View Full Version : Wind farms-How will you benefit?
willowbankbear
05-Nov-05, 23:55
Do you think that there should be anymore windfarms in Caiffness? Personally i dont , Coz 1. theyre an eyesore 2.I dont own the land theyre on so i dont benefit 3.Try sabotaging 1 of them, its impossible 4.It spoils the Scenery 5. your turn 6. your turn again:D 789&10 You decide ,Let me ken . See ya all Tuesday
SandTiger
06-Nov-05, 00:57
Well I think they are quite pretty and break up the drive along that bleak causewaymire but I wouldn't want to live next door to one as I hear they pump out pressure - Any veiws on wave farms?
porshiepoo
06-Nov-05, 09:43
Bring on the windfarms I say!
They're a damn sight less of an eyesore than a power plant, it's cleaner energy and I actually think they add to the landscape.
It amazes me how there are so many people up in arms about the asthetics of wind farms when they're probably the ones who are happy with the all the wick development thats going on!
Look on the brightside, you won't see the wind farms for all the development! :D
I actually don't see personally why people think they're an eye sore! How?
You're backing the wrong horse Porschiepoo if you think wind turbines will replace nuclear - wind energy can only ever be in addition to other forms of generation. In fact by backing wind energy you leave the door to nuclear wide open.
porshiepoo
06-Nov-05, 10:13
Maybe, maybe not!
The future holds many a suprise that at the moment seems very unlikely.
There are many other forms of clean energy and I'd be in favour of anything that will help with the demise (eventually :rolleyes: ) of nuclear plants.
You're backing the wrong horse Porschiepoo if you think wind turbines will replace nuclear - wind energy can only ever be in addition to other forms of generation. In fact by backing wind energy you leave the door to nuclear wide open.
Wind and reversible turbine hydro might be a better option but we'd never generate anything like enough. Perhaps if we looked at ways of using less electricity instead, like turning the lights off in a city at night.
I don't think there is anything wrong with wind farms. I heard that someone from Halkirk heard the noise from the Windfarm at the Caussie Mire but I don't think thats possible.
You will be hard pushed to hear any noise from one of the turbines. I have stood directly under one and all you hear is a gently 'swoosh'. There is no way it would be heard in Halkirk!!
Anyway, where else in the UK can boast of a nuclear reactor AND a wind farm!
BOB'S YOUR UNCLE
06-Nov-05, 21:44
I have been reading this forum with great interest - WOW - what ignorance.
Can anyone tell me why we are constructing windfarms - is it to keep Porshiepoopoo happy with the "nice" appearance? I don't think so.
I note that FLUFF lives in Berkshire and ROBIN lives in Wick - well I agree they will be hard pushed to hear them from there. Have either of you heard from residence living within striking distance of the 21 turbines?
Let me know - I wait with interest
porshiepoo
06-Nov-05, 21:57
Probably no worse of an opinion than those who are forced to live by the likes of a nuclear power plant.
It would appear the ignorance is yours 'Bobs your uncle' if you even have to ask a question such as " can anyone tell me why we are constructing windfarms"
Porschiepoo - I'd really like to know why you think we're constructing windfarms.
I'm so glad you think turbines are pretty and if you're fortunate enough to live around the Lybster area you are going to be very happy indeed because that general area has been designated a 'preferred' area for windfarm development - so you're going to get lots and lots and lots of them. And maybe (due to the fact that the dynamo in my bike is as about as effective at generating a reliable source of electricity) in a few years time we'll get another nuclear power station as well.
porshiepoo
06-Nov-05, 22:47
Goodwill, I for one will welcome a wind farm. And if it goes even a smidging of a way to the eventual demise of nuclear power plants then I'm all for it!
And yes they are pretty! :D
WOW bob, just because i CURRENTLY live in Reading, you assume i have no links with caithness!?! Wrong, i only moved down here last year, born and bread in caithness. I was living there before during and after construction of the turbines. I supported them then, and i still do.
When i lived up there, my bf had a 40ft windmill in his garden. Not to the same scale but none the less amazing
Caithness is a naturally flat and treeless county making the conditions for windmills excellent. There is no way that they will replace nuclear power any time soon, but they make a great supplement to it. They are more reliable and efficent than wave power.
Just because some people like the look of them, that dosnt make their opinion any less than yours.
I would more than happily live near one/a farm
Stop being so ignorant yourself, stop making assumtions.
porshiepoo
06-Nov-05, 22:51
In Lincolnshire I knew a very resourceful engineer who rigged up some kind of a wind turbine which then powered up a load of big car or van type batteries which in turn powered his whole place.
Surely if he can do it, then theres more that we can do?
It would appear the ignorance is yours 'Bobs your uncle' if you even have to ask a question such as " can anyone tell me why we are constructing windfarms"
Can you tell us why we are constructing windfarms?
And it's not one/a windfarm - but lots of them!! And it won't go even an itsy bitsy way to encouraging the demise of nuclear - quite the opposite I'm sorry to say.
