View Full Version : more wind turbines
silverfox57
26-Aug-08, 20:13
Having just found out what the new road at thuster under construction is for three new wind turbines,if you look up new road to hill you will see a mast in sky line,this is where turbines are to be .never see or hear about having six wind turbines at bilbster,as anyone more info on when planning was granted,.:~(:confused
mr do dar
26-Aug-08, 20:20
thats been going on for weeks . its up setting to see them everywhere . why dont they put them all together . out of sight
the country side is getting killed off with them
Phoebus_Apollo
26-Aug-08, 21:46
thats been going on for weeks . its up setting to see them everywhere . why dont they put them all together . out of sight
the country side is getting killed off with them
And put them where? - Windfarms are the ideal solution to our energy needs and after the turbines have served there useful life they can be dismantled.
teenybash
26-Aug-08, 21:58
The more the merrier.....without them none of us will have anything to look at.....we will be gone along with the planet!!:roll:
I look out at 2 wind turbines at Bilbster... people say there is 3, I say the other object is a statue of one as it has never rotated...
I wonder what the service agreement is, or guarantee even...
Is it me or when the wind blows they should all rotate... is that not the purpose of these things...
Mind you the 2 that do rotate are quite hypnotic... hypnotic... hypnotis...
Angel...
Angel...
Angel...
I look out at 2 wind turbines at Bilbster... people say there is 3, I say the other object is a statue of one as it has never rotated...
Angel...
There are 3 and I have witnessed them all rotate. I seem to recall another thread here which explained that not all 3 wind turbines were totally commissioned, yet, ...
why dont they put them all together .
That is a good question. The trouble is, local councillors have rejected planning permission for large windfarms on the grounds of cumulative effects, visual amenity, the list of reasons is endless. One councillor who is set to resign at the next election is quoted as saying Caithness can't accomodate large windfarms. This being one of the most sparsely populated parts of Scotland.:roll:
In the light of this political backdrop, future windfarm applications will be less ambitious yet the international renewable energy targets remain the same and thus this will inadvertently serve to keep the pressure on the Renewable Obligation being as lucrative as it is. Bad news for consumers.
The net effect will be that instead of preserving Scotland's landscape, anti-windfarm sentiment will result in smaller and more numerous develoments dotted around the country which will ensure that we can't have any landscape free of a windturbine and we'll have higher energy bills.
Margaret M.
27-Aug-08, 01:57
Study shows windfarms cause their lungs to explode. :(
http://www.amherstdaily.com/index.cfm?sid=165448&sc=509
Welcomefamily
27-Aug-08, 05:08
Why they dont just add to the cause way ones instead of putting them up anywhere, I suppose if they do that only one capitalist benefits where as this way it gets spread around.
mr do dar
27-Aug-08, 08:11
And put them where? - Windfarms are the ideal solution to our energy needs and after the turbines have served there useful life they can be dismantled.
out of sight out of mind i say
silverfox57
27-Aug-08, 08:13
funny think about the new road in construction, is not stopping at where three turbines are to be placed,but new road is going al the way to cause-a mere road,why ? more turbines
If you look at the cwif website map page
http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/page5.htm
you will find the answers to many of your questions.
Margaret - there are news items all over the world suddenly about bat deaths, it's really horrible. 27 links on Google today.
silverfox57
27-Aug-08, 12:16
If you look at the cwif website map page
http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/page5.htm
you will find the answers to many of your questions.
Margaret - there are news items all over the world suddenly about bat deaths, it's really horrible. 27 links on Google today.
thanks for link badger,now we know where and how many turbines are going up,and who are in the money, :~(
ywindythesecond
27-Aug-08, 21:38
That is a good question. The trouble is, local councillors have rejected planning permission for large windfarms on the grounds of cumulative effects, visual amenity, the list of reasons is endless. One councillor who is set to resign at the next election is quoted as saying Caithness can't accomodate large windfarms. This being one of the most sparsely populated parts of Scotland.:roll:
In the light of this political backdrop, future windfarm applications will be less ambitious yet the international renewable energy targets remain the same and thus this will inadvertently serve to keep the pressure on the Renewable Obligation being as lucrative as it is. Bad news for consumers.
The net effect will be that instead of preserving Scotland's landscape, anti-windfarm sentiment will result in smaller and more numerous develoments dotted around the country which will ensure that we can't have any landscape free of a windturbine and we'll have higher energy bills.
Fascinating assessment Reggy. Are Caithness Councillors, or even Highland Councillors responsible for this:
http://img60.imageshack.us/img60/18/snhwindfarmactivityapridy2.jpg[/url][/IMG]
This is SNH's map of Windfarms in Scotland April 2008
Red is Installed or Approved, Brown is Application, and Lilac is Scoping. The sites are to scale.
You can see the whole picture at http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/strategy/renewable/windfarmFootprintMapApril08.pdf
Just checked, it is already out of date. Westerdale and Halsary have been added and at least one more is in the pipeline in Aberdeenshire.
Just a thought based on no knowledge whatsoever. Given that bats hear high frequency sounds couldn't the turbines be fitted with high frequency speakers to ward them off?
PS Maybe play Bat Out Of Hell on a loop.
Looking more and more a reality....
http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/1305/screenshot4copydf5.gif
Looking more and more a reality....
http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/1305/screenshot4copydf5.gif
It's not all bad, they've taken down the Forss windfarm!:lol:
Melancholy Man
27-Aug-08, 23:40
Why they dont just add to the cause way ones instead of putting them up anywhere, I suppose if they do that only one capitalist benefits where as this way it gets spread around.
Similar fears were being expressed in 1830 about the new Stephenson rocket thingie. Ten years later, 7,000 miles of track in the country; all with capitalist investment.
Communism tried state control a century later in the Industrial Revolutions of East Europe, and look what happened.
Welcomefamily
28-Aug-08, 07:58
Having now looked at the windfarm applications map even I might can get a little negative.
However I could image 400 turbines in the causeway and none no where else thus keeping the beauty of caithness as we are going to have them anyway. The council should jump on the band wagon to get a yearly % for good causes in caithness.
silverfox57
28-Aug-08, 11:33
have to agree with Welcome family.but common sense to prevail with powers to be is not so common,to put all turbines in the flow country,would have been the best way to go,
have to agree with Welcome family.but common sense to prevail with powers to be is not so common,to put all turbines in the flow country,would have been the best way to go,
Sorry silverfox but that doesn't work either - all sorts of negative implications putting turbines in peat and blanket bog.
So I take that living in Caithness almost automatically puts me against Wind farms. Sorry...no can do. They are an absoulute neccessity. Fuel prices are rocketing, fuel stocks are depleting, we need energy. Do you really want a reality where you cannot boil a kettle, heat up your straighteners, watch your widescreen plasma tv, etc...no of course you don't. In that case stop whinging about them and get used to it. They are coming whether we campaign or not. Personally I think they are beautiful and as the Caithness landscape is so flat they make a pleasant change.
to put all turbines in the flow country,would have been the best way to go,
I can see a problem with that in terms of peat slide, connection availability, impact to wildlife, access etc.
For Caithness to do her bit in terms of meeting the EU renewable targets, we need to see an average of 36MW of wind capacity being installed each year until 2020. I think that is achievable, given a radical change in attitude on behalf of local government. This can only be achieved by a change in public attitudes towards energy security and the real threat from Global Warming on life and the economy, so that they are not putting their electability at risk by making bold decisions towards windfarm planning applications.
We already are experiencing some of the worst impacts on wildlife in Caithness due to changes to feeding habits of sandeels, which has caused breeding problems to puffins and other birds.
Other changes are obvious, longer midge season, mackerel fishing throughout the year, less snow etc.
Welcomefamily
28-Aug-08, 19:18
It would certainly be a tourist attraction, there is a wind farm on bodmin moor in cornwall and about 15 years ago it was surprising how many people stopped and watched them.
I also surprised at how many meg we have to achieve.
Looking more and more a reality....
http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/1305/screenshot4copydf5.gif
Looks like the whole County has measles. :D
ywindythesecond
28-Aug-08, 21:48
I can see a problem with that in terms of peat slide, connection availability, impact to wildlife, access etc.
For Caithness to do her bit in terms of meeting the EU renewable targets, we need to see an average of 36MW of wind capacity being installed each year until 2020. I think that is achievable, given a radical change in attitude on behalf of local government. This can only be achieved by a change in public attitudes towards energy security and the real threat from Global Warming on life and the economy, so that they are not putting their electability at risk by making bold decisions towards windfarm planning applications.
We already are experiencing some of the worst impacts on wildlife in Caithness due to changes to feeding habits of sandeels, which has caused breeding problems to puffins and other birds.
Other changes are obvious, longer midge season, mackerel fishing throughout the year, less snow etc.
Reggy,
How do you get energy security from windpower?
Reggy,
How do you get energy security from windpower?
Because we are producing energy within our own borders, free from political interference.
funny think about the new road in construction, is not stopping at where three turbines are to be placed,but new road is going al the way to cause-a mere road,why ? more turbines
Maybe they will just extend the road on down towards the Camster site for ease of access?
ywindythesecond
28-Aug-08, 22:06
Because we are producing energy within our own borders, free from political interference.
But how is it secure?
But how is it secure?
I've just told you.
ywindythesecond
28-Aug-08, 22:31
I've just told you.
Thought I would look up a Thesaurus for "secure". Here is the result.
I have highlighted all the synonyms which apply to wind generation for an energy policy.
http://thesaurus.infoplease.com/secure
Adjective
1. secure (vs. insecure), unafraid, untroubled
usage: free from fear or doubt; easy in mind; "secure himself, he went out of his way to help others"
2. secure (vs. insecure), assured, bonded, guaranteed, secured, warranted, certified, established, firm, fail-safe, in safe custody(predicate), promised, safe, safe-deposit, safety-deposit, sure, invulnerable, protected#1, secure, safe
usage: free from danger or risk; "secure from harm"; "his fortune was secure"; "made a secure place for himself in his field"
3. protected (vs. unprotected), secure, bastioned, fortified, battlemented, burglarproof, covert, moated, sheltered, shielded, snug, stormproof, weatherproof, invulnerable, secure
usage: kept safe or defended from danger or injury or loss; "the most protected spot I could find"
4. secure (vs. insecure), steady, tight, tightened, fixed
usage: not likely to fail or give way; "the lock was secure"; "a secure foundation"; "a secure hold on her wrist"
5. impregnable, inviolable, secure, strong, unassailable, unattackable, invulnerable (vs. vulnerable)
usage: able to withstand attack; "an impregnable fortress"; "fortifications that made the frontier inviolable"
6. dependable, good, safe, secure, sound (vs. unsound)
usage: financially sound; "a good investment"; "a secure investment"
Security of Wind Energy (http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=46464)
Because we are producing energy within our own borders, free from political interference.
Okay, I believe that as I am as dum as you.
Energy Security
Our energy future is uncertain. As energy demand increases, our country’s traditional fuels of oil, coal and gas are running out. By 2020 we may need to import gas to cater for up to 80%1 of our electricity needs. We would be both literally and metaphorically near the end of the line for fossil fuels and any interruption in that supply could leave us without power. The wind is a free energy source, widely available and will never run out. Electricity generated from the wind will be vital in building a secure and sustainable energy future that will help keep the lights on in Britain. (http://www.bwea.com/pdf/briefings/benefits.pdf)
ywindythesecond
28-Aug-08, 22:58
Security of Wind Energy (http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/story?id=46464)
So here are the synonyms which don't apply to wind generation as an energy policy
http://thesaurus.infoplease.com/secure
Adjective
1. secure (vs. insecure), unafraid, untroubled
usage: free from fear or doubt; easy in mind; "secure himself, he went out of his way to help others"
2. secure (vs. insecure), assured, bonded, guaranteed, secured, warranted, certified, established, firm, fail-safe, in safe custody(predicate), promised, safe, safe-deposit, safety-deposit, sure, invulnerable, protected#1, secure, safe
usage: free from danger or risk; "secure from harm"; "his fortune was secure"; "made a secure place for himself in his field"
3. protected (vs. unprotected), secure, bastioned, fortified, battlemented, burglarproof, covert, moated, sheltered, shielded, snug, stormproof, weatherproof, invulnerable, secure
usage: kept safe or defended from danger or injury or loss; "the most protected spot I could find"
4. secure (vs. insecure), steady, tight, tightened, fixed
usage: not likely to fail or give way; "the lock was secure"; "a secure foundation"; "a secure hold on her wrist"
5. impregnable, inviolable, secure, strong, unassailable, unattackable, invulnerable (vs. vulnerable)
usage: able to withstand attack; "an impregnable fortress"; "fortifications that made the frontier inviolable"
6. dependable, good, safe, secure, sound (vs. unsound)
usage: financially sound; "a good investment"; "a secure investment"
So here are the synonyms which don't apply to wind generation as an energy policy
http://thesaurus.infoplease.com/secure
Adjective
1. secure (vs. insecure), unafraid, untroubled
usage: free from fear or doubt; easy in mind; "secure himself, he went out of his way to help others"
2. secure (vs. insecure), assured, bonded, guaranteed, secured, warranted, certified, established, firm, fail-safe, in safe custody(predicate), promised, safe, safe-deposit, safety-deposit, sure, invulnerable, protected#1, secure, safe
usage: free from danger or risk; "secure from harm"; "his fortune was secure"; "made a secure place for himself in his field"
3. protected (vs. unprotected), secure, bastioned, fortified, battlemented, burglarproof, covert, moated, sheltered, shielded, snug, stormproof, weatherproof, invulnerable, secure
usage: kept safe or defended from danger or injury or loss; "the most protected spot I could find"
4. secure (vs. insecure), steady, tight, tightened, fixed
usage: not likely to fail or give way; "the lock was secure"; "a secure foundation"; "a secure hold on her wrist"
5. impregnable, inviolable, secure, strong, unassailable, unattackable, invulnerable (vs. vulnerable)
usage: able to withstand attack; "an impregnable fortress"; "fortifications that made the frontier inviolable"
6. dependable, good, safe, secure, sound (vs. unsound)
usage: financially sound; "a good investment"; "a secure investment"
Any alternatives to wind that are better? Don't think so some how. But is this all you can provide, raking out an old dusty dictionary??
ywindythesecond
28-Aug-08, 23:14
Any alternatives to wind that are better? Don't think so some how. But is this all you can provide, raking out an old dusty dictionary??
House of Lords Select Committee on the Economics of Renewable Energy
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/renewables.doc (http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/renewables.doc)
http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/lords_press_notices/pn250408ea.cfm (http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/lords_press_notices/pn250408ea.cfm)
Gordon brown wants 10,000 new turbines.
http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/19842 (http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/19842)
E.ON says that to build the numbers of turbines Gordon B wants, you have to build conventional power stations with 92% of the 10,000 turbine's capacity just to keep in reserve.
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/EA311%20-%20Supplementary%20evidence%20from%20Eon.doc (http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/EA311%20-%20Supplementary%20evidence%20from%20Eon.doc)
Check out other respondees.
http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/lords_economic_affairs/eaffwrevid.cfm (http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/lords_economic_affairs/eaffwrevid.cfm)
Sir Donald Miller is well worth a look.
Derek Birkett
OFGEM
Andrew Bain
Colin Gibson
More from E.ON
http://www.eon-uk.com/generation/carboncostandconsequences.aspx (http://www.eon-uk.com/generation/carboncostandconsequences.aspx)
http://www.eon-uk.com/downloads/Manifesto_Brochure_-_final_30_05_08.pdf (http://www.eon-uk.com/downloads/Manifesto_Brochure_-_final_30_05_08.pdf)
But how is it secure?
This seems to give a good explanation.
To harness the capacity of a solitary wind turbine, then two other wind turbines are required, each in a different geographical area. This is because the wind either does not blow enough all the time, or it blows too hard some of the time, and the turbine has to be shut down. As the wind will generally always be blowing somewhere, and provided there are sufficient turbines distributed nationally to capture all wind conditions, a degree of security of supply can be anticipated in normal conditions.
They are the words of Stuart Young, are you familiar with his views? I don't agree all with what he has to say but I do respect his views as some do have a lot of merit.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmscotaf/259/259we02.htm
ywindythesecond
29-Aug-08, 00:44
Quote:
Originally Posted by ywindythesecond http://forum.caithness.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?p=424672#post424672)
But how is it secure?
Reggy said:-
This seems to give a good explanation.
Quote:
To harness the capacity of a solitary wind turbine, then two other wind turbines are required, each in a different geographical area. This is because the wind either does not blow enough all the time, or it blows too hard some of the time, and the turbine has to be shut down. As the wind will generally always be blowing somewhere, and provided there are sufficient turbines distributed nationally to capture all wind conditions, a degree of security of supply can be anticipated in normal conditions.
They are the words of Stuart Young, are you familiar with his views? I don't agree all with what he has to say but I do respect his views as some do have a lot of merit.
http://www.publications.parliament.u...59/259we02.htm
"a degree of security of supply can be anticipated in normal conditions. "
A degree of security of supply in normal conditions is not security of supply. EON, in two of the links on my last post tells us that the EU target for renewables can only be relied on for 8% of its connected capacity at peak winter demand. How secure is 8%? Where will the missing 92% come from?
__________________
A degree of security of supply in normal conditions is not security of supply. EON, in two of the links on my last post tells us that the EU target for renewables can only be relied on for 8% of its connected capacity at peak winter demand. How secure is 8%? Where will the missing 92% come from?
I'm glad you acknowledge that. So 8% is a welcome addition to our security of supplies at peak winter demand. What about the other times of the year, in normal conditions other than Xmas day around 6pm?
I believe the security of supply goes down to 8% at very high percentage intrusions into the energy market. A bit to go yet.
ywindythesecond
29-Aug-08, 08:15
I'm glad you acknowledge that. So 8% is a welcome addition to our security of supplies at peak winter demand. What about the other times of the year, in normal conditions other than Xmas day around 6pm?
I believe the security of supply goes down to 8% at very high percentage intrusions into the energy market. A bit to go yet.
Not sure what I am supposed to have acknowledged. The rest of the time valuable fossil fuels are squandered as back-up for wind, at greater or lesser degrees of course depending on time of year and other factors.
" A bit to go yet". It is not a case of pushing renewables till they really hurt and then stop. The Government and EU targets WILL force the construction of new thermal generation plant simply to back-up wind.
