View Full Version : wind farm
just heard folks living beside spittalhill are really worried about the noise factor as the government has only done tests up to the height of 90 ft.
the ones on spittal are 360ft.thats 28 of them 2 others a bit smaller .these turbines are over 30 ft bigger than causeymere.
did see 2 men in wick and thurso promoting them standing in the cold they did not sound local.
If u should like to support the opposition go to htpp://www.spittalwindfarmopposition.co.uk
What's the nearest distance to a property that is inhabited?
Well, looking at the 'Planning Application Boundary' parts of Spittal village are about 50 metres away - edge of 'revised' area the turbines are 1 km from the village?
1 km? Will that be a problem?
Am all for windfarms......sorry.............;)
windfarms are ok in the right place away from homes say 5 miles. we will soon have them covering the whole of the highlands.
with the snp,and lib dems in government they will go down in history as ruining our lovely country.
windfarms are ok in the right place away from homes say 5 miles. we will soon have them covering the whole of the highlands.
with the snp,and lib dems in government they will go down in history as ruining our lovely country.
How much land will be available for windfarms in the UK if they were subjected to a 5 mile exclusion zone from occupied housing?
Would it surprise you to learn that CWIF used to recommend a minimum distance of 1km from occupied properties about 2 years ago until they jumped on the bandwagon of another anti-wind group's 2 km minimum distance?
1.2 Scotland. The Scottish Planning Policy 6 Annex A States:
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://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/briefings/snsc-05221.pdf (http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/briefings/snsc-05221.pdf)
1.2 Scotland. The Scottish Planning Policy 6 Annex A States:
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://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/briefings/snsc-05221.pdf (http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/briefings/snsc-05221.pdf)
Would it be fair to say that these are intended to be broad steering guidelines for wind farm development rather than a yardstick for objection?
So less that 2kms would be fine in your opinion?
So less that 2kms would be fine in your opinion?
I would recommend judging wind farms on a case by case approach but I do appreciate that it will become necessary to approve wind farms that are closer.
So you are happy for wind turbines to be within the 2km distance? Hmm - where's your nearest one?
So you are happy for wind turbines to be within the 2km distance? Hmm - where's your nearest one?
I wouldn't say I was happy about it, I'm just being pragmatic in the sense that function should always take precedence over form.
Suppose you could have the luxury of being pragmatic when you live nowhere near em...
Suppose you could have the luxury of being pragmatic when you live nowhere near em...
I lived a mile away from one of the first wind farms in the UK for 5 years. Never once did I hear noise from the windfarm from the house or even if I walked towards the moor despite the fact that it over looked the village. Noise is a total non issue unless you are sitting right under them and then other issues come into play. I challenge anyone to stand at the main road near the Forss windfarm and listen for them when there is a northerly wind and the distance is ~500m.
Rheghead: "I lived a mile away from one of the first wind farms in the UK for 5 years. Never once did I hear noise from the windfarm from the house or even if I walked towards the moor despite the fact that it over looked the village. Noise is a total non issue unless you are sitting right under them and then other issues come into play. I challenge anyone to stand at the main road near the Forss windfarm and listen for them when there is a northerly wind and the distance is ~500m."
Hmm.. so you lived near one of the first wind farm's? then those will be the little piddly 400kw types then? not the biguns' we get now, so your initial point is invalid. You mention Forss, surely you know they are little 1.3mw one's? And you surely must know; 'Wind turbines create noise and the amount varies with wind speed or rpm. The noise (sound power level) created by a 3MW turbine can be about 100 dB(A) at 14 rpm and 108 dB(A) at 20 rpm (NOISE FROM WIND TURBINES STANDARDS AND NOISE REDUCTION PROCEDURES H. Klug)
Do remind me Rheggy, that shadow flicker at the Forss wind farm is such a serious problem to workers in the nearby offices that the turbine has to be shut down.? Do tell!
