View Full Version : The Highland Renewable Energy Strategy
The HRES is not just about onshore windfarms it is about a broadbased resourcing of renewable energy in the Highland region. But onshore wind still remains the biggest singular player in the HRES.
What do you think of the HRES?
http://www.think-net.org/documents/ren-strategy-cons.pdf
Rheghead - How do you vote if you only support parts of the HRES? If the onshore wind targets were removed leaving the alternatives I would support it. Do you want us to vote on the HRES as it stands now? If so can you make that clear?? Please and thanks.
Kittymay, the inclusion of the onshore targets are non negotiable, what is negotiable is the level at which the onshore targets are set. It must be stressed that the HRES is a draft policy, they will not sacrifice onshore wind for the sake of all others. If you are unhappy in principle to the level of wind but accept that wind will be included then you will have to accept the HRES.
Most polls are never clearly defined, take the US presidential election as an example, some US voters may have hated Bush for his economic policy and the war in Iraq but disliked Kerry because he looked like Herman Munster, so they voted for Bush :) Logical eh?
[quote=Rheghead]It must be stressed that the HRES is a draft policy, they will not sacrifice onshore wind for the sake of all others. /quote]
Why not? We already do far more than our fair share by wind.
It depends on your point of view, on a purely insular scale, then we probably do, on a national scale then we certainly do not.
The HRES sets out a policy that presumes a position of rejection for any planning application that is outwith the preferred areas. If we don't accept this HRES then I am afraid that we may lose this presumption of rejection and go back to a free-for-all as is the case now. So my opinion is to bite the nettle rather than a 'Churchillian fight them on the beaches and hills' approach...
Windfarms are here to stay. :(
The HRES sets out a policy that presumes a position of rejection for any planning application that is outwith the preferred areas.
So you believe the Scottish Executive are going to reject all the S36 applications now with them because HC say they would prefer them somewhere else?
Windfarms are here to stay. :(
Not according to an onshore wind supporting councillor last night - he says all wind turbines in the Highlands will be 'gone' by 2020 but we should pack in as many as we can until then??. Explain that if you can. There's also rumours that wind loving power companies are already turning their attention to nuclear.
I think given the complete lack of support for onshore wind across the whole country - apart from those with a vested interest and those poor deluded greenies that thought wind would stop nuclear - we in Highland should do no more than our fair share towards targets by onshore wind.
There would be little if any objection to donating all the electricity generated from our offshore wind resource and tidal resource to assist the rest of the nation (and nuclear if it happens). Export this using subsea cables and hey presto no requirement for superplyons either. The perfect solution. Landscapes intact, renewable energy being generated by the bucket load - everybody happy (well most people - perhaps a few gutted landowners and developers but who cares about them)
Explain that if you can.
Simple, he knows very little about the energy industry.
The renewable energy strategy is flawed in places and shows how two faced the Highland Council planning department can be.
Try and build a house in the country above 2 stories and it doesnot fit into the countryside, is an eyesore etc, ask to put up a 100 foot high wind turbine and this is looked on kindly and different rules applied.
The plan prefferred areas for onshore wind is produced by looking at areas close to grid lines that the statutory consultees (SNH, RSPB, etc) donot have sealed off and then paint it green for go. How many areas of housing in the local plan are decieded by how cheap they will be to build and connect to the services.
The plan mentions all forms of renewable energy but doesnot do justice to the forms of the future - tidal, wave, biomass and effeciency. The strategy is a forward looking document and should be encouraging and making it easier for new development money to be invested in the future energy forms rather than giving such high backing to the one form of energy where we are already paying a premium to ensure it is developed.
It is a draft but needs a fair bit of work to ensure that it treats all forms of renewable energy with an even hand and encourages the forms of the future.
BOB'S YOUR UNCLE
27-Nov-05, 10:56
Rheghead
You say the Councillor know little about the energy industry, but does it not alarm you that Councillors come out with such statements and they will be the ones voting on this strategy. It worries me greatly!
The ironic thing is that the anti wind lobby were complaining in the past that there was no Highland Strategy in place, but now that there is one on the table for discussion, they are the ones against it.
Doesn't it make sense to operate within the fundamental acceptance of a strategy?
BOB'S YOUR UNCLE
27-Nov-05, 21:04
Rheghead
From your recent posts - i thought you were part of the anti-windfarm lobby. Sorry that's not fair, i know you have recently seen the light and agree that on-shore wind is not all it's cracked up to be ie you have seen through the propaganda and see it for what it is... unreliable, unpredictable & unsightly.
The RES would be absolutely acceptable if HC would agree that this area has done it's bit for on-shore wind and take it's time to back other renewables. The problem is there is too much emphasis (ie targets) placed on on-shore wind. At the moment, until other technologies are commercially ready the only wind technology that should have any emphasis put on it is micro turbines along with other micro systems.
sweetheart
28-Nov-05, 00:01
The highlands does not need to be a "key player" in the energy industry.