I can't keep up with the figures that are bandied about. Lets say we have a reliance on wind for 15% of our capacity. If an anticyclone covers the country at a time of peak winter demand, then we will be short of 92% of that ie 13.8%. At peak winter demand, all free reserves are used up, so only emergency reserves for plant failure is available. This emergency reserve will not be used for anything other than an emergency. So there will have to be selective shut down of power, power rationing.
If you are short of 13.8% of your requirement, then either you accept that there will be power outages when you need it most, or you have to build new plant just for that predictable situation.
It is not me that is saying this, it is generation professionals -see post 37, have you read it all yet?
Not sure what I am supposed to have acknowledged. The rest of the time valuable fossil fuels are squandered as back-up for wind, at greater or lesser degrees of course depending on time of year and other factors.
Please explain 'squandered', aren't they being used to produce electricity? Because I'm understanding from what your meaning is that the valuable fossil fuels are being 'squandered' in the absence of wind energy anyway because there are renewable alternatives like wind energy that can produce electricity instead.
squan·der (skwndr)
tr.v. squan·dered, squan·der·ing, squan·ders
1. To spend wastefully or extravagantly(using fossil fuels to back up existing fossil fuel generation); dissipate(waste heat into the atmosphere).
2. To fail to take advantage of( eg renewables ); lose a chance for (investment in renewable energy projects)
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/squandered
It is not a case of pushing renewables till they really hurt and then stop. The Government and EU targets WILL force the construction of new thermal generation plant simply to back-up wind.
We don't need any more fossil fuel capacity we already have it, the only reason to build new thermal capacity is to replace the old.
Myth: Wind energy needs back-up to work
Fact: All forms of power generation require back up and no energy technology can be relied upon 100%. The UK's transmission system already operates with enough back-up to manage the instantaneous loss of a large power station. Variations in the output from wind farms are barely noticeable over and above the normal fluctuation in supply and demand, seen when the nation's workforce goes home, or if lightning brings down a high-voltage transmission line. Therefore, at present there is no need for additional back-up because of wind energy.
Even for wind power to provide 10% of our nation's electricity needs, only a small amount of additional conventional back-up would be required, in the region of 300-500 megawatts (MW). This would add only 0.2 pence per kilowatt hour to the generation cost of wind energy and would not in any way threaten the security of our grid6. In fact, this is unlikely to become a significant issue until wind generates over 20% of total electricity supply.
It is not me that is saying this, it is generation professionals -see post 37, have you read it all yet?
I opened the first link and found a gross error, so it made me a tad doubtful about the rest.
funny think about the new road in construction, is not stopping at where three turbines are to be placed,but new road is going al the way to cause-a mere road,why ? more turbines
You may be right but I heard the new road was only going as far as the Camster road to provide access for the new Camster wind farm but as I say this was only hearsay.
ywindythesecond
29-Aug-08, 15:09
So it is a fine calm day on the Causeymire at a period of normal demand on the National grid. The turbines aren't turning but that doesn't matter because everyone has all the electricity they need, not a bit more not a bit less.
But then the wind gets up and the blades start turning. The chap in Pilochry whose job is to balance demand and supply minute by minute realises that he is in danger of having too much electricity. He has to take the power from wind turbines because that is the rule,so he needs to switch off another source. He looks down the list of generators and selects one to "constrain off" ie, tell to stop supplying power to the grid.
This will almost certainly be a coal fired station because the grid has to pay compensation to generators if it doesn't take contracted energy and coal fired power is cheapest. And this power station now has nothing to do because everyone is already getting their electricity from somewhere else, so it just sits and simmers until it is needed again.
Now this coal fired station has been providing electricity for about 3p a kwh, and it has been replaced with wind electricity at about 9p per kwh, but we have to add the amount the coal fired station is compensated by and this equals the normal price less any saving in fuel for ramping down the boilers, but the boilers need to be kept going to be able to come back on stream next time there is a requirement. So when we are using wind energy, we pay 3p for the power, 2p for the coal fired station and 6p in subsidies to developers shareholders and landowners, and all the time we are using coal for no return.
Not only that, the coal will be burning less efficiently (say75%) now producing a higher percentage of CO2 and that was what the windmill was supposed to save.
So if we have wind energy one third of the time at a cost of 11p a kwh
and coal for two thirds of the time at a cost of 3p per kwh, you can see that it costs us nearly twice as much for the electrity for one third of the time by wind than coal power for two thirds of the time. The amount of carbon saving is 25% of one third of the coal stations normal output, one twelfth, but we have used 75% of one third of normal fuel, that is one quarter, for no return whatsoever. And this minimal carbon saving has to be balanced against the carbon footprint of the windmill which started off as ore in some foreign country.
I would say the coal it was squandered.
And make no mistake we pay for this.
The annual subsidy for a 2.5MW turbine paid for by us through our bills is around £300,000. And for the privilege of paying this subsidy we pay 60% more for the electricity, and squander good coal resources.
I think you should persevere with the links Reggy.
COAL is going to run out. WIND as far as I can tell is not. Whatever the stats you come up with, the fact cannot be altered whoever is being told do what. Bring on the turbines. Clean and beautiful.
Thanks for putting all that in layman's terms YWind. If that is so, and even I can understand it, why can't the powers-that-be understand what's going on?
COAL is going to run out. WIND as far as I can tell is not. Whatever the stats you come up with, the fact cannot be altered whoever is being told do what. Bring on the turbines. Clean and beautiful.
McCaugm, it is my understanding that it will take very many, many years for coal to run out on this island and elsewhere in the world. Used with modern technology, surely it could provide us with supply safety until the govt. gets its act together regarding tidal, off-shore, fusion, and on and on, rather than the inefficient on-shore wind capability we have now.
teenybash
29-Aug-08, 15:45
So it is a fine calm day on the Causeymire at a period of normal demand on the National grid. The turbines aren't turning but that doesn't matter because everyone has all the electricity they need, not a bit more not a bit less.
But then the wind gets up and the blades start turning. The chap in Pilochry whose job is to balance demand and supply minute by minute realises that he is in danger of having too much electricity. He has to take the power from wind turbines because that is the rule,so he needs to switch off another source. He looks down the list of generators and selects one to "constrain off" ie, tell to stop supplying power to the grid.
This will almost certainly be a coal fired station because the grid has to pay compensation to generators if it doesn't take contracted energy and coal fired power is cheapest. And this power station now has nothing to do because everyone is already getting their electricity from somewhere else, so it just sits and simmers until it is needed again.
Now this coal fired station has been providing electricity for about 3p a kwh, and it has been replaced with wind electricity at about 9p per kwh, but we have to add the amount the coal fired station is compensated by and this equals the normal price less any saving in fuel for ramping down the boilers, but the boilers need to be kept going to be able to come back on stream next time there is a requirement. So when we are using wind energy, we pay 3p for the power, 2p for the coal fired station and 6p in subsidies to developers shareholders and landowners, and all the time we are using coal for no return.
Not only that, the coal will be burning less efficiently (say75%) now producing a higher percentage of CO2 and that was what the windmill was supposed to save.
So if we have wind energy one third of the time at a cost of 11p a kwh
and coal for two thirds of the time at a cost of 3p per kwh, you can see that it costs us nearly twice as much for the electrity for one third of the time by wind than coal power for two thirds of the time. The amount of carbon saving is 25% of one third of the coal stations normal output, one twelfth, but we have used 75% of one third of normal fuel, that is one quarter, for no return whatsoever. And this minimal carbon saving has to be balanced against the carbon footprint of the windmill which started off as ore in some foreign country.
I would say the coal it was squandered.
And make no mistake we pay for this.
The annual subsidy for a 2.5MW turbine paid for by us through our bills is around £300,000. And for the privilege of paying this subsidy we pay 60% more for the electricity, and squander good coal resources.
I think you should persevere with the links Reggy.
My hied is birlin'.........:confused
Numbers aside...they confuse me..... Seriously though, we need to learn to work with the gifts of nature in a way that does least harm to the planet we live on and those we share it with. We all need to learn that our greed for energy, be household equipment, cars, throwaway consumer goods, food packageing etc has to be curtailed to a level that is not harmful. We also need to find ways to halt the destruction of the rainforests, that are the lungs of the world. Without them Mother Earth will choke and die and everything along with her...................:~(
My hied is birlin'.........:confused
Numbers aside...they confuse me..... Seriously though, we need to learn to work with the gifts of nature in a way that does least harm to the planet we live on and those we share it with. We all need to learn that our greed for energy, be household equipment, cars, throwaway consumer goods, food packageing etc has to be curtailed to a level that is not harmful. We also need to find ways to halt the destruction of the rainforests, that are the lungs of the world. Without them Mother Earth will choke and die and everything along with her...................:~(
I wish there was some chance of this happening. Too many things - the shops, the media - encourage people to believe that they cannot live without the latest gadget, they have to heat their homes rather than wear warm clothes, they cannot possibly move into a house and live with the existing kitchen/bathroom (all those tv programmes). More, more, more.
I wish everyone would visit Mary Ann's Cottage in Dunnet and see how it is possible to be happy, healthy, content and live to a ripe old age with very little - nothing ever wasted. Of course few people would want to live like that now but we could learn a lot from that lifestyle.
So it is a fine calm day on the Causeymire at a period of normal demand on the National grid. The turbines aren't turning but that doesn't matter because everyone has all the electricity they need, not a bit more not a bit less.
But then the wind gets up and the blades start turning. The chap in Pilochry whose job is to balance demand and supply minute by minute realises that he is in danger of having too much electricity. He has to take the power from wind turbines because that is the rule,so he needs to switch off another source. He looks down the list of generators and selects one to "constrain off" ie, tell to stop supplying power to the grid t any great amount.
This will almost certainly be a coal fired station because the grid has to pay compensation to generators if it doesn't take contracted energy and coal fired power is cheapest. And this power station now has nothing to do because everyone is already getting their electricity from somewhere else, so it just sits and simmers until it is needed again.
Now this coal fired station has been providing electricity for about 3p a kwh, and it has been replaced with wind electricity at about 9p per kwh, but we have to add the amount the coal fired station is compensated by and this equals the normal price less any saving in fuel for ramping down the boilers, but the boilers need to be kept going to be able to come back on stream next time there is a requirement. So when we are using wind energy, we pay 3p for the power, 2p for the coal fired station and 6p in subsidies to developers shareholders and landowners, and all the time we are using coal for no return.
Not only that, the coal will be burning less efficiently (say75%) now producing a higher percentage of CO2 and that was what the windmill was supposed to save.
So if we have wind energy one third of the time at a cost of 11p a kwh
and coal for two thirds of the time at a cost of 3p per kwh, you can see that it costs us nearly twice as much for the electrity for one third of the time by wind than coal power for two thirds of the time. The amount of carbon saving is 25% of one third of the coal stations normal output, one twelfth, but we have used 75% of one third of normal fuel, that is one quarter, for no return whatsoever. And this minimal carbon saving has to be balanced against the carbon footprint of the windmill which started off as ore in some foreign country.
I would say the coal it was squandered.
And make no mistake we pay for this.
I think you should persevere with the links Reggy.
Have you just made all that up or have you got some reference? You say that the coal fired has just stepped down in power and you say it is burning more CO2 in percentage terms? From my understanding of generation and fuel/power curves, coal fired are baseload generators and they are put on steady power and left there at 40% capacity, if they were to go to a reduced burning capacity then they would actually be burning fuel at the linear part of the fuel/power curve, no percentage increase in CO2 at all. They aren't put on idling as they take days to get full power, and anyway, they aren't used to balance the grid. But they will be the form of generation that will be eventually retired.
The Grid pays to have up to 8.5 GW of additional capacity available to start immediately but not running, referred to as “warming” or "hot standby", that is ready to be used at short notice which could take half an hour to 2 hours to bring on line. Generally, there will be more of such "hot standby" capacity whenever there is a large amount of expected disturbance on the system. The cost of fuel or tonne of CO2 emitted by keeping such plant warm is tiny in comparison with the amount of fuel used to generate power, maybe equivalent to the fuel used to produce a quarter of a MW compared to a full load fuel demand for a large set of 1,800 MW. Often quoted talk about the high costs of standby spinning reserve are misleading
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseload
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_of_the_National_Grid_(UK))
Gas fired power stations are used to balance the Grid, hence that is why BWEA are now using 0.43 tonnes of CO2 per MWh to demonstrate fuel savings for windfarms rather than 0.96 tonnes of CO2 per MWh which equates to coal generation.
The annual subsidy for a 2.5MW turbine paid for by us through our bills is around £300,000. And for the privilege of paying this subsidy we pay 60% more for the electricity, and squander good coal resources.
Even for wind power to provide 10% of our nation's electricity needs, only a small amount of additional conventional back-up would be required, in the region of 300-500 megawatts (MW). This would add only 0.2 pence per kilowatt hour to the generation cost of wind energy and would not in any way threaten the security of our grid6.
Sources of intermittency on the UK National Grid
The largest source of intermittency on the UK National Grid is the power stations; in fact, the single largest source is Sizewell B nuclear power station. Whenever Sizewell B is operating the entire 1.3GW output is liable to stop at any time without warning. Its capacity is 2.16% of the national grid maximum demand, making it the single largest power source and therefore the largest source of intermittence. Despite this issue, NGT readily copes with it. An industry wide rate of unplanned scrams of 0.6 per 7000 hours critical, means that such a shut down without warning is expected to happen about once every year and a half. However, no matter how low the rate of unplanned scrams, this is largely irrelevant - what matters is the fact that it can and does happen, and measures have to be in place to deal with it.
In a recent case, both Sizewell and Longannet power stations, both stopped unexpectedly within minutes of each other, in fact causing widespread power failures, as sub stations were tripped of using prearranged under frequency relays.
Paradoxically, although wind power is inherently intermittent and variable it is in fact much more reliable than conventional plant. Consider a 660 MW plant, which could be replaced by perhaps 900 x 3MW wind turbines to give the same annual output of energy. On a day when wind strength is enough to give a total output of 600 MW, then these simply cannot all fail simultaneously, since a drop in wind would not affect all stations equally at the same time.
Furthermore, the most reliable form of wind forecasting is to simply look at the total output of the wind turbine themselves – in all probability, what they are producing at one point in time, is likely to be produced one hour later, or only a small change from that. If this prediction window is decreased – 20 minutes, 10 minutes 5 minutes, the difference in total national wind power output becomes less and less, and even at 5 minutes, that is ample time to raise or lower spinning reserve accordingly. There is thus ample time to cope with these changes by calling up or standing down more or less plant. If the 5 minute estimates are wrong then the Frequency Service and Reserve Service diesels will clearly have the resilience to cope with it.
However, I think EON may change their assessment on that 8% if they had known about a study carried out in the US which suggested 30% could be relied upon.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-11/ams-tpo112107.php
Woohoo... the statue is rotating... My mistake... its been stationary for at least 7 weeks...
So you build a wind turbine and it costs A.
A = Somebody debt.
Then the thing produces energy B
B = Watts per annum.
Watts per annum has a value of C
Watts X £?
This Pays off A until A is cleared, then we are left with D
D = Benifit to our electric bill
What is their life expectancy
Are there any maintainance costs...
When beakdown occurs who pays who what
When does D actually happen?
Angel
I'm now confused-think I'll take an 'E'. :lol:
Welcomefamily
30-Aug-08, 00:53
Does the cost really matter when we are talking about the future of the planet.
The cost does not matter in the long term with regards to saving the planet... but knowing takes one a little closer to the truth... as there are other methods I believe which may be more cost as well as carbon effecient if you want to be trendy... Just because its in your face does not make it the best option...
Angel
Welcomefamily
31-Aug-08, 00:16
Such as ? Angel
I have a lovely animated butterfly gif if you want it.
Just to throw in another thought.
What about the carbon cost of the turbines?
First you have the carbon cost of producing the materials, then all the assembly etc,
transporting to the site.
Then we come to the site itself. How about the carbon cost of all the trucks, running back and forth with the hardcore for the road, and the machines doing the digging and levelling, not forgetting the machines etc in the quarry digging the rock.
Then you have the concreting of the bases.
How big is the carbon footprint sofar??
How about the destruction of the greenery etc, that removes carbon from the air.
And then there is the maintenence vehicles to keep them working.
Need I go on?
Last question, Will these turbines ever pay back their own carbon footprint????
Just to throw in another thought.
What about the carbon cost of the turbines?
http://www.viewsofscotland.org/snp_conference/PeatAudit-Guide.pdf
But one thing to bear in mind is that in this study, they have asserted that 100% oxidation of the peat occurs over the lifetime of the turbines without any justification. No peat cutter worth his salt could claim the same thing occurs near to peat banks that have been unexcavated over the last 25 years, so the report is biased against wind energy in that sense. It goes without saying then that this oxidation is claimed to amount to 66% of the carbon cost.
that's one of the things I was trying to say sandy about the construction of it all...
I would love the animated gif "Welcomefamily"... I am not a scientist but other feilds of developement are in experimental stages I believe... something to do with plasma... as well as solar stuff... as well as all this lots of stuff now runs on 12v anyway even if you plug it into the mains...
What I am saying is I don't believe these wind turbines even cover their own costs...
Angel
Welcomefamily
31-Aug-08, 22:41
Yes I will agree windmills dont have to be the be all and end all, if some thing better comes along then they can all come down. They might sell me one it would look nice in my back garden with a climbing honeysuckle growing up it.
ywindythesecond
01-Sep-08, 01:34
Quote:
Originally Posted by ywindythesecond
So it is a fine calm day on the Causeymire
Reggy said;“Have you just made all that up or have you got some reference?
No I haven’t made it up, much of it comes from OFGEM’s Report Transmission investment for renewable generation -Final proposals December 2004 288/04
http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Networks/Trans/PriceControls/TPCR4/ConsultationDecisionsResponses/Documents1/9139-28804.pdf (http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Networks/Trans/PriceControls/TPCR4/ConsultationDecisionsResponses/Documents1/9139-28804.pdf)
This is OFGEM’s rationale for supporting the Beauly/Denny pylon upgrade and essentially they argue that windfarms being so profitable they are bound to be built in the Highlands, and if the grid is not capable of taking their output, then the compensation payable to the generators will be much more than the estimated £332M for the upgrade.
So Reggy, back to your post. What you say is sound engineering, but the energy business is no longer run on sound engineering principles, it is run for the benefit of shareholders, and really strange decisions are made. In the OFGEM report, this is said:
3.24. For the interconnector, the analysis of the likely savings in constraint costs is
particularly sensitive to the assumptions about how the existing conventional
power stations in Scotland will be operated.