Re Spittal Hill, I thought Highland Council has already stated that Spittal Hill is not a suitable place for a major wind farm in their 2006 Renewable Energy Strategy. Prior to production of this Strategy, the Caithness Local Plan always designated Spittal Hill as an area presumed against development (PP3).
I'm bored....
read your document becisman .the sunday times claimed civil servants suppressed warnings that wind farms can generate noise damaging peoples health for several square miles around,the guidance from consultants indicated that the sound level permitted from spinning blades and gearboxes had been set so high -43 dc.tha local people could be disturbed whenever the wind blew hard .the noise was also thought to disturb sleep.
Would it be fair to say that the older turbines are supposed to be much noisier than modern turbines? In terms of the sensitive placing of turbines into the landscape in order to get planning permission, would it be a fair comment that it is in the interests of the developer to get the quietest turbines?
chef4celebrations
19-Dec-09, 20:20
Suppose you could have the luxury of being pragmatic when you live nowhere near em...
well I DO and i am on the causeymyre and they are not noisy at all and i am the closest house to the windfarm, the most noise i have heard from them is, only what i can discribe as a sound like a fast flowing stream.
I am not against the proposal for spittal hill, they have their pro's and con's, i am not against progress, but they DO NOT save on the CARBON FOOTPRINT, more CO2 is produced in the production and in its lifetime than it will ever save.
Nuclear fusion is the only way forward, all waste should be sent in a large rocket to our biggest reactor that we call the sun.
well I DO and i am on the causeymyre and they are not noisy at all and i am the closest house to the windfarm, the most noise i have heard from them is, only what i can discribe as a sound like a fast flowing stream.
I am not against the proposal for spittal hill, they have their pro's and con's, i am not against progress, but they DO NOT save on the CARBON FOOTPRINT, more CO2 is produced in the production and in its lifetime than it will ever save.
Nuclear fusion is the only way forward, all waste should be sent in a large rocket to our biggest reactor that we call the sun.
That's interesting, certainly puts things into perspective regarding the noise. However, I'd like to know which aspects of their production you think cause the biggest cause for concern in terms of carbon emissions.
I read a report some months ago from the Renewable Energy Foundation, which despite its name is an anti-windfarm organisation, which heavily criticises their energy balance. Their payback time that they calculated was 2.4 years on deep peat. Even so, the report was flawed in terms of the geometry of supporting roads etc.
redeyedtreefrog
19-Dec-09, 21:13
well I DO and i am on the causeymyre and they are not noisy at all and i am the closest house to the windfarm, the most noise i have heard from them is, only what i can discribe as a sound like a fast flowing stream.
I am not against the proposal for spittal hill, they have their pro's and con's, i am not against progress, but they DO NOT save on the CARBON FOOTPRINT, more CO2 is produced in the production and in its lifetime than it will ever save.
Nuclear fusion is the only way forward, all waste should be sent in a large rocket to our biggest reactor that we call the sun.
Apparently the main waste product of fusion using hydrogen is helium.
chef 4 how far are you approx from turbines ? on spittal think the nearest could be 800 m not that far really.
Wondered that too; I know that there's a building (Achkeepster) on the west of the A9, just south of the Sub Station which is on the east side, also on the east side and north of that are ruined buildings and a new kit house - that's pretty far away though, so not sure where he is situated in relation to the turbines?
Bobinovich
20-Dec-09, 13:53
Knowing his location, and using a combination of Google maps & some draughting software, I've worked it out at approx. 1770m. There is a farm (presumably with a farm house) which comes south from the B870 and is about 200m closer.
thats a fair bit of distance compared to 800m if there is a swish from 1770 m there will be a bigger noise if your house is nearer.Believe its through the night u pick up on the noise.
thats a fair bit of distance compared to 800m if there is a swish from 1770 m there will be a bigger noise if your house is nearer.Believe its through the night u pick up on the noise.
