the guys who are used to monitoring the grid, provided the amount doesn't exceed a certain level, about 20% of the Uk's energy needs.
The more renewable energy sources and from different types we have will be welcome when they are peaking and troughing at different times.
As for back-up, we need idling back up stations for nuclear and fossil fuel generators at the moment in case of unforeseen outages. All this require second by second monitoring which the grid is already accustomed to so a bit of wind may even alleviate their problems.
No one renewable energy resource is set to dominate our mix as the RO is soon to be banded to encourage more technical diversity.
As far as I see, we have about the right amount of wind in the county for this present level of renewable obligation, but we should always look ahead for what is needed from our geographical diverse situation.
Boozeburglar
06-Mar-08, 04:43
I wouldn't mind an indicator telling me when it was ok to boil my kettle.
So, just out of interest, did anyone go to the Camster exhibition last night in Watten Hall?
ywindythesecond
06-Mar-08, 22:25
So, just out of interest, did anyone go to the Camster exhibition last night in Watten Hall?
Forgot all about it!
lets get rid of the wind. then there will be no more windmills!
Cinderella's Shoe
07-Mar-08, 01:00
Indeed, that's what these antiwindies want afterall.
To move into cairns and live like cavemen? I think not. Nuclear power is the only sensible way forward - thats a bit more advanced than your cavemen.
I suspect that Rheghead is a wannabe caveman, without nuclear. Trendy enough to want renewables (and let's face it - its nothing more than a current fashion), but uncertain of how they can really deliver.
Camster windfarm is advertised in the Groat today again. Reason - change of access route, now to be off of the A882 through the Achairn windfarm area. Another opportunity for anyone to object to the proposal if they feel strongly about it.
Nuclear power is the only sensible way forward.
Pray tell, how long are the uranium reserves going to last at present rates of consumption (never mind when China and India start burning it up goodo) and do you think that timescale provides a realistic energy policy for a longterm future? Please reply in terms both of cost, energy security, radiation protection and environmental legacy?:confused
Cinderella's Shoe
07-Mar-08, 22:19
Pray tell, how long are the uranium reserves going to last at present rates of consumption (never mind when China and India start burning it up goodo) and do you think that timescale provides a realistic energy policy for a longterm future? Please reply in terms both of cost, energy security, radiation protection and environmental legacy?:confused
You should already know the answers better than most - after all you work at the remaining nuclear reactor in Caithness, and its source is uranium!
You should already know the answers better than most - after all you work at the remaining nuclear reactor in Caithness, and its source is uranium!
I take it then you don't know the answers to my question or you don't care?
Please validate your assertion that nuclear is the only way forward.
Since I know all the answers because of the reasons that you put forward, then take it from me that the future is certainly not nuclear.;)
Just a reminder for anyone who wants to object to the proposed 25 turbine windfarm at Camster - the deadline for objections to be received by Highland Council is this Friday, 21 March. There is an online objection form or one for printing off and posting that you can use at the CWIF website www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk)
ywindythesecond
19-Mar-08, 19:57
Just a reminder for anyone who wants to object to the proposed 25 turbine windfarm at Camster - the deadline for objections to be received by Highland Council is this Friday, 21 March. There is an online objection form or one for printing off and posting that you can use at the CWIF website www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk)
This spoils the Camster Cairns atmosphere don't you think?
http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/4198/camster1fg3.jpg
Highland Laddie
19-Mar-08, 20:01
Now you know my m8 Rhegy will be out with his slide rule and protractor
Why the heck can't they build them in one or two locations?
Why spread them all over the county?
Two large wind farms spoiling 2 areas got to be better than spoiling the whole county.
All the turbines built to date would probably fitted into the Causeymire site.
They could then make it into a tourist attraction with a visiters centre restaurant.
Just the thing for coaches passing through Caithness.
This spoils the Camster Cairns atmosphere don't you think?
http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/4198/camster1fg3.jpg
Will definitely be making one or two trips to the Cairns to experience the fantastic ambience of the place before its ruined by whirling monsters. The Scottish Government is hell bent on covering the whole country with these things. They seem to think that tourists will be fine with them everywhere, but I'm sure they come to experience Scotland's finest landscapes, whether its Perthshire or Caithness. Once you've seen one windfarm, why would you want to see more?
ywindythesecond
19-Mar-08, 22:55
Why the heck can't they build them in one or two locations?
Why spread them all over the county?
Two large wind farms spoiling 2 areas got to be better than spoiling the whole county.
All the turbines built to date would probably fitted into the Causeymire site.
They could then make it into a tourist attraction with a visiters centre restaurant.
Just the thing for coaches passing through Caithness.
Why spread them all over the county?
Easy to answer Seabird, it is because greedy landowners who care nothing for their neighbours are spread all over the county.
ywy2
Why the heck can't they build them in one or two locations?
Why spread them all over the county?
Two large wind farms spoiling 2 areas got to be better than spoiling the whole county.
Because the Government is incentivising individual landowners to develop windfarms. I guess what you are looking at is some kind of process that will strategise windfarm development. This would be impossible to implement in the UK as we tend to abide by the rights of the individual. China would get away with what your saying but is that what we want, people bulldozed off land that they previously owned to satisfy national carbon emissions targets? That was what was going on in Scotland in the fifties with hydro developments, not pretty and yet most antiwind folks love hydro as an alternative to wind.
The choice to make is therefore ours, as citizens. Do we want a low carbon economy for Scotland or not? If we can't do it here with the best wind, wave and tidal resources then there is no hope of any other country doing it.
And if we accept that we are a part of something larger like Scotland, the UK or the EU or the larger human race, then we should accept the democracy and the public opinion top-down that those institutions bring. Instead, we are allowing democracy grassroots-up to call the shots. That is no way to change the way that humans impact on the environment and it sure doesn't allow for effective central strategy making.
celtic 302
20-Mar-08, 01:41
I really don't understand why people dislike these wind "farms"
"farms".... 3 bloody turbines, ive seen bigger farms in my bathroom....
anyway, these things dont cause anyone any problems, and the people who dislike him are people who just want something to complain about.
ywindythesecond
20-Mar-08, 09:28
I really don't understand why people dislike these wind "farms"
"farms".... 3 bloody turbines, ive seen bigger farms in my bathroom....
anyway, these things dont cause anyone any problems, and the people who dislike him are people who just want something to complain about.
You can't have been following windfarm threads celtic302. The problem is not windfarms themselves it is the numbers targetted on Caithness.
see following quote from another thread.
http://forum.caithness.org/images/icons/icon1.gif And Nobody Batted An Eyelid! (Wind turbines)
On 23rd February 2008 at 11.01 I listed the one hundred and forty-seven (147, pure co-incidence!) industrial size wind turbines currently somewhere in the Planning System which will be clearly visible from Watten, or from around Watten, when they are constructed.
AND NOBODY BATTED AN EYELID!
http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?p=344557#post344557 (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://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?p=344557#post344557) (Post no 80)
Boozeburglar
20-Mar-08, 14:42
Would the Cairns themselves not make a good base for the turbines? Helping to save the use of tonnes of concrete would surely lessen the environmental impact. How better to honour our ancestors?