Figure 5 compares project and constraint costs assuming that the two main conventional power stations,
Longannet and Cockenzie, either close (or operate only when wind generation is idle) or continue to operate according to their historical pattern of outputs.
OFGEM clearly acknowledges the prospect of coal-fired power stations being used for wind back-up, and indeed also nuclear.
Just as the energy business has been hijacked by the profit motive, so has the Green Movement. I applaud the profit motive generally but the ROCs system and other market mechanisms have turned us into milk cows and the damage to our economy, energy supply, ecology, and the lives of thousands of people, are being sacrificed for profit and greed. And I am a life-long Tory.
It is no longer possible to apply sound engineering principles to the way energy is run.
Reggy Quote :
Even for wind power to provide 10% of our nation's electricity needs, only a small amount of additional conventional back-up would be required, in the region of 300-500 megawatts (MW).
But additional Conventional back-up would be required. Even for wind power to provide 10% of our nations electricity needs. So after 10%, all additional wind power relied upon to provide “our nation’s electricity needs” requires additional conventional back-up.
Reggy Quote:
Sources of intermittency on the UK National Grid
The largest source of intermittency on the UK National Grid is the power stations; in fact, the single largest source is Sizewell B nuclear power station. Whenever Sizewell B is operating the entire 1.3GW output is liable to stop at any time without warning. This is an interesting use of “intermittency”. A shutdown every 18 months doesn’t describe what most people would consider intermittent.
Paradoxically, although wind power is inherently intermittent and variable it is in fact much more reliable than conventional plant. Consider a 660 MW plant, which could be replaced by perhaps 900 x 3MW wind turbines to give the same annual output of energy. On a day when wind strength is enough to give a total output of 600 MW, then these simply cannot all fail simultaneously, since a drop in wind would not affect all stations equally at the same time.
Firstly, consider that 900 3MW turbines are required to give the same annual output as one conventional power station. And occasionally they don’t give any power. And occasionally they give lots of power when it is not needed. Mostly they give an amount of power, but nobody knows what it will be, nor when. That seems to sum up “intermittent” to most people.
Secondly, consider that wind power is “ much more reliable than conventional plant”
because it fails gradually, not suddenly. This is basically the same argument that a stopped watch is more reliable than one which is two minutes slow because the stopped one at least is right twice a day but the slow one is never right.
Furthermore, the most reliable form of wind forecasting is to simply look at the total output of the wind turbine themselves – in all probability, what they are producing at one point in time, is likely to be produced one hour later, or only a small change from that. If this prediction window is decreased – 20 minutes, 10 minutes 5 minutes, the difference in total national wind power output becomes less and less, and even at 5 minutes, that is ample time to raise or lower spinning reserve accordingly.
So spinning reserve has to be able to cope with the worst case scenario. It doesn’t always have to be spinning, but it has to be available. At the level of wind generation proposed, there just aren’t enough conventional power plants, so we need to build more.
There is thus ample time to cope with these changes by calling up or standing down more or less plant. If the 5 minute estimates are wrong then the Frequency Service and Reserve Service diesels will clearly have the resilience to cope with it.
What are these?
However, I think EON may change their assessment on that 8% if they had known about a study carried out in the US which suggested 30% could be relied upon.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-tpo112107.php (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-11/ams-tpo112107.php)
__________________
A Convenient Solution
EON based their evidence to the House of Lords on available hard facts. The link you gave did not suggest 30% could be relied on. The relevant quote is:
They found that an average of 33 percent and a maximum of 47 percent of yearly-averaged wind power from interconnected farms can be used as reliable, baseload electric power.
They didn’t report the minimum. Arithmetic says 19%. Commonsense says less.
The Pepsi Challenge
01-Sep-08, 01:47
Does anyone else reckon Caithness has been "written off" as a wind-farm haven?
ywindythesecond
01-Sep-08, 02:01
Thanks for putting all that in layman's terms YWind. If that is so, and even I can understand it, why can't the powers-that-be understand what's going on?
Money.££££££$$$$
So Reggy, back to your post. What you say is sound engineering, but the energy business is no longer run on sound engineering principles, it is run for the benefit of shareholders, and really strange decisions are made. In the OFGEM report, this is said:
OFGEM clearly acknowledges the prospect of coal-fired power stations being used for wind back-up, and indeed also nuclear.
I don't think the Grid can compromise engineering safety/soundness for profit gain because the first time they try it then they will come unstuck. Incidentally, there are nuclear power stations that are capable of load following.
But additional Conventional back-up would be required. Even for wind power to provide 10% of our nations electricity needs. So after 10%, all additional wind power relied upon to provide “our nation’s electricity needs” requires additional conventional back-up.
Firstly, consider that 900 3MW turbines are required to give the same annual output as one conventional power station. And occasionally they don’t give any power. And occasionally they give lots of power when it is not needed. Mostly they give an amount of power, but nobody knows what it will be, nor when. That seems to sum up “intermittent” to most people.
This is an interesting use of “intermittency”. A shutdown every 18 months doesn’t describe what most people would consider intermittent.
The fact which you aren't addressing is that we already have conventional power plants backing up more conventional power plants. That is squandering fossil fuels. Because of the extra (paradoxical) reliability that wind provides, the back up for wind would take the form of hot standby. It is conventional power plants that require great amounts of spinning reserve back up.
And wind isn't strictly defined as a 'intermittent' power source, it is more accurate to call it 'variable'. Intermittent suggests an either on/off nature which perfectly describes the random nature of large scale ower plant outages, which are seen on a more numerous basis than 18 months like you suggested.
So spinning reserve has to be able to cope with the worst case scenario. It doesn’t always have to be spinning, but it has to be available. At the level of wind generation proposed, there just aren’t enough conventional power plants, so we need to build more.
Can you exlain why we need to build more capacity to back up windpower? What is happening to the existing capacity which is being used, is it lying idle, why can't that be used? We already have capacity, we just need to replace it as it is aging.
So going back to your original question, wind power will provide energy security both in terms of free from political interference of sourcing fossil fuels and in a technical sense.
ywindythesecond
01-Sep-08, 20:25
OFGEM’s Report Transmission investment for renewable generation -Final proposals December 2004 288/04
http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Networks/Trans/PriceControls/TPCR4/ConsultationDecisionsResponses/Documents1/9139-28804.pdf (http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Networks/Trans/PriceControls/TPCR4/ConsultationDecisionsResponses/Documents1/9139-28804.pdf)
You haven't read this yet Reggy have you, nor have you read the responses to the House of Lords Select Committee.
The references you quoted to support your arguments acknowledge that new back-up plant is required for only 10% reliance on wind. "Even for wind power to provide 10% of our nation's electricity needs, only a small amount of additional conventional back-up would be required, in the region of 300-500 megawatts (MW). "
The 18 month major outage frequency was not my suggestion, it came from your reference.
"An industry wide rate of unplanned scrams of 0.6 per 7000 hours critical, means that such a shut down without warning is expected to happen about once every year and a half."
I had hoped for an informed debate but you simply fudging the answers as usual has scuppered that. Over and out.
ywy2
OFGEM’s Report Transmission investment for renewable generation -Final proposals December 2004 288/04
http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Networks/Trans/PriceControls/TPCR4/ConsultationDecisionsResponses/Documents1/9139-28804.pdf (http://www.ofgem.gov.uk/Networks/Trans/PriceControls/TPCR4/ConsultationDecisionsResponses/Documents1/9139-28804.pdf)
You haven't read this yet Reggy have you, nor have you read the responses to the House of Lords Select Committee.
I skipped through the main points and it was totally irrelevent to your assertion that coal would be used to follow the load which was provided by wind power. IOW, it was all flannel.
The references you quoted to support your arguments acknowledge that new back-up plant is required for only 10% reliance on wind. "Even for wind power to provide 10% of our nation's electricity needs, only a small amount of additional conventional back-up would be required, in the region of 300-500 megawatts (MW). "
Please resolve the statements, 10-20% of wind power can be relied upon for replacing peak winter demand (57GW) and that 10% of wind power needs additional back up of 300-500MW.:roll:
The 18 month major outage frequency was not my suggestion, it came from your reference.
"An industry wide rate of unplanned scrams of 0.6 per 7000 hours critical, means that such a shut down without warning is expected to happen about once every year and a half."
You have only quoted the outage rate of one form of baseload, ie nuclear just 17% of our energy. What about the other generation plants, gas, coal etc which suffer more numerous incidents. Spinning reserve is to provide for this. So the frequency will be a lot higher, therefore the term 'intermittency' is more relevent when referring to conventional power generation that it is for wind.
I had hoped for an informed debate ...
ywy2
Indeed, I am still waiting...
Poverty fears over wind power
Half a million people could be pushed into fuel poverty by the UK's drive for wind power, the government's former chief scientific adviser has said.
Sir David King said: "If we overdo wind we are going to put up the price of electricity and that means more people will fall into the fuel poverty trap."
The UK has signed up to an EU agreement for 20% of power to come from renewable sources by 2020.
Professor King told the BBC EU leaders did not understand their own targets.
EU pledge
One of Tony Blair's last acts as Prime Minister was to sign up to an EU target to have 20% of Europe's energy from renewable sources by 2020.
The UK currently generates around 2% of its electricity from wind power but to meet the EU's target the government estimates this will have to increase to around 35% by the end of the next decade.
It will also lead to price rises, the government thinks around 10% for electricity and closer to 20% for gas.
Professor King who who served as chief scientific adviser from 2000 to 2007, told BBC Radio 4's The Investigation that the government is placing too much emphasis on wind power to reach the target and this would mean more people suffering from fuel poverty.
FULL STORY (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7596214.stm)
Melancholy Man
04-Sep-08, 11:06
Get the Army in to protect (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7593901.stm) the turbines.
Madpict, Sir David King is one of the biggest advocates of what the IPCC are trying to do. He was instrumental in getting UK to sign up to a target of 20% renewables by 2020. What he is saying is that 20% of our electrical energy is a realistic target for renewable generation. Nobody is actually suggesting that figure can be pushed further to make all our energy be 20% renewable without commercial repercussions like investment in storage across the grid. He is just making it clear that we can't make 20% of our total energy requirements renewablle without making some inroads into transport and space heating etc.
Get the Army in to protect (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7593901.stm) the turbines.
They might have to if the Windiban insurgents decide to act....
Rheghead,
This bit made me laugh though...
However Maria McCaffery, Chief Executive of British Wind Energy Association countered: "We don't have to pay for wind power it just comes to us naturally and is totally sustainable".
We don't have to pay? Hmmm......
Rheghead,
This bit made me laugh though...
However Maria McCaffery, Chief Executive of British Wind Energy Association countered: "We don't have to pay for wind power it just comes to us naturally and is totally sustainable".
We don't have to pay? Hmmm......
It's obviously a misquote or a gaff, she doesn't sound like a confident public speaker.
It's obviously a misquote or a gaff, she doesn't sound like a confident public speaker.
Not a misquote - I heard her say it.
ywindythesecond
04-Sep-08, 23:04
Not a misquote - I heard her say it.
I have it on tape. Who wants a copy?
I have it on tape. Who wants a copy?
I thought you were 'over and out' on this one?:confused Welcome back!!:D
Melancholy Man
04-Sep-08, 23:24
Granted, I ain't been following the issue the past few years, but is there anyone in Caithness for turbines?
(And let me say, wow, to the Army protecting the turbine in Afghanistan.)
ywindythesecond
05-Sep-08, 09:54
I thought you were 'over and out' on this one?:confused Welcome back!!:D
Its like an irritating itch. You just have to keep scratching.
I thought you just wore turbines on your head in Afghanistan.
ywindythesecond
05-Sep-08, 20:01
Government admits that wind energy is ineffective.
Excerpt from Hansard, House of Lords, 23 June 2008 : Column 1224. [Baroness Vadera is Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform]
Lord Stoddart of Swindon : My Lords, have the Government had discussions with the national grid about their policy of building thousands of wind turbines? Is not the national grid concerned about the connection of these wind turbines and will it not require additional conventional capacity to be built to cover the time when the wind is not turning them?
Baroness Vadera: My Lords, my noble friend makes a valid point. In answer to the question that was asked earlier, wind generation is intermittent and therefore needs—may I use a technical term?—base-load capacity, which means we need to build for coal and gas to back up the wind. That is why it is not the most effective source in terms of energy security of supply, but it is very effective for climate change.
I thought you just wore turbines on your head in Afghanistan.
Naughty :)
Government admits that wind energy is ineffective.
Excerpt from Hansard, House of Lords, 23 June 2008 : Column 1224.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon : My Lords, have the Government had discussions with the national grid about their policy of building thousands of wind turbines? Is not the national grid concerned about the connection of these wind turbines and will it not require additional conventional capacity to be built to cover the time when the wind is not turning them?
Baroness Vadera: My Lords, my noble friend makes a valid point. In answer to the question that was asked earlier, wind generation is intermittent and therefore needs—may I use a technical term?—base-load capacity, which means we need to build for coal and gas to back up the wind. That is why it is not the most effective source in terms of energy security of supply, but it is very effective for[B] climate change.
A bit of a contradiction there, the raison d'etre for turbines is to combat climate change.
Wish they'd hurry up I've got a pile of washing to hang out!!!! ;)
ywindythesecond
05-Sep-08, 22:33
A bit of a contradiction there, the raison d'etre for turbines is to combat climate change.
The alleged raison d'etre for turbines is to combat climate change, the real reason is to make money from us, the consumers.
But Reggy did you notice that Hansard records that:
Baroness Vadera, (who is Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform) said "wind generation is intermittent and therefore needs—may I use a technical term?—base-load capacity, which means we need to build for coal and gas to back up the wind."
Go on Reggy, tell me Hansard got it wrong. (Of course it is entirely possible that Baroness Vadera got it wrong.)
The alleged raison d'etre for turbines is to combat climate change, the real reason is to make money from us, the consumers.
But Reggy did you notice that Hansard records that:
Baroness Vadera, (who is Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform) said "wind generation is intermittent and therefore needs—may I use a technical term?—base-load capacity, which means we need to build for coal and gas to back up the wind."
Go on Reggy, tell me Hansard got it wrong. (Of course it is entirely possible that Baroness Vadera got it wrong.)
They were making money from us anyway. Conventional power needs replacing anyway, we have aging plants. I didn't realise the extent to which wind energy could intrude into the baseload capability. It is even more than I first realised.
So lets go back to my question.
Please resolve the statements, 10-20% of wind power can be relied upon for replacing peak winter demand (57GW) and that 10% of wind power needs additional back up of 300-500MW.
Fluctuating Unpredictable Output and Standby Capacity
The output of some renewable technologies, such as wind, wave, solar and even some CHP, is naturally subject to fluctuation and, for some renewable technologies, unpredictability relative to the more traditional generation technologies. Based on recent analyses of the incidence and variation of wind speed, the expected intermittency of the national wind portfolio would not appear to pose a technical ceiling on the amount of wind generation that may be accommodated and adequately managed. However, increasing levels of such renewable generation on the system would increase the costs of balancing the system and managing system frequency.
It is a property of the interconnected transmission system that individual and local independent fluctuations in output are diversified and averaged out across the system. Moreover, the interconnected system permits frequency response and reserves to be carried on the most cost effective generation or demand side service provider at any particular time. These properties of the transmission network permit intermittent/variable generation to be used with lower standby and frequency control costs than would otherwise be the case.
The proportion of conventional generation needed to be retained in the electricity market, given the variable and unpredictable nature of some renewable technologies such as wind, such that current levels of security of supply are not eroded is the subject of the published paper: “A shift to wind is not unfeasible”, by Dale, Milborrow, Slark & Strbac, Power UK Issue 109, March 2003.
For example, for 8GW of wind, around 3GW of conventional capacity (equivalent to some 37% of the wind capacity) can be retired without any increased probability that load reductions would be required due to generation shortages on cold days. However, as the amount of wind increases, the proportion of conventional capacity that can be displaced without eroding the level of security reduces. For example, for 25GW of wind only 5GW (i.e. 20% of the wind capacity) of conventional capacity can be retired. This implies that, for larger wind penetrations, the wind capacity that can be taken as firm is not proportional to the expected wind energy production. It follows that the electricity market will need to maintain in service a larger proportion of conventional generation capacity despite reduced load factors. Such plant is often referred to as “standby plant”.
ywindythesecond
06-Sep-08, 00:13
They were making money from us anyway. Conventional power needs replacing anyway, we have aging plants. I didn't realise the extent to which wind energy could intrude into the baseload capability. It is even more than I first realised.
So lets go back to my question.
"Please resolve the statements, 10-20% of wind power can be relied upon for replacing peak winter demand (57GW) and that 10% of wind power needs additional back up of 300-500MW. "
OK
Less than 10% of wind power can be relied upon for replacing peak winter demand at proposed EU levels, and even 10% of wind power needs additional back up of 300-500MW.
"Please resolve the statements, 10-20% of wind power can be relied upon for replacing peak winter demand (57GW) and that 10% of wind power needs additional back up of 300-500MW. "
OK
Less than 10% of wind power can be relied upon for replacing peak winter demand at proposed EU levels, and even 10% of wind power needs additional back up of 300-500MW.
I don't know where you get your figures but this is from the National Grid.....again.
For example, for 8GW of wind, around 3GW of conventional capacity (equivalent to some 37% of the wind capacity) can be retired without any increased probability that load reductions would be required due to generation shortages on cold days. However, as the amount of wind increases, the proportion of conventional capacity that can be displaced without eroding the level of security reduces. For example, for 25GW of wind only 5GW (i.e. 20% of the wind capacity) of conventional capacity can be retired. This implies that, for larger wind penetrations, the wind capacity that can be taken as firm is not proportional to the expected wind energy production
Even Hansard say they are good for climate change.
Again your arguement doesn't add up, if you are right then why have other countries got high wind intrusions into the energy market??:roll:
E.ON says that to build the numbers of turbines Gordon B wants, you have to build conventional power stations with 92% of the 10,000 turbine's capacity just to keep in reserve.
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/EA311%20-%20Supplementary%20evidence%20from%20Eon.doc
E.ON are a German company who are one of (if not the largest) operaters of coal fired energy plants in the UK, AND they are one of the largest developers of wind farms in the country.
It is harder to get planning permission for a coal fired plant than for a windfarm and they have squeezed the level at which wind can provide, at odds who really know, the National Grid.