That is a gold-rush mentality, that caithness and north sutherland do not
need. The primary industry in north sutherland is tourism, and by describing
the primary industry as "energy" the highland council has confused itself
exactly what is in the far north. The flow country is the largest peat wetland
in europe, and we would be better off, the lot of us, if we collectively focused
on green tourism and less intrusive forms of development that do not
destroy this last natural relatively uninhabited part of britain and europe.
There are plenty of populated brownfield sites that should be developed
before the unsighly whirlygigs are blotted across the highland moors. What a
sad tragedy of ignorance, that a rural council charged with protecting
arguably the largest mass of undeveloped land in the country, is focused on
turning the place in to an industrial power station.
In my own area, i hope the strathy forest windfarm is never built, as it
is too far west, and none of these wind developments should be happening
within 10 miles of the sutherland coast. I'm distrustful of these developers,
why the hurry to turn europe's last wilderness in to a power station?
The ironic thing is that the anti wind lobby were complaining in the past that there was no Highland Strategy in place, but now that there is one on the table for discussion, they are the ones against it.
There was no Scottish RE Strategy - just a stab in the dark resulting in a target on paper. That, along with no Energy Policy coming from Government made a complete mockery of any renewable energy target especially one based on 'wind' - the least efficient, most unpredictable and with the biggest footprint of any type (renewable or conventional) of energy generation.
As many people in Highland, who are against onshore wind, are also pro renewable they had made it their business to identify the potential from the alternatives.
What is ironic is that Highland Council have not latched on to this heaven sent opportunity.
Doesn't it make sense to operate within the fundamental acceptance of a strategy?
From the outset it was clear that the REWG - when they chose to work with the wind industry - were going to deliver a strategy that suited the wind industry and not the Highlands. (Take a look at the minutes of the REWG if you don't believe me).
Yes this strategy could have been the answer to fending off unscrupulous developers by sending a message to the developers and the Executive that Highland were more than willing to go the extra mile for the country through development of alternative energies - with the potential to meet most of Scotlands 2020 target.
There is no requirement or benefit (locally or globally) to proposing such a massive onshore wind target.
Rheghead can you think of one reason why we should agree to the industrialisation of the Highlands when we have the potential to do more than any other area in the country WITHOUT destroying what is so unique to this part of the world?
The HRES targets show what and where can be developed not what will be developed in the Highlands. I think it will be a good thing that a strategy is in place otherwise the development of onshore wind will be unfettered and uncontrolled. That was what the anti wind campaigners were worried about, no?
If a planning application is for outside the preferred areas then there is a presumption of rejection. This means that for the vast majority this will be the case.
I think the most anti wind thing to do would be to accept the fundamental reasoning of this strategy otherwise there will be no presumption of rejection, in other words a reversal back to chaos.
The real fight against wind energy is at the planning stage, not the acceptance of this strategy, we could be shooting ourselves in the foot.
sweetheart
28-Nov-05, 04:51
As i understand, industrial noise standards suggest 30 decibels is an
acceptible minimum noise, and that 30 decibels, is 10 times 20 decibels, that
decibels is a power-of-ten scale, and that windmills are rated at 30, though
its difficult to rate a low-frequency rattle. And now consider a highland
night with a breeze, and a whishing noise, and a high frequency whirring
of the alternator, and the low frequency "whump" that travels for miles.
Why would anyone in their right mind, pollute their environment with noise
making pollution devices? 30 decibels is 100 times 10 decibels. If your
outdoor nighttime sound level is below 30 decibels at night, consider that
you'll NEVER EVER be able to turn off the noise once they turn the evil things
on. Birds will be driven away by the NOISE and so will the sensitive people
who live in caithness and north sutherland to be exactly away from the
NOISE of down south. And Oh, it turns out that increased noise levels are
related to increased heart attack risk, perhaps the long life enjoyed by north generations owes something to the lack of industrial noise, and
having a motorway as the lowest sound level in the country.
Oh dread, what dread, these evil noise machines, the cars, it seems that
in 20 years, the north coast will be a 4 lane superhighway with minimum
speed of 80 miles per hour, that we won't even be able to hear ourselves
think outside, for all the machine noise.
And after so many years down south, i was standing outside today in the
cold dead silence, listening to the whispering of the burn,
the gentle tide of the ocean, and the whisper of the wings of a sea bird,
lord knows that their wings make such a sweet sound, if you are EVER
in a place quiet enough to hear it.
And once on a rare weather day, silence was the backdrop for this human
life, purity of the earth and silence. Oh dread what wonders they think
they are importing from down south. Treat the highlands like a sacred
tourist ground and farm it for tourism economics. It touches the earth
more lightly, and the energy requirements of britain's 55 million
"other" people, dictate a more sensible strategy than filling up all the
natural spaces with whirlygigs. The highlands should be a preserve,
really, that no matter history, the wetlands are more valuable to us
untouched, and undeveloped in any way... if they've survived 7000 years
of history undeveloped.. what common sense do we inherit from our elders
that is "NOT" audible on the moore... maybe the empty preserve of nature.