Would the Cairns themselves not make a good base for the turbines? Helping to save the use of tonnes of concrete would surely lessen the environmental impact. How better to honour our ancestors?
Why not? Nothing is sacred anymore when it comes to windfarms and meeting the Scottish Governments targets. IMO Caithness is being sacrificed to allow other areas of Scotland to be windfarm free. Small population, not many dissenting voices - they've already got Causeymire, Buolfruich, Flex Hill, Achairn, Forss - landscape's ruined already so stick the rest up there and call it the 'green' powerhouse of Scotland.
How far away is the nearest turbine from the cairns at Camster? And will the spirits of the Dead have good grounds to complain about noise and flicker?[smirk]
ywindythesecond
20-Mar-08, 21:25
How far away is the nearest turbine from the cairns at Camster? And will the spirits of the Dead have good grounds to complain about noise and flicker?[smirk]
1.84 km, and I am sure the dead are turning in their graves at the despoilation of the land they obviously cared for.
ywy2
1.84 km, and I am sure the dead are turning in their graves at the despoilation of the land they obviously cared for.
ywy2
Thanks for the information, a fair old distance then? As far as I understand it, the neolithic and mesolithic peoples cared little about their environment, they were the ones that created much of the problems of upland areas through deforestation. Perhaps they would have approved the turbines for a bit of energy to keep them warm?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation#Prehistory
ywindythesecond
20-Mar-08, 23:59
Thanks for the information, a fair old distance then? As far as I understand it, the neolithic and mesolithic peoples cared little about their environment, they were the ones that created much of the problems of upland areas through deforestation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation#Prehistory (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation#Prehistory)
I've checked it out Reggy, and it seems they were our saviours!
"Removal of the forests led to decreased transpiration (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transpiration) resulting in the formation of upland peat bogs (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peat_bog)."
Which of course lock up CO2.
Thanks ancestors!!
ywy2
I've checked it out Reggy, and it seems they were our saviours!
"Removal of the forests led to decreased transpiration (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transpiration) resulting in the formation of upland peat bogs (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peat_bog)."
Which of course lock up CO2.
Thanks ancestors!!
ywy2
It would seem that way until we look closer at the carbon sequestration rates of certain types of vegetation.
The Newtonhill woodland signage were claiming sequestration rates of 7tC/Ha per year, whereas peatland sequests a mere 0.4-0.7tC/Ha per year.
More reference if you so wish.
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/carbonseqrep0603.pdf/$FILE/carbonseqrep0603.pdf
It would seem that way until we look closer at the carbon sequestration rates of certain types of vegetation.
The Newtonhill woodland signage were claiming sequestration rates of 7tC/Ha per year, whereas peatland sequests a mere 0.4-0.7tC/Ha per year.
More reference if you so wish.
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/carbonseqrep0603.pdf/$FILE/carbonseqrep0603.pdf
I'm all for planting more trees, preferably deciduous and caledonian pines, but don't dismiss the benefits of sequestration by peatlands as well. Damaging our precious Caithness and Sutherland Peatlands SACs and SPAs with windfarms/access roads/cable connections is way out of line.
So annually, a windfarm consisting of 2.5MW turbines will mitigate 26,900 tonnes of CO2 per km², woodland will sequester 700 tonnes per km² but poor old Peatland will only sequester 70 tonnes (at best) per km².
So annually, a windfarm consisting of 2.5MW turbines will mitigate 26,900 tonnes of CO2 per km², woodland will sequester 700 tonnes per km² but poor old Peatland will only sequester 70 tonnes (at best) per km².
Do you not think there must be something special about the Caithness and Sutherland Peatlands for them to be given European designation as Special Areas of Conservation and Special Protection Areas? These areas should not be destroyed by windfarm construction.
ywindythesecond
21-Mar-08, 22:26
So annually, a windfarm consisting of 2.5MW turbines will mitigate 26,900 tonnes of CO2 per km², woodland will sequester 700 tonnes per km² but poor old Peatland will only sequester 70 tonnes (at best) per km².
Did I miss an Edit?
So annually, a windfarm consisting of 2.5MW turbines will generate £1,593,800 subsidy per km2 paid by us for the benefit of developers and shareholders of generating companies.
(£45 per ROC, 30% load factor, turbines on a 350x350m grid)
Do you not think there must be something special about the Caithness and Sutherland Peatlands for them to be given European designation as Special Areas of Conservation and Special Protection Areas? These areas should not be destroyed by windfarm construction.
I do think they should be protected, but any amount of legislation on the local-scale will not protect them from the effects of Global Warming.
I can understand that our difference of opinion may be drawn on Conservationism vs Environmentalism grounds but it is my opinion that the environment should have precedence as any Garden of Eden with the highest of perimeter fences will not be immune from the external effects of GHGs. Already, invasive species are changing the nature of the peatlands and the biggest threat is by far agriculture by the drinage of large areas of peatland.
The scientists tell us that if CO2 levels rise above 450ppm then we could see traditional carbon heat sinks turn into CO2 sources. That actually means peatlands will start to change irreversibly. We can go on and on about the merits of their research and whether we believe them but I take the precautionary principle that they are correct. To believe otherwise is a poor gamble on poor odds with immense stakes to play with, no one but the craziest gambler would take them on...
However, your choice of words ie 'destroyed' I wouldn't use, I accept that the area on the actual turbine foundations will be 'destroyed' but that is a very small area, the areas in between will still be maintained in their natural state.
Incidentally, the Peatlands are actually a relatively recent feature in human history, I went on a nature walk with the rangers at Forsinard who showed me treestumps which were several thousand years old. He said that the trees were cleared as a result of human activity and that was what caused the formation of the peatlands. In other words, the peatlands were created by the activities of humans so aren't a natural feature in the strictest sense. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be preserved, it just means that their history should be kept in perspective.
Did I miss an Edit?
So annually, a windfarm consisting of 2.5MW turbines will generate £1,593,800 subsidy per km2 paid by us for the benefit of developers and shareholders of generating companies.
(£45 per ROC, 30% load factor, turbines on a 350x350m grid)
What is most important to you the environment or stoppiing someone from getting rich? The environmental effects of Global warming or paying a subsidy that is the equivalent of just £30 per person per year?
ywindythesecond
22-Mar-08, 01:32
[quote=Rheghead;362509]I do think they should be protected, but any amount of legislation on the local-scale will not protect them from the effects of Global Warming.
However, your choice of words ie 'destroyed' I wouldn't use, I accept that the area on the actual turbine foundations will be 'destroyed' but that is a very small area, the areas in between will still be maintained in their natural state.
quote]
People who know me will tell you that my eyes glaze over at the mention of peat, however, it is too simplistic to think that it is only construction of turbine bases which affect peatlands in windfarm development. The construction of tracks and cable trenches is much more destructive as they interfere with the natural water flows in the peatland.