So they would say that, they want two bites at the cherry, this is just commercial manouvering to expand into a field of interest that they know best.
ywindythesecond
06-Sep-08, 07:43
Reggy Quote:
For example, for 8GW of wind, around 3GW of conventional capacity (equivalent to some 37% of the wind capacity) can be retired without any increased probability that load reductions would be required due to generation shortages on cold days. However, as the amount of wind increases, the proportion of conventional capacity that can be displaced without eroding the level of security reduces. For example, for 25GW of wind only 5GW (i.e. 20% of the wind capacity) of conventional capacity can be retired. This implies that, for larger wind penetrations, the wind capacity that can be taken as firm is not proportional to the expected wind energy production
Am I missing something here? It seems that everything Reggy quotes to me supports what I am saying.
"Even Hansard say they are good for climate change."
Hansard reports. Politicians do the talking.
"Again your arguement doesn't add up, if you are right then why have other countries got high wind intrusions into the energy market??:roll: "
Listen to this:
Subject: BBC RADIO 4 PROGRAMME - INVESTIGATION - 4TH SEPTEMBER -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/theinvestigation/pip/3vlit/ (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/theinvestigation/pip/3vlit/)
Am I missing something here? It seems that everything Reggy quotes to me supports what I am saying.
Not really, I'm saying that 20% can be relied upon for large intrusions of wind, 37% for 8GW, (we currently have 2.5GW), if they are properly placed diversely in good windy areas then I think that could be higher as studies have shown. You started with 10%, then it seemed to go smaller on the basis of E.ON who have a interest in making that claim.
"Even Hansard say they are good for climate change."
Hansard reports. Politicians do the talking.
"Again your arguement doesn't add up, if you are right then why have other countries got high wind intrusions into the energy market??:roll: "
Listen to this:
Subject: BBC RADIO 4 PROGRAMME - INVESTIGATION - 4TH SEPTEMBER -
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/theinvestigation/pip/3vlit/ (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/theinvestigation/pip/3vlit/)
I have listened to that and there isn't anything that I didn't know already except that I agree with Sir David King's assessment that 20% of all renewables is impossible by over doing it with wind. 20% by wind for just electricity production is achievable both technically and financially, nothing more than that as it would be an absolute eyesore over the UK, not least in Scotland.
I take the point about building more gas but there are alternatives, the programme failed to mention nuclear plants that are capable of load following wind and the ambitious tidal and wave programs.
Aren't they being a bit presumptive if they are building a road to the proposed Camster wind farm site? As far as I am aware this hasn't been before a planning committee yet.
For those who are threatened with wind turbines very close to their homes - a family in Lincolnshire have just won a valuation tribunal hearing which acknowledged the wind farm near them was a nuisance and had reduced the value of their home - this at least goes someway to counter the constant spin from wind farm developers that people and house values are not effected.
If the powers that be took up the Scottish Governments policy of a 2km distance between wind farms and homes a lot of these turbines up here would be kicked out.
Welcomefamily
07-Sep-08, 10:57
This is a negative post for wind farms in general or just having them within 2km of a house.
For those who are threatened with wind turbines very close to their homes - a family in Lincolnshire have just won a valuation tribunal hearing which acknowledged the wind farm near them was a nuisance and had reduced the value of their home - this at least goes someway to counter the constant spin from wind farm developers that people and house values are not effected.
That is an interesting one because despite a report submitted by investigators (who were sent by the tribunal) that said there were no problems associated with the proximity of the wind farm, the tribunal still ruled that the wind farm had a detrimental effect on the family's property.
silverfox57
07-Sep-08, 13:09
have three wind turbines behind house,as the are one small field from my house must find out want distance they are,as was told long before they got planning consent that we would only see the tip of the third one and other two would not be seen for woods, we could not believe ,you can see them from half of east of country,so why was we told they would be not be seen from house ,
if you were told - have you any proof of what was said - they can say anything but it is whether you believe it.
Believed a neighbour when given the neighbours notification (the day after it expired for complaints) and said was building a small garage - it is a garage - for at least six cars and has kitchen, bathroom, lounge and bedrooms upstairs!!! This person works in the department where plans are passed and buildings inspected - one of the inspectors!!!
This building does not really affect me (other than an eyesore!) but other neighbours did the same as I did and did not check - this building now completely blocks the views of at least three of my neighbours and completely shadows anothers house.
Always examine plans carefully and ask questions if in doubt or double check. I certainly do not believe what is said to me now I question everything.
have three wind turbines behind house,as the are one small field from my house must find out want distance they are,as was told long before they got planning consent that we would only see the tip of the third one and other two would not be seen for woods, we could not believe ,you can see them from half of east of country,so why was we told they would be not be seen from house ,
If you can prove what they said was incorrect then I would say you had a case for compensation.
silverfox57
07-Sep-08, 19:24
all households in area had developer, with drawings and pictures of what view would look like,and asked if we would object to plan,as drawings only showed tips of third turbine,we all agreed not to object.was all done by word of mouth, no paper work,so no proof.
That is an interesting one because despite a report submitted by investigators (who were sent by the tribunal) that said there were no problems associated with the proximity of the wind farm, the tribunal still ruled that the wind farm had a detrimental effect on the family's property.
Do you have a link to this report? I can hardly believe they concluded there were no problems as this family had complained about the noise problems and the DTI had been investigating there. Their residental amenity had been ruined by noise and they had moved into rented accomodation.
A quote from the tribunal report -
'It was apparent from the evidence submitted that the construction of the wind farm 930 metres away from the appeal dwellings had had a significant detrimental effect on the Appellants' quiet enjoyment of their properties. The tribunal therefore found that the nuisance caused by the wind farm was real and not imagined and it would have some effect upon the potential sale price of the appeal dwellings'.
Do you have a link to this report? I can hardly believe they concluded there were no problems as this family had complained about the noise problems and the DTI had been investigating there. Their residental amenity had been ruined by noise and they had moved into rented accomodation.
A quote from the tribunal report -
'It was apparent from the evidence submitted that the construction of the wind farm 930 metres away from the appeal dwellings had had a significant detrimental effect on the Appellants' quiet enjoyment of their properties. The tribunal therefore found that the nuisance caused by the wind farm was real and not imagined and it would have some effect upon the potential sale price of the appeal dwellings'.
A BBC report said it was the construction not the operation of the windfarm that was at fault.
Although investigators sent by the Lincolnshire Valuation Tribunal to measure noise levels did not find any problems, the panel conceded the construction of the windfarm "had had a significant detrimental effect on the appellants' quiet enjoyment of their properties.
In a statement, the developer Wind Prospect Group said: "After a review of recordings obtained and their own observations on site, the opinion of the environmental health professionals was that at no time did the noise experienced or recorded amount to a statutory noise nuisance."
Cinderella's Shoe
07-Sep-08, 22:02
OK I'm obviously not as up top speed with wind turbines as you experts posting forever, but as I understand it....
(1) There is a huge drive by Westmister and Hollyrude (sic) to cover the Highlands in wind turbines
(2) There is a far lower population density in areas of the highlands compared to anywhere else in the UK
(3) even despite the fact that most of the power produced in the Highlands, would be (on paper) used well south of the border, its still viable as THE ELECTRICITY PRODUCERS ARE GUARANTEED OBSCENE £ RETURNS and
(4) The highlands still have vast chunks of unused land
......so why can't they be used for windfarms when away from occupied areas?
As far as I can see, the key point is that developers - who are guaranteed obscene amounts of money via the ROC system - are not moving to develop in areas away from population (ie away from the very sensible 2km distance from dwellings suggested earlier in this thread). That is the key to the problem. They targetting areas where grid connections exists to save them money, despite the fact that they will make millions from any one scheme should it go ahead.
There are vast areas of the Highlands where truly no-one lives. Unfortunately they don't have current grid connections. Pay for them and away you go.
A BBC report said it was the construction not the operation of the windfarm that was at fault.
Well the BBC have got it wrong and if you had bothered to read up on the case it would have been quite obvious that it is the operation of the windfarm that is causing problems.
A quote from Mrs Davies herself published in the Daily Telegraph on July 26th -
'We have suffered such extreme sleep deprivation because of this, to the extent that we have had to abandon our home. My daughter had AS-levels coming up and she wasn't getting enough rest, we had no choice but to move out of the place we love. We are effectively in exile. We can't sell it because of the noise, it is like torture. But we don't want to sell it either, it is the home we love'
Och moaning minnies - what is the torture inflicted on a minority compared to the greater good bestowed upon the many (and the millions of pounds pouring into the landowners/developers bank accounts) - at least the planet will be saved.
I am sure the prowindies will come back with some such reasoning....
Well the BBC have got it wrong and if you had bothered to read up on the case it would have been quite obvious that it is the operation of the windfarm that is causing problems.
The BBC haven't got it wrong, the investigators who were sent by the tribunal found no problems with the operation of the windfarm. Why did the tribunal ignore the findings of their own investigation team?
The difficulty for the tribunal was the determination of what effect the wind farm had had in real terms.
ywindythesecond
08-Sep-08, 23:59
The BBC haven't got it wrong, the investigators who were sent by the tribunal found no problems with the operation of the windfarm. Why did the tribunal ignore the findings of their own investigation team?
The investigators were sent by the Council Tax team, not the tribunal.
"Mrs Carnngton called Mr J Homewood to give evidence as her expert witness, Mr Homewood had inspected the appeal dwellings, on behalf of the Listing Officer, and his inspection took just over one hour. During the course of his inspection, Mr Homewood was unable to hear any noise from the wind farm. There was a leylandii hedge outside the appeal dwellings which could have masked the noise. Mr Homewood drove away and parked his car a little further away from the appeal dwellings. At this point, he heard a slight noise."
A single investigation of one hour duration seems on the light side.
The investigators were sent by the Council Tax team, not the tribunal.
Although investigators sent by the Lincolnshire Valuation Tribunal to measure noise levels did not find any problems, the panel conceded the construction of the windfarm "had had a significant detrimental effect on the appellants' quiet enjoyment of their properties.
A council tax team or whatever don't just turn up on your door without being prompted to do so.
Mr Homewood was unable to hear any noise from the wind farm. There was a leylandii hedge outside the appeal dwellings which could have masked the noise. Mr Homewood drove away and parked his car a little further away from the appeal dwellings. At this point, he heard a slight noise.
That seems at odds to what is said on the Valuation Tribunal website, certainly a different bias. Unless it was subjected to 2 different inspections?
From the valuation tribunal's website.
The LO’s property inspector had stated that when he inspected the appeal dwelling, he was unable to hear any noise until he parked up well away from the appeal site.
The Council and therefore, their team of investigators, were, I believe, the opposing side to the Davies family. Therefore, the tribunal was deciding whether the Council's evidence or the Davies' evidence was the truth.
They found in favour of the Davies family - end of story - accept it!!
You can twist and argue your way round it until the cows come home - but I'm sure there will be some wind farm developers not at all pleased with this small victory for commonsense.
The monetary issue is miniscule in this case but it is the principle that they were fighting - the destruction of their residential amenity and the devaluation of their property (infact estate agents have said it is unsaleable) by this wind farm being built way to close to their home.
The Council and therefore, their team of investigators, were, I believe, the opposing side to the Davies family. Therefore, the tribunal was deciding whether the Council's evidence or the Davies' evidence was the truth.
They found in favour of the Davies family - end of story - accept it!!
You can twist and argue your way round it until the cows come home - but I'm sure there will be some wind farm developers not at all pleased with this small victory for commonsense.
The monetary issue is miniscule in this case but it is the principle that they were fighting - the destruction of their residential amenity and the devaluation of their property (infact estate agents have said it is unsaleable) by this wind farm being built way to close to their home.
I'm not twisting anything. They were given the benefit of the doubt even though there was no independent evidence to support their claim. I'm all for people who live near to windfarms to get compensatory benefits. I agree with what ywindythesecond said, an hour was not enough, especially if cases like this are going to be waved through due to lack of evidence.
Wind developers won't be interested in this as it was purely a council tax issue, they were receiving a discount before because of the wind farm and it got stopped so they wanted a revaluation to take its place.
BTW, can you give a reference to the remark that the appellents property was unsaleable??
BTW, can you give a reference to the remark that the appellents property was unsaleable??
From the Daily Telegraph July 26th -
'Estate agents acknowledge that the house, worth £170,000 before the wind farm was built, is so severely blighted that no one is likely to buy it'
From the Tribunal's notice of decision -
'A copy of a letter dated 29 April 2008 from Munton and Russell Estate Agents. Within the contents of that letter, Russell Gregory MNAEA had declined any instructions to market the Farmhouse at Gray's Farm until the problems associated with the wind farm were resolved'
From the Daily Telegraph July 26th -
'Estate agents acknowledge that the house, worth £170,000 before the wind farm was built, is so severely blighted that no one is likely to buy it'
From the Tribunal's notice of decision -
'A copy of a letter dated 29 April 2008 from Munton and Russell Estate Agents. Within the contents of that letter, Russell Gregory MNAEA had declined any instructions to market the Farmhouse at Gray's Farm until the problems associated with the wind farm were resolved'
The thing is with this property in particular is that it is in the vicinity of one of the very few windfarms that suffer from aerodynamic modulation whereby in certain wind conditions and at certain speeds, all turbines seem to harmonise their noise together. This is mainly due to bad siting of the turbines, in this case, all are in a row and only 300m apart. The usual is 350m. Soil conditions also play apart. The research of this phenomena is in its infancy though there has been a report about it.
A comprehensive study has been carried out on the prroperty by the Health and safety people. The differential between operation and non operation in ambient conditions is 20dB(A), pin drop level, it did rise to 40dB(A) to make the noise very noticeable when the wind was in the right direction etc. This is something that is very rarely experienced at 930m which was in this case. Peaks of 60dB(A) have been detected but outside in the courtyard and is not something that the appellents experience very often either.
By the appellent's own admission, they say that what they have at their property is something that is really exceptional from the norm and they remain pro-wind farm despite the experiences that they personally have. They stress though that more accoustic work needs to be carried out to prevent this from happening again as they love the sight of the windfarm but the noise is affecting them.
ywindythesecond
10-Sep-08, 00:21
The thing is with this property in particular is that it is in the vicinity of one of the very windfarms that suffer from aerodynamic modulation whereby in certain wind conditions and at certain speeds, all turbines seem to harmonise their noise together. This is mainly due to bad siting of the turbines, in this case, all are in a row and oly 300m apart. The usual is 350m. Soil conditions also play apart. The research of this phenomena is in its infancy though there has been a report about it.
A comprehensive study has been carried out on the prroperty by the Health and safety people. The differential between operation and non operation in ambient conditions is 20dB(A), pin drop level, it did rise to 40dB(A) to make the noise very noticeable when the wind was in the right direction etc. This is something that is very rarely experienced at 930m which was in this case. Peaks of 60dB(A) have been detected but outside in the courtyard and is not something that the appellents experience very often either.
By the appellent's own admission, they say that what they have at their property is something that is really exceptional from the norm and they remain pro-wind farm despite the experiences that they personally have. They stress though that more accoustic work needs to be carried out to prevent this from happening again.
Are these words yours or is it a quote? If it is a quote, where is it from?
Are these words yours or is it a quote? If it is a quote, where is it from?
It is a summary of the appellents personal views covering the main points.
Oh I am sure they are "pro-wind" being £170,000 worse off.....
:rolleyes:
Oh I am sure they are "pro-wind" being £170,000 worse off.....
:rolleyes:
I don't think they are claiming that since part of their case was the presentation of a piece of case law where it was recognised that the property price reduced by 20%. The truth is probably between the two. However, they have no intention of selling as they are committed to farming the land on which their house is situated.
ywindythesecond
10-Sep-08, 23:35
It is a summary of the appellents personal views covering the main points.
Let's ask Wiggyjane
Let's ask Wiggyjane
There's no need, her views are already out there for all to read, but I am glad your googling skills are up to scratch.;)
However, they have no intention of selling as they are committed to farming the land on which their house is situated.
That may well be the case, they say they love their home, the trouble is the poor devils find it intolerable to live in now due to the windfarm.
How much will it cost them to rent other accomodation, maybe a kind friend has a spare house they can live in (?) but at the end if they want to sell up and retire to the Bahamas who's going to buy the house? And if someone does, bet it will be a rock bottom price.
The point of all of this is that there should be a minimum distance between the construction of a large wind turbine(s) and an individual's home.
The point of all of this is that there should be a minimum distance between the construction of a large wind turbine(s) and an individual's home.
That sounds like a good theory and in truth there probably is a minimum distance where people would find it intolerable to live next to a windfarm but there are people who live nearer to that particular windfarm and indeed nearer to many others who do not experience the same phenomena as those in question and are quite happy to be where they are.
The downside with a 2km arbitrary distance is that it precludes vast tracts of land (especially brownfield sites) of windfarm development. In fact if a 2km arbitrary distance was brought in then I'd imagine that windfarm development would be almost exclusively in Scottish rural areas and I'm sure nobody wants that.
It all boils down to individual levels of tolerance.
I have serious problems with a neighbour who insists on lighting what is akin to a funeral pyre of damp grass, garden cuttings etc every fortnight - other neighbours are not sobothered about this persons pyromanic activities. But we have the ability to enjoy our rights to have our doors and windows open during fine weather severely curtailed by the acrid smell and smoke drifting over and into our property.
The EH dept has now become involved and hopefully will be able to sort it out.
So, just as some may tolerate bonfires so some will tolerate the noise or other forms of nuisance from an adjoining windfarm. That does not mean to say it doesn't constitute a nuisance to others...
Exactly MP, that is why there will be winners and losers with anything not just windfarms, even supermarkets dare I say?[para]
Now just a minority stopped the Tesco because of much the same thing and yet the majority lost out on a good opportunity on the bigger picture.
The icing on the cake for me will be if they have blinking red lights on the turbines. See
http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/830470?UserKey=
Not content with messing with a person's amenity during the day, turbines will have the opportunity to light up the night skies in the country. It'll beat the aurora and still give free energy...... :-)
The icing on the cake for me will be if they have blinking red lights on the turbines. See
http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/830470?UserKey=
Not content with messing with a person's amenity during the day, turbines will have the opportunity to light up the night skies in the country. It'll beat the aurora and still give free energy...... :-)
This doesn't surprise me one little bit Tilter. Think how many times we hear jets going over at night and with all the wind turbines proposed for Caithness it would be a miracle if an accident didn't happen during their night low flying exercises.
Imagine how awful it would be - our gorgeous clear night skies, which are a real treat compared to light polluted skies further south, would be ruined with flashing red lights everywhere!
Luckily, Caithness is outwith of the tactical low flying zones so no red lights are necessary up here.
Luckily, Caithness is outwith of the tactical low flying zones so no red lights are necessary up here.