I recommend spending all the wind farm development money on insulating
the housing stock of the highlands. It would cut the energy burned,
permanently, not just a short term generation improvement. AS well,
this would create construction and work jobs all over the highlands in local
construction outfits, rahter than some german and danish whirlygig
sellers... for all their technical competence.. why buy what you don't need.
The solution of the 90% energy supply to britain is the issue, and we
have externalized this debate on some silly windfarm NIMBY talk, when
the arrow should be shot back at london, Fix the energy problem without
destroying the environment, soundwise, sightwise, please.. and no more
lies from a government that lies about war, lies about why people are
being killed in asia, to protect the skins of some dodgey politicians, and
so to punish us for our sins of noticing what looks like "comspiracy to
wage aggressive war"... we are to be surrounded with industrial sound
producing equiptment until we willingly jump off the cliffs to our deaths,
driven insane by the noise, following the sheep that will have already
jumped, similarly smitten by the death of the silent empty sacred landscape.
Well lets put aside the tired NIMBY rhetoric for one moment and discuss a draft proposal which is in desperate need of adoption before the Highlands get covered willy nilly...
The HRES sets out areas based on proximity to the main power lines, topography requirements and remoteness from inhabited areas. This provides a basic framework that suits the needs of the wind companies, the people of scotland and the environment.
What could be more appropriate?
The HRES targets show what and where can be developed not what will be developed in the Highlands. I think it will be a good thing that a strategy is in place otherwise the development of onshore wind will be unfettered and uncontrolled. That was what the anti wind campaigners were worried about, no?
Anti wind campaigners were worried about the lies, deceit and spin delivered by the wind industry. I do understand where you're coming from and had the REWG not chosen to screw the Highlands wind resource then a Strategy controlling developments both in terms of site and numbers would have been advantageous.
The situation at present is that onshore wind developers are waiting in the wings to snap up our landscape and the Strategy is proposing that many of them will be successful though they should concentrate the 'zoned' areas for large developments. Let us not forget the community/local developments - how many of these are on the cards??
What of the alternatives? How many developers are waiting in the wings to snap up the opportunity to develop wave (look what happened to Wavegen), for offshore wind (why should developers look seriously at offshore wind when a cheaper alternative is being offered to them on a plate). Biomass, micro technologies??? We know our tidal resource is creating interest by Canadians.
If a planning application is for outside the preferred areas then there is a presumption of rejection. This means that for the vast majority this will be the case.
If the SE agree with Highland Council.
I think the most anti wind thing to do would be to accept the fundamental reasoning of this strategy otherwise there will be no presumption of rejection, in other words a reversal back to chaos.
Again I completely understand where you're coming from. But I can't agree.
The real fight against wind energy is at the planning stage, not the acceptance of this strategy, we could be shooting ourselves in the foot.
Rheghead you either haven't fought against an application for a wind farm or you're a far braver person than I. Which applications should we fight? All of them across the Highlands? Just those in Caithness - to hang with our neighbours. Or should we become NIMBYS and concern ourselves only with those likely to affect us directly? Our councillors, the wind industry, the SE and the government would just love it if they could accuse us of being NIMBY - in their eyes that cancels out all arguments against wind.
If this Strategy gets approved it will, for me, be time to through in the towel and say a sad farewell to our precious landscapes. BUT for now there is still an opportunity to influence the final strategy so the fight continues. Unfortunately the final decision lies with our councillors!!
Well lets put aside the tired NIMBY rhetoric for one moment and discuss a draft proposal which is in desperate need of adoption before the Highlands get covered willy nilly...
I agree but please don't deride those people who are hurting and scared at the great loss they will experience if their environment is about to be industrialised - for nothing. The post by sweatheart was full of real emotion - and why shouldn't it be.
The HRES sets out areas based on proximity to the main power lines, topography requirements and remoteness from inhabited areas. This provides a basic framework that suits the needs of the wind companies, the people of scotland and the environment.
The HRES sets out areas close to power lines and you are absolutely correct that it suits the wind industry.
What tosh is this that a learned gent spouts about meeting the needs of the people of scotland and the environment!!!
The HRES sets out areas close to power lines and you are absolutely correct that it suits the wind industry.
And it will suit us. The closer the windfarms will be to the main power lines will mean less transmission loss, less transmission loss will mean less windfarms in the Scottish country side to meet the same energy criteria.
Guess which way I voted?
http://app100828.applicabroadband.net/BumperStickers/Offshore.jpg
sweetheart
28-Nov-05, 17:18
Well lets put aside the tired NIMBY rhetoric for one moment and discuss a draft proposal which is in desperate need of adoption before the Highlands get covered willy nilly...
The problem is in the framing to start with. I drive by the turbine installation
at borrowston, and gosh, they did not follow their own guidelines on siting
them too close to cliffs, too near housing, .. AND, the flicker was making
people at the old american base (now business park) sick, and hence why
one turbine is often stationary in the afternoon sun... so it seems that
these careful planners have ed up installing those turbines, totally, and
if the first installation is evidence of how competent they are, then lets call
the exercse over before they do any more damage.
