View Full Version : Rumster Community Windfarm
ywindythesecond
24-May-08, 10:11
Mods, please don’t move this post. It is a separate subject and worthy of its own thread.
At http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?t=46152&page=3 (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?t=46152&page=3) ,post 45, Reggy said:
“I want to express my approval that there was a triumph of local Democracy over fear and misinformation when I heard that voters in East Caithness approved that the Rumster Windfarm development should go ahead. It was heartening that local Caithnessian people were prepared to put Global disaster ahead of visual amenity”.
First of all, I want to say that in principle, I support this development. It is by the community, for the community, and if sensitively engineered, can be accommodated with minimal impact on the community.
However Reggy, it is being undertaken for economic reasons as the published literature clearly states. At no point does it mention Global disaster or even Global warming, so please research a little more before making such sweeping and misinformed statements.
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/8300/rumsterpage1el6.jpg
Back to the development, the site earmarked is a good one, and potentially turbines can be located out of sight and hearing. However, the current plan, not by any means fixed, is for three Causeymire size turbines. It is clear that the Latheron, Lybster, and Clyth Community Development Company have underestimated the visual impact of such large machines, and also the number of homes which would be affected.
Smaller turbines would not present these problems. I urge the Company to focus on what is enough, not how much can be got, and to balance the amenity of those most affected with the needs of the community at large.
However Reggy, it is being undertaken for economic reasons as the published literature clearly states. At no point does it mention Global disaster or even Global warming, so please research a little more before making such sweeping and misinformed statements.
You should read the article more closely and do more research in an area which you claim to be an expert. It says the development will contribute to the Government's aim of providing increased energy regeneration from renewable sources. The Government's aim is based on scientific advice from scientists who advocate that greenhouse gases are causing global warming. Their pre-feasibility study also states that 7000 tonnes of carbon dioxide will be mitigated per year and carbon dioxide is stated as the main cause of climate change.
It would be very hard to think that the environment was not a factor in this proposal as anyone could predict that a smoke belching development would not get the approval of the local community.
So yes, the Rumster approval is democratic triumph over fear and misinformation.
It is also a triumph for the Government's energy strategy and the Renewable Obligation, for without the RO incentivising renewable energy schemes there would be no Rumster Forest windfarm and there would be no funding for the Lybster and Latheron community.
If the world is in peril (well not for ten years it seems as global warming is on hold) why don't these windfarm lovers fully support nuclear power - the sooner we build these non-carbon emission things the better, why don't we follow the French example, no doubt right now these greenies are using their PC's which are part supplied with power on the Grid coming over from French nuclear power stations via the Interconnector..
Forget these silly little wind turbines with their intermittent power and creating an industrialised landscape and putting money in developers and landowners pockets and have the real grunt of nuclear - how many thousands of windfarms to replace a single nuclear?
Someone talking sense..
Weather Channel boss calls global warming 'the greatest scam in history'
The founder of the The Weather Channel in the US has described the concept of global warming as 'the greatest scam in history' and accused global media of colluding with 'environmental extremists' to alarm the public. "It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM," John Coleman wrote in an article published on ICECAP, the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, which is known for challenging widely published theories on global warming.
His views challenge the consensus of the international science community that it is at least 90 per cent certain that temperatures will continue to rise, with average global surface temperature projected to increase by between 1.4 and 5.8ºC above 1990 levels by 2100.
This increase will be accompanied by rising sea levels, more intense precipitation events in some countries, increased risk of drought in others, and adverse effects on agriculture, health and water resources.
A recent joint statement by the scientific academies of 17 countries, including the UK's Royal Society, endorsed the theory of climate change and dismissed doubts raised over the need for action to mitigate possible damage caused by climate change
"We do not consider such doubts justified," the group said in a joint statement, urging prompt action to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.
But Mr Colemen slams their views as part of a global conspiracy: "Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in [sic] allusion of rapid global warming."
"Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.
"Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda.
"Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious citizens.
"Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment."
He added: "I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct.
"There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/11/09/eaweather109.xml (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/11/09/eaweather109.xml)
If the world is in peril (well not for ten years it seems as global warming is on hold) why don't these windfarm lovers fully support nuclear power - the sooner we build these non-carbon emission things the better, why don't we follow the French example, no doubt right now these greenies are using their PC's which are part supplied with power on the Grid coming over from French nuclear power stations via the Interconnector..
Forget these silly little wind turbines with their intermittent power and creating an industrialised landscape and putting money in developers and landowners pockets and have the real grunt of nuclear - how many thousands of windfarms to replace a single nuclear?
In realistic terms, how effective do you think going 100% nuclear would be at tackling climate change when known conventional reserves (at current consumption rates) are expected to last just 50 years? The nuclear portion of the UK's energy mix is currently only 20% and we are a big user compared to the rest of the world. Do the maths, the uranium won't go very far, 5-10 years if all countries went 100% nuke. Whatever happens, we need to go renewable when uranium and fossil fuels become too uneconomical compared to renewables anyway, which isn't very far around the corner...