Are you sure Rheghead? I believe we (or part of Caithness) are in TTA 14T, where flying down to 100 ft is permissible. I think the pilots flying over our house think they're in a TTA too.
Are you sure Rheghead? I believe we (or part of Caithness) are in TTA 14T, where flying down to 100 ft is permissible. I think the pilots flying over our house think they're in a TTA too.
You tell me, what is your interpretation, it is hard to tell on that scale, perhaps a little to the west, where no windfarms are planned anyway.
http://www.forums.mod.uk/lowflying/index.htm
silverfox57
12-Sep-08, 14:18
tilter think you are right as jets fly over house ,very low indeed,
Officially we don't have low flying in Caithness - however judging by the number of times we have to duck I think they forgot to tell the pilots that.
Rheghead - no windfarms planned to the west? What about all those in Strathy?
You tell me, what is your interpretation, it is hard to tell on that scale, perhaps a little to the west, where no windfarms are planned anyway.
http://www.forums.mod.uk/lowflying/index.htm
Rheghead, I think we're both right. I asked the MOD about this once on another matter and apparently I live in the TTA, but then I'm in the Halkirk area. Wick and Dounreay are not in it for obvious reasons. Even so, this will affect several windfarm proposals so presumably we'd get lights around here, although the Causewaymire turbines don't. It's a bit of a mystery.
Rheghead - no windfarms planned to the west? What about all those in Strathy?
Yes, but the map does show an area where it is outwith the tactical low flying and the sea, I'm assuming the Strathy development is there?
Yes, but the map does show an area where it is outwith the tactical low flying and the sea, I'm assuming the Strathy development is there?
Don't think so - at least the MoD originally objected so it must be close enough. Also the planes don't always stick to the map as we all know. It really doesn't bear thinking about.
I see the Durran Mains wind farm application is in the Groat today. Just wondered what all of you pro-windies and anti-windies think about this particular one?
personnally i am all for helping the enviroment, and if nother windfarm will help then go for it, i for one dont have a problem, and i dont think they spoil the countryside, and no before anyone asks i dont live near one, just with global warming gaining pace i would rather if they did everything to help.
personnally i am all for helping the enviroment, and if nother windfarm will help then go for it, i for one dont have a problem, and i dont think they spoil the countryside, and no before anyone asks i dont live near one, just with global warming gaining pace i would rather if they did everything to help.
Could not agree more......
teenybash
19-Sep-08, 23:00
Let the wind farms go up.....this old world needs them and why not here.
Let the wind farms go up.....this old world needs them and why not here.
I think there are about forty or so wind turbines up in Caithness at the moment teenybash, what would be the maximum number the county could take before you thought it was enough?
2little2late
19-Sep-08, 23:33
Totally 100% against them. They ruin the countryside. There is no global warming. Just a lot of scaremongering. The only reason the wind farms are being built is just to keep the Greens off the Governments back. I'm all for Nuclear energy.
Is the development within 2km of a village?:confused Hamlets or just 'housing' are not included in the criteria of support from Scottish ministers which is being interpreted by certain people.:roll:
Communities
Broad criteria should be used to set out the considerations that developers should address in relation to local communities. These should ensure that proposals are not permitted if they would have a significant long term detrimental impact on the amenity of people living nearby. When considering spatial policies, planning authorities may consider it helpful to introduce zones around communities as a means of guiding developments to broad areas of search where visual impacts are likely to be less of a constraint. PAN 45 confirms that development up to 2 km is likely to be a prominent feature in an open landscape. The Scottish Ministers would support this as a separation distance between turbines and the edge of cities, towns and villages so long as policies recognise that this approach is being adopted solely as a mechanism for steering proposals to broad areas of search and, within this distance, proposals will continue to be judged on a case-by-case basis.
http://cci.scot.nhs.uk/Publications/2007/03/22084213/20
Totally 100% against them. They ruin the countryside. There is no global warming. Just a lot of scaremongering. The only reason the wind farms are being built is just to keep the Greens off the Governments back. I'm all for Nuclear energy.
Could not agree more. The only way forward is nuclear energy.
Could not agree more. The only way forward is nuclear energy.
If it is the only way forward, how far forward will that take us and at what cost to the planet and our pockets?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium
And remember this?
http://www.atomicarchive.com/History/coldwar/images/chernobyl.jpg
My biggest gripe with windfarms at the moment is that theyt seem to be a cash cow for developers.
If me must build them, why dot them all around the county on sites chosen by each company?
We've got a dozen or so now south of Spittal. That's not going to change. Why are we building a couple here, a half dozen there etc? If Caithness is to have a hundred windmills, build them all in one place! "Ruin" one area, cause "eyesores" in one place, dont spread them around so that everywhere in Caithness is "spoiled"!
That, in my opinion, would be the sensible option. But with individual companies cashing in on subsidies and incentives, it's not going to happen.
ywindythesecond
20-Sep-08, 01:17
[quote=Rheghead;434584]Is the development within 2km of a village?:confused Hamlets or just 'housing' are not included in the criteria of support from Scottish ministers which is being interpreted by certain people.:roll:
This is a very important point Reggy. Scottish Planning Policy 6 (SPP6) says that These (criteria)should ensure that proposals are not permitted if they would have a significant long term detrimental impact on the amenity of people living nearby.
Why should a house on the edge of a village 2km away from the influence of a windfarm have greater protection than a single house 1.5km away?
Why should a house on the edge of a village 2km away from the influence of a windfarm have greater protection than a single house 1.5km away?
The criteria is supposed to steer developers and therefore reduce impact on a mass scale so there will be big winners and few losers, so it makes sense to make such guidelines and protect the interests of the masses, we are living in a democracy afterall. Has there been any wind farm distance guidelines for single houses from Scottish ministers?:confused Where do you get the 1.5 km figure from? I thought that was an old recommendation for the SPP6 criteria outlined above?
I'd like to get a windmill for my house, how much of my electricity needs will it service?
silverfox57
20-Sep-08, 11:30
My biggest gripe with windfarms at the moment is that theyt seem to be a cash cow for developers.
If me must build them, why dot them all around the county on sites chosen by each company?
We've got a dozen or so now south of Spittal. That's not going to change. Why are we building a couple here, a half dozen there etc? If Caithness is to have a hundred windmills, build them all in one place! "Ruin" one area, cause "eyesores" in one place, dont spread them around so that everywhere in Caithness is "spoiled"!
That, in my opinion, would be the sensible option. But with individual companies cashing in on subsidies and incentives, it's not going to happen.
that is my opinion too, as was said alreadythe few have no support,put them next to wick or thurso, would be out cry then,[disgust]
The criteria is supposed to steer developers and therefore reduce impact on a mass scale so there will be big winners and few losers, so it makes sense to make such guidelines and protect the interests of the masses, we are living in a democracy afterall. Has there been any wind farm distance guidelines for single houses from Scottish ministers?:confused Where do you get the 1.5 km figure from? I thought that was an old recommendation for the SPP6 criteria outlined above?
You could interpret the SPP6 criteria like that, but what about when you count up the number of individual dwellings (afterall in Caithness we are lucky to have a lot of space and so people build houses apart from each other) in a 2km circumference of the wind farm? I believe when this was done for Baillie wind farm it turned out that there were over 100 dwellings within this distance - why should they not then count as a community, or more to the point why should these people be ignored, just because they do not all live together in a village? The crucial point in SPP6 is that it states (as ywindy has so rightly pointed out) are not permitted if they would have a significant long term detrimental impact on the amenity of people living nearby. It does not specify in this statement that it has to be people living in a village etc. etc. I take this to mean anyone's amenity. There is no room for some people's residential amenity to be sacrificed - there are places, even in Caithness, where wind turbines could be sited without being that close to any residents. Lets be fair about this and not selfish. It is not right for a few individuals, who will benefit financially, to stick two fingers up at the many, who have no say in their speculative ideas and are unfortunate enough to be their neighbours.
It does not specify in this statement that it has to be people living in a village etc. etc.
You obviously missed the bit that you wanted to in SPP 6 Annex A.
PAN 45 confirms that development up to 2 km is likely to be a prominent feature in an open landscape. The Scottish Ministers would support this as a separation distance between turbines and the edge of cities, towns and villages
The upshot is in the event of developers placing a >20MW windfarm closer than 2 km to villages and towns etc then Scottish Ministers will consider the impact on a case-by-case basis.
I believe when this was done for Baillie wind farm it turned out that there were over 100 dwellings within this distance - why should they not then count as a community, or more to the point why should these people be ignored, just because they do not all live together in a village?
This is a grey area for Shebster as there used to be a working church and the building is still more or less still there so it may be classed as a village for the purposes of being included in SPP 6.
Q. What is the definition of a village?
A. A village is usually described as a centre of population with an area less than 2.5 square kilometres (1 square mile). A village will always have a church.
Q. What is the definition of a hamlet?
A. A hamlet is usually defined as a small, isolated group of houses without a church.
You obviously missed the bit that you wanted to in SPP 6 Annex A.
The upshot is in the event of developers placing turbines closer than 2 km to villages and towns etc then Scottish Ministers will consider the impact on a case-by-case basis.
This is a grey area for Shebster as there used to be a working church and the building is still more or less still there so it may be classed as a village for the purposes of being included in SPP 6.
For those who have not read Scottish Planning Policy 6 here is the whole paragraph on communities in Annex A 'Spatial framework for wind farms over 20 megawatts' -
Communities
Broad criteria should be used to set out the considerations that developers should address in relation to local communities. These should ensure that proposals are not permitted if they would have a significant long term detrimental impact on the amenity of people living nearby. When considering spatial policies, planning authorities may consider it helpful to introduce zones around communities as a means of guiding developments to broad areas of search where visual impacts are likely to be less of a constraint.
PAN 45 confirms that development up to 2 km is likely to be a prominent feature in an open landscape. The Scottish Ministers would support this as a separation distance between turbines and the edge of cities, towns and villages so long as policies recognise that this approach is being adopted solely as a mechanism for steering proposals to broad areas of search and, within this distance, proposals will continue to be judged on a case-by-case basis.
You can all now judge for yourselves whether things are being taken out of context or not!
Olivia as I've already posted that paragraph, you will only confirm that this is not relevent to windfarms less than 20MW or anything larger near to isolated housing.
When considering spatial policies, planning authorities may consider it helpful to introduce zones around communities as a means of guiding developments to broad areas of search where visual impacts are likely to be less of a constraint.
Has there been such a map drawn up for Caithness?:confused
Olivia as I've already posted that paragraph, you will only confirm that this is not relevent to windfarms less than 20MW or anything larger near to isolated housing.
Yes, I posted paragraph again.
Yes, it relates to 20MW and above, but as most wf applications in Caithness are over 20MW, is highly relevant here.
Do not agree at all with your interpretation of it - enough said. Will not be arguing this point with you anymore, everyone can make up their own minds.
Just one thing before I finish on this particular issue, my dictionary defines community as this -
'society of people linked together by common conditions of life, beliefs etc. or organised under one authority'
I know one thing if you want to break up a community in this county just apply for a wind farm, that will do the trick!
and while we're on the subject ..... there was a letter in the Groat yesterday (not the online version so can't link) about the proposed access route to Gordonbush. Quite how the application for the windfarm was granted without the access being specified I have no idea but it has certainly upset a huge number of local people and will affect all of us up here if the A9 is going to be blocked on and off for months by turbine parts. Hope they're going to lay on extra air ambulances.
'society of people linked together by common conditions of life, beliefs etc. or organised under one authority'
Thy shalt not have one wind turbine this side of Christendom or ye shall be cast down with the Sodomites.:roll:
I'd like to get a windmill for my house, how much of my electricity needs will it service?
aye the price electricity is at the moment think we could benifit from one for our own pesonnal use, mind you doubt the neighbours would be to impressed.[lol][lol]
Thy shalt not have one wind turbine this side of Christendom or ye shall be cast down with the Sodomites.:roll:
So are you for or against windfarms?
ywindythesecond
20-Sep-08, 23:55
Olivia as I've already posted that paragraph, you will only confirm that this is not relevent to windfarms less than 20MW or anything larger near to isolated housing.
Not so Reggy. SPP6 says this
"
24. The extent to which considerations set out in Annex A are relevant to proposals
below 20 megawatts will be dependent on the scale of development proposed,
whilst recognising that the design and location of any development must reflect
the scale and character of the landscape.
Quote ywindy "Why should a house on the edge of a village 2km away from the influence of a windfarm have greater protection than a single house 1.5km away?"
Reggy you asked where I got the 1.5 km figure from. It doesn't exist in planning terms. People in houses less than 2km from major windfarms have no protection in planning terms.
So Reggy , is this a good thing or a bad thing?
Is there anyone really clued up enough to advise me whether It would be wise to get a windmill for my house?
How long after installation will it take to break even on my initial outlay?
Would I be better off getting solar panels installed or would it make more sense to have both installed? Are there government grants availiable to help with the cost?
Not so Reggy. SPP6 says this
"
24. The extent to which considerations set out in Annex A are relevant to proposals
below 20 megawatts will be dependent on the scale of development proposed,
whilst recognising that the design and location of any development must reflect
the scale and character of the landscape.
Are you saying olivia is wrong? I was quoting about the page that refers specifically to >20MW which is more relevent to Caithness as olivia rightly states.
Yes, it relates to 20MW and above, but as most wf applications in Caithness are over 20MW, is highly relevant here.
Reggy you asked where I got the 1.5 km figure from. It doesn't exist in planning terms. People in houses less than 2km from major windfarms have no protection in planning terms.
So Reggy , is this a good thing or a bad thing?
Then where does it stem from?? What is the relevence?
People who live in isolated houses that are near to windfarm proposals are a minority in this country, yet you said that the refusal of the Baillie hill proposal was a triumph for democracy. How so? How many live within 2 km of Baillie hill? How many live in fear of Global Warming?
So much hot air being blown around this thread and nobody kind enough to provide any answers.
So much hot air being blown around this thread and nobody kind enough to provide any answers.
I didn't answer your question in the positive because I think small scale wind is a waste of time unless you are living in the open country.
So much hot air being blown around this thread and nobody kind enough to provide any answers.
Maybe that's because they are waffling on about wind TURBINES TBH not windmills. You could always move to Amsterdam.[lol]
I didn't answer your question in the positive because I think small scale wind is a waste of time unless you are living in the open country.
Best to be in the open country if you have any scale wind methinks!
I didn't answer your question in the positive because I think small scale wind is a waste of time unless you are living in the open country.I thought an explanation from someone with knowledge of the technology, on whether it was worthwhile or not, would be advantageous to myself as a homeowner.
You didn't answer the question because you surmise that small scale windmills are a waste of time. That is the type of view that I am interested in as it would have been worthwhile to me before spending money on a system like that.
Maybe that's because they are waffling on about wind TURBINES TBH not windmills. You could always move to Amsterdam.[lol]
Venture he is needing power generation here not wanting to grow tulips! (or go clip clippity clop on the stairs)
Maybe that's because they are waffling on about wind TURBINES TBH not windmills. You could always move to Amsterdam.[lol]Windmills is a generic term.
ywindythesecond
21-Sep-08, 09:34
Sorry TBH, I'll try to answer your question. As you go from Dunnet to Broch, there is a small wind turbine up on your left. I have been to see this and spoken to the owners. It seems to be successful and as well as cutting their power bills it earns an income from selling surplus to the grid and by getting ROCs which they sell for more money. It is not a toy by any means and was not cheap. I think if you went to their door they would be pleased to talk about it.
However, even small wind turbines if they are grid connected feed off the neighbours because the ROCs they earn come out of everyone else's pocket.
Read Andrew Bain at
http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/lords_economic_affairs/eaffwrevid.cfm (http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/lords_economic_affairs/eaffwrevid.cfm)
ywindythesecond
21-Sep-08, 09:46
Then where does it stem from?? What is the relevence?
People who live in isolated houses that are near to windfarm proposals are a minority in this country, yet you said that the refusal of the Baillie hill proposal was a triumph for democracy. How so? How many live within 2 km of Baillie hill? How many live in fear of Global Warming?
I didn't say anything of the sort, you are quoting somebody else.
Regarding SPP6 recommendation for a separation of 2km from towns and villages, if it is right to protect the outermost dwelling in a village from the nearest turbine in a windfarm, how is it right not to protect an isolated dwelling closer to a turbine than 2km, say at a distance of 1.5km?
Now if I lived between the village and the windfarm and the windfarm had been located 2km from the outermost house in the village, I would think my human rights had been breeched because why should I suffer when someone else was protected? If it is right to safeguard village dwellers, then it is right to safeguard people in isolated dwellings.
Regarding SPP6 recommendation for a separation of 2km from towns and villages, if it is right to protect the outermost dwelling in a village from the nearest turbine in a windfarm, how is it right not to protect an isolated dwelling closer to a turbine than 2km, say at a distance of 1.5km?
Now if I lived between the village and the windfarm and the windfarm had been located 2km from the outermost house in the village, I would think my human rights had been breeched because why should I suffer when someone else was protected? If it is right to safeguard village dwellers, then it is right to safeguard people in isolated dwellings.
The SPP 6 doesn't safeguard anyone as they are only guidelines so a case of human rights being breeched would not arise.:roll:
But what is lying or misleading is going to councillors and saying that the SPP 6 recommends that windfarms should be placed at least 2 km from 'housing'.
ywindythesecond
21-Sep-08, 11:36
The SPP 6 doesn't safeguard anyone as they are only guidelines so a case of human rights being breeched would not arise.:roll:
But what is lying or misleading is going to councillors and saying that the SPP 6 recommends that windfarms should be placed at least 2 km from 'housing'.
Who is lying to councillors?
Who is lying to councillors?
Would it be misleading if so?
I think our councillors on the planning committee are quite capable of seeing through all the 'spin' that comes spouting forth at wind farm planning hearings.
I think our councillors should be wise enough to realise that we will pay dearly in the long run both economically and environmentally if we don't turn to renewable energy.
With rising fuels costs and a major reorganisation of the renewable obligation, we will look upon wind energy from a fresher perspective.
http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/Double-amount-in-subsidies-for.4511682.jp
Heh, had to laugh at that - with the prospect of renewable energy making the consumers bills increase, I think we'll be the ones to "pay dearly" if we do turn to renewables........:)
Heh, had to laugh at that - with the prospect of renewable energy making the consumers bills increase, I think we'll be the ones to "pay dearly" if we do turn to renewables........:)
What do we do when the fuel runs out or too many developed countries scrambling for the last of it?:roll:
Have you factored that into your calculation or are you just happy with the spin from wind-watch.org etc?