The highlands does not need an energy exploitation strategy. It needs a
conservation strategy... and how the latter is considered on the back of
the former is not the way to discuss this... first we must outright reject
a wrong policy that sees the highlands as a wind gold-mine. God help us
if the descendents of the clearances haven't the common sense to reject
the neo-clearances of the energy lobby. And instead of grazing sheep,
it is to be turbines, high power wires and the buzzing of electricity.
I counsel taking this issue much more seriously and rejecting the highland
council's attempt, reject the incomptent scottish executive, and demand
that the parliament in london protect the nature preserve. Edinburgh and
inverness are too corrupt and greedy, that ironically, perhaps the highlands
best prayer of a reprieve from the wind-lobby gold diggers, is a wave off
from westminster, that they go sink their plans in scapa flow.
Of course the emotional rant of the extremist will only have the effect of switching off the ears of the policymakers...
I was at the meeting at Ross Inst. Halkirk and every time there was an eloquent and emotional rant, Rennilson and Smith just stopped listening as emotional ranting in their minds just equates to illogical diatribe...
In other words by holding out a non inclusive Churchillian stance against windfarms then we are going to let in the unfettered wind exploitation of the Highlands.
That is just the way of things.
sweetheart
28-Nov-05, 18:40
My point though, is that all this is fluffery around a policy driven from
westminster, the UK energy policy that, when launched, heraled a new age
of offshore windfarms, only later we discover, it means wind farms in the
poorer rural areas that don't have the political clout to protect themselves.
The highland council is not competent to set, at any level, UK energy policy,
it is a trivial entity, without any serious powers to protect land from
exploitation by the scottish executive and westminster. And as the
scottish executive doesn't pay its own bills, its hardly a center of economic
balance either, leaving the only economic agency in charge of the whole
big picture stashed away on whitehall.
I think there are a few failures: One is that the anti-windfarm, anti-
exploitation lobby is fragmented, each defending their little plot of turf,
one being, like "Skye Wind Action Group", or "Caithness Against Windfarms", that what is in fact the majority of people, are splintered
and not heard by any of the corporate media, all parroting the energy
industry and its advertising revenues and backhanders.
If we need a general rule, then i have some guidelines. If the windfarm
disturbs the picture-postcard view of caithness or sutherland, then it
should be dissalowed. Same with energy pilons. Gosh, that only took 2
sentences and was much more consise.
I have a clear point, vote against this thing, demand a more comprehensive
strategy around protecting the natural preserve from which highland
communities plan to draw their life, living and income for the next 1000's
of years. Wait and be patient with energy policy, letting them make
mistakes elsewhere in britain or else the highlands will be cursed with
the blight of 1000 dounreays, cancer clusters and radioactive beaches,
or howling turbines.
I as well, think the decision proess for all this is screwed up. They should
set up a big tent on the site of the proposed wind farm, and a pre-announced public meeting, will by vote at that meeting, authorize or
reject a windfarm on behalf of the community, after all discussion and views
are argued exhaustedly, the participants can discuss this all in the midst
of the site itself, not cloistered in some room in thurso, for the magic of
the site is lost, and the computer diagrams, for all the fancy appearance,
don't do justice to the sites all these documents discuss.
If the far north were better known by conservationists around the world,
they would never even THINK about putting a wind farm pilon north of
helmsdale. My apologies for being long winded and emotive, but it is
either to speak up now, in hopes that this mistake can be prevented, or
forever know, as i pass by the industrial installations that were once a
peaceful highland moor, that the ground is watered with the blood of
so many generations crying tears for the blight on the sacred ground of
our mothers. I believe that only be speaking from our hearts about this
can we prevent a stupid mistake.
Quarryman
28-Nov-05, 20:28
Why not build any new turbines at Dounreay?
UKAEA seem to be knocking down buildings every other week so there would be plenty of room. No problems with new roads or power lines and the greedy land owners wouldn't get a penny.
One of the many problems I have with this strategy is that I could have written this piece of 'tat' myself. What did 9 months of deliberation come up with?
It's windy in the Highlands.
It's cheaper for developers to locate their windfarms near the grid - so zone areas for large scale commercial wind developments near the grid.
There's potential for all the renewable alternatives (no need to look seriously into the opportunities here though just concentrate on onshore wind))
Lots and lots of 'cutting and pasting' from wind industry websites.
Lots and lots of repetition.
The equivalent number of contradictions.
Some references to the importance of protecting our landscapes.
General waffle about global warming as being the priority along with the fantastic economic benefits. (no need for evidence to support any claims made - phew that's OK then)
I admit I might not have been quite so confident as to state the following (but thankfully no evidence is required) -cracking little quotes from the Strategy.
The performance of renewables, such as wind, is also equivalent to or better than that of nuclear power production.