I have in front of me now , the Highland Council, Renewable Energy Group Recommendations for Onshore Windfarm Development Areas , and boy aint you all in for a shock .
Maybe we can employ a handful of immigrants to start the first turn of the turbine .
The stuff of nightmares!! I nearly wept when I read what they are proposing to do to this county and the Highlands.
BOB'S YOUR UNCLE
07-Nov-05, 00:05
HANG ON EVERYONE, please remember - the sole reason for building windfarms is to help reduce the emissions of Co2 - we all lost the plot there for a moment!
Windfarms reduce Co2 emissions because they provide "clean" electricity - don't they - OH NO i've just remembered they don't even do that!
Wait a minute - so far we have established:
1) Windfarms dominate the skyline and detract from the natural beauty of our county (SOME LIKE THE LOOK, OTHERS DON'T)
2) They don't reduce Co2 emissions (because we must have conventional power stations running in the background because wind turbines are unreliable)
Can somebody now tell me why we are building windfarms?
porshiepoo
07-Nov-05, 00:12
Because they're pweeety! :D
Just joking! They don't dominate the skyline and look a darn sight better than a giant golfball!
Maybe they don't reduce co2 emissions but neither do they run a risk of leaking radiation.
The multiple windfarms being planned will indeed dominate the skyline. How many "giant golfballs" are there in Caithness? If you are referring to the "Dounreay dome" I don't find the sight of it offensive or maybe you are in the vicinity of Lybster golf-course, in which case I can't comment - I have no idea about the size or the velocity of the balls there :)
size is about 35mm diameter , with a velocity of 130 miles an hour . most of them struck by immigrants having an afternnon off from heavy door to door begging
Wind and reversible turbine hydro might be a better option but we'd never generate anything like enough. Perhaps if we looked at ways of using less electricity instead, like turning the lights off in a city at night.
Fred, I was at a conference where one of the speakers said that the Germans did a study whereby they figured out if everyone in the country turned of all their electornic equipmnent that was left on standby with that wee red LED, VCR's, TV's Stereo's etc, then the power saved would eliminate the need for one nuclear power station.
Saving energy is considered the "fifth" energy source we have.
size is about 35mm diameter , with a velocity of 130 miles an hour . most of them struck by immigrants having an afternnon off from heavy door to door begging
Thanks for enlightening me here Millwood. 35mm is not huge - so this can't be the "giant golfball" Porshiepoo is referring to. The velocity though, could be a problem in a small village like Lybster - is this how Porshiepoo had her legs damaged? And the fact you state that these balls are "struck by immigrants" would explain the "anti-immigrant" theme appearing in more than one un-related thread on this forum recently. Can't think of any other reason for it - my own experience tells me that Caithness has already adopted the national theme of "One Scotland - many cultures". Long may it be so.
porshiepoo
07-Nov-05, 10:05
Actually I was wrong, I'll admit it! The dounreay plant doesn't resemble a golf ball, it looks more like a giant toilet ball-cock!
Only difference is, it can't flush away the pile of ... excrement .... that pro nuclear death planters slather on about!
Oh and you may well laugh about them there golf balls - have you ever been hit by one? It hurts!
Still i dare say in comparrisson to the years of misery, death and disease a power plant can cause, it's nothing at all.
Naefearjustbeer
07-Nov-05, 12:53
We are building windfarms because the goverment is subsidising them. The electricity produced is getting sold at artificially high prices compared to other froms of generation. This means those that own them and those who have them are making a lot of money. Hardly any long term jobs are created it is a big bloody con. just like the trees that they planted all over the place in the past. Terry Wogan owns trees up here because it was a way of avoiding TAX now the trees are worthless as they are so slow growing and difficult to cut down and sell for a profit !! As mentioned before it will help the nuclear cause as soon as people start to realise the lights are going to go out in about 10 years time as the current range of reactors are shutting down and getting decommisioned with no new viable replacement coming. I just hope they do not ruin our area with these white elephants that are starting to dominate the skyline.
Naefearjustbeer
07-Nov-05, 13:06
Actually I was wrong, I'll admit it! The dounreay plant doesn't resemble a golf ball, it looks more like a giant toilet ball-cock!
Only difference is, it can't flush away the pile of ... excrement .... that pro nuclear death planters slather on about!
Oh and you may well laugh about them there golf balls - have you ever been hit by one? It hurts!
Still i dare say in comparrisson to the years of misery, death and disease a power plant can cause, it's nothing at all.
What misery death and disease has dounreay caused? I would think over the years dounreay has been a good thing for Caithness. I think if you look back over the years there have been industrial deaths, but no more than any other industries. More people probally die of stress related heart attacks in the big city.
porshiepoo
07-Nov-05, 13:09
Please show me where exactly in that statement I specifically mentioned Dounreay!
I am just saying that nuclear power plants can cause misery, death and disease. Unless of course, YOU don't think Chernobyl disaster produced any of those things?