Thats strange because the anti-windfarmers were trying to make out that ~1770m was a big deal in regard to the Stroupster wind farm. Seems folk keep moving the goal posts to suit themselves.
interesting that the developer of the spittal proposals will be far away from any noise etc generated by this monster. in fact most of the turbines won't even be on his land since the regiged plans now show them on the watten side of the hill!
interesting that the developer of the spittal proposals will be far away from any noise etc generated by this monster. in fact most of the turbines won't even be on his land since the regiged plans now show them on the watten side of the hill!
So if the turbines aren't on his land then I would expect the developer will be paying rent to the landowner. Could it be fair to say that this is a prime example of the wealth of the wind industry being shared amongst the people of Caithness?
i think the wealth you mention would be like a fart in the wind compared to the sums involved.
i think the wealth you mention would be like a fart in the wind compared to the sums involved.
Then why do farmers let them?
any one can see why its for £££ sss .its not to save the planet because by the amount of energy to put them up they are not viable.Also the Irish put them up and they are made in germany so much for all the jobs they keep talking about
Am I alone in thinking that whatever the science and the footprint, I find the turbines majestic and entirely appropriate here in reflecting the sky and the expanse of it all. If my farm was suitable which it is not, I would welcome a beast in my back yard
any one can see why its for £££ sss .its not to save the planet because by the amount of energy to put them up they are not viable.Also the Irish put them up and they are made in germany so much for all the jobs they keep talking about
so if your assumptions regarding their energy balance were found to be wrong, could it upturn your opinion or will you live in denial?
Margaret M.
20-Dec-09, 22:53
Am I alone in thinking that whatever the science and the footprint, I find the turbines majestic and entirely appropriate here in reflecting the sky and the expanse of it all. If my farm was suitable which it is not, I would welcome a beast in my back yard
I think the turbines look appealing if they are in large groups in a fairly secluded area. I think two or three stuck in the middle of everything spoils the look of the surrounding area.
Then why do farmers let them?
Total and utter greed and complete lack of consideration for their neighbours. Shame on them all!!
Total and utter greed and complete lack of consideration for their neighbours. Shame on them all!!
Can their neighbours share in the wealth?
We have little enough going for us in Caithness except some tourism so why should we spoil our beautiful landscape with largely inefficient wind turbines? Once you have seen them nobody will come back to look. The only people who will benefit inspite of what they say is the landowners. As far as I am concerned the way forward is nuclear power, but I appreciate not everyone will agree with me.
We have little enough going for us in Caithness except some tourism so why should we spoil our beautiful landscape with largely inefficient wind turbines?
Would it be fair to say that poor fuel efficiency is an aspect that doesn't affect wind turbines and that all thermal power plants suffer from poor efficiencies?. This principle is of acute relevance to tourists because about 1.5% of the chemical energy of the fuel is used to convey the passengers in a family car. Counter-intuitively, if renewable energy could be used to power private transportation then the energy could balance the grid thus releasing us from the need for back-up fossil fuel generation, making the countryside worth enjoying.
Once you have seen them nobody will come back to look. The only people who will benefit inspite of what they say is the landowners.
Wind farms have an national approval rating of ~80% from some of the polls that I've seen. If that is so, could it be reasonable to assume then 80% might be persuaded to comeback because that is what they expect in a rural setting?
As far as I am concerned the way forward is nuclear power, but I appreciate not everyone will agree with me.
Presumably you are saying this as a hypothetical energy policy-maker. Then would it be reasonable to have a policy that is sustainable for future generations to enjoy? If we were to go low-carbon by going sufficiently more nuclear to take up the extra sector that is projected for wind energy by the existing forecasts, then we and other countries may have to triple our nuclear portfolio. At current consumption rates, normal uranium reserves are expected to last 50 years before we go to more imaginative ways of find uranium. How sustainable would your energy policy be at the higher levels?