Fastbreeding would make the fuel last a lot longer but I doubt replacing one environmental disaster with another would be a good idea.
"Fastbreeding would make the fuel last a lot longer" Yes you are corrrect
Don't think there will be any problem with fuel?
World Uranium Reserves..
And note, this is even for the once-through cycle, which only makes use of the U-235. If we went to breeders, the amount of uranium ore used, per unit of electricity generation, is divided by a factor of 60-70. Not only that, but since 1/60th as much ore is used, the tolerable ore price increases by yet another factor of 60. This, of course, causes another exponential increase in the economically recoverable reserves. If we go with breeders, we have enough economically recoverable uranium to meet all our power needs for tens, probably hundreds of thousands of years. It should be noted, however, that the price of ore will have to go extremely high ($500-1000/kg) before breeding would make economic sense, and this won't happen for well over a century; plenty of time to develop safe, reliable, and economic breeder technology.
—James Hopf, Nuclear Engineer
November 2004
http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/uranium.html (http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/uranium.html)
"Fastbreeding would make the fuel last a lot longer" Yes you are corrrect
Don't think there will be any problem with fuel?
World Uranium Reserves..
And note, this is even for the once-through cycle, which only makes use of the U-235. If we went to breeders, the amount of uranium ore used, per unit of electricity generation, is divided by a factor of 60-70. Not only that, but since 1/60th as much ore is used, the tolerable ore price increases by yet another factor of 60. This, of course, causes another exponential increase in the economically recoverable reserves. If we go with breeders, we have enough economically recoverable uranium to meet all our power needs for tens, probably hundreds of thousands of years. It should be noted, however, that the price of ore will have to go extremely high ($500-1000/kg) before breeding would make economic sense, and this won't happen for well over a century; plenty of time to develop safe, reliable, and economic breeder technology.
—James Hopf, Nuclear Engineer
November 2004
http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/uranium.html (http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/uranium.html)
He needs to do his sums again. If he thinks extracting uranium from seawater is a good idea then think about the environmental impact of that. How much sealife will suffer and what will be the energy required to do that? And all because we don't like windfarms....
"And all because we don't like windfarms"
Nah.. Windpower is not economically viable without subsidy
2.5 MW x 24 Hrs x 365 days x 30% load factor x £45 per ROC = £295,650 per turbine.
(ywindythesecond)
Anyway, this tread is going away from the initial, and maybe from #3 should be merged over to 'Is it only windfarms in Caithness?
"And all because we don't like windfarms"
Nah.. Windpower is not economically viable without subsidy
2.5 MW x 24 Hrs x 365 days x 30% load factor x £45 per ROC = £295,650 per turbine.
(ywindythesecond)
Anyway, this tread is going away from the initial, and maybe from #3 should be merged over to 'Is it only windfarms in Caithness?
If ywindythesecond supports the Rumster Forest development for economical reasons then he must support the Renewable obligation. For without it, the development is uneconomical and a community will suffer. I am now glad he actually now recognises the validity of the sums that I introduced to the Org all those years ago.
ywindythesecond
25-May-08, 19:23
Anyway, this tread is going away from the initial, and maybe from #3 should be merged over to 'Is it only windfarms in Caithness?
It would be a pity if it was merged Beki. It is a serious subject and we should not let Reggy hijack it by playing on the meaning of words rather than the substance they convey. There is no single "right" answer to windfarm development and an open mind is essential.
I am going to back away from this thread meantime and hopefully a reasonable and reasoned discussion will emerge.
ywy2
Hi windy
Like you I'm backing away, had a look at Rhegheads "The year when entitlements reach equality would be subject to negotiation." (on the other windfarm thread) Does anyone really think such an agreement would ever be reached? and his link; 'Contraction and Convergence' had a butchers, it mentioned "The Climate Justice Project", I read the first four words; "is a student-led campaign" and I, for some unfathomable reason immediately began to loose interest and then when they say that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is totally wrong, it did it for me.. If Rheghead is in support of the IPCC, this does not compute with the Climate Justice Project..
I agree that there is no "right" answer to windfarm development, but all grid connected windfarms get ROCs. There is no "maybe" that they should get them. You can't support a community-owned windfarm funding their projects and then say on the next breath that an individual farmer or international company should be precluded from such incentives.
his link; 'Contraction and Convergence' had a butchers, it mentioned "The Climate Justice Project", I read the first four words; "is a student-led campaign" and I, for some unfathomable reason immediately began to loose interest and then when they say that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is totally wrong, it did it for me.. If Rheghead is in support of the IPCC, this does not compute with the Climate Justice Project..