At the risk of being savaged by my fellow antis, wrt to turbine development as a construction activity, if it was carried out by helicopter and connected by overhead lines, the peatland issue would not be an issue.
ywindythesecond
22-Mar-08, 01:55
What is most important to you the environment or stoppiing someone from getting rich? The environmental effects of Global warming or paying a subsidy that is the equivalent of just £30 per person per year?
The environment is most important to me. I would be happy to pay through the nose for a sensible energy policy.
Filling Caithness with windfarms which will need hundreds of miles of oversize pylons to take electricity to England and beyond, at the expense of the Scottish taxpayer/consumer (because when England goes nuclear and doesn't need Scottish windpower and won't pay for the distribution of "Scottish Wind Power" for sale to Europe for Scotland's benefit) is not energy policy, and won't sort Global Warming.
I don't want to pay out any money at all to profiteers when it does no good.
And if I seem to keep harping on about the cost, this is what eventually will turn public opinion away from indiscriminate windfarm development.
Incidentally, OFGEM calculate that ROCs will cost every man woman and child in the country £600, and it is our money largely wasted. (The figure is probably out of date now)
ywy2
weeboyagee
22-Mar-08, 02:16
Enough of windfarms - my quesiton is "Will they be signposted in Gaelic"?
Sorry,...... truly sorry - :D
WBG :cool:
I'm rofl but I don't believe you're truly sorry. :lol:
I used to think choosing wind over traditional sources of energy was an entirely political issue. That was before I discovered how much profit the landowners and developers made. I am in the wrong business....
Moi x
Aaldtimer
22-Mar-08, 04:18
" people bulldozed off land that they previously owned to satisfy national carbon emissions targets? That was what was going on in Scotland in the fifties with hydro developments"...can you justify that statement Rheghead? Just curious you know?
The environment is most important to me. I would be happy to pay through the nose for a sensible energy policy.
What would in your opinion be a sensible energy policy that would alternately incentivise the building of renewable energy schemes?
What would in your opinion be a sensible energy policy that would alternately incentivise the building of renewable energy schemes?
I vowed I wasn’t going to get into this discussion but since you’ve asked (!!) here’s what I would do:
Every new building to be so insulated that it doesn’t require artificial heating and wherever possible have some kind of renewable energy source.
Govt. money to be put into insulating existing buildings instead of into ROCs, plus adding a renewable source where possible.
Repeatedly remind everyone to switch off all electrical equipment everywhere if it’s not actually being used.
Illegal to produce equipment that can be left on standby if it can be switched off and mandatory to convert all existing equipment
Ban all home improvement/new design programmes except for energy saving information on tv and encourage people to make do and mend. Estate agents have a lot to answer for – “needs updating” means it doesn’t have the latest kitchen/bathroom. So what?
All money currently going into roadbuilding to be transferred to improving the rail network (one of the worst things that ever happened to this country was Beecham)
Improve all train/bus transport and heavily subsidise
Ban air travel unless essential.
Ban all business/public authority travelling to meetings etc. and replace with video conferencing.
Stop importing/exporting meat and meat products
We have become used to assuming we have a right to luxuries and all our toys. Personally I would rather live simply and preserve the countryside (and the world). If every developed country took energy conservation seriously we would not need all these huge windfarms and with improved technology we could help third world countries acquire the basic necessities.
All this makes me so cross – will have to make a cup of coffee and calm down (what a waste of electricity) [disgust] .
ywindythesecond
22-Mar-08, 13:12
I vowed I wasn’t going to get into this discussion but since you’ve asked (!!) here’s what I would do:
Every new building to be so insulated that it doesn’t require artificial heating and wherever possible have some kind of renewable energy source.
Govt. money to be put into insulating existing buildings instead of into ROCs, plus adding a renewable source where possible.
Repeatedly remind everyone to switch off all electrical equipment everywhere if it’s not actually being used.
Illegal to produce equipment that can be left on standby if it can be switched off and mandatory to convert all existing equipment
Ban all home improvement/new design programmes except for energy saving information on tv and encourage people to make do and mend. Estate agents have a lot to answer for – “needs updating” means it doesn’t have the latest kitchen/bathroom. So what?
All money currently going into roadbuilding to be transferred to improving the rail network (one of the worst things that ever happened to this country was Beecham)
Improve all train/bus transport and heavily subsidise
Ban air travel unless essential.
Ban all business/public authority travelling to meetings etc. and replace with video conferencing.
Stop importing/exporting meat and meat products
We have become used to assuming we have a right to luxuries and all our toys. Personally I would rather live simply and preserve the countryside (and the world). If every developed country took energy conservation seriously we would not need all these huge windfarms and with improved technology we could help third world countries acquire the basic necessities.
All this makes me so cross – will have to make a cup of coffee and calm down (what a waste of electricity) [disgust] .
Well said Badger! I agree almost 100%. (Can we put off the air travel bit until I get back from New Zealnd in November please?)
ywy2
All this makes me so cross – will have to make a cup of coffee and calm down (what a waste of electricity) [disgust] .
Now don't you forget Badger that your coffee has a carbon footprint too, bet thats been flown in! Obviously, we would never get everyone to go back to 'how it used to be' but basic things like energy saving measures should be compulsory. It seems to me that the Government is not really serious about saving energy as it would maybe cause their electorate a little pain. Therefore, the easy solution is to go for windfarms. I recently saw a map of windfarm development in Denmark - the whole country is covered with them and offshore as well. Do we really want to go down that route?
Now don't you forget Badger that your coffee has a carbon footprint too, bet thats been flown in! Obviously, we would never get everyone to go back to 'how it used to be' but basic things like energy saving measures should be compulsory. It seems to me that the Government is not really serious about saving energy as it would maybe cause their electorate a little pain. Therefore, the easy solution is to go for windfarms. I recently saw a map of windfarm development in Denmark - the whole country is covered with them and offshore as well. Do we really want to go down that route?
Changed my mind and had Tesco equivalent of Marmite instead which claims to be made in UK - and of course comes in a glass jar :) . Can't do without coffee I'm afraid but at least it's Fair Trade so is hopefully doing some good.
I do think they should be protected, but any amount of legislation on the local-scale will not protect them from the effects of Global Warming.
I can understand that our difference of opinion may be drawn on Conservationism vs Environmentalism grounds but it is my opinion that the environment should have precedence as any Garden of Eden with the highest of perimeter fences will not be immune from the external effects of GHGs. Already, invasive species are changing the nature of the peatlands and the biggest threat is by far agriculture by the drinage of large areas of peatland.
The scientists tell us that if CO2 levels rise above 450ppm then we could see traditional carbon heat sinks turn into CO2 sources. That actually means peatlands will start to change irreversibly. We can go on and on about the merits of their research and whether we believe them but I take the precautionary principle that they are correct. To believe otherwise is a poor gamble on poor odds with immense stakes to play with, no one but the craziest gambler would take them on...
However, your choice of words ie 'destroyed' I wouldn't use, I accept that the area on the actual turbine foundations will be 'destroyed' but that is a very small area, the areas in between will still be maintained in their natural state.