We have little enough going for us in Caithness except some tourism so why should we spoil our beautiful landscape with largely inefficient wind turbines? Once you have seen them nobody will come back to look. The only people who will benefit inspite of what they say is the landowners. As far as I am concerned the way forward is nuclear power, but I appreciate not everyone will agree with me.
I couldn't agree more with you Fly. Notice how the Spittal Developer won't be living any where near his proposed turbines!!!
Can their neighbours share in the wealth?
Obviously their non-turbine neighbours realise there's more to life than money.
Green_not_greed
21-Dec-09, 14:11
Wind farms have an national approval rating of ~80% from some of the polls that I've seen.
You should perhaps look at independent polls and not those carried out by developers, the wind industry and the government.
At current consumption rates, normal uranium reserves are expected to last 50 years before we go to more imaginative ways of find uranium. How sustainable would your energy policy be at the higher levels?
Have you ever heard of the breeder reactor? Breeds its own fuel. Just what's needed in this day and age.
Like this one Green_not_Green:?
http://www.semantise.com/~lewiswindfarms/?OpenItemURL=S000BE995
Have you ever heard of the breeder reactor? Breeds its own fuel. Just what's needed in this day and age.
Yes of course,
you say wind power is expensive and needs subsidy, do you think that fast breeding is cheaper and can stand on its own feet from cradle to grave?
How much back up will a fast breeding reactor need when it shuts down for maintenance?
Where will the fast breeder be built and how much thermal losses will be incurred from the transmission?
For fast breeding to be part of the solution to climate change, would you condone the technology be used by all countries?
What will the effect of fast breeding electricity production have on domestic fuel bills?
How realistic will such a plant with its required repository gain planning permission?
If a climate change sceptical government threatened to cancel the programme which may be earmarked for Caithness, would there be a groundswell of support for the IPCC from previous AGW sceptics who opposed wind turbines?
You should perhaps look at independent polls and not those carried out by developers, the wind industry and the government.
Aren't they opinion polls which are carried out in areas that are subject to wind farm development like the examples given?
I couldn't agree more with you Fly. Notice how the Spittal Developer won't be living any where near his proposed turbines!!!
If the developer intended to live directly under the wind turbines, would it change your view?
If the developer intended to live directly under the wind turbines, would it change your view?
They never do, that's the point. They want the money, lots of it, but they don't want their lives ruined. A single, smallish turbine on your own land is one thing - seeing and hearing huge ones near your home is quite another. I don't believe many landowners who welcome turbines for the money really know what they're letting themselves in for and by the time they find out it will be too late. If they decide after a while that they don't like them, or worse they are ruining their health (which can and does happen) there's nothing they can do. They're stuck with them for 25 years min. and there's no escape. It's worse for their neighbours who don't want them but get them anyway.
They never do, that's the point. They want the money, lots of it, but they don't want their lives ruined. A single, smallish turbine on your own land is one thing - seeing and hearing huge ones near your home is quite another. I don't believe many landowners who welcome turbines for the money really know what they're letting themselves in for and by the time they find out it will be too late. If they decide after a while that they don't like them, or worse they are ruining their health (which can and does happen) there's nothing they can do. They're stuck with them for 25 years min. and there's no escape. It's worse for their neighbours who don't want them but get them anyway.
But if the development only gets a handful of objections from those living nearby (<2 km) and you pitch that against the groundswell of national public support for wind energy and the positive effects of wind energy in terms of pollution-free energy (Spittal will provide energy for ~40,000 homes) and climate change (and I've read virtually all the contrarian claims), don't you think there should be more bias towards granting planning permission in order to avert an ecological disaster on a global scale not just to save the view for a few?
The needs of the many outnumber the needs of the few and our priorities need more balance to reflect that.
Here we go again #43 ; Rheghead knocking Nuclear.. How on earth does France manage?
France derives over 75% of its electricity from nuclear energy.