Hmmm - the fresher perspective should be to go for wave schemes and ditch the obsession with wind. Anyway, we have enough wind farms in Caithness, lets concentrate on harnessing all that massive energy from the sea. Bit worrying though that tidal seems to not be getting a fair crack of the whip compared to wave and what is this SNP obsession with getting one over on England?
The news that EDF are bidding for British Energy and have plans to build four nuclear power stations in the UK seems to fly in the face of the drive for green energy.
Does handing over the UK's nuclear energy to a foreign power make sense?
From what I have heard on the news today the government is looking to sell it's 1/3 'share' in British Energy as well.
And to repeat - I am not against wind energy. I am just against it in Caithness, unless it is providing power FOR Caithness alone and not the far south. Let the huge off shore wind farms which are planned and under construction, off the east coast of East Anglia, provide that.
And to repeat - I am not against wind energy. I am just against it in Caithness, unless it is providing power FOR Caithness alone and not the far south. Let the huge off shore wind farms which are planned and under construction, off the east coast of East Anglia, provide that.
Can you convince me that the windfarms in those areas are sufficient to supply the mandatory EU targets? On the back of that, failing to meet those targets will incur fines which will be passed to us through taxation, so are you willing to pay a fine which we needn't have to pay should the renewable projects get full public support?
OK, I keep asking these questions but nobody seems to give me a fair and honest answer to convince me that stopping windfarm development is a good idea when I think of any alternatives.
There is no global warming. Just a lot of scaremongering.
The science behind the chemical effects of greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere is well established. In fact it has been known for well over 100 years that greenhouses gases were partly responsible for providing a cosy protection from extreme temperature variations that are seen on other planets, the heat coming in during the day is all but lost during the night. (Mercury is the closest planet and it doesn't rotate so it is the hottest and one of the coldest planets in the solar system). So the obvious question is what will happen if those gas concentrations change? The scientists worked out that if there were no GHGs, the Earth's average temperature would be -19° centigrade, so it doesn't really take a climate scientist to work what an increase in the concentration of GHGs will do on global temperatures if we really want to think about it.
Can you convince me that the windfarms in those areas are sufficient to supply the mandatory EU targets? On the back of that, failing to meet those targets will incur fines which will be passed to us through taxation, so are you willing to pay a fine which we needn't have to pay should the renewable projects get full public support?
OK, I keep asking these questions but nobody seems to give me a fair and honest answer to convince me that stopping windfarm development is a good idea when I think of any alternatives.
EU targets do not specify which type of renewable is used to achieve them. Why the obsession with windfarms Rheghead? Is the government not always banging on about a mix of renewables?
EU targets do not specify which type of renewable is used to achieve them. Why the obsession with windfarms Rheghead? Is the government not always banging on about a mix of renewables?
I have no obsession with wind farms, I support all forms of renewable energy, hence I support the changes to the RO.
When my thread got merged into this one I think my original question got lost, so I'll ask something similar again -
As Durran Mains wind farm is the current application is there anyone out there with any particular gripes or loves of this proposal and why should it be chucked out or given the go-ahead?
ywindythesecond
25-Sep-08, 00:38
[quote=Rheghead;436413]Can you convince me that the windfarms in those areas are sufficient to supply the mandatory EU targets? quote]
Your question was addressed to someone else so this is not a response to it but a point arising from it. The other person can answer your question. Here are my questions to you.
Do you believe that achieving the EU mandatory targets is the best way to cut GHG emissions?
Do you believe that the EU mandatory targets were set based on the best available scientific evidence?
Now, I don't want to risk an infraction by asking you these questions twice, so would you please answer them first time round, and not by another question.
Do you believe that achieving the EU mandatory targets is the best way to cut GHG emissions?
Yes I do because I cannot see anything else that would motivate a country to cut emissions when politically and economically it may seem to be folly to do so. It is easy to talk the talk than walk the walk. For twenty long years, since Jim Hansen's famous speech, the western world has done virtually nothing to cut emissions. By making targets binding, it will motivate each member state to introduce their own way of tackling the problem. I'm in doubt that the targets are increasingly unachievable through inaction, but even if we underachieve then we achieve some of the way by having ambitious targets. And there is hope that by creating a supergrid across the EU then technical problems with renewable energy can be ironed out and that will only come about through international coordination and cooperation. By setting these targets the rest of the world will follow.
Do you believe that the EU mandatory targets were set based on the best available scientific evidence?
The limits aren't set based upon scientific evidence, but they are a political compromise, an 80% target of renewable energy is closer to what is needed.
Now haven't you got a question to answer?
This is aimed at the powers that be at CWIF, is it too much to ask if you publish the map coordinates of each proposed turbine for each of the developments. I'm sure it would help us to assess the impact better than a single point reference??
The news that EDF are bidding for British Energy and have plans to build four nuclear power stations in the UK seems to fly in the face of the drive for green energy.
Does handing over the UK's nuclear energy to a foreign power make sense?
From what I have heard on the news today the government is looking to sell it's 1/3 'share' in British Energy as well.
And to repeat - I am not against wind energy. I am just against it in Caithness, unless it is providing power FOR Caithness alone and not the far south. Let the huge off shore wind farms which are planned and under construction, off the east coast of East Anglia, provide that.
So dose that then mean you would also be against Dounreay powering up again or a new nuclear power plant in Caithness as it would produce more power than the people of Caithness would use or are you really just against wind farms?
And if there was no form of power generation in Caithness then would you not use any electricity as it was not generated in Caithness!
One of the biggest reasons that our electricity bills have been soaring is that we as the UK can not produce as much electricity as we consume and we have been forced to sign up to receiving exported electricity from France (EDF Energy to be exact) and the irony of it is that the power we import from them is produced by one of there nuclear plants right on the French cost of the English channel!
In the UK we have the resource and expertise to produce and maintain extremely efficient renewable energy from onshore wind, offshore wind, wave, tidal, current, biomass etc so why not utilize this to generate our own power instead of importing from France at an extortionate price, while at the same time creating loads of jobs for people here in the UK especially in the more remote areas where job security and unemployment are at a high!
ywindythesecond
25-Sep-08, 22:05
Yes I do because I cannot see anything else that would motivate a country to cut emissions when politically and economically it may seem to be folly to do so. It is easy to talk the talk than walk the walk. For twenty long years, since Jim Hansen's famous speech, the western world has done virtually nothing to cut emissions. By making targets binding, it will motivate each member state to introduce their own way of tackling the problem. I'm in doubt that the targets are increasingly unachievable through inaction, but even if we underachieve then we achieve some of the way by having ambitious targets. And there is hope that by creating a supergrid across the EU then technical problems with renewable energy can be ironed out and that will only come about through international coordination and cooperation. By setting these targets the rest of the world will follow.
The limits aren't set based upon scientific evidence, but they are a political compromise, an 80% target of renewable energy is closer to what is needed.
Now haven't you got a question to answer?
Thanks for addressing the questions Reggy. Recently the former Chief Scientific Adviser to the cabinet appeared in the media in respect of the current targets for renewable energy. I dont have the reference to hand but someone hopefully will provide it. One of Tony Blair's last acts was to persuade the EU Heads of Government to sign up to a target of I think 15% energy from renewables by 2020. Unfortunately he was supposed to persuade them to sign up to 15% electrical power by renewables. By committing to 15% of all energy this includes transportation and all other forms of energy used, and that translates into 35% of our power from renewables of which onshore wind is the only available option in the timescale.
Political targets not based on scientific fact are astonishingly dangerous and counterproductive.
OK you want me to answer a question so here it is.
I think the question you want me to address is "Can you convince me that the windfarms in those areas(off East Anglia) are sufficient to supply the mandatory EU targets? On the back of that, failing to meet those targets will incur fines which will be passed to us through taxation, so are you willing to pay a fine which we needn't have to pay should the renewable projects get full public support?"
Firstly I doubt I could convince you that you were on fire when sitting on a lit barbecue.
Secondly I could not convince anyone that windfarms in any area are sufficient to supply the mandatory EU targets, nor would I try. More windfarms, more conventional back-up. More public support for windfarms, more windfarms, more conventional back-up.
I say windfarms when correctly I should say renewables, but onshore windfarms is the only mass renewable technology available in the timescale.
The targets are wrong. The political drive is wrong. What happened to the reduction of carbon emissions? That was a worthwhile goal. Renewables for renewables sake is a political cop-out, or cock-up more correctly.
Unachievable targets end in failure, usually after much wasted investment of time and resource. We need achievable technically sound goals, not political aspirations from short term political incumbents.
More windfarms, more conventional back-up. More public support for windfarms, more windfarms, more conventional back-up.
Lets just run through that in a little more detail and please correct me if I'm wrong.
I posted a quote somewhere that to produce 10% of the UK's energy needs from renewables, we would need 300-500MW of extra back up which I conceded and you accepted. So for the 10% target in 2010 (these targets seem to change over time as I know they are unachievable in real terms), a total of 15GW of renewable generation would be needed. 20%+ of that wind can be relied upon so that is over 3000MW of coal energy capacity can be permanently scrapped and also the equivalent of 4400MW of fossil fuel generation of the 12000MW back up is now put on hot/cold standby or takes the form of reduced energy generating capacity (which includes that extra back up btw).
That seems to me to be quite a contribution to meeting our energy needs and that of mitigating our contribution to Climate change.
I think the question you want me to address is "Can you convince me that the windfarms in those areas(off East Anglia) are sufficient to supply the mandatory EU targets?
And btw that wasn't the question that I was implying.
My question is this since I need to be more direct,
"Is it misleading for someone to refer people to SPP 6 guidelines and stating that they recommend windfarms over 20MW should be situated 2 km from 'housing' when it actually says Scottish ministers would accept 2km as a distance from 'cities, towns and villages"?
I've not read through the whole thread so I hope I am not repeating what others have already posted.
Local wind power in Caithness being confined to providing for Caithness? Forget it. Confined to the Highlands? Forget it. Scotland? Forget it. The whole of Britain? forget it.
In order to provide anything even resembling a steady supply there are plans for an undersea cable to connect Britain to the Wind Power Stations in Norway and Denmark I presume that idea is that the wind must be blowing somewhere and if not in one then in another of the places. Whoever has an excess at any period will sell it to the places with a shortage and when short will buy it back.
If it is intended to extend the grid to other places I have no idea.
When it comes to the targets which have been agreed EU wide, forget it. The Government advisor (no party politics please) who was responsible for providing some sensible advice, when he found out what targets had been agreed behind closed doors by the representatives for the Countries in the EU, was horrified. The targets which were agreed to would have been just about achievable if it had been confined to the production of electricity but the agreement extended to all areas of CO2 production. Hence, I assume, the noises already abroad in the EU to reduce/extend those targets.
Turbines. It seems that there is no chance of ever being able to achieve the number of turbines proposed in the timescales allowed. It seems that with the best will in the world there is simply not enough capacity in the industry to produce them on the scale required.
As for employment locally. Some time ago I had a lengthy conversation with the PR Department for on of the Energy Companies who had been silly enough to circulate a leaflet with their contact number on it. It took a little while to persuade the PR man to admit that, contrary to their blurb about the massive employment which would be produced that, in fact, once the things had been erected there would only be at most only a handful of jobs created, basically a couple of maintenance men to keep an eye on things.
Just as a matter of interest, does anyone know of anybody locally who is working on the turbines? I’m just curious.
No I am not anti wind power provided it is in the right place. I have no objection to them being place off-shore, sensitive marine areas excluded of course.
But anybody who imagines that they will be the goose that lays the golden egg or will be anything like the solution to even a quarter of our power problems will be very disappointed I’m afraid.
And just to make you all happy, the Energy Watchdog is apparently of the opinion that the spare capacity in our power supplies is so small that during periods of high demand during any very cold spells in the winter if there is a problem with any of the power stations then there is a high likelihood of power cuts.
And on that warming note ------.
When it comes to the targets which have been agreed EU wide, forget it. The Government advisor (no party politics please) who was responsible for providing some sensible advice, when he found out what targets had been agreed behind closed doors by the representatives for the Countries in the EU, was horrified. The targets which were agreed to would have been just about achievable if it had been confined to the production of electricity but the agreement extended to all areas of CO2 production. Hence, I assume, the noises already abroad in the EU to reduce/extend those targets.
Recently the former Chief Scientific Adviser to the cabinet appeared in the media in respect of the current targets for renewable energy. I dont have the reference to hand but someone hopefully will provide it. One of Tony Blair's last acts was to persuade the EU Heads of Government to sign up to a target of I think 15% energy from renewables by 2020. Unfortunately he was supposed to persuade them to sign up to 15% electrical power by renewables. By committing to 15% of all energy this includes transportation and all other forms of energy used, and that translates into 35% of our power from renewables of which onshore wind is the only available option in the timescale.
Now let us think for a wee while about what you both wrote there which seems to be the same thing.
Are you now putting Sir David King (who I completely agree with btw in regards the 20/20/20 ) and his recommendations forward as a champion for your cause?
Just as a matter of interest, does anyone know of anybody locally who is working on the turbines? I’m just curious.
Yes!
No I am not anti wind power provided it is in the right place. I have no objection to them being place off-shore, sensitive marine areas excluded of course.
But anybody who imagines that they will be the goose that lays the golden egg or will be anything like the solution to even a quarter of our power problems will be very disappointed I’m afraid.
The wind farm in construction just south of Glasgow on Eaglesham moor (Whitelee wind farm) consisting of 140 Siemens 2.3MW turbines producing enough power for 200,000 homes, which is enough to power the whole of Glasgow. How can that not be worth while?
The construction of this wind farm (start to finish over three years) has produced hundreds of jobs!
Once a site is completed there is more than just the technicians maintaining the turbines and a site manager, as you also have suppliers of parts and consumables, continuous on site road repairs, HV inspections and testing, lifting points and climbing equipment inspections every six months, bird & fox etc survey people, fire extinguisher inspectors every year, blade inspections every couple of years (depending on the turbine manufacture and placement of the turbines) site vehicles requiring servicing from local garages and the list goes on.
ywindythesecond
26-Sep-08, 18:49
Lets just run through that in a little more detail and please correct me if I'm wrong.
And btw that wasn't the question that I was implying.
My question is this since I need to be more direct,
"Is it misleading for someone to refer people to SPP 6 guidelines and stating that they recommend windfarms over 20MW should be situated 2 km from 'housing' when it actually says Scottish ministers would accept 2km as a distance from 'cities, towns and villages"?
Yes that would be misleading. You seem to be implying that I have done the misleading. If so please give us the details.
Yes that would be misleading. You seem to be implying that I have done the misleading. If so please give us the details.
Mr Young said CWIF is calling for planners to adopt what he said are guidelines from Scottish ministers which state that large wind farms should be at least two kilometres away from housing.
And it isn't even over 20MW and I can't find a reference from SPP 6 saying that 2 km is an acceptable distance to housing either.
http://www.johnogroat-journal.co.uk/news/fullstory.php/aid/5272/Turbines_-_%27too_many,_too_big,_too_close%27.html
The wind produced by this thread is enough to power a city. [lol]
flowertot
27-Sep-08, 00:01
why not get the French to build us a couple of Fast Breeders same as they seem to quite successsfully run then no need for any blots on the landscape! I'm sure the local population of existing sites would embrace this philosophy with open arms. wee fat salmond and co will eventually be forced to go down that road anyways. The Auld Alliance reinvigorated eh!
ywindythesecond
27-Sep-08, 00:24
And it isn't even over 20MW and I can't find a reference from SPP 6 saying that 2 km is an acceptable distance to housing either.
http://www.johnogroat-journal.co.uk/news/fullstory.php/aid/5272/Turbines_-_%27too_many,_too_big,_too_close%27.html
"Mr Young said CWIF is calling for planners to adopt what he said are guidelines from Scottish ministers which state that large wind farms should be at least two kilometres away from housing."
Sorry didnt see the link. What is reported in the papers isn't always word perfect, statements are paraphrased. I am careful to be correct in such matters, but what is printed is outwith my control.
Thanks by the way for blowing my cover, not that I had any.
What you quoted from the paper is a far cry from your original post "But what is lying or misleading is going to councillors and saying that the SPP 6 recommends that windfarms should be placed at least 2 km from 'housing'."
"calling for planners" isn't the same as "going to councillors".
You have a good brain Reggy, you should use it to better purpose.
As regards SPP6, it is not, as is commonly perceived, only about windfarms over 20MW. The Clauses in Annex A refer to windfarms over 20MW, but their terms may be applied to smaller developments as stated in :
"Clause 24. The extent to which considerations set out in Annex A are relevant to proposals below 20MW will be dependent upon the scale of the development proposed....."
Take some time to read it before you reply please.
ywindythesecond
27-Sep-08, 00:34
Joxville
"Awa' an' bile yer heid."
Thanks for that.
I have long been wanting to tell Reggy his heid's in a tinny but I didn't think there was anyone out there who would understand.
It is misleading and I perhaps thought you were misquoted. However, even if you did quote the SPP6 correctly AND for arguement sake Clause 24 (at the time I wrote the question I thought it was over 20MW) is taken into consideration, your calling on planners to adhere to the SPP6 has no relevence to Durrans as it is more than 2 km from 'cities, towns, villages'. Whichever way I look at your explanation, it is still misleading.
I got the impression you were claiming the Durran proposal goes against the 2 km distance that is acceptable to Scottish ministers.
Anyway, why all the insults?
ywindythesecond
27-Sep-08, 01:36
It is misleading and I perhaps thought you were misquoted. However, even if you did quote the SPP6 correctly AND for arguement sake Clause 24 (at the time I wrote the question I thought it was over 20MW) is taken into consideration, your calling on planners to adhere to the SPP6 has no relevence to Durrans as it is more than 2 km from 'cities, towns, villages'. Whichever way I look at your explanation, it is still misleading.
I got the impression you were claiming the Durran proposal goes against the 2 km distance that is acceptable to Scottish ministers.
Anyway, why all the insults?
I will not waste time responding to you.
Now let us think for a wee while about what you both wrote there which seems to be the same thing.
Are you now putting Sir David King (who I completely agree with btw in regards the 20/20/20 ) and his recommendations forward as a champion for your cause?
And there is another point I missed. The only reason that anybody can suggest for that particular percentage being chosen by that particular date id that Twenty, twenty, twenty is a snappy sound bite. Now that is a very scientific reason.