I just hope they do not ruin our area with these white elephants that are starting to dominate the skyline.
Naefearjustbear - The ruination of the Highlands seems to be exactly what Highland Council are proposing with their renewable energy strategy. The alternatives (not including onshore wind) identified in the strategy could meet most of Scotlands renewable energy target for 2020 - fantastic. But no, that's not enough for Highland. We, it appears, are to generate vast amounts of onshore wind energy in addition to this - approx 1000 turbines proposed across Highland by 2020. (mainly sited close to the grid and therefore the A9). If ROC's are still fashionable by 2050 they propose we host a couple of thousand of them!!
We are building windfarms because the goverment is subsidising them. The electricity produced is getting sold at artificially high prices compared to other froms of generation.
Exactly - and what is it all going to achieve?
Replacing existing generators? NO.
Reversing climate change? NO
Saving the planet? NO
Meeting a target (on paper) set by the SE? YES.
But Highland with its populations of kind and generous people are going to meet all of Scotlands contribution for them.
Anyone not in favour of this proposal by HC (and not feeling quite so kind and generous) should become involved in the current public consultation - it ends on the 13th January 2006 and if our councillors vote to adopt this strategy there's no way back.
I am just saying that nuclear power plants can cause misery, death and disease
So can the wind!
Naefearjustbeer
07-Nov-05, 14:47
Please show me where exactly in that statement I specifically mentioned Dounreay!
I am just saying that nuclear power plants can cause misery, death and disease. Unless of course, YOU don't think Chernobyl disaster produced any of those things?
No I agree Chernobyl was a disaster, the coal mines cause misery death and disaster. The flu causes misery death and disaster Tsnumanis cause misery death and disaster. If everything that caused disasters was eradicated the planet would be kinda empty. I am talking about modern reactors with modern safety and design and without the dodgy russian practices. I am quite happy to have nuclear power in this county and it would be far more preferable to the spate of windfarms that are planned.
Thanks for enlightening me here Millwood. 35mm is not huge - so this can't be the "giant golfball" Porshiepoo is referring to. The velocity though, could be a problem in a small village like Lybster - is this how Porshiepoo had her legs damaged? And the fact you state that these balls are "struck by immigrants" would explain the "anti-immigrant" theme appearing in more than one un-related thread on this forum recently. Can't think of any other reason for it - my own experience tells me that Caithness has already adopted the national theme of "One Scotland - many cultures". Long may it be so.
Well Moira , when they are all camped out in your back garden , dont phone me . Think youve worked out , I aint got time .
" One Scotland " ????? your living in cloud cookoo land
porshiepoo
07-Nov-05, 19:34
The velocity though, could be a problem in a small village like Lybster - is this how Porshiepoo had her legs damaged?
No, my teeny tiny stick legs got snapped during the immigration stampede :rolleyes:
Murdina Bug
07-Nov-05, 19:51
What size of foundations do wind turbines require? I imagine that the huge concrete plugs they have installed in the Causewaymire to hold them up could not really be considered environmentally friendly. Would they be removed if the turbines were decommissioned and, if so, what would they fill the holes in with?
What size of foundations do wind turbines require? I imagine that the huge concrete plugs they have installed in the Causewaymire to hold them up could not really be considered environmentally friendly. Would they be removed if the turbines were decommissioned and, if so, what would they fill the holes in with?
I think - someone might be able to check this out - that depending on ground conditions up to a 1000 tonnes of re-inforced concrete is used per turbine foundation. As far as I'm aware decommissioning takes place above ground level only - the turbine. The concrete, cabling and roads will remain for ever.
Anyone able to work out the CO2 emissions produced in the making of all this concrete?
I think a discussion on the subject of windfarms is rather like having a discussion on religious Faith.
I have never seen anyone to change their view on windfarms as a result of taking part in a message board thread. People just reaffirm their view either against or for them.
However, there are those people who just have Faith that windfarms are good but they don't really know the facts. Again there are those that think they are bad but don't really know the facts. 99.9999% of the time, people are just happy to read an anecdotal and biased view that simply backs up their own opinion and they just reject an opposing view of them out of hand without real understanding. That is having a Faith based discussion in the same way a Christian will never give up his Faith in God.
It all boils down to how we value our local needs over the requirements of Kyoto inorder to combat a theoretical problem (Climate change).
To have a real credible opinion on windfarms then we must try to gain a multi-issue based assessment of them rather than a single-issue one.
I have a keen interest in the environment, I have studied it for some years now (I have a degree in chemistry/environment, but don't think for a second that makes me any better than anyone else to have a valued opinion on windfarms) and I have come to the opinion that large land based grid connected windfarms should be discouraged and small domestic(<10kw) or smaller isolated community windfarms (<1MW)are to be encouraged.