France is the world's largest net exporter of electricity due to its very low cost of generation, and gains over EUR 3 billion per year from this.
France has 59 nuclear reactors operated by Electricite de France (EdF), with total capacity of over 63 GWe, supplying over 430 billion kWh per year of electricity (net), 78% of the total generated there.
In 2007 French electricity generation was 570 billion kWh gross, and consumption was about 447 billion kWh - 6800 kWh per person. Over the last decade France has exported 60-80 billion kWh net each year and EdF expects exports to continue at 65-70 TWh/yr, to Belgium, Germany, Italy, Spain, Switzerland and UK
As a result of the 1974 decision, France now claims a substantial level of energy independence and almost the lowest cost electricity in Europe. It also has an extremely low level of CO2 emissions per capita from electricity generation, since over 90% of its electricity is nuclear or hydro.
France chose the closed fuel cycle at the very beginning of its nuclear program, involving reprocessing used fuel so as to recover uranium and plutonium for re-use and to reduce the volume of high-level wastes for disposal. Recycling allows 30% more energy to be extracted from the original uranium and leads to a great reduction in the amount of wastes to be disposed of. Overall the closed fuel cycle cost is assessed as comparable with that for direct disposal of used fuel, and preserves a resource which may become more valuable in the future.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf40.html (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf40.html)
Here we go again #43 ; Rheghead knocking Nuclear.. How on earth does France manage?
France manages to do this because the rest of the world doesn't follow their model of energy policy.
If the rest of the world gained 75% of its energy from nuclear, how long will uranium reserves last?
In 2006, about 4 million tons of conventional resources were thought to be sufficient at current consumption rates for about six decades (4.06 million tonnes at 65,000 tonnes per year).
France consumes 10,500 tonnes of uranium per year. That is 1,4X10^-4 tonnes per French person per year.
If the world followed the French model then world consumption of uranium would increase to 910,000 tonnes per year therefore conventional uranium reserves would be gone in 5 years.
Clearly we need a sustainable approach to energy policy if we are to tackle Climate Change.
Then there is the question of waste, where are we gonna put all that waste? I'm not against nuclear energy as a stop-gap because that is essentially what it only amounts to be before we need to go renewable.
Green_not_greed
21-Dec-09, 18:28
They never do, that's the point. They want the money, lots of it, but they don't want their lives ruined. A single, smallish turbine on your own land is one thing - seeing and hearing huge ones near your home is quite another. I don't believe many landowners who welcome turbines for the money really know what they're letting themselves in for and by the time they find out it will be too late. If they decide after a while that they don't like them, or worse they are ruining their health (which can and does happen) there's nothing they can do. They're stuck with them for 25 years min. and there's no escape. It's worse for their neighbours who don't want them but get them anyway.
Actually I believe that Tony Hall lives quite close to his Dunbeath turbines.
Green_not_greed
21-Dec-09, 18:46
Where will the fast breeder be built and how much thermal losses will be incurred from the transmission?
Well ideally in the English Midlands - where the biggest demand for power comes from.
Are you now acknowledging that power sources far from where the power is actually needed causes "thermal losses" and so make that power source less viable? If that's the case, why does Caithness - or indeed the Highlands - need any more wind turbines? We already generate far more electricity than we actually need.
How realistic will such a plant with its required repository gain planning permission?
Its completely realistic - all the government needs to do is take the same biased approach as for wind turbines, and say its all in the national interest.
Well ideally in the English Midlands - where the biggest demand for power comes from.
Are you now acknowledging that power sources far from where the power is actually needed causes "thermal losses" and so make that power source less viable? If that's the case, why does Caithness - or indeed the Highlands - need any more wind turbines? We already generate far more electricity than we actually need.
I've never contested physics.