Perhaps the reason why The Climate Justice Project doesn't agree with the IPCC is the fact they are students and not experienced climatologists who have access too all the research equipment?
The heartening part which you did not emphasise is that the IPCC see contraction and convergence as a way forward as well. It strikes at the heart of inequality between nations. Something worth striving for...
Sorry, last one; "and not experienced climatologists who have access too all the research equipment?"
Do you have this honour Rheghead?
Sorry, last one; "and not experienced climatologists who have access too all the research equipment?"
Do you have this honour Rheghead?
No I don't, I just look at what the real climatologists are doing and see that they are much more plausible than the armchair pseudo-climatologists who are sponsored by big American companys who have a vested interest in poo pooing the theory.
So give us a clue then? Are the forum contributors happy with the plan or not??? Who cared where the money comes from, if its out the road, funded to be built and then money generated FOR THE COMMUNITY, who cares?
Surely Caithness deserves some £££ too. If we dont take it someone else will???
IF the community were the ones to benefit from this development and it was sited sympathetically then that is fine.
But developers already use this 'community benefit' as part of their application process and they may try to use this as a thin end of a very wide wedge, and all future wind factory developments may be cloaked as 'for the community', more so than they are now.
I have my sceptic hat on...
As someone who could have, but didn't vote on the Rumster Forest community wind farm, I am ambivalent.
I don't have a problem with community projects like this per se.......I have no problem with profits being used to benefit local projects..............but I do have a problem with the fact that it is simply adding to the excess wind farm electricity produced in Caithness, rather than being grid connected to the local community.
I'm afraid I can see no benefit whatsoever in Caithness producing more electricity than the county can use when none of it actually reduces what we take from the grid.
All Caithness is doing is despoiling the rest of Scotland with enormous pylons to transfer their production to the South where it is needed with no benefit whatsoever to the county.
An individual turbine on an individual property which is grid connected allows the property to offset the electricity used with that produced, thus cutting what is taken from the grid, and it allows excess production to be taken into the grid, thus increasing what is available to others by inputting to the grid what the property doesn't use.
What is the problem with the likes of the Causeymire Windfarm electricity production being fed into the grid, as individual turbines are, to power the local area and free up the production in the south to service other areas?
I'm of the opinion that there should be no more windfarms in Caithness until someone comes up with a method of using locally produced power to service the local area and remove the necessity for enormous pylons wrecking the countryside to the detriment of tourism, which is an integral part of Scotland's economy.
So give us a clue then? Are the forum contributors happy with the plan or not??? Who cared where the money comes from, if its out the road, funded to be built and then money generated FOR THE COMMUNITY, who cares?
Surely Caithness deserves some £££ too. If we dont take it someone else will???
Well I believe there's a half million in the Causewaymire fund and the turbines have been twirling for four years, and I don't think anyone has had the benefit of this money yet at all. I don't know why it's just sitting there doing noting. Perhaps someone in the know could enlighten me.
All Caithness is doing is despoiling the rest of Scotland with enormous pylons to transfer their production to the South where it is needed with no benefit whatsoever to the county.
Think of all of the goods and services in your home that originate from south of the Ord then think again how much you might benefit in the future from energy derived from Caithness.
Think of all of the goods and services in your home that originate from south of the Ord then think again how much you might benefit in the future from energy derived from Caithness.
Explain how............it sure as heck won't get any cheaper!
George Brims
27-May-08, 21:21
Someone talking sense..
Weather Channel boss calls global warming 'the greatest scam in history'
The founder of the The Weather Channel in the US has described the concept of global warming as 'the greatest scam in history' and accused global media of colluding with 'environmental extremists' to alarm the public.
So all those climate scientists are wrong and a journalist with no scientific qualifications is the authoritative voice?
Explain how............it sure as heck won't get any cheaper!
All goods need energy to manufacture. We like our goods, so we benefit from the manufacturer having enough energy to make them.
Energy prices are set to increase so long as we are addicted to fossil fuels. The price needs to go up to extract the oil and reserves that are harder to get out of the ground.
You want Scotland to prosper don't you? To prosper, she needs energy, and her own energy at that. Under an Independent Scotland, we can prosper where others are paying through the nose for coal, oil and gas. We could generate all our own energy through wind, wave, tidal and a bit of coal will be needed to keep the whole thing together. We still have a lot of that. But I've already seen the damage to Caithness by burning to much of it.
We could generate all our own energy through wind, wave, tidal and a bit of coal will be needed to keep the whole thing together.
"You" could - but unfortunately it is all being generated in the far north and sent to power the south. I don't see that changing too soon, do you?
But I've already seen the damage to Caithness by burning to much of it.
So you are happy to add to the damage you have "seen", with the out of control proliferation of these industrial scale wind factories?
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.