I also have come to the opinion that climate change may or may not be anthropogenically driven. The jury is still out on it, regardless of the eco-hype. It is basically a choice between 1-100% if the observed 0.6 celsius increase is caused as a result of human activity. Take your pick.
What size of foundations do wind turbines require? I imagine that the huge concrete plugs they have installed in the Causewaymire to hold them up could not really be considered environmentally friendly. Would they be removed if the turbines were decommissioned and, if so, what would they fill the holes in with?
As far as I understand, it depends on the size of the pylon. Though I have seen somewhere that the big 3MW turbines need about 600 tonnes of concrete in their base. Concrete takes about 6 gigajoules of energy to produce one tonne. It basically works out that the turbine needs to run for 2 months to be a net producer of energy in terms of the concrete used.
I don't think that the concrete will be harmful to the environment if left after decommissioning.
I don't care about whether wind turbines are pretty or not. I just care about the environment (regardless of why it's going to the dogs). Nuclear energy is currently the most unlimited and reliable form of renewable energy we have, and the waste it produces is small compared with the ultimately far more dangerous waste pumped into the atmosphere 24/7 from oil/gas/coal. The government now realises this, so it looks like nuclear will be around for a while. Unfortunately Highland Council hasn't caught up with this notion yet so we might get stuck with more windfarms, but they are soooooooooo 20th century. They're a waste of time - their main benefit being that they sooth the less well-informed greens.
BTW, you can stand right under a turbine and not hear much but you'd hear it from a distance, all depending on wind speed, direction, land layout, etc. Residents up to even 4 km. from Causeymire can hear them at certain times.
Fanny's Your Aunt
08-Nov-05, 14:54
Goodwill, I for one will welcome a wind farm. And if it goes even a smidging of a way to the eventual demise of nuclear power plants then I'm all for it!
And yes they are pretty! :D
OH Poor deluded Porshiepoo you seem to be another of these people who feel the best way to show your dislike and intolerance of nuclear power plants (which you are perfectly entitled to have your opinion) is to support the first so called GREEN scheme ie wind power. Wind power is a SCAM and the easy way to prove that is to stop the massive grants & ROC incentives being thrown at the developers and see if any developers proceed with a new development and I can assure you they would not. Wind power is expensive and it is intermitant meaning that conventional power stations are on standy ready to supply the grid at the times the wind does not blow or indeed blows too strong and when these conventional power stations are on standy by they produce more CO2 than when they are running so not really a great saving to the environment eh!!!
I admire the energy you put into opposing nuclear but why dont you try channelling your energy into supporting the types of renewables which will make a difference to the environment ie tidal, bio mass , solar etc because believe me if you follow the uneducated with your total support for onshore wind power then the inevitable will result - new nuclear power stations.
Highland Laddie
08-Nov-05, 15:01
Actually I was wrong, I'll admit it! The dounreay plant doesn't resemble a golf ball, it looks more like a giant toilet ball-cock!
Only difference is, it can't flush away the pile of ... excrement .... that pro nuclear death planters slather on about!
Oh and you may well laugh about them there golf balls - have you ever been hit by one? It hurts!
Still i dare say in comparrisson to the years of misery, death and disease a power plant can cause, it's nothing at all.
What pure and utter CRAP.
I don't think that the concrete will be harmful to the environment if left after decommissioning.
I don't think thousands of tonnes of concrete left lying in the ground will do a great deal of good either and you can never regain the natural, undeveloped, wildness of the areas affected.
Does anyone know how much CO2 is released into the atmosphere while making all the concrete for this green, CO2 free, renewable energy?
Somewhere in this post or the other 'would you support a nuclear power plant', people have mentioned about about the oil/gas/coal running out in about 10-15 years, and with wind turbines not being efficient etc they will not be able to provide enough power etc, it has been mentioned new nuclear power stations would fill the gap.
It would take at least 25 years to get one approved and built, before it could even start generating power. It will take an awful long time to get the safety case, design and planning permission approved. Then it will take just as long to get it built and commissioned.
We can't rely on wind turbines alone, nor rely on the older power stations to back them up.
So what happens in the gap between the oil/gas/coal running out and the completion of new nuclear power stations?
Naefearjustbeer
08-Nov-05, 21:58
Somewhere in this post or the other 'would you support a nuclear power plant', people have mentioned about about the oil/gas/coal running out in about 10-15 years, and with wind turbines not being efficient etc they will not be able to provide enough power etc, it has been mentioned new nuclear power stations would fill the gap.
It would take at least 25 years to get one approved and built, before it could even start generating power. It will take an awful long time to get the safety case, design and planning permission approved. Then it will take just as long to get it built and commissioned.
We can't rely on wind turbines alone, nor rely on the older power stations to back them up.
So what happens in the gap between the oil/gas/coal running out and the completion of new nuclear power stations?
Maybe we will all need to put one of these things on our roofs
http://www.windsave.com/
Along with some solar panels, Oh yeh and all plan to cook dinner at different times so we dont put too much load on the national grid at the same time.