As I said, I hadn't checked back through all the posts and admitted I might cover something which had been already posted.
I will not waste time responding to you.
You just did.;)
Thanks, and congratulations for arguing black is white.
Yes!
The wind farm in construction just south of Glasgow on Eaglesham moor (Whitelee wind farm) consisting of 140 Siemens 2.3MW turbines producing enough power for 200,000 homes, which is enough to power the whole of Glasgow. How can that not be worth while?
The construction of this wind farm (start to finish over three years) has produced hundreds of jobs!
Once a site is completed there is more than just the technicians maintaining the turbines and a site manager, as you also have suppliers of parts and consumables, continuous on site road repairs, HV inspections and testing, lifting points and climbing equipment inspections every six months, bird & fox etc survey people, fire extinguisher inspectors every year, blade inspections every couple of years (depending on the turbine manufacture and placement of the turbines) site vehicles requiring servicing from local garages and the list goes on.
I did not say that wind power stations were not worthwhile but simply that they were not a golden goose and that that there was far more to them regarding infrastructure etc. than simply putting them up and watching the power flow.
I deliberately included the comment that I was speaking of jobs once the turbines had been erected. Yes there will be many jobs whilst they are being erected simply because they have to be transported to the site and put up but, apart from transport, very few of them will be for people employed locally, which was the point I was making. Time will tell if I am correct in that comment.
Siemens manufacture their turbines in Denmark. Their service support for the whole of the UK comprises of two sites, one at Wishaw and the other in Wales employing a grand total, around 100 people. Those are the people who will be doing all the inspections and who will be carrying out and repairs and maintenance, not local people employed specifically for that specific site.
Inspection of Fire Extinguishers once again will be carried out by people already employed generally for that job and not specifically employed for work on that site alone. Has there been any indication of the number of vehicles to be used full time for that particular site? Ten, twenty, thirty? There could be one at the most and more likely is that a vehicle will call at the site as and when necessary.
The list may well go on but the jobs mentioned are more likely to be carried by people already employed by firms as a small part of their already existing work. I very much doubt that people will be specifically employed on site to inpect such things as fire extinguishers once a year.
As I pointed out in my original post, such sites, once erected and in operation, will not be providing mass employment locally and, more correctly, hardly any jobs locally at all.
As to the supply of replacement parts, the production of parts once again is carried out in Denmark.
You can check all about Siemens at their site which, if anybody looks round it, gives all the information about where their workforce are employed, what part they play in the firm and the numbers employed.
http://www.powergeneration.siemens.com/products-solutions-services/products-packages/wind-turbines/windturbines.htm
why not get the French to build us a couple of Fast Breeders same as they seem to quite successsfully run then no need for any blots on the landscape! I'm sure the local population of existing sites would embrace this philosophy with open arms. wee fat salmond and co will eventually be forced to go down that road anyways. The Auld Alliance reinvigorated eh!The French have the sense to get 80% of their power supply from nuclear. Whilst we have been dithering and putting off making decisions about replacing our outdated stations and in doing so lost the expertise to build new ones, the French have just got on with it.
That is why we have had to hand the building of our replacements to the French because they are the ones with the people who still have the skills to build them.
flowertot
27-Sep-08, 07:49
Jaws you've hit the nail on the head. From being the world leaders in FB tech now we are nowhere. The clowns can quote all the figures they wish and listen to Salmonds retoric re windfarms but at the end of the day we need to diversify our forms of power generation to avoid having rely on the Russians, who have shown their willinness to cause trouble, over the last few months and for me the only way to do that is modern nuclear reactors and possibly clean burning coal which we seem to have an endless supply of.
I did not say that wind power stations were not worthwhile but simply that they were not a golden goose and that that there was far more to them regarding infrastructure etc. than simply putting them up and watching the power flow.
That can be said for any energy generation no less so than for fossil fuels and nuke.
I did not say that wind power stations were not worthwhile but simply that they were not a golden goose and that that there was far more to them regarding infrastructure etc. than simply putting them up and watching the power flow.
I deliberately included the comment that I was speaking of jobs once the turbines had been erected. Yes there will be many jobs whilst they are being erected simply because they have to be transported to the site and put up but, apart from transport, very few of them will be for people employed locally, which was the point I was making. Time will tell if I am correct in that comment.
Siemens manufacture their turbines in Denmark. Their service support for the whole of the UK comprises of two sites, one at Wishaw and the other in Wales employing a grand total, around 100 people. Those are the people who will be doing all the inspections and who will be carrying out and repairs and maintenance, not local people employed specifically for that specific site.
Inspection of Fire Extinguishers once again will be carried out by people already employed generally for that job and not specifically employed for work on that site alone. Has there been any indication of the number of vehicles to be used full time for that particular site? Ten, twenty, thirty? There could be one at the most and more likely is that a vehicle will call at the site as and when necessary.
The list may well go on but the jobs mentioned are more likely to be carried by people already employed by firms as a small part of their already existing work. I very much doubt that people will be specifically employed on site to inpect such things as fire extinguishers once a year.
As I pointed out in my original post, such sites, once erected and in operation, will not be providing mass employment locally and, more correctly, hardly any jobs locally at all.
As to the supply of replacement parts, the production of parts once again is carried out in Denmark.
You can check all about Siemens at their site which, if anybody looks round it, gives all the information about where their workforce are employed, what part they play in the firm and the numbers employed.
http://www.powergeneration.siemens.com/products-solutions-services/products-packages/wind-turbines/windturbines.htm
Well here is the thing I have worked on wind turbines now for over 6 years and personally know the technical manager for Siemens Scotland as well as about 15 of the guys who works for him, three of which are from Caithness. There are also many others who work for them who I do not know personally.
I also know abut 40 guys who work for Vestas.
As for parts yes some turbines are built in Denmark but not all of them and not all of the components especially when it comes to replacement parts which are sourced locally where and if possible (why buy a hydraulic, etc component from Denmark when it can be bought locally for less!!)
Then you have some fabrication tasks which will be contracted out locally to experienced fabrication company’s (I have done this many times).
I have been told by a fire extinguisher inspector in Argyll while he was out at a wind farm I was looking after that if it had not been for the wind turbines being built locally that his job would have been on the line as there was talk within his company of only having guys run from the big city’s but because of the increase of extinguishers now requiring inspection there that he had enough work to keep him employed there.
Bazbiker, there's a lot of folk out there who want you out of a job.
Bazbiker, there's a lot of folk out there who want you out of a job.
Yea and I have to say the saddest thing is that having worked in this industry all the way from Cornwall to Caithness and all over Ireland, that certain people in Caithness seem to be the most narrow minded when it comes to wind farms! [disgust]
The truth of it is that wind turbines do generate a substantial amount of energy as well as local jobs. They have also led the way in innovation for other such applications within the power as well as Renewables industry.
I’m not saying that wind turbines are the total answer to producing our energy needs but they are a large part of the solution along with Hydro, nuclear, marine and coal. But we can not rely on any one of these forms anymore and a balance has to be made.
People seam to talk about nuclear power from France, Germany etc but these country’s have allot more wind turbines than the UK, also creating a balance within there energy sector. Even when you look at the US they have individual wind farm sites of more turbines than all of the UK's turbines put together!
The biggest issue I find is when it comes to certain developers trying to site wind farms in some inappropriate places. But the same can be said for allot of power station's. When the Hydro boom was on many years ago some people even lost there homes and land to allow for reservoir’s to be constructed and valleys flooded!
At the end of the day most of us have many electrical appliances within our home or work place and the power they use has to come from somewhere and why should that not be clean efficient energy from Renewables!
The biggest issue I find is when it comes to certain developers trying to site wind farms in some inappropriate places.
That's very interesting bazbiker - would you like to elaborate on this point? In Caithness where have there been wind farms proposed in inappropriate places, or perhaps you don't mean here?
Hi
Having read all the messages about everyone's thought on the Wind Turbines that are going to in-in date Caithness and ruin our Beautiful Scenery. Has anyone thought that we should recieve Free Electricity the inconvenience and for all the damage that it is doing to our beautiful county and the lasting effects it will have on the Tourism to Caithness... [mad]
Having read all the messages about everyone's thought on the Wind Turbines that are going to in-in date Caithness and ruin our Beautiful Scenery.
What beautiful countryside?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/dec/10/globalwarming.conservationandendangeredspecies
http://news.mongabay.com/2006/1012-ucla.html
Well here is the thing I have worked on wind turbines now for over 6 years and personally know the technical manager for Siemens Scotland as well as about 15 of the guys who works for him, three of which are from Caithness. There are also many others who work for them who I do not know personally.
In employment terms you are still talking about a handful of people. By comparison. how many people worked at Dounreay? How many work at Hunterston? How many at Peterhead?
All I am saying is that anybody who thinks that a Wind Power site is going to make any large dents in unemployment in their area is going to be sadly disappointed.
As a matter of interest, are the chaps from Caithness working locally?
Incidentally, France is 80% nuclear when it comes to electricity supplies.
Rheghead, .assuming the scare stories about methane, which, seeing CO2 doesn’t seem to be causing enough panic has suddenly become the latest big stick, is absolutely correct does that mean that the highlands are going to disappear altogether?
I am sure that when the last ice age ended there were doom mongers bewailing the fact that their precious arctic tundra was disappearing and that it would be a disaster when all those dreadful trees started to take it over.
One thing is certain, however many wind farms are built, the climate will continue to do exactly as it wants regardless of what we do. In terms of the Earths long term climate it is still dragging itself out of it’s long series of very cold spells and in nowhere near it’s long term average temperatures.
In employment terms you are still talking about a handful of people. By comparison. how many people worked at Dounreay?
A bit of a red herring because Dounreay wasn't supposed to be a commercial reactor. As for operating a commercial reactor, only about a 60 is required to actually run the reactor 24/7, the bulk of the work force will be dedicated on site to provide tasks in the drawing office, stores, security and other peripheral positions. They come part of the workforce which can easily attributable to the site.
In terms of employment, windfarms employ about 1 person per 15MW of installed capacity which in terms of acreage compares favorably with agriculture, but as bazbiker says, other jobs are supported by windfarms (not just maintenance units) which are analogous to the peripheral jobs on a commercial reactor.
As for carbon emissions etc, windfarms mitigate carbon emissions which are the primary cause of climate change. The climate will stop warming or slow down with more sources of renewable energy we have.
That's very interesting bazbiker - would you like to elaborate on this point? In Caithness where have there been wind farms proposed in inappropriate places, or perhaps you don't mean here?
To be honest I was thinking more along the lines of what was originally proposed for the Isle of Lewis, which has now been rejected. There is nothing wrong with having turbines there but 300 in one go is a bit much, if they had gone for as many as even 100 or so that would have been ok in my opinion!
In employment terms you are still talking about a handful of people. By comparison. how many people worked at Dounreay? How many work at Hunterston? How many at Peterhead?
All I am saying is that anybody who thinks that a Wind Power site is going to make any large dents in unemployment in their area is going to be sadly disappointed.
As a matter of interest, are the chaps from Caithness working locally?
Yes they work locally.
I was also informed yesterday that Vestas are now looking to employ a further 35 guys in the northern Scotland area.
Also I was not comparing employment numbers on wind farms to that of Dounreay etc.
What beautiful countryside?
Any beauty that Caithness had has been destroyed by the headlong rush to cash in on developing wind farms in the county.
It's almost as crazy as the Klondike was...
Yes they work locally
I am highly sceptical about the local employment figures for completed and operational wind farms - the promise of jobs is just another tool used by the developers to try and win over local objections to their plans.
There is nothing wrong with having turbines there but 300 in one go is a bit much
How is 300 in one go too much, but 300 in stages is fine?
I was also informed yesterday that Vestas are now looking to employ a further 35 guys in the northern Scotland area.
Great - now a scooter manufacturer is moving to the north...
Hi
Having read all the messages about everyone's thought on the Wind Turbines that are going to in-in date Caithness and ruin our Beautiful Scenery. Has anyone thought that we should recieve Free Electricity the inconvenience and for all the damage that it is doing to our beautiful county and the lasting effects it will have on the Tourism to Caithness... [mad]
I totally agree with you ellimac about our beautiful scenery in Caithness and there certainly won't be any tourism in this county if all our potential wind farm developers have their way. People I know from further south are always struck by the wonderful wide open landscape, unspoilt vistas and peace and quiet that they can enjoy here compared to the huge metropoli further south. This county needs to promote tourism more and tourism businesses here need to wake up and realise what is going on. Why are they not all getting together and shouting - do they not realise that if this county is covered with wind turbines nobody will come here for a holiday. Yes, wind farm construction workers may fill the local B&Bs for a couple of years, but once they are gone, what will be left? A stream of traffic zooming along the A9 to get to the ferries for Orkney thinking 'what a mess this place is'.
[quote=Rheghead;439849]What beautiful countryside?
Reggy, you definitely need to get out more!
I totally agree with you ellimac about our beautiful scenery in Caithness and there certainly won't be any tourism in this county if all our potential wind farm developers have their way.
Olivia,
You fail to appreciate that the prowindies will quote you the numbers of visitors to the established wind industrial estates/factories in the likes of Cornwall - there will be a huge increase in people travelling from far and wide to marvel at the beauty of the wind factories in the far north.
They will stand and stare in open mouthed awe at the endless winding service roads crisscrossing what was once just a barren peat bog/hillside.
Gaze hypnotised at the beautiful magnificence of the 300 foot high columns of steel topped off with a wonderfully glinting 3 bladed jewels flashing in the northern sky.
They will spend hours in the custom built Visitor Centres reading all about how the UK alone is saving the planet by having so many wonderful wind factories sited on what was previously barren boring open moorland.
Great figures will be bandied about regarding the reduction of the UK's carbon footprint all the while that huge concrete footprints are marching across the once natural wild expanses of Caithness.
They will be able to buy books and stickers, such as "I ♥ Wind Turbines", to cover their carbon free cars with as they travel to the next oh-so-unique isolated spot in Scotland to spend yet more money on the guided tour of another wonderful wind farm...
Olivia,
You fail to appreciate that the prowindies will quote you the numbers of visitors to the established wind industrial estates/factories in the likes of Cornwall - there will be a huge increase in people travelling from far and wide to marvel at the beauty of the wind factories in the far north.
They will stand and stare in open mouthed awe at the endless winding service roads crisscrossing what was once just a barren peat bog/hillside.
Gaze hypnotised at the beautiful magnificence of the 300 foot high columns of steel topped off with a wonderfully glinting 3 bladed jewels flashing in the northern sky.
They will spend hours in the custom built Visitor Centres reading all about how the UK alone is saving the planet by having so many wonderful wind factories sited on what was previously barren boring open moorland.
Great figures will be bandied about regarding the reduction of the UK's carbon footprint all the while that huge concrete footprints are marching across the once natural wild expanses of Caithness.
They will be able to buy books and stickers, such as "I ♥ Wind Turbines", to cover their carbon free cars with as they travel to the next oh-so-unique isolated spot in Scotland to spend yet more money on the guided tour of another wonderful wind farm...
Thankyou MadPict - thats the first time I've laughed today!
Hey, did you know you can buy t-shirts with something like 'anti-windies suck' blazoned across your chest? Must find that link for all you pro-windies to buy your latest fashion accessory.
Any beauty that Caithness had has been destroyed by the headlong rush to cash in on developing wind farms in the county.
It's almost as crazy as the Klondike was...
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and people will just have to get used to them. The next generation of Caithnessians are being programmed to accept them cf teletubbies and the constant eco warnings etc. The older and more antiwindy generation will die off leaving a prowindy population behind to take control of the planet.;)
Zey vill rules zee vorld...
silverfox57
01-Oct-08, 13:09
[quote=Rheghead;439849]What beautiful countryside?
Reggy, you definitely need to get out more!
what beautiful countryside,will for one my back garden,had beautiful views of country side,now as three turbines[evil] as they say if it not in your back garden then thats okay[evil]
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and people will just have to get used to them. The next generation of Caithnessians are being programmed to accept them cf teletubbies and the constant eco warnings etc. The older and more antiwindy generation will die off leaving a prowindy population behind to take control of the planet.;)
Zey vill rules zee vorld...
Why must we get used to them?
Sounds like you have had your brain washed, tumble dried, ironed, neatly folded and placed in the wardrobe!!! ;)
Why must we get used to them?
Sounds like you have had your brain washed, tumble dried, ironed, neatly folded and placed in the wardrobe!!! ;)
I am not brain washed, you tell me of an experiment that can refute global warming then I will take note. As the Stern report says, the consequences of inaction are enormous.
I've just watched that youtube film on the .org home page about the bat deaths. Awful, poor little things. So, the blades may not kill them but the drop in pressure does. Maybe, wind farm developers will be made to do more rigorous surveys for bats from now on, lets hope so.
2little2late
01-Oct-08, 14:30
http://news.mongabay.com/2006/1012-ucla.html[/url]
These peat bogs have been about for millions of years and it is only now they (whoever "they" are) have decided that methane from peat bogs contribute to global warming. All these so called environmentalists or whoever are clutching at straws trying to find excuses for global warming. Personally, I think it is a lot of dross. Scaremongering, that's all it amounts to.
This is my opinion and I stand by it.
2little2late
01-Oct-08, 14:32
[QUOTE=Rheghead;
http://news.mongabay.com/2006/1012-ucla.html
These peat bogs have been about for millions of years and it is only now they (whoever "they" are) have decided that methane from peat bogs contribute to global warming. All these so called environmentalists or whoever are clutching at straws trying to find excuses for global warming. Personally, I think it is a lot of dross. Scaremongering, that's all it amounts to.
This is my opinion and I stand by it.
I am highly sceptical about the local employment figures for completed and operational wind farms - the promise of jobs is just another tool used by the developers to try and win over local objections to their plans.
Well what i am telling you about the local employment is fact!
Great - now a scooter manufacturer is moving to the north...
This just proves that you have no clue about wind turbines!!
2little2late
01-Oct-08, 14:43
[QUOTE=bazbiker;
This just proves that you have no clue about wind turbines!![/QUOTE]
As a matter of fact Vesta make matches. [lol]
Cedric Farthsbottom III
01-Oct-08, 14:49
Mother Earth is on de-frost.She knows when its time to turn the heat up.Nobody controls her,she is in total control.If she is having any problems she'll get rid off it.Nothing can beat her,anybody can try as they can.If she disnae like ye,she'll give ye yer bus fare home.She did it to the dinasaurs"Oi T-Rex,no,I won't have some scaley eejit taken over ma patch.......",where is he now?