.. issues such as intermittency in supply and other possible practical difficulties have been shown to be less significant as envisaged.
"Renewable energy will add a new dimension to the landscape, to the economy and to the availability of energy in communities."
"It is however essential that new renewables production does not merely service the presently growing demand for energy but that it replaces existing conventional generation."
And we should support this??
sweetheart
29-Nov-05, 00:59
Gosh, is *that* what they are. I thought: "whirlygigs", "eyesores", "art"?
.... no... "new dimensions" . It is a new dimension that the planning bodies
have come to, now that a 2 story house is dangerously high, but a 100 meter
tall "dimension" is gonna' help us all with the landscape.
A "new dimension" is goin' away doon the peet road to toxify the landscape
nearest you.
When government hackery has lipstick like that painted on it, its better
rejected. ... ha ha LOL "new dimension"... "new labour"... gosh the irony.
Of course the emotional rant of the extremist will only have the effect of switching off the ears of the policymakers...
I was at the meeting at Ross Inst. Halkirk and every time there was an eloquent and emotional rant, Rennilson and Smith just stopped listening as emotional ranting in their minds just equates to illogical diatribe...
All the technical arguments have failed to impress. Ears have been closed to any argument other than their own since the outset. The problem is that this is indeed an emotional debate now - Highland Council members and officials will not listen to independant engineers/economists or anyone who is contradicting what they believe.
Put it this way - if Highland council wanted to embark on developing a ridiculous energy policy which had little or no environmental, visual impact then the arguments would be similar to the initial arguments used against commercial wind energy but when that failed (which it undoubtedly would if there was community benefit involved) people would just shake their heads at the waste of money and let them crack at it. We are all quite used to paying the price (financially) for nonsensical schemes dreamed up for one political reason or another. This time it's different - we are being asked to give up too much for too little - equals emotion!!!
In other words by holding out a non inclusive Churchillian stance against windfarms then we are going to let in the unfettered wind exploitation of the Highlands.
That is just the way of things.
If you believe this strategy was intended to protect the Highlands from being exploited by wind developers why did the REWG propose such excessive targets for that very technology it was protecting itself from?
Makes no sense to me - they could've severely limited onshore wind developments - using their 'model' - had they factored in some additional constraints. Easy peasy if that was the intention behind the strategy - but that wasn't the purpose of the strategy - was it??
Ears have been closed to any argument other than their own since the outset.
A failure to listen has been a problem on both sides of the debate.
If you believe this strategy was intended to protect the Highlands from being exploited by wind developers why did the REWG propose such excessive targets for that very technology it was protecting itself from?
Which leads me straight on from the previous point, the HRES is a draft proposal, Rennilson admitted that the targets may be wrong or unachievable, thus the reason for this public consultation period.
...had they factored in some additional constraints.
The HRES is a broad strategy based on a few basic parameters as mentioned in one of my previous posts, the planning of windfarms is a complicated issue, much dependent on 'on the ground observations' and concerns. These additional constraints that you mention will be left to be dealt with at the local level.
Which raises my point, the HRES is an extra safeguard against the siting of windfarms in sensitive areas by giving a presumption of rejection.
sweetheart
29-Nov-05, 21:44
Blair is announcing a push to develop nuclear power:
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/story/0,9061,1653297,00.htm.
So, it seems they plan to rebuilt dounreay AND dump turbines all over the
landscape. I had hoped it was rather either/or... and if the are going towards
a comprehensive nuclear refitting, then this land based wind turbine noise
should simply be dumped.... they offer no credible solution when combined
with a constant generation suply like nuclear... then wind is just redundant
generation capacity on windy days, when the nuclear reactors are running
24x7.
I have noticed a disturbing trend, that if a person is opposed to putting
industrial pilons in undeveloped land, they MUST be a nuclear power advocate
its being a natural alternative.
I don't accept this, as nuclear power has unknown cleanup costs... these
planners will happily tell you the cost of storing dangerous radioactive
materials 1000 years from now, when the entire system of government
that created the waste may very well cease to exist long before.
What credible financial person will put a price on 1000 years of disposal,
and what sort of financier does not question this funny arithmetic.
So I suppose it follows we just agree to the 'fettered' wind exploitation of the Highlands. I honestly don't understand the logic of your argument, Rheghead and I'm not trying to be difficult here.
I thought the wonderfully robust planning process protected 'sensitive' sites. Only the best projects will get through the planning process blah, blah, blah.
Therefore Highland Council don't trust the planning guidelines PAN 45 and NPPG6.
I've listened very carefully to the 3 main arguments -
1. global warming and climate change being the number one argument from SE and councillors.
I was of the understanding that covering every bit of Scotland with turbines would have ZERO impact on climate change. Has my research misled me? Have I come to the wrong conclusion?
2. To replace our existing generators.
Again I thought that wind energy could only ever be in addition to existing baseload generation - which is being phased out over the next 10 years and which can never be replaced by wind energy.