We are starting to get an idea of just how negligent and incompetent our government has been with regards to both our existing energy production and our future energy requirements. They are now looking to import gas from our less than friendly neighbours - whose neighbours are even less friendly. It's a disgrace.
What we should have been doing for the last 20 years is research and development into tidal energy - a realistic and reliable alternative to existing generators (thankfully government has finally recognised the potential and the cash required is now becoming available). Pity that the greens in their fervour to rid the country of nuclear backed such a loser as wind - had they held out tidal might have been up and running (and replacing nuclear) by now.
We should have been cleaning up our fossil fuel stations - clean coal technology - and we have coal for the next few hundred years.
Only a few years ago CCGT was considered the answer to our energy and clean energy requirements with targets set for high levels of generation for 2010 - but as this is not regarded as a 'renewable technology - not 100% carbon free - it did not qualify for the subsides and ROC's so was shelved in favour of ROC producing wind farm development scams.
Energy conservation and energy efficiency could have played a huge part in both generating locally and saving energy but the wind industry were running the show early in the game so these options were bombed out.
But remember - the reason we're erecting wind farms all over the place is to 'Save the Planet' - or so they try to convince us. What rot.
Apparently due to the predictions of bad weather this winter and the very low gas reserves - energy minister Malcolm Wicks has admitted that if push comes to shove and the UK economy is threatened by industry having to reduce their gas consumption, he's going to allow the dirty (planet destroying) coal stations to take up the slack and not penalise them for increasing their emissions.
Available in the short term - Clean coal and CCGT. Medium term - tidal and nuclear. Longer term - in addition to those mentioned - probably local distribution networks, micro systems and greatly reduced consumption.
That's my opinion!!!
Naefearjustbeer
08-Nov-05, 23:14
I read somewhere that if the goverment spent the money they are using to subsidise the windfarms on energy efficient light bulbs and gave them out free to everyone, the amount of electricity saved would be more than these windfarms could ever hope to generate. I cannot for the life of me remember where I read it. But cutting back on energy use and spending less money on it must be a good thing for the consumer, maybe not so good for business and the goverment though.
I don't think thousands of tonnes of concrete left lying in the ground will do a great deal of good either and you can never regain the natural, undeveloped, wildness of the areas affected.
Does anyone know how much CO2 is released into the atmosphere while making all the concrete for this green, CO2 free, renewable energy?
Your first point
Nature has a magnificent quality of adapting to change, especially to lumps of concrete in the ground that don't secrete pollution.
2nd point
I dunno about how to calculate the amount of CO2 per tonne of concrete, I have tried to work it out but I am no expert in producing cement. But what I do know is that during the concrete making process is that limestone or chalk needs to be heated enough to drive off the CO2 to produce the calcium oxide that is essential to produce concrete. There is a specific ratio between the amount of CO2 and Calcium oxide but the sticky point for us is to calculate the amount of calcium oxide per tonne of concrete as it is made up of allsorts from sand to lumps of rock and that a lot of fuel is used in the process.
Of course it is impossible to calculate the amount of CO2 produced during the mechanical process of making concrete (fuel and electricity).
So the exact amount of CO2 per tonne of concrete is impossible to calculate.
Available in the short term - Clean coal....
I have often thought that clean coal is just wishful thinking.
So what happens in the gap between the oil/gas/coal running out and the completion of new nuclear power stations?
Coal won't run out, we have the ability to generate about half our peak power usage with coal at the moment.
Gas won't suddenly run out in 15 years, production will drop gradually and as it falls we will buy more from abroad. I think we wil run pipelines from our rigs to Norwegian rigs and buy gas from them to start with and eventually I think there will be a pipeline to the Caspian sea built a bit at a time, Germany first, then France, then us.
cullbucket
09-Nov-05, 00:44
[QUOTE=Rheghead] There is a specific ratio between the amount of CO2 and Calcium oxide but the sticky point for us is to calculate the amount of calcium oxide per tonne of concrete as it is made up of allsorts from sand to lumps of rock and that a lot of fuel is used in the process.
QUOTE]
When I was working as a labourer, concrete was alwats 3 - 2 - 1.
3 parts stones or gravel, 2 parts sand and 1 part cement..... so I guess you could say 1/6 of the concrete is cement??
I too made more than my faor share of concrete and mortar in my time and as such one other source of CO2 should not be overlooked.
What would be the amount of CO2 from using the propane gas ring to heat up the kettle for the morning, denner and afternoon tea break?
No real energy expended in the cleaning up after though, unless you count the CO2 I expelled by peching as I leant over to grab a handful of sand to "clean" the tea stained cups...
The only fairy liquid on that job was the squirt that went into the mixer when the proper chemical ran out...
Now if the mixer ran on clean diesel - now we would be talking.
Oh, and I also expelled a lot of CO2 the time my piece box was mysteriously nailed to the table.
Your first point
Nature has a magnificent quality of adapting to change, especially to lumps of concrete in the ground that don't secrete pollution.