Well what i am telling you about the local employment is fact!
In the words of Rheghead - Proof please - you are one apparently. But are you actually employed in your position IN Caithness?
You stated "Well here is the thing I have worked on wind turbines now for over 6 years and personally know the technical manager for Siemens Scotland as well as about 15 of the guys who works for him, three of which are from Caithness. There are also many others who work for them who I do not know personally.
I also know abut 40 guys who work for Vestas.
Working in the industry and being FROM Caithness is not the same as working for the industry and living IN Caithness. That is the same as saying the MOD creates work in the far north because Caithnessians serve in the military...
This just proves that you have no clue about wind turbines!!
Like the turbine blades swooshing around over your head my humour passed by, unnoticed...:roll:
Cedric Farthsbottom III
01-Oct-08, 16:03
Wind turbines come under a lot of scrutiny.But at least its folk making a wee change.Ma glass is half full not half empty.I think we're too late since the industrial revolution.Thats been our downfall.
Hi
Putting up these Wind Turbines [mad] will destroy our country side and for those who have said what country side, I say you must get out more..... Go a run up west, how gorgeous is it up there, yes be it that it is mostly in Sutherland, but it's still our country side.... There are loads of beautiful places up here if you only care to look..... Anyway who wants to look out there own front door and see a Wind Turbine, I for one don't.... As for them getting put up, what on earth jobs is it going to create, none as they pretty much look after themselves... I am all for another Nuclear Power Station, now that will create job's and wont look as ugly as the Wind Turbine.... But I suppose this is something we all will not agree about and in the end what will be will be..... But stand up for your right not to have the Wind Turbines put up here cos as soon as somemore get put up then a whole load of them will appear........[mad]
Hi
Putting up these Wind Turbines [mad] will destroy our country side and for those who have said what country side, I say you must get out more..... Go a run up west, how gorgeous is it up there, yes be it that it is mostly in Sutherland, but it's still our country side.... There are loads of beautiful places up here if you only care to look..... Anyway who wants to look out there own front door and see a Wind Turbine, I for one don't.... As for them getting put up, what on earth jobs is it going to create, none as they pretty much look after themselves... I am all for another Nuclear Power Station, now that will create job's and wont look as ugly as the Wind Turbine.... But I suppose this is something we all will not agree about and in the end what will be will be..... But stand up for your right not to have the Wind Turbines put up here cos as soon as somemore get put up then a whole load of them will appear........[mad]
I can look out of my front door and back door and see wind turbines and I don’t mind them, I don’t think they look ugly and at least if something goes wrong with them they wont wipe out 100mile radius like a nuclear power station!
And I will stand up for my right to have more of them.
I can look out of my front door and back door and see wind turbines and I don’t mind them, I don’t think they look ugly and at least if something goes wrong with them they wont wipe out 100mile radius like a nuclear power station!
And I will stand up for my right to have more of them.
Sorry bazbiker, but what right do you have to plaster the place with wind turbines, particularly if the majority of folk do not want them. In all of the recent postal ballots conducted in both Caithness and Sutherland on the subject, wind farms have always got the thumbs down from the local communities. That says it all - the so called 'vocal minority' that we all hear about from developers actually turns out to be the majority when given the opportunity of voting yes or no. (And I don't want to hear any nonsense from anyone about the ones who didn't vote must be for them - democracy rules).
That says it all - the so called 'vocal minority' that we all hear about from developers actually turns out to be the majority when given the opportunity of voting yes or no. (And I don't want to hear any nonsense from anyone about the ones who didn't vote must be for them - democracy rules).
These ballots have nothing to do with democracy they are only conducted to judge 'local' opinion. National ballots consistently come out 70-80% in favour of windfarms. What we see up here is the NIMBY effect.
The trouble is that there is a national interest at stake and I'm afraid that must come as the priority imo.
But can you tell me of any other industry which is subjected to silly parochial ballots which will go towards determining whether they should set up business or not? It is institutionalised NIMBYism. I doubt if it goes on much anywhere else outside north scotland, it is almost laughable.
It is easy for someone to say 'NO' if there are no immediate consequences to the voter.
These ballots have nothing to do with democracy they are only conducted to judge 'local' opinion. National ballots consistently come out 70-80% in favour of windfarms. What we see up here is the NIMBY effect.
The trouble is that there is a national interest at stake and I'm afraid that must come as the priority imo.
But can you tell me of any other industry which is subjected to silly parochial ballots which will go towards determining whether they should set up business or not? It is institutionalised NIMBYism. I doubt if it goes on much anywhere else outside north scotland, it is almost laughable.
It is easy for someone to say 'NO' if there are no immediate consequences to the voter.
My goodness Rheghead, you're even beginning to sound like a wind farm developer!
ywindythesecond
01-Oct-08, 23:54
[quote=Rheghead;440380]These ballots have nothing to do with democracy they are only conducted to judge 'local' opinion. National ballots consistently come out 70-80% in favour of windfarms. What we see up here is the NIMBY effect.
The trouble is that there is a national interest at stake and I'm afraid that must come as the priority imo.
quote]
Hi Reggy,
"These ballots" are part of the democratic process, and consultation is at the heart of modern Governance, particularly in respect of Planning issues. It goes on all over UK.
However, regarding the National Interest, does every proposed windfarm have to be allowed in the National Interest?
If the Nation decides that each and every windfarm proposed is essential to the National Interest, then so be it.
But the Nation doesn't decide where any particular windfarm might be put. A Landowner and a Developer decide where best to propose to put a windfarm.
Always on the Landowner's land, strangely enough.
Also I was not comparing employment numbers on wind farms to that of Dounreay etc.
I appreciate that, it was the impression the promotional blurb and press releases tend to give which I was getting at. They give the impression that the local Jobcentres might as well shut up shop because there will be jobs for everybody forever when, by comparison with other forms of power production there are comparatively few.
The trouble is that there is a national interest at stake and I'm afraid that must come as the priority imo.
National interest? Is that Scotland's national interest or Britain's national interest?
And, more to the point, exactly what "national interest" is it that wind farms and only wind farms can serve?
Hi Reggy,
"These ballots" are part of the democratic process, and consultation is at the heart of modern Governance, particularly in respect of Planning issues. It goes on all over UK.
However, regarding the National Interest, does every proposed windfarm have to be allowed in the National Interest?
If the Nation decides that each and every windfarm proposed is essential to the National Interest, then so be it.
But the Nation doesn't decide where any particular windfarm might be put. A Landowner and a Developer decide where best to propose to put a windfarm.
Always on the Landowner's land, strangely enough.
No I disagree, these ballots are a symptom of the failure of democracy.
A symptom of failure of local government to make strong decisions on their own judgement, a symptom of failure of local government for not knowing already the feelings of its electorate who elected them on a broad spectrum of issues, not just single based issues eg. wind farms and they are a symptom of failure to recognise how the national democratic interest is deployed at the local level.
No I disagree, these ballots are a symptom of the failure of democracy.
A symptom of failure of local government to make strong decisions on their own judgement, a symptom of failure of local government for not knowing already the feelings of its electorate who elected them on a broad spectrum of issues, not just single based issues eg. wind farms and they are a symptom of failure to recognise how the national democratic interest is deployed at the local level.
No, no, no Rheghead you've got it all wrong. 'These ballots' are democracy working at its best. They have all been conducted by community councils, and hats off to them for doing it, to ensure they get a fair representation of what their community thinks about the contentious wind farm proposal(s) in their area. The results are then passed on to the Highland Council planning department as part of their consultation process.
What could be better than that? It allows everyone of voting age to have their say (or not if they so choose), marking their ballot paper in the privacy of their own home, under no pressure whatsoever. As far as I'm aware the voter's details are all confidential and the ballots have been administered properly and impartially by Highland Council.
I think the trouble is that there are a lot of sour grapes over this method as it has, so far, come out against all proposals (except the Rumster community project). Its not what developers want to hear is it?
No, no, no Rheghead you've got it all wrong. 'These ballots' are democracy working at its best. They have all been conducted by community councils, and hats off to them for doing it, to ensure they get a fair representation of what their community thinks about the contentious wind farm proposal(s) in their area. The results are then passed on to the Highland Council planning department as part of their consultation process.
What could be better than that? It allows everyone of voting age to have their say (or not if they so choose), marking their ballot paper in the privacy of their own home, under no pressure whatsoever. As far as I'm aware the voter's details are all confidential and the ballots have been administered properly and impartially by Highland Council.
I think the trouble is that there are a lot of sour grapes over this method as it has, so far, come out against all proposals (except the Rumster community project). Its not what developers want to hear is it?
You are missing the whole point.
Yourself, developers, community councillors, everyone etc know full well that NIMBY attitudes exist, it is completely natural to object to something on your doorstep which is being developed by an outsider when you have no financial gain.
That is the difference to the Rumster and all the other proposals. So it is not an issue of the negative attributes such as noise, visual amenity, birds, etc because all those issues apply to Rumster as well.
I made the point at the HRES meeting at Halkirk back in 2005 that the reason why people objected so much to these proposals was that they feel disenfranchised by the whole process, they aren't given the opportunity and assistance to take part in reaping the benefits of real renewable energy for the benefits of locals. Instead they are being made do with a paltry community benefit payment. Rumster is the first to change all that.
So what is the point to the ballots? Nimbyism exists, it is comonsense, it doesn't need a vote to confirm that we are nimbys because it is obvious. So it is institutionalised nimbyism to give everyone a chance to put one over on the developer and it is a failure on the powers that be to govern with authority.
Rheghead do you think it's possible you might be missing the point yourself? I know - a crazy idea!
Do you suggest we open our arms and welcome all the proposed developments - for the good of the nation (and the planet), of course? Cover our county in wind turbines – only the nimbys (the vocal minority) would give a damn.
Should we put our complete faith and trust in landowners and developers to select only ‘suitable sites’ and locations for their developments? I wonder, is there such a thing as an unsuitable site when you’re talking national interest?
How many wind power stations should Caithness host? Is it a case of first come, first served – regardless of suitability? Will all the developments waiting in the queue just disappear should someone decide Caithness has done enough for the nation? Will developers and landowners just shake hands and commiserate with each other over being beaten in the race for the Caithness ROC?
And then when onshore wind is no longer the flavour of the month, as will be the case in the not too distant future, we should do what with our hundreds of wind turbines?
I have to admit I hadn’t realised community benefit had been introduced into issues of national interest?
And I believe you are quite wrong in your assumption that those opposing wind turbines would change their tune for personal financial gain. Many so called nimbys have the interests of the county at heart, it's nothing to do with putting one over the developers but I doubt you’d understand that either.
Thank you all you nimbys out there - you're doing a great job in making sure the developers don't get away with putting one over Caithness!
I'm not missing the point that Global warming will have a severe detrimental effect on vulnerable ecosystems, of which the peatlands of Caithness is certainly one.
What do think the effect on Caithness would be if the peatlands disappeared?
Global Warming will destroy Caithness and you claim you are looking out for it?:roll: The requirement for renewable energy will not go away as long as we use up nonrenewable energy sources of which you are enjoying right now. If it was down to NIMBYs worldwide then NO renewable energy systems would be built. Please think on the bigger picture.
I don't think Caithness should be covered in turbines, nobody wants that but I do think a proportion of what is proposed in order to reach suitable targets should be sited in Caithness in suitable places. A modicum of commonsense must prevail.
I think the county can accomodate around 400MW of installed capacity quite easily. That is not a totally random figure but one based on my judgement and calculation. I know what is planned comes to more than that but not all will be approved and not all will be blocked. It is unreasonable that all will be blocked and the county has to have some windfarms above what is already in operation.
captain chaos
02-Oct-08, 20:43
Having added up the combined output of the turbines in Caithness I came to around 72 Megawatts.
Thats enough to power 30,000 to 35,000 households ......... considering that Caithness has around 8,000 to 9,000 households why would they want any more turbines considering the losses in the line getting the power down south.
In the Highland Region there are approx 100,000 households so Caithness supplies 1/3 of the highlands with power.
A total of 272 Megawatts is produced within the Highland Region enough for 124,000 homes, again more than the region has. Even adding in all industrial users and we are still over generating for the Highland Region
Again what benefit do we have from these turbines ..Cheaper electric NO, subsidised electric NO, Any benefit to the peoples of the highlands, NO.
Having added up the combined output of the turbines in Caithness I came to around 72 Megawatts.
Thats enough to power 30,000 to 35,000 households ......... considering that Caithness has around 8,000 to 9,000 households why would they want any more turbines considering the losses in the line getting the power down south.
In the Highland Region there are approx 100,000 households so Caithness supplies 1/3 of the highlands with power.
A total of 272 Megawatts is produced within the Highland Region enough for 124,000 homes, again more than the region has. Even adding in all industrial users and we are still over generating for the Highland Region
Again what benefit do we have from these turbines ..Cheaper electric NO, subsidised electric NO, Any benefit to the peoples of the highlands, NO.
So you are saying that the Pentland Firth tidal scheme should not be built then?
captain chaos
02-Oct-08, 20:56
Eh No
Factory to be built in Wick ,Employment for locals, Everything that wind power promised but failed to deliver.
A promise of subsidised electric and if you didnt allready know there will be a subsea power line capable of handling the power generated.
At 272Mw the Grid line south is not far from capacity . As we dont have a supergrid North of Hunterston and Torness the losses of the power generated are huge.
Eh No
But you said Caithness already produces enough energy for itself and that thermal losses formed the basis of your opposition to more windfarms, don't you see the double standard here? The tidal scheme is also subject to the effect of thermal losses and it will also produce power over and above local requirements.
ywindythesecond
02-Oct-08, 22:37
Having added up the combined output of the turbines in Caithness I came to around 72 Megawatts.
Thats enough to power 30,000 to 35,000 households ......... considering that Caithness has around 8,000 to 9,000 households why would they want any more turbines considering the losses in the line getting the power down south.
In the Highland Region there are approx 100,000 households so Caithness supplies 1/3 of the highlands with power.
A total of 272 Megawatts is produced within the Highland Region enough for 124,000 homes, again more than the region has. Even adding in all industrial users and we are still over generating for the Highland Region
Again what benefit do we have from these turbines ..Cheaper electric NO, subsidised electric NO, Any benefit to the peoples of the highlands, NO.
Captain Chaos,
I presume your calculation of 72 MW installed in Caithness powering 30-35 thousand households is based on the 45 wind turbines already built, and I presume that the households served by it are happy to have their electricity as and when there is enough wind around to produce the 72MW. They obviously won't mind getting up at 3 in the morning to put the washing machine on because it is blowing up on the Causeymire. Nor will they mind turning the heating off when there is no wind.
Not for me. I prefer my electricity available, not averagely available.
ywy2
Not for me. I prefer my electricity available, not averagely available.
ywy2
Why? Will it taste different? Seriously though, what skin off your nose is it as an end user of electricity if it isn't a technical problem, and didn't you declare support for Pentland tidal scheme so how more available is that? If the Pentland Firth scheme gets under way as expected with 1.5GW capacity then you will see variations twice daily of output from 400MW to 1200MW, wouldn't that need a lot of conventional back up? How can you defend that when windfarms are just as variable with similiar load capacities? I know you are going to say that it is regular variation that can be successfully predicted, but wind variation is also predictable and with even less rates of variation. And in any case, the conventional backup takes seconds to follow load and the cold start back-up takes only 2 hours to get going which is enough time to respond to the variability within the probabilities of even further shortfalls of supply.
You could plant a wind turbine in every available inch of Caithness and it would make not a single jot of difference to the effect of climate change on our valuable eco system - other than destroy it completely by digging it all up - as you very well know.
So you've calculated 400MW could easily be accommodated in Caithness. In order to make that calculation you must have identified the suitable sites available in the county. So share it with us then. Where are your 400MW to be sited? Let's set aside our nimbyism are discuss your chose sites.
Will there be anywhere in Caithness without a visible windfarm? Would you protect any of our wide, open landscapes or are they all up for grabs?
You could plant a wind turbine in every available inch of Caithness and it would make not a single jot of difference to the effect of climate change on our valuable eco system - other than destroy it completely by digging it all up - as you very well know.
So you've calculated 400MW could easily be accommodated in Caithness. In order to make that calculation you must have identified the suitable sites available in the county. So share it with us then. Where are your 400MW to be sited? Let's set aside our nimbyism are discuss your chose sites.
Will there be anywhere in Caithness without a visible windfarm? Would you protect any of our wide, open landscapes or are they all up for grabs?
With Caithness being one of the most sparsely populated areas in the UK then I would say there will be sites that are suitable. On that assumption, I haven't identified any sites in particular as it is up to landowners and developers to come up with sites for approval, I think we have to accept what is on offer, no site is 100% acceptable.
400MW of energy is just under a third of the capacity of the potential out put of the Pentland Firth, which in turn is described as the 'Saudi Arabia' of renewable energy. If that analogy is deemed to be correct then Caithness must be the 'Kuwait' of renewable energy, no? This is a significant investment in order to combat climate change. That will be a significant 500,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide prevented from entering the atmosphere. That would approximate to 0.01% of the annual global increase in carbon dioxide. Caithness holds 0.0005% of the world's population and occupies 0.00035% of the Earth's surface area, Caithness will certainly be doing her disproportional bit to combat climate change.
With Caithness being one of the most sparsely populated areas in the UK then I would say there will be sites that are suitable. On that assumption, I haven't identified any sites in particular as it is up to landowners and developers to come up with sites for approval, I think we have to accept what is on offer, no site is 100% acceptable.
400MW of energy is just under a third of the capacity of the potential out put of the Pentland Firth, which in turn is described as the 'Saudi Arabia' of renewable energy. If that analogy is deemed to be correct then Caithness must be the 'Kuwait' of renewable energy, no? This is a significant investment in order to combat climate change. That will be a significant 500,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide prevented from entering the atmosphere. That would approximate to 0.01% of the annual global increase in carbon dioxide. Caithness holds 0.0005% of the world's population and occupies 0.00035% of the Earth's surface area, Caithness will certainly be doing her disproportional bit to combat climate change.If the land-owners do not give their aproval then what next, compulsary purchase orders all round?
If the land-owners do not give their aproval then what next, compulsary purchase orders all round?
I think it will come to that, in fact it is almost in the here and now. (http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/politics-news/tm_objectid=16677652&method=full&siteid=50082&headline=-windfarm-developer-seeks-compulsory-purchase-powers-name_page.html)
And in any case, Scots were turfed out of their homes to make way for hydroelectric schemes, so why not for windfarms?
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.