However, thermal losses are only of concern if you are actually paying for a finite fuel which has a high fuel to peripheral costs ratio. Incidentally, thermal losses should only amount to 2% overall using the new HVDC lines over 1000 miles. I have no objection to a nuclear plant at Dounreay like I have no objection to renewable energy schemes. In the event of a Beauly-Denny approval, I am not sure the line would support a nuclear plant anyway so it is a non starter.
A nuclear plant in the West Midlands geography will struggle to get planning permission due to certain safety cooling restrictions.
BTW, you answered only 2 questions, didn't you like the honest answers to the rest?
#48: You are assuming "the rest of the World" will follow France's energy policy (huh!?) yea right. They can't even come to a consensus over 'Global Warming'.. so lets just imagine that Britain reproduces the French 'method' of providng their main source of energy from Nuclear.. how long then? oh yes, do tell who these 86 Countries will be or will bigger countries use more, expect Vanuatu won't use THAT much - will it?..
France manages to do this because the rest of the world doesn't follow their model of energy policy.
If the rest of the world gained 75% of its energy from nuclear, how long will uranium reserves last?
If the world followed the French model then world consumption of uranium would increase to 910,000 tonnes per year therefore conventional uranium reserves would be gone in 5 years.
PS no need to shout Reggie.
#48: You are assuming "the rest of the World" will follow France's energy policy (huh!?) yea right. They can't even come to a consensus over 'Global Warming'.. so lets just imagine that Britain reproduces the French 'method' of providng their main source of energy from Nuclear.. how long then? oh yes, do tell who these 86 Countries will be or will bigger countries use more, expect Vanuatu won't use THAT much - will it?..
One of the stumbling blocks for the consensus over how we tackle global warming is over the the lack of availability nuclear energy has in the vast amount of other countries. How can nuclear energy solve climate change if it isn't open and sustainable for everyone on the planet? Carbon dioxide has no respect for international borders.
BTW, I never adjusted for population increases over the next 50 years that are expected to happen, so uranium reserves will run out sooner.
fingalmacool
21-Dec-09, 21:02
I haven't read all the posts on this thread because it is too long winded, but if the estimation is right and Spittal can provide enough power for 40'000 homes then maybe all the counties throughout Scotland should erect enough turbines to supply themselves, yes I know i haven't thought it through and the cost of setting up stations etc will make it, well i don't know what it would make it but no doubt some smarty pants will inform me, but if you believe the hype then we are supposed to be thinking of the future, so if all the counties were self sufficient then its a no brainer, and the amount of turbines in Caithness will be, I'll let you work it out for yourselves:confused
Interesting:
Nuclear power plants already on the drawing boards can meet the electrical energy requirements of the U.S. and the world for the foreseeable future. The thermal neutron reactors being built today fulfill a short-term need for nuclear energy and will continue to be built and used until low-cost uranium is no longer readily available. It is likely that uranium prices will accelerate the switch to fast breeder reactors during the 1980's and 1990's. The fast breeder reactor requires very little uranium for its operation and is insensitive to its cost. Uranium already mined would supply die fast breeder reactor requirements for several decades; available resources, at a cost which fast breeder reactor operation can readily afford, will meet our electrical requirements for centuries.
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a777655069 (http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a777655069)
Well I never!:
"The British Geological Society found Uranium at a concentration of 1000 ppm at Mill of Cairston, near Stromness in 1972, leading to a proposal for an open cast mine by Rio Tinto Zinc in 1980"
Well I never!:
"The British Geological Society found Uranium at a concentration of 1000 ppm at Mill of Cairston, near Stromness in 1972, leading to a proposal for an open cast mine by Rio Tinto Zinc in 1980"
I doubt if the locals would have taken kindly to that. :eek:
Green_not_greed
22-Dec-09, 10:10
BTW, you answered only 2 questions, didn't you like the honest answers to the rest?
I didn't think the rest were worth the effort. But here goes....
A nuclear plant in the West Midlands geography will struggle to get planning permission due to certain safety cooling restrictions.