But my point is our natural environment deserves protection from useless exploitation/criminal damage and shouldn't have to adapt to changes such as these. The bogs affected by the tree plantations didn't adapt too well - I believe the final bill for the reinstatement of these areas back to bog is massive.
The other sad fact is that standing in a wonderful wild area creates a sense of timelessness and I'm sentimental enough to want to save that for the future - not quite the same when you know you're standing on thousands of tonnes of concrete and miles of cabling (even if the turbines are gone)!!
Thanks for looking into CO2 from concrete - I believe the cement/concrete industry is responsible for about 7% of total UK emissions.
Fanny's Your Aunt
09-Nov-05, 17:47
Your first point
Nature has a magnificent quality of adapting to change, especially to lumps of concrete in the ground that don't secrete pollution.
2nd point
I dunno about how to calculate the amount of CO2 per tonne of concrete, I have tried to work it out but I am no expert in producing cement. But what I do know is that during the concrete making process is that limestone or chalk needs to be heated enough to drive off the CO2 to produce the calcium oxide that is essential to produce concrete. There is a specific ratio between the amount of CO2 and Calcium oxide but the sticky point for us is to calculate the amount of calcium oxide per tonne of concrete as it is made up of allsorts from sand to lumps of rock and that a lot of fuel is used in the process.
Of course it is impossible to calculate the amount of CO2 produced during the mechanical process of making concrete (fuel and electricity).
So the exact amount of CO2 per tonne of concrete is impossible to calculate.
Nature may have a magnificient quality of adapting to change but why are we challenging it to do so with the installation of masses of wind turbines PURELY to achieve government figures which are both misleading and false. Anybody who has done the slightest research into the possibility of wind power ever REPLACING conventional methods of power generation will know that it can not happen. I believe wind power has a place in the renewable energy plan but not on the massive scale being planned for it but as part of a much larger picture incorporating wave, tidal, solar, bio-mass and geo-thermal and just wish that somebody in highland council would have the sense and vision to stand up and say we have installed more than our fair share of wind turbines then proceed to go down the route of securing the available financial packages to enable research and development of all types of renewables.
....just wish that somebody in highland council would have the sense and vision to stand up and say we have installed more than our fair share of wind turbines then proceed to go down the route of securing the available financial packages to enable research and development of all types of renewables.
I will put away my usual anti-windfarm hat ftm just to be specific on this point.
To be fair, I don't think we are there yet as a county to satisfy the Kyoto target of 10% renewables by 2010, for that we need an installed plated capacity of ~460MW, which will be about 10 more windfarms of the size of Causeymire in Caithness alone. So in 2005 we should have 5 Causeymires to be on our target.
(Puts the hat back on)
So who wants loads of windfarms across Caithness then? Me not...
Hey Rheggers, I think your figure of 464MW is perhaps 10% of Scotland's electricity generation, not Caithness'.
Somehow, I can't see Caithness either consuming or generating anywhere near 5GW! Well, not until after Tesco, Homebase and (especially) New Look have opened up in Week...
Oh, and while we're on this male macho thing of making concrete -- I've probably made my share too, but I'd rather go shopping for shoes in New Look.
[Thinks carefully before clicking on submit -- last time I stuck my head above the numerology parapet I was shot down for confusing 0.02 with 0.02% :o:o ]
Hey Rheggers, I think your figure of 464MW is perhaps 10% of Scotland's electricity generation, not Caithness'.
I was using UK figures and targets, but if I was using Scottish exec targets of 18% by 2010 then I think we might fair better at an installed plated capacity of ~131MW,
crikey!, what am I doing? I will retract my 464MW figure! :p
Of course if we only had to produce 10% of the county's power by 2010 then we are already at over capacity because we only need an installed plated capacity of 19MW.
I apologise for not trying to be insular :rolleyes::p
The SE target for 2010 is an additional 6% (installed capacity) renewable generation (we were already at 13%). Highland's wind generators (operational and consented) - I'll not list them but we've exceeded the 18% never mind the 6%. Far more than our fair share.
So can someone tell me what on earth Highland Council is doing setting such outrageous onshore wind targets up until 2050?
I can't believe the bribery (community) benefit is the only carrot - surely!!
The strategy does refer to 'harnessing the economic potential presented by renewables in the Highland area' - but funnily enough there's no detail/explanation of how or what they intend to harness and they can't be referring to wind as all potential for economic activity from wind has been well and truly harnessed in Denmark and Germany years ago. So if not wind why are they proposing 1000 turbines by 2020???
Mind you it's also stated in the Strategy that wind should be generated close to the point of consumption - and then they proceed to set crazy wind targets about as far away from the point of consumption as is possible. Very strange.
And I see they are pressing for upgrades to the Beauly to Dounreay and the coastal link grids (by 2015) as the network is already saturated. The perfect opportunity for them to have refused/been unable to accept any further wind development due to grid constraints.