Incidentally, the Peatlands are actually a relatively recent feature in human history, I went on a nature walk with the rangers at Forsinard who showed me treestumps which were several thousand years old. He said that the trees were cleared as a result of human activity and that was what caused the formation of the peatlands. In other words, the peatlands were created by the activities of humans so aren't a natural feature in the strictest sense. That doesn't mean that they shouldn't be preserved, it just means that their history should be kept in perspective.
I was specifically talking about the areas of the peatlands that are designated as SACs and SPAs under European legislation - there should never be any draining of these areas by agricultural practice. Also, I do not think my word 'destroyed' is inappropriate. Although RSPB are making efforts at Forsinard to try and restore the peatlands 'destroyed' by afforestation it has not been proved that it will be possible. Recent windfarm applications have included some encroachment onto these special areas for access tracks and possibly future grid connections. Am I not right in thinking that SACs and SPAs are designated for the myriad species of flora and fauna they support, not just in the Peatlands case, the land itself? It is nothing to do with history it is to do with what benefits they provide now.
All money currently going into roadbuilding to be transferred to improving the rail network (one of the worst things that ever happened to this country was Beecham)And what's wrong with Beecham? Do you never take their remedies when you have the flu?
I think you mean Beeching. :lol:
Moi x
PS do you have any idea how much power a phone charger in standby consumes?
Changed my mind and had Tesco equivalent of Marmite instead which claims to be made in UK - and of course comes in a glass jar :) . Can't do without coffee I'm afraid but at least it's Fair Trade so is hopefully doing some good.
Tescos do Marmite? Its true they are taking over the world!!
But back to Camster windfarm - I think the grid connection for this one is proposed to go through the Caithness and Sutherland peatlands - but I might be wrong. Like I said earlier nothing is sacred with regard to windfarming.
When do you think Caithness has reached windfarm capacity anyone? How many more do you think that lot in charge will allow in our county?
I recently saw a map of windfarm development in Denmark - the whole country is covered with them and offshore as well. Do we really want to go down that route?I have seen the Danish windforests. There are literally thousands and thousands of windmills stretching for miles and miles as far as the eye can see. It looks terrible.
Moi x
We've all heard about the dreaded 'shadow flicker' well I've just come across this video clip on 'You tube', see what you think. It must be hell for the people living in this particular house. (Persevere to the end as the house effects are there - nice music to keep you watching too).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLFzFtXHWAg&NR=1 (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLFzFtXHWAg&NR=1)
I vowed I wasn’t going to get into this discussion but since you’ve asked (!!) here’s what I would do:
Every new building to be so insulated that it doesn’t require artificial heating and wherever possible have some kind of renewable energy source.
Govt. money to be put into insulating existing buildings instead of into ROCs, plus adding a renewable source where possible.
Repeatedly remind everyone to switch off all electrical equipment everywhere if it’s not actually being used.
Illegal to produce equipment that can be left on standby if it can be switched off and mandatory to convert all existing equipment
Ban all home improvement/new design programmes except for energy saving information on tv and encourage people to make do and mend. Estate agents have a lot to answer for – “needs updating” means it doesn’t have the latest kitchen/bathroom. So what?
All money currently going into roadbuilding to be transferred to improving the rail network (one of the worst things that ever happened to this country was Beecham)
Improve all train/bus transport and heavily subsidise
Ban air travel unless essential.
Ban all business/public authority travelling to meetings etc. and replace with video conferencing.
Stop importing/exporting meat and meat products
We have become used to assuming we have a right to luxuries and all our toys. Personally I would rather live simply and preserve the countryside (and the world). If every developed country took energy conservation seriously we would not need all these huge windfarms and with improved technology we could help third world countries acquire the basic necessities.
All this makes me so cross – will have to make a cup of coffee and calm down (what a waste of electricity) [disgust] .
You didn't address one thing about a sensible energy policy to promote renewable energy as an alternative to the Renewable Obligation. Any ideas ywindy?
BTW, you raised some very good points and like ywindy I agree on most points, but they aren't a replacement for renewable energy, just supplementary to a low carbon economy. No mention of incentivising renewable energy schemes.
I'm in favor of David Milliband's carbon credit system where we are all given a carbon allowance or ration that can be capped each year. The credits are assigned to products and utilities to spend like any other token. If you are a low carbon user then you can sell your excess to a big user.
Aaldtimer, when on holiday a few years ago, there was a small visitors centre which explained the development of a hydro scheme and there were a small number of compulsory purchases in order to flood the loch.
And what's wrong with Beecham? Do you never take their remedies when you have the flu?
I think you mean Beeching. :lol:
Moi x
Thanks Moi - knew there was something wrong with that but couldn't think what it should be. anno domini :)
You didn't address one thing about a sensible energy policy to promote renewable energy as an alternative to the Renewable Obligation.
What you actually said was
What would in your opinion be a sensible energy policy that would alternately incentivise the building of renewable energy schemes?
I agree I didn't address this directly but if we could remove the pressure to introduce something (anything !) that looked like renewable energy by hugely increasing conservation, then maybe we'd have time to look at the whole thing more sensibly and wait for tidal power plus solar, groundsource and whatever else they might come up with instead of endless windpower. One reason they're going mad for windfarms is that it's the only way they know to tick the boxes of the targets they've set themselves. If we reduce consumption we won't need unrealistic targets. Trouble with governments is they seem unable to look beyond their noses so that when disaster looms they panic.
One reason they're going mad for windfarms is that it's the only way they know to tick the boxes of the targets they've set themselves. If we reduce consumption we won't need unrealistic targets.
If wind ticks the boxes then it should be a major player in a low carbon economy. As it happens, global agreements are that GDPs should not be compromised during the transition to low carbon fuelled economies. Premature and authoritarian cutbacks on energy consumption would causal in compromising GDP as energy and economy are directly linked. Therefore a unilateral stance with what your suggesting would not have broad popular and international support without incentivising renewable energy and is ultimately unworkable.
ywindythesecond
22-Mar-08, 20:13
If wind ticks the boxes then it should be a major player in a low carbon economy. As it happens, global agreements are that GDPs should not be compromised during the transition to low carbon fuelled economies. Premature and authoritarian cutbacks on energy consumption would causal in compromising GDP as energy and economy are directly linked. Therefore a unilateral stance with what your suggesting would not have broad popular and international support without incentivising renewable energy and is ultimately unworkable.
Can you say that in English please. And if it is already in English, can you dumb it down a bit so I can understand?
ywy2
hi,just thought i would join in about this wind farm but have noticed that noone seems to have mentioned our neighbours wind farm!.this is planned to be almost opposite the proposed wind farm in camster.he and his family are going round the neighbourhood canvassing for sigs in support of it.he plans 25 turbines,but 'they will be in a hidden valley'how do you hide 25 big turbines!!has anyone heard about this?i said i would prefer to look at a concrete box rather than a total of 50 turbines near the cairns!!he left at this point.
Perhaps I should have included a 'be' to be more clearer, didn't know I was being marked on comprehension as well as content...