3. Economic activity and benefit to the area
I've been reduced to almost begging for an answer as to how wind energy is the answer to sustainable economic growth and I've not been given an answer. I've been told it'll help with fuel poverty - how??
The truth would help a great deal in moving forward with this debate.
sweetheart
29-Nov-05, 23:09
It is a very worthy question. Firstly, i think we need to look at energy and
economic development as a "whole" picture. so the question is, given that
people will earn equal wealth from both, would you rather work in the energy
industry or the tourism industry.
Sustainable development is a difficult question, as we must include the social
element, of opportunity for youths, of increased jobs and opportunities, as
well, the environmental side effects of the development must be countered
by intelligent government planning.
This planning includes a way to increase citizen mobility whilst cutting net
transport energy burned.
Includes a way for everyone to have a heated house, whilst cutting the net
energy burned.
Includes a way for everyone to have freedom to roam (drive), but cuts the
net energy burned.
Sustainable development originates when the bank of england prints money,
when credit is allocated to certain sectors, that they might borrow on the
public purse, to what effect?
I would hope an answer to sustainable development is that a tourist
comes to inverness 100 years from now, travels by high speed train to
thurso, in 2 hours, and embarkes upon a journey to ullapool via clean
transport, knowing that the highlands are the best preserved natural
landscape in all of britain... and that tourist drops 1000 dollars during
their journey purchasing various nits and nobs that strike their fancy
visiting a place that the highland peoples have taken such good care
NOT to develop... sustainable... is a very difficult animal.
I honestly don't understand the logic of your argument, Rheghead and I'm not trying to be difficult here.
Lets list a few irrefutable truths that we have to work around.
The climatologists say we are causing thermal changes to the Earth's ecosystem by burning fossil fuels. There fore we need to find energy sources that do not give off CO2 and other GHGs.
We have a legal obligation under an international treaty (not one of Tony Blair's whims) to curb CO2 emissions.
The HRES is a STRATEGY so is not exclusive to wind, so is not a dictat.
Wind power is the only proven form of renewable energy, tidal, wave are only largely experimental, that is why it remains as part of the strategy.
Lets list a few irrefutable truths that we have to work around.
Good idea.
The climatologists say we are causing thermal changes to the Earth's ecosystem by burning fossil fuels. There fore we need to find energy sources that do not give off CO2 and other GHGs.
Indeed we do as a matter of some urgency but electricity generation plays only a small part in the CO2 problem we are faced with.
We have a legal obligation under an international treaty (not one of Tony Blair's whims) to curb CO2 emissions.
Yup - the UK domestic target is a reduction of CO2 emissions of over 30MtC. Even if the UK renewables target is met this would save only about 2.5MtC by 2010.
Doesn't look like climate change is being taken very seriously if this is the best they can do.
Oxford Energy Feb 2005 - Quote - 'Renewables, even on the most optimistic assumptions, have only a minor impact, despite their prominence in public debate.'
The HRES is a STRATEGY not an exclusive to wind dictat.
It does read like one though, doesn't it? Great pity the the wind industry were invited onto the REWG.
Wind power is the only proven form of renewable energy, tidal, wave are only largely experimental, that is why it remains as part of the strategy.
And this situation looks likely to remain. We've had 15 years to develop the alternative forms of renewable energy - but with no investment there's been no interest.
There is no reason for developers or power companies to look at the alternatives while we offer up our landscapes to them for development. They are not going to look at the alternatives until they run out of land to develop. I may be wrong but I imagine they must be clapping their hands in delight at the contents of the HRES.
You are obviously quite content to donate our landscapes to the UK and Scotland for such paltry returns. I am not. I would simply urge great caution.
electricity generation plays only a small part in the CO2 problem we are faced with.
Have you any evidence to support that? I understand that electrical power generation amounts to approx. a third of CO2 emmissions, hardly a small part?
Yup - the UK domestic target is a reduction of CO2 emissions of over 30MtC. Even if the UK renewables target is met this would save only about 2.5MtC by 2010....Oxford Energy Feb 2005 - Quote - 'Renewables, even on the most optimistic assumptions, have only a minor impact, despite their prominence in public debate.'
The UK is not the only one that has ratified Kyoto, all other countries will be doing their bit, even the US. It all mounts up.
You are obviously quite content to donate our landscapes to the UK and Scotland for such paltry returns. I am not. .
Aww, a personal comment which is untrue and we were getting on so well?
The HRES gives us a good way to preserve those landscapes that are in the greatest need of being preserved, have a look on the map, with the exception of Mull I think the western scottish highland region is largely precluded from being a 'preferred area'.
I am a realist, I realise that windfarms are here and they are coming whether we like them or not. So long as we have greedy landowners and prospecting wind companies then windfarm proliferation is a clear and present danger.
In this eco game of poker, I prefer to play my hand as best I can or even fold to till the next round rather than bluffing right to the last bid and perhaps lose this HRES that gives at least a reasonable amount of damage limitation.