That's the really confusing thing here - they seem to be practically begging for major wind developments. Why?? Does anybody know what I'm missing?
Somehow, I can't see Caithness either consuming or generating anywhere near 5GW! :o:o ]
Ridiculous notion?? Highland Council is proposing a Highland target for renewable energy of over 14GW by 2050!!! I forgot - our soon to be introduced major power consuming industries will be needing all this additional power
Gosh KittyMay, having just read the draft Information Sheet (http://www.highland.gov.uk/plintra/planpol/ren/hres-summary.pdf) on the Highland Renewable Energy Strategy (http://www.think-net.org/documents/ren-strategy-cons.pdf), I see what you mean! They are proposing generating almost 15GW in the Highlands by 2050. Compare this to Rheghead's figure of 4.6GW. Yes, it appears to be three times the current total electrical power generation for the whole of Scotland! Shome mishtake shurely?
I think I begin to see why some people are up-in-arms about the whole business. Does anyone know who actually wrote this report? It appears to come from a company called Aquaterra Ltd in Stromness, but no authors are named on it. There's lots of silly amateurish hype in there, plus a few minor howlers, but at least some of the authors know what they're talking about. How seriously do people take these guys' proposals? I'm really not quite sure what to think right now!
If I take what I read at face value, then these are the guys Porshiepoo and her mates should be fighting!
I've also learned something about the industry -- it quotes power output in units of energy, eg KWh, TWh. :rolleyes:
I think by 2050 there will probably be a commercial fusion plant on the dounreay site. And all the windfarms will be decommissioned.
Gosh KittyMay, having just read the draft Information Sheet (http://www.highland.gov.uk/plintra/planpol/ren/hres-summary.pdf) on the Highland Renewable Energy Strategy (http://www.think-net.org/documents/ren-strategy-cons.pdf), I see what you mean! They are proposing generating almost 15GW in the Highlands by 2050. Compare this to Rheghead's figure of 4.6GW. Yes, it appears to be three times the current total electrical power generation for the whole of Scotland! Shome mishtake shurely?
I think I begin to see why some people are up-in-arms about the whole business. Does anyone know who actually wrote this report? It appears to come from a company called Aquaterra Ltd in Stromness, but no authors are named on it. There's lots of silly amateurish hype in there, plus a few minor howlers, but at least some of the authors know what they're talking about. How seriously do people take these guys' proposals? I'm really not quite sure what to think right now!
If I take what I read at face value, then these are the guys Porshiepoo and her mates should be fighting!
I've also learned something about the industry -- it quotes power output in units of energy, eg KWh, TWh. :rolleyes:
Aquaterra?? Look them up on the web and you'll be even more confused as to why they've been asked by Highland Council to produce a renewable energy strategy. The wind industry (Scottish Renewable Forum) themselves had a major input which might explain the lunatic wind targets.
This nonsense should be taken very seriously indeed - the summarised Information Sheets only touch on the proposals being made. The full all singing all dancing strategy (4 reports) sends shivers down your spine and if you're impressed by the 'howlers' in the summary wait until you see the fantasy depicted in the 'epic' itself.
Porschiepoo and co are worried about Tescos!!!
Fusion may or may not be available by 2050 - turbines may or not be decommissioned by 2050 - but if the public sit back and do nothing in the face of this proposal we will have a Renewable Energy Strategy adopted by our full council as part of the Highland Structure Plan - I'll try not to go over the top here - with totally unrealistic targets (especially with regard to onshore wind) which will do nothing to benefit either Caithness or the Highlands and will result in unnecessary industrialisation of our landscapes.
Plus the Pylons, plus the major power consuming industries (whatever they may be).
Bill Fernie
10-Nov-05, 00:14
Remember Highland Council is holding a series fo public meetings about the Energy Strategy and the one in Caithness is -
Tuesday 22 November Ross Institute, Halkirk At 7.00pm
Fanny's Your Aunt
10-Nov-05, 02:08
Remember Highland Council is holding a series fo public meetings about the Energy Strategy and the one in Caithness is -
Tuesday 22 November Ross Institute, Halkirk At 7.00pm
I hope everybody is aware of this meeting in the Ross Institute and take the opportunity to attend and let the highland council know what the feeling of the people is regarding the proposed strategy. It will be interesting to see which of our councillors actually CARE about the county enough to be bothered going out on a cold november night because in the end it is the councillors who will vote so they should be there to see and hear public opinion
Aquaterra?? Look them up on the web and you'll be even more confused as to why they've been asked by Highland Council to produce a renewable energy strategy. The wind industry (Scottish Renewable Forum) themselves had a major input which might explain the lunatic wind targets.
This nonsense should be taken very seriously indeed - the summarised Information Sheets only touch on the proposals being made. The full all singing all dancing strategy (4 reports) sends shivers down your spine and if you're impressed by the 'howlers' in the summary wait until you see the fantasy depicted in the 'epic' itself. Oh, I did look up Aquaterra on the web. There's little on their website other than content-free corporate dross. Are these guys linked with the Heriot-Watt marine energy outfit in Stromness? If so, then you need say no more.