I will try to reiterate my point more clearly. Global warming is an international problem which needs an international agreement to deal with it. It will affect those countries most that are least financially equipped to deal with it because a good economy is vital to deal with GW. Therefore, so it was internationally agreed that a country's economy should not be affected by a transition to 'low carbon' status. That means that we cannot compromise our nation's economy by unilaterally cutting back on fossil fuel useage just to reduce carbon emissions, we need to show an example to other countries that renewable energy is vital to tackling global warming and world poverty. Wind energy remains a vital part of that transition until an energy panacea comes technologically possible. If our words don't become actions then the growing economies of the east will just ignore us and make Global Warming an irreversible catastrophe.
hi,just thought i would join in about this wind farm but have noticed that noone seems to have mentioned our neighbours wind farm!.this is planned to be almost opposite the proposed wind farm in camster.he and his family are going round the neighbourhood canvassing for sigs in support of it.he plans 25 turbines,but 'they will be in a hidden valley'how do you hide 25 big turbines!!has anyone heard about this?i said i would prefer to look at a concrete box rather than a total of 50 turbines near the cairns!!he left at this point.
Well thats a new one on me jazzyr1!! The Camster windfarm is for 25 turbines is there some confusion here? There is a rumour spreading that Flex Hill (Bilbster) are planning six more turbines to add to the three already twirling, don't know how true that is. Lets face it you could never hide one turbine in Caithness let alone 25. Do you know anymore about this new one?
ywindythesecond
22-Mar-08, 22:30
Reggy
Do you really believe that filling Caithness with windfarms will solve the world's problems? And only we in Caithness have the solution? And only we in Caithness can make the sacrifice that will save humanity and persuade India and China etc to not do what we did a hundred years ago?
Reggy, I know you are an intelligent person. Stop talking Ballocks just for effect. Put your excellent mind to good use and help get sanity into the energy mess we are in now. You can join CWIF at www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk)
ywy2
a man ,that lives in camster,came to mine and other peoples homes,looking for signatures of support for 25 turbines to be sited towards watten.he and his son,i believe, have also been seen doing this in lybster and surrounding areas too,it seems to me that the most people in favour of all these turbines,live no where near proposed sites,or stand to make shed loadsa cash out of them,
in this county i believe we have enough turbines to power this county,so why should we be the power station for everywhere else.i thought there was a plan to put 7000 out at sea,make it 7050 and leave us alone,
Oh and well said ywy2.
Reggy
Do you really believe that filling Caithness with windfarms will solve the world's problems? And only we in Caithness have the solution? And only we in Caithness can make the sacrifice that will save humanity and persuade India and China etc to not do what we did a hundred years ago?
I also think you are intelligent enough to know that is not the case and I doubt nobody else is fooled by your assertion that it is all down to caithness windfarms. But a low carbon economy is much better for the planet in terms of environmental and political reasons and it still remains a longterm goal. As with all longterm goals, they are achieved by taking the first important steps no matter how small. And the battle against climate change is on all fronts, energy generation and conservation, transport etc etc.
Try to get a grant to plant a tiny birch/alder woodland on (not very deep)peat and see how far you get!
Yet these giant schemes are not only getting planning permission but also government grants and consumers' contributions through the "Climate Change Levy", in order to cause far greater destruction to the peat than my little trees would create. Everyone pays .15p per KW unit into that fund, but it only appears on bills if you use over 3000 units per month (maybe quarter), otherwise they are allowed to hide the figure from you.
However, why not quiz some of the Power Companies on their obligation, because this covers small renewable projects as well as giant ones, and they are obliged to fund these under certain circustances. Small business, charities ( if you use your home for business you may qualify). They don't like to talk about this very much fearing a large take-up, but you can find it on their websites - I will try to get a link later for interested parties. E-On and Scottish Power are two that definitely do it.
a man ,that lives in camster,came to mine and other peoples homes,looking for signatures of support for 25 turbines to be sited towards watten.he and his son,i believe, have also been seen doing this in lybster and surrounding areas too,it seems to me that the most people in favour of all these turbines,live no where near proposed sites,or stand to make shed loadsa cash out of them,
in this county i believe we have enough turbines to power this county,so why should we be the power station for everywhere else.i thought there was a plan to put 7000 out at sea,make it 7050 and leave us alone,
Oh and well said ywy2.
Hopefully, you and your friends/neighbours etc. have written in formal objections to Highland Council against Camster windfarm. This is the only way us locals can voice our objections to our beautiful county being swamped with these monstrosities. Go to the CWIF website www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk) for an online objection form or one for printing off and posting. There are also such forms there for other windfarm proposals - its not to late to make your voices heard. Let your councillors know as well how you feel. Sorry, not lecturing, but its amazing how many people still think there is nothing they can do, well there is, and the more that stand up and start shouting the more difficult it will be for those that make these decisions to ignore us all.
Hopefully, you and your friends/neighbours etc. have written in formal objections to Highland Council against Camster windfarm. This is the only way us locals can voice our objections to our beautiful county being swamped with these monstrosities. Go to the CWIF website www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk) for an online objection form or one for printing off and posting.
I was just wondering why there is a deadline to objections when there isn't one in practice?
ywindythesecond
23-Mar-08, 20:23
I was just wondering why there is a deadline to objections when there isn't one in practice?
The deadline is important if you want to be heard personally at a planning hearing. If you respond within the time, you have a right to address your concerns at the hearing, or inquiry. If you respond outwith that deadline, you have no right to speak at the hearing but your written objection is just as valid and has to be taken into account.
ywy2
The deadline is important if you want to be heard personally at a planning hearing. If you respond within the time, you have a right to address your concerns at the hearing, or inquiry. If you respond outwith that deadline, you have no right to speak at the hearing but your written objection is just as valid and has to be taken into account.
ywy2
Apparently, they will accept objections right up until the date of the planning hearing.
Can the developer add a couple of turbines onto the application on the day of the hearing?
Can the developer add a couple of turbines onto the application on the day of the hearing?
Oooh now thats a question. I wonder why you would ask that?
Oooh now thats a question. I wonder why you would ask that?
Just curious.
Just curious.
I wouldn't have thought so.
ywindythesecond
24-Mar-08, 00:04
Can the developer add a couple of turbines onto the application on the day of the hearing?
Good question Reggy. I am not aware of it happening, but knocking a couple off on the day of the hearing is not unheard of.
The first Lieurary application for three big turbines was looking in trouble at the hearing, and there was an offer made on the day to reduce them in size.
Councillors didn't buy it, and it was rejected. Developer appealed and the Scottish executive reporter said Lieurary Hill was no place for any windfarm big or small. So back the developer comes with another application but for 2 smaller windmills.
At the Lochluichart Hearing, the developer pulled out a proposal to reduce the number of turbines by five, and that was voted through, even though it was not on the agenda.
If you look carefully at any large windfarm proposal you can pick out the turbines which the developer will remove "after public consultation".
ywy2
Any number of turbines as close to the Grey Cairns is an unacceptable intrusion into this landscape. Landscape setting is the key consideration in planning in areas like this, and Historic Scotland give much greater weight to it than the impact on individual monuments.