Have you any evidence to support that? I understand that electrical power generation amounts to approx. a third of CO2 emmissions, hardly a small part?
Sorry, you're right - I was thinking domestic. But wind generated electricity is bottom of the pile when it comes to displacing fossil fuel generation - and therefore reducing CO2.
It takes 26GW of installed wind capacity to displace just 5GW of fossil fuel plant!!!! I'm no engineer but surely to God there's a better/easier, less intrusive and cheaper way of displacing/replacing 5GW of our current generation.
How many turbines required for an installed capacity of 26GW?
What landmass is required to host 26GW?
What is the cost of developing 26GW of wind enery?
How much concrete will be poured into the ground to anchor 26GW?
It's unbelieve that this is even being considered as an option!
The UK is not the only one that has ratified Kyoto, all other countries will be doing their bit, even the US. It all mounts up.
Ok - but let's not use onshore wind to mount it up.
Aww, a personal comment which is untrue and we were getting on so well?
The HRES gives us a good way to preserve those landscapes that are in the greatest need of being preserved, have a look on the map, with the exception of Mull I think the western scottish highland region is largely precluded from being a 'preferred area'.
I am a realist, I realise that windfarms are here and they are coming whether we like them or not. So long as we have greedy landowners and prospecting wind companies then windfarm proliferation is a clear and present danger.
In this eco game of poker, I prefer to play my hand as best I can or even fold to till the next round rather than bluffing right to the last bid and perhaps lose this HRES that gives at least a reasonable amount of damage limitation.
The stakes are far too high to gamble with something so precious.
Why do we have to lose the HRES just because we don't agree with every element in it? Mr Rennilson stated that this was only a draft - he admitted there were mistakes and flaws - and he agreed to listen to the public by way of the public consultation process.
We've not been threatened with all or nothing - have we? Maybe if they knock a nought off the proposed onshore wind target that would solve the problem.
How many turbines required for an installed capacity of 26GW?
That depends on the size of wind turbine. Currently the average windfarm consists of 13 turbines rated at 1MW each but that is a bit misleading now as bigger turbines are available so the number is set to fall.
What landmass is required to host 26GW?
Well I went out with my new GPS and plotted each position of the causeymire turbines and I found that the area within the farm was 3km2. But again this is misleading because it takes no account of the subjective minimum distance that everyone feels is necessary to be away from them. My absolute minimum distance of comfort is 1km, so my calculations revealed that the causeymire occupied a 'safe' zone of 10km2. So if Scotland occupies approx 98,000 sq km then the area of 26GW is 5420 sq km which is ~5.5% of the area. But this depends on the size of windfarm, not all will give promising figures as Causeymire size windfarms...
What is the cost of developing 26GW of wind enery?
A cost to who and what?
How much concrete will be poured into the ground to anchor 26GW?
I saw quoted once that it takes a one-off 400 tonnes per turbine to site an offshore turbine, I presume that land turbines take a lot less.
Rheghead said the following;-
"The HRES gives us a good way to preserve those landscapes that are in the greatest need of being preserved, have a look on the map, with the exception of Mull I think the western scottish highland region is largely precluded from being a 'preferred area'."
Rheghead, Could you please say which map you are referring to?
ywindy
Hi ywindy, welcome to the forum!
Figure 6.2.4 of the HRES
Thanks Rheghead
Skye is the island targetted with primary locations on figure 6.2.4. Mull people recently told their councillors that they would be windfarm free, and their councillors have accepted it, but Mull is not in the Highland area.
Figure 6.2.4 is peppered with green, yellow, or beige dots each representing an area of land one kilometre by one kilometre which the HRES designates as acceptable for windfarm development, the hierarchy being based on land not protected by SNH etc, and the ease of connection to the national grid.
"Preferred" areas are where clusters of windfarms are anticipated by HRES. "Primary" areas are where HRES only expects single windfarms, and "Secondary" areas are areas which could be considered if there is good reason for not developing in preferred or primary areas. One good reason for developing in a secondary area is that you might not have land in either of the other areas.
Sorry, Rheghead, while I agree that having a policy is better than none, HRES is not a policy. Through it, vast areas of Highland would be opened up for windfarm development which even the windfarm developers themselves would never have considered.
The map in 6.2.4 is precise. Each coloured square represents a specific location 1kx1k where there will be a presumption for windfarm development. Study it closely.
Feel free to email me on ywindy@btinternet.com for more information on the exact location of Preferred, P rimary,and Secondary areas as defined by HRES.
Thanks
ywindy
Thanks Rheghead
The map in 6.2.4 is precise. Each coloured square represents a specific location 1kx1k where there will be a presumption for windfarm development. Study it closely.
There will only be a presumption for acceptance in green preferred areas, the other possible areas have no presumption, the vast areas of red zones will have a presumption of rejection.
There will only be a presumption for acceptance in green preferred areas, the other possible areas have no presumption, the vast areas of red zones will have a presumption of rejection.
I stand corrected.
The green zones have a "strong presumption" in favour, and the red zones will have a presumption against development.