I've also read the main document I linked to above, plus some of the other stuff on the Council website. Most of what they write is lobbyist and/or policy-think-tank-type twaddle with no real content: no engineering, no science, no proper economics, no serious market analysis. What do they think they're going to do with all this power they dream of? The document reads like a student project report! I can't take their predictions or proposals seriously. How they can make predictions or recommendations based on non-existent technologies for wave and tidal power is beyond me. It seems silly. I know one or two leading lights in wind & marine energy and I suspect they would agree.
The effect on the environment and on the landscape would be more drastic than I would ever have imagined anyone proposing.
Do Highland Council have anyone who's technically capable of reading between the lines of this document?
I thought Holyrood's energy policies were somewhat offbeat but this lot will take some beating.
As for fusion, things seems to be progressing. ITER is funded and has a home in France, It'll be interesting to see what happens over the next few decades, but large-scale commercial power stations are surely still way over the horizon. I guess they'll blow everyone else out of the water (no pun intended) one day, but that won't be soon.
Fanny's Your Aunt
10-Nov-05, 08:26
Oh, I did look up Aquaterra on the web. There's little on their website other than content-free corporate dross. Are these guys linked with the Heriot-Watt marine energy outfit in Stromness? If so, then you need say no more.
I've also read the main document I linked to above, plus some of the other stuff on the Council website. Most of what they write is lobbyist and/or policy-think-tank-type twaddle with no real content: no engineering, no science, no proper economics, no serious market analysis. What do they think they're going to do with all this power they dream of? The document reads like a student project report! I can't take their predictions or proposals seriously. How they can make predictions or recommendations based on non-existent technologies for wave and tidal power is beyond me. It seems silly. I know one or two leading lights in wind & marine energy and I suspect they would agree.
The effect on the environment and on the landscape would be more drastic than I would ever have imagined anyone proposing.
Do Highland Council have anyone who's technically capable of reading between the lines of this document?
I thought Holyrood's energy policies were somewhat offbeat but this lot will take some beating.
As for fusion, things seems to be progressing. ITER is funded and has a home in France, It'll be interesting to see what happens over the next few decades, but large-scale commercial power stations are surely still way over the horizon. I guess they'll blow everyone else out of the water (no pun intended) one day, but that won't be soon.
Thank goodness more and more people are actually coming to see the Highland Council's Strategy for what it is and are now questioning if there is any logic or engineering support for the outrageous proposals.
Most of what they write is lobbyist and/or policy-think-tank-type twaddle with no real content: no engineering, no science, no proper economics, no serious market analysis. What do they think they're going to do with all this power they dream of? The document reads like a student project report! I can't take their predictions or proposals seriously. How they can make predictions or recommendations based on non-existent technologies for wave and tidal power is beyond me. It seems silly. I know one or two leading lights in wind & marine energy and I suspect they would agree.
The effect on the environment and on the landscape would be more drastic than I would ever have imagined anyone proposing.
Do Highland Council have anyone who's technically capable of reading between the lines of this document?
All very good questions Dr Szin - but how do we get the answers?
We've agreed there's a dangerous lack of substance to these proposals. But councillors - so far - don't appear to have a problem with this. They're saying nothing - in public anyway. (Unlike with the threatened downgrading of the maternity unit/ closures of play groups - when our councillors have been quite open about supporting action groups trying to counter the threats). This is not a planning issue to be hidden behind but a public consultation. Who are the public supposed to be consulting with?
The renewable energy strategy and resultant industrialisation of huge swathes of the Highlands (on a scale never dreamed of let alone previously known - with the exception of the Clearances) and SILENCE.
One difference on this occasion is that this Strategy is being pushed by Highland Council NOT government/SE. Would that be enough to influence any skeptics?
What do they think they are going to do with all this power? - you ask. Do they have any idea how ridiculous the target is? Do they know that experts in the field seriously doubt the capabilities of the grid to support wind power in excess of 10GW or thereabouts - across the UK not just Scotland? Do they know anything about the technical issues of wind energy other than that shared with them by Mr Maf Smith of SRF alias THE wind industry.
They are 2 weeks into an 11 week public consultation - engagement with the public is regarded as very important in this Strategy - and I think we can hazard a guess that at this point in time probably only about 1% of the population of Caithness have a clue what's going on. The meeting to be held on the 22nd November does give an opportunity for those aware of the situation to go along and 'comment?'. But, in my opinion a meeting in Halkirk does not properly constitute a public consultation for such a major alteration to the Highland Plan.
Let's get real, please. There must be something behind this. I just can't believe that Highland Officials, all 80 Highland Councillors and the REWG are all ignorant of the technical issues but, but, but??????
How do we save Caithness and the Highlands from this madness?
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.