Camster is central to the understanding of the wider ritual landscape of Yarrows/Watenan/Camster. It is very close to Yarrows and, in prehistory, would have been inseparable. These intimate landscapes which speak to us on a human scale, would be totally dominated, and the tranquillity and mystery which is so attractive both to visitors and locals would be destroyed.
The Cairns were built to impress, and were an expression of the soul of their community.
By contrast, the rash of turbines with which we are threatened all over Caithness, arise from a desire for financial enrichment by people/organisaitions with no such attachments, from far beyond Caithness.
It is not dissimilar to the situation in the sixties forestry plantations, which we now see to have been of very little benefit here, and have left untold environmental damage throughout the Highlands.
The distance between the turbines and the cairns (which haven't been occupied for some time now) will be 1.84km
CWIF believe that there should be a minimum distance of at least 1km between turbines and occupied housing
Boozeburglar
24-Mar-08, 13:43
So true Spurtle. Is money all people care about?
If it is, wind turbines are amongst the wrong ideas.
How about a proper visitor centre at Camster?
The distance between the turbines and the cairns (which haven't been occupied for some time now) will be 1.84km
Thats very funny Reggy! But seriously though, the relatively new Scottish Planning Policy No 6 for Renewable Energy quotes a distance of 2km between windfarms and towns and villages (not sure of exact wording). I have never been comfortable with 1km as a suitable distance, particularly with turbines getting so much bigger and more evidence coming to light on noise issues. Developers still seem to be using 500m as a suitable seperation which of course is totally unacceptable. If you haven't had a chance to look take time to watch the youtube clip I posted earlier of the shadow flicker effect when turbines are too close to housing.
But seriously though, the relatively new Scottish Planning Policy No 6 for Renewable Energy quotes a distance of 2km between windfarms and towns and villages (not sure of exact wording).
I'm sure that a number of isolated houses don't make a town or even a village for that matter.
ywindythesecond
24-Mar-08, 20:40
I'm sure that a number of isolated houses don't make a town or even a village for that matter.
Angels and needles again Reggy.
Angels and needles again Reggy.
You keep quoting that but I haven't the foggiest what it means.
Think you might enjoy this answer, Reggy
http://www.philosophy.leeds.ac.uk/GMR/articles/angels.html
Think you might enjoy this answer, Reggy
http://www.philosophy.leeds.ac.uk/GMR/articles/angels.html
It looks like religious or philosophical drivel. Philosophy is nothing, just meaningless nonsense for people who have nothing better to think about. It was too long-winded and I would have lost interest. I'm still non the wiser.
ywindythesecond
24-Mar-08, 23:26
It looks like religious or philosophical drivel. Philosophy is nothing, just meaningless nonsense for people who have nothing better to think about. It was too long-winded and I would have lost interest. I'm still non the wiser.
In essence Reggy, olden days philosophers got so wrapped up in discussing trivia (how many angels can dance on the point of a needle), they lost sight of the bigger picture.
RhegheadQuote:
Originally Posted by rupert http://forum.caithness.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?p=363750#post363750)
But seriously though, the relatively new Scottish Planning Policy No 6 for Renewable Energy quotes a distance of 2km between windfarms and towns and villages (not sure of exact wording).
I'm sure that a number of isolated houses don't make a town or even a village for that matter. (End quote)
So when you get bothered about how many houses make a village etc, it just means you have lost sight of the bigger picture.
Hope this helps.
ywy2
Any number of turbines as close to the Grey Cairns is an unacceptable intrusion into this landscape. Landscape setting is the key consideration in planning in areas like this, and Historic Scotland give much greater weight to it than the impact on individual monuments.
Camster is central to the understanding of the wider ritual landscape of Yarrows/Watenan/Camster. It is very close to Yarrows and, in prehistory, would have been inseparable. These intimate landscapes which speak to us on a human scale, would be totally dominated, and the tranquillity and mystery which is so attractive both to visitors and locals would be destroyed.
The Cairns were built to impress, and were an expression of the soul of their community.
By contrast, the rash of turbines with which we are threatened all over Caithness, arise from a desire for financial enrichment by people/organisaitions with no such attachments, from far beyond Caithness.
Well said Spurtle!
An extract from an environmental statement for one of the proposed windfarms in Caithness -
in landscape terms, this large scale and open landscape is an appropriate location for wind farm development. However, as a settled area, the very fact that this is an open landscape means that there are potentially a high number of viewers who might see any wind farm development.
The acceptability of wind farm development in such a location is dependant on appropriate siting and through introducing such development in a way which forms another overlay to the visible layers of human activity already present, without overwhelming them.
Would someone please tell me how wind turbines in our landscape will just be 'another overlay to the visible layers of human activity already present, without overwhelming them'!!!!!!
In essence Reggy, olden days philosophers got so wrapped up in discussing trivia (how many angels can dance on the point of a needle), they lost sight of the bigger picture.
Thank you for the explanation.
So I agree with your angels and needles comment. The trivia imho, is whether a windfarm that is 2 km away actually does affect the perception of cultural heritage and whether it is a tangible commodity. But in the midst of this philosophy, we forget that the dangers of an imminent Global environmental disaster will harm the very landscape we hold so dear but rarely visit. Losing sight of the bigger picture, huh??
A reduction in CO2 levels would be measurable and observable when an opinion whether a landscape is harmed by a windfarm is purely speculation depending on the individual.
ywindythesecond
25-Mar-08, 00:08
Thank you for the explanation.
So I agree with your angels and needles comment. The trivia imho, is whether a windfarm that is 2 km away actually does affect the perception of cultural heritage and whether it is a tangible commodity. But in the midst of this philosophy, we forget that the dangers of an imminent Global environmental disaster will harm the very landscape we hold so dear but rarely visit. Losing sight of the bigger picture, huh??
A reduction in CO2 levels would be measurable and observable when an opinion whether a landscape is harmed by a windfarm is purely speculation depending on the individual.
Honours even. Lets move on to a higher plane.
Our Scottish Government recently sent a letter to AMEC saying it was mindful to refuse planning permission for the Garvas moor windfarm in Lewis, on the grounds that it was in contravention of EU legislation to protect the Environment.
AMEC were allowed three weeks to make a case.
Jim Mather, Minister for Enterprise, Energy & Tourism, has now been sent off by those who control Scottish energy policy, (AMEC and Co through Alex Salmond,) to find ways round EU rules to protect the Environment so that the vast wind resource of the Outer Hebrides can be harnessed to export to England and the Continent. For economic gain.
There are a couple of problems. Firstly, England is going nuclear and taking various other steps to reduce reliance on imported gas, so it wont need our wind power. Secondly,the infrastructure to take the Scottish Government's visionary green energy through England to sell electricity to Europe for Scotland's economic gain won't be paid for by the English consumers.
Thirdly, Europe has its own fickle wind energy resource, and I doubt if the market research has been done to see if they want our fickle wind energy resource as well.
There is no logic to our Scottish Governments approach to energy problems.
There is a little more to the UK Governments approach, but not much.
Reggy, if there was a thought-out plan for energy, and it was a measured approach to balancing the needs of the many and the environment for the sacrifice of the few, I would buy it.