This presumption against development of red areas does not however preclude potential development, per policy E7;-
"E.7 Elsewhere in Highland there will be a presumption against development. Any proposals for national and major projects will have to overcome a precautionary approach to planning approval. Any development would also need to show that there was no scope for alternative development within other preferred and possible development areas."
Policy E6 covers the yellow and beige zones where the biggest hurdle a developer has to overcome is to demonstrate that he does not have access to a green zone, otherwise they are just as acceptable development locations as green zones;-
"E.6 Possible development areas have been identified in areas with relatively low constraints, but where other factors make them less optimal than preferred development areas. In these locations developments will be judged on their merits and will need to show that there is no scope for alternative development within preferred development areas."
HRES does nothing to control development applications. It does nothing to protect valuable areas. It simply invites developers to target preferred, primary, and secondary areas, many of which would have not been considered as possible candidates for planning consent by developers before publication of HRES.
Rather than introduce a framework for control of development proposals, HRES opens the Highlands to a free-for-all. One year on and we are no better off, worse off rather.
ywindy
This presumption against development of red areas does not however preclude potential development
And...a presumption strongly in favour of development does not necessarily mean that development will be approved.
People can still object to planning applications in the same way as before, for the vast areas of red zones this HRES will be a valuble asset to safeguard the beauty of the Highlands.
And...a presumption strongly in favour of development does not necessarily mean that development will be approved.
People can still object to planning applications in the same way as before, for the vast areas of red zones this HRES will be a valuble asset to safeguard the beauty of the Highlands.
We mustn't lose sight of the fact that figure 6.2.4 refers only to "major and national scale" windfarms ie over 5MW.
To put this in perspective, the turbines recently erected at Buolfruich are rated at 0.6MW, so nine of them would be classed as "major".
Of much greater concern is that eight of them would be classed as "local scale" (10kw to 5MW).
Figure 6.2.7 shows the strategy for "local scale" development on page 34 at http://www.highland.gov.uk/plintra/planpol/ren/strat-cons.pdf (http://www.highland.gov.uk/plintra/planpol/ren/strat-cons.pdf).
This shows approximately 50% of the land mass of Highland classified as preferred or possible areas for "local scale" development, and these local scale developments could occur every five kilometres.
Potentially:
One at Berriedale
One at Dunbeath
One at Lybster
One at Whaligoe
One at Thrumster
One at Staxigoe
One at Reiss
One at Keiss
One at Freswick
One at John o Groats
One at May
One at Dunnet
One at Castletown
One at Scrabster
One at Reay
One at Melvich ..........
And so on, all in addition to the "majors and nationals".
This is clearly madness and it will never happen-
BUT THIS IS THE STRATEGY. THIS IS WHAT IS BEING CONSULTED ON, AND THIS IS WHAT OUR COUNCILLORS WILL BE ASKED TO VOTE FOR. And this is why the windfarm industry are rubbing their hands with glee.
I see no evidence of our land being protected by HRES.
ywindy
Fanny's Your Aunt
12-Dec-05, 17:34
We mustn't lose sight of the fact that figure 6.2.4 refers only to "major and national scale" windfarms ie over 5MW.
To put this in perspective, the turbines recently erected at Buolfruich are rated at 0.6MW, so nine of them would be classed as "major".
Of much greater concern is that eight of them would be classed as "local scale" (10kw to 5MW).
Figure 6.2.7 shows the strategy for "local scale" development on page 34 at http://www.highland.gov.uk/plintra/planpol/ren/strat-cons.pdf (http://www.highland.gov.uk/plintra/planpol/ren/strat-cons.pdf).
This shows approximately 50% of the land mass of Highland classified as preferred or possible areas for "local scale" development, and these local scale developments could occur every five kilometres.
Potentially:
One at Berriedale
One at Dunbeath
One at Lybster
One at Whaligoe
One at Thrumster
One at Staxigoe
One at Reiss
One at Keiss
One at Freswick
One at John o Groats
One at May
One at Dunnet
One at Castletown
One at Scrabster
One at Reay
One at Melvich ..........
And so on, all in addition to the "majors and nationals".
This is clearly madness and it will never happen-
BUT THIS IS THE STRATEGY. THIS IS WHAT IS BEING CONSULTED ON, AND THIS IS WHAT OUR COUNCILLORS WILL BE ASKED TO VOTE FOR. And this is why the windfarm industry are rubbing their hands with glee.
I see no evidence of our land being protected by HRES.
ywindy
The HRES is not and will not even try to protect our landscape the purpose of this strategy is for the highland council to test the water and guage what the public in caithness and sutherland are willing to put up with in the way of onshore wind developments
with regards the local councillors voting on this strategy - well that IS scary when you consider most of them quite openly admit to having never read the full docuement so what basis are they going to base their opinions???
The only way we as the public can influence the councillors is to be vocal in our objections to the parts of the strategy we oppose and hope that the vocal support is loud enough to make the councillors take notice.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.