There is no plan. The issue for me is not to fight windfarms. I am just putting my finger in the dyke until sanity returns.
http://www.pantheon.org/articles/l/little_dutch_boy.html (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.pantheon.org/articles/l/little_dutch_boy.html)
ywy2
On a different note, developers are now trying to present their environmental credentials by taking specific steps to further the welfare of raptors that might be affected by their schemes.
At Camster, the new idea is to make the habitat under the turbines unwelcoming for hen harriers, by felling trees and leaving them there in a sort of wasteland, so that voles will not establish, and the harriers will avoid this dangerous location.
Today, the P & J reports on a wind farm scheme in Argyll whose tack is to pay other landowners £30 a throw for hill hares to re-introduce under the turbines to encourage eagles.
Are they all completely bonkers, or have I missed some subtle thread in all this.
England is going nuclear and taking various other steps to reduce reliance on imported gas, so it wont need our wind power.
I can't see how you can say that with any conviction. The UK government announced that it was going to replace their existing aging reactors with relatively little in the way of change in the UK's energy mix being provided by nuclear.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfzVQwW_8Jk
Today, the P & J reports on a wind farm scheme in Argyll whose tack is to pay other landowners £30 a throw for hill hares to re-introduce under the turbines to encourage eagles.
Are they all completely bonkers, or have I missed some subtle thread in all this.
Yes you have missed something, the introduction is aimed at drawing the eagles away from turbines, not towards them.
I noticed you didn't provide a link to the full story...
An RSPB spokesman is quoted as saying...
ScottishPower's approach in creating this habitat that takes into account local biodiversity is to be welcomed.
http://news.scotsman.com/scitech/Gone-today-but-hare-tomorrow.3907166.jp
Yes you have missed something, the introduction is aimed at drawing the eagles away from turbines, not towards them.
I noticed you didn't provide a link to the full story...
An RSPB spokesman is quoted as saying...
http://news.scotsman.com/scitech/Gone-today-but-hare-tomorrow.3907166.jp
Don't be silly - how are they going to keep the hares in the right place??
They will be where they want to be, and if they are not in a particular place already, then there is a reason for that.
Hares are notoriously difficult to introduce to areas where they are not already present
Don't be silly - how are they going to keep the hares in the right place??
They will be where they want to be, and if they are not in a particular place already, then there is a reason for that.
Hares are notoriously difficult to introduce to areas where they are not already present
Well I am surprised you seem to be abandoning your knowledge of land management for the sake of a cheap chuck at windfarms. At least the RSPB know in the main what they are on about. As an example, I was on Coll a couple of years ago and a tenant farmer was very scathing of his landlord (The RSPB) by quoting that he was forced to adopt working practices that weren't quite the most profitable but they were the most encouraging to key endangered species. To back up his compaint to me, he claimed to be witness to predation on eggs on a massive scale from stoats and foxes. I don't doubt him, moreover, it seems to me that the RSPB are managing the land just fine. The same is with reintroduction, there may be increased predation or even more birdstrikes, the fact remains that the aim is to encourage key endangered species.
The fact that some quarters of Caithness are more interested in birds-of-prey as a means to make money rather than as a vital part of biodiversity means that they are hellbent on preserving the sanctity of the skies for the few birds that they have as a financial commodity...
It looks like religious or philosophical drivel. Philosophy is nothing, just meaningless nonsense for people who have nothing better to think about. It was too long-winded and I would have lost interest. I'm still non the wiser.
That was unnecessarily rude Reggy. You asked a question and I gave you an answer. I am disappointed that you appear to have such a short attention span and dismiss it so casually - thought better of you.
That was unnecessarily rude Reggy. You asked a question and I gave you an answer. I am disappointed that you appear to have such a short attention span and dismiss it so casually - thought better of you.
Beg pardon, perhaps I should have added thanks for your efforts, sorry for appearing rude, no intention to be so.
Beg pardon, perhaps I should have added thanks for your efforts, sorry for appearing rude, no intention to be so.
That's Ok - was surprised :)
Boozeburglar
25-Mar-08, 17:19
Philosophy is nothing, just meaningless nonsense for people who have nothing better to think about.
That's a cracker!
:)
[QUOTE=Rheghead;364129]Well I am surprised you seem to be abandoning your knowledge of land management for the sake of a cheap chuck at windfarms.
Successfully sustainable land management rests on a base of tiny things. If you do not maintain soil structure, and consequent diversity of plant and invertebrate life, then you can forget about introducing animals/birds further up the food chain. If, however, you get it right, they will be there anyway.Without this, they simply cannot persist in the landscape, which, although it may look wild and untamed to the casual observer, has in fact been managed for thousands of years. Just standing back and letting it go is not a solution.
The very great deficit to the environment with both windfarms and blanket conifer forestry is that the imperative to manage ground in anything like a sustainable or traditional way, as described above, is removed, in favour of a cash windfall.
In the case of forestry it would take many hundreds of years to recoup the loss, even if the trees went tomorrow.
In the case of wind farms, it may not be so long, but the large concrete bases are there for ever, and the resulting damage to the peat immediately around them is irreversible.
ywindythesecond
25-Mar-08, 19:57
Honours even. Lets move on to a higher plane.
Our Scottish Government recently sent a letter to AMEC saying it was mindful to refuse planning permission for the Garvas moor windfarm in Lewis, on the grounds that it was in contravention of EU legislation to protect the Environment.
AMEC were allowed three weeks to make a case.
Jim Mather, Minister for Enterprise, Energy & Tourism, has now been sent off by those who control Scottish energy policy, (AMEC and Co through Alex Salmond,) to find ways round EU rules to protect the Environment so that the vast wind resource of the Outer Hebrides can be harnessed to export to England and the Continent. For economic gain.
There are a couple of problems. Firstly, England is going nuclear and taking various other steps to reduce reliance on imported gas, so it wont need our wind power. Secondly,the infrastructure to take the Scottish Government's visionary green energy through England to sell electricity to Europe for Scotland's economic gain won't be paid for by the English consumers.
Thirdly, Europe has its own fickle wind energy resource, and I doubt if the market research has been done to see if they want our fickle wind energy resource as well.
There is no logic to our Scottish Governments approach to energy problems.
There is a little more to the UK Governments approach, but not much.
Reggy, if there was a thought-out plan for energy, and it was a measured approach to balancing the needs of the many and the environment for the sacrifice of the few, I would buy it.
There is no plan. The issue for me is not to fight windfarms. I am just putting my finger in the dyke until sanity returns.
http://www.pantheon.org/articles/l/little_dutch_boy.html (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.pantheon.org/articles/l/little_dutch_boy.html)
ywy2
I posted all that Reggy and you picked out this to reply to:
England is going nuclear and taking various other steps to reduce reliance on imported gas, so it wont need our wind power.
What made you think that that particular phrase was the one most worthy of debating? It started "Firstly" btw.
Back to angels and needles!
ywy2
Nobody's had a go at answering my question yet - see post 123. I'd love to know the answer please.
ywindythesecond
25-Mar-08, 21:54
Nobody's had a go at answering my question yet - see post 123. I'd love to know the answer please.
Dead easy Olivia!
This is what you asked
"Would someone please tell me how wind turbines in our landscape will just be 'another overlay to the visible layers of human activity already present, without overwhelming them'!!!!!!"
This is how it is done.
http://www.spittalwindfarm.co.uk/index.php (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.spittalwindfarm.co.uk/index.php)
ywy2
I posted all that Reggy and you picked out this to reply to:
England is going nuclear and taking various other steps to reduce reliance on imported gas, so it wont need our wind power.
What made you think that that particular phrase was the one most worthy of debating? It started "Firstly" btw.
Back to angels and needles!
ywy2
It isn't angels on needles, it is a tangible fact that the replacement reactors won't extend the nuclear mix of generation. So again, please qualify your assertion that England is going nuclear and it doesn't need scottish wind energy.
Successfully sustainable land management rests on a base of tiny things. If you do not maintain soil structure, and consequent diversity of plant and invertebrate life, then you can forget about introducing animals/birds further up the food chain. If, however, you get it right, they will be there anyway.Without this, they simply cannot persist in the landscape, which, although it may look wild and untamed to the casual observer, has in fact been managed for thousands of years. Just standing back and letting it go is not a solution.
The very great deficit to the environment with both windfarms and blanket conifer forestry is that the imperative to manage ground in anything like a sustainable or traditional way, as described above, is removed, in favour of a cash windfall.
In the case of forestry it would take many hundreds of years to recoup the loss, even if the trees went tomorrow.
In the case of wind farms, it may not be so long, but the large concrete bases are there for ever, and the resulting damage to the peat immediately around them is irreversible.
Nice woolly answer.
Is there any suggestion that soil structure is not being maintained in the report. I think you will find there is no suggestion of it which makes all your post irrelevent.
Are you suggesting the RSPB are wrong?
ywindythesecond
26-Mar-08, 08:19
It isn't angels on needles, it is a tangible fact that the replacement reactors won't extend the nuclear mix of generation. So again, please qualify your assertion that England is going nuclear and it doesn't need scottish wind energy.
I give up trying to have a reasonable discussion with you Reggy, you just sidestep the issues and nitpick. What a waste, because you are clearly intelligent and could contribute so much more if you could just focus.
Goodbye.
ywy2
[quote=Rheghead;364457]It isn't angels on needles, it is a tangible fact that the replacement reactors won't extend the nuclear mix of generation.[quote]
Maybe France will help the UK out by increasing their export of nuclear generated electricity.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/mar/22/nuclearpower.energy (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/mar/22/nuclearpower.energy)
The poor old Germans - all that wonderful wind energy and still facing blackouts.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/mar/24/nuclearpower.energyefficiency (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/mar/24/nuclearpower.energyefficiency)
I give up trying to have a reasonable discussion with you Reggy, you just sidestep the issues and nitpick. What a waste, because you are clearly intelligent and could contribute so much more if you could just focus.
Goodbye.
ywy2
ditto my friend, ditto...[disgust]
Oops. Maybe France won't have to help after all.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/mar/26/nuclearpower.energy
Oops. Maybe France won't have to help after all.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/mar/26/nuclearpower.energy
And bang goes a sustainable energy possible if he has his way.
Oops. Maybe France won't have to help after all.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/mar/26/nuclearpower.energy (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/mar/26/nuclearpower.energy)
Well thats look like England's going down the nuclear road to me - and whats Scotland going to use to keep the lights on and the kettle boiling - masses of massive windfarms which don't go when the wind stops - brilliant plan!!
Sapphire2803
26-Mar-08, 13:58
Well thats look like England's going down the nuclear road to me - and whats Scotland going to use to keep the lights on and the kettle boiling - masses of massive windfarms which don't go when the wind stops - brilliant plan!!
Well, let's just hope they don't decide to build one of these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggborough_Power_Station) on our doorstep. I drove past that particular power station the other day and it and it's neighbours are the ugliest things I have ever seen! Belching out smoke, they are a blight on the landscape if I ever saw one.
I was driving through pretty little villages in beautiful countryside and it was all dominated by the power stations. Made the windfarms look pretty damn attractive I can tell ya!
the station you are on about is coal fired,hence the smoke.nuclear is basically a concrete box,see heysham,hartlepool etc.would prfer a box with trees in front rather than 200 plus turbines going round and round and round.nothing can hide or diguise them no matter how hard the developers try!!
Sapphire2803
26-Mar-08, 14:54
the station you are on about is coal fired,hence the smoke.nuclear is basically a concrete box,see heysham,hartlepool etc.would prfer a box with trees in front rather than 200 plus turbines going round and round and round.nothing can hide or diguise them no matter how hard the developers try!!
I definitely see your point, but I really don't mind windfarms, so try as I might I just can't get all excited about them. It's a good job too because if the Stroupster windfarm gets the go ahead, I'll be one of the closest to it.
The size of the 'dead zone' around Chernobyl and the fact that it now needs a new concrete cover because it's still lethal put me off nuclear a tad. I'm not saying that something like that would happen again, but it's not impossible. I'm tempted to build a vertical axis turbine in the garden to run a few lights in the shed, but I wouldn't want to build a mini nuclear plant, even if it was possible. That pretty much sums it up for me.
How far do you have to run if it goes wrong? :D If the answer is more than say 25 miles, I don't want to live near it. :lol:
Well thats look like England's going down the nuclear road to me - and whats Scotland going to use to keep the lights on and the kettle boiling - masses of massive windfarms which don't go when the wind stops - brilliant plan!!
And lots of reliable nuclear generated electricity imported from England. And, if our aged fossil fuel reactors (similar to the one posted by sapphire) are not replaced we'll be importing coal generated electricity as well.
But in Scotland - the renewable capital of the world - LOL :lol: - we can be proud that although we can't actually generate any reliable electricity we will have met the 2020 renewable energy target for the UK.
ywindythesecond
26-Mar-08, 19:44
And lots of reliable nuclear generated electricity imported from England. And, if our aged fossil fuel reactors (similar to the one posted by sapphire) are not replaced we'll be importing coal generated electricity as well.
But in Scotland - the renewable capital of the world - LOL :lol: - we can be proud that although we can't actually generate any reliable electricity we will have met the 2020 renewable energy target for the UK.
http://www.theherald.co.uk:80/business/news/display.var.2148272.0.SSE_lifts_green_energy_targe t.php (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.theherald.co.uk:80/business/news/display.var.2148272.0.SSE_lifts_green_energy_targe t.php)
E.ON is the company wanting to build the windfarm on Camster - maybe they should fix their broken turbines before putting up new ones http://www.wigantoday.net/latest-north-west-news/Deadline-for-firm-in-wind.3922639.jp
That's not a very good advert for EON is it? Also, why have the Council taken eight months to decide to do something about the fact they are breaching their planning conditions?
Probably for the same reasons (excuses?) they give up here - lack of staff to deal with these things. It's a warning to other areas - if a turbine breaks down and isn't fixed in 6 months, start shouting.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.