Fast reactors don't rely on water for cooling.
do you think that fast breeding is cheaper
From your own arguments cost is not a factor when it comes to "saving the planet"
How much back up will a fast breeding reactor need when it shuts down for maintenance?
Another fast reactor would do it. Most commercial size power plants are installed in units of 2 or 4 to ensure that supply continues during maintenance periods.
For fast breeding to be part of the solution to climate change, would you condone the technology be used by all countries?
Security must be considered. Giving terrorist-friendly countries plutonium to play with would not be a sensible move.
What will the effect of fast breeding electricity production have on domestic fuel bills?
Cheaper than the same contribution produced by wind.
#51 'A nuclear plant in the West Midlands geography will struggle to get planning permission due to certain safety cooling restrictions.. Thought 16 French Nuclear power stations were well inland?
And 'Ed Miliband to unveil plans to fast-track new nuclear power stations'*
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/09/nuclear-sites-ed-miliband (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/09/nuclear-sites-ed-miliband)
peter macdonald
22-Dec-09, 14:38
Not wanting to get involved in the argument SERIOUSLY... but who actually pays for the nuclear power stations ...Is it the companies who get the licence to run the stations ? the government?? Why I ask as the latest one built in Finland at Olkiluoto has gone 50% over budget (and apparently has safety worries according to the Finnish regulator) so who pays the bills here???
PM
This is me only being curious
The government will not be building any reactors itself - but it says it will take steps, such as streamlining the planning process and identifying likely sites, to encourage private operators to build them.
Mr Hutton conceded that no nuclear plant had been built anywhere in the world without public money but he insisted there would be no subsidies from the UK government.
"It is a matter for the power companies to bring forward proposals on the basis that there will be no public subsidies," he told BBC Radio 4's The World at One.
Public funds would only be provided in the "very unlikely circumstances of an emergency at a nuclear plant," added Mr Hutton.
According to its white paper, the government will not offer extra incentives to invest in nuclear power, but some tax advantages may be available to firms hit by decommissioning costs to ensure a "level fiscal playing field" with other forms of electricity generation. ttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7179579.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7179579.stm)
peter macdonald
22-Dec-09, 15:48
OK Thanks Bekisman ... Appreciated
The government will not be building any reactors itself - but it says it will take steps, such as streamlining the planning process and identifying likely sites, to encourage private operators to build them.
Mr Hutton conceded that no nuclear plant had been built anywhere in the world without public money but he insisted there would be no subsidies from the UK government.
"It is a matter for the power companies to bring forward proposals on the basis that there will be no public subsidies," he told BBC Radio 4's The World at One.
Public funds would only be provided in the "very unlikely circumstances of an emergency at a nuclear plant," added Mr Hutton.
According to its white paper, the government will not offer extra incentives to invest in nuclear power, but some tax advantages may be available to firms hit by decommissioning costs to ensure a "level fiscal playing field" with other forms of electricity generation. ttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7179579.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7179579.stm)
The Government has arranged that energy companies be capped on their obligation towards managing nuclear waste. In other words this is the first of many backdoor subsidies.
Fast reactors don't rely on water for cooling.
Yes they do.
From your own arguments cost is not a factor when it comes to "saving the planet"
From your own arguments, cost is an issue, even when you don't think the world isn't in trouble but others do.
Another fast reactor would do it. Most commercial size power plants are installed in units of 2 or 4 to ensure that supply continues during maintenance periods.
More cost to the consumer and carbon emissions.
Security must be considered. Giving terrorist-friendly countries plutonium to play with would not be a sensible move.
Wind farms are unlikely targets for terrorists.
Cheaper than the same contribution produced by wind.
I don't think so somehow. Once the capital costs of build and decommissioning are included and the building of a repository and the security for thousands of years then I think it will all add up. Perhaps it won't go on the bills but certainly the remainder will come out of taxation.
Then we have the problem of other countries using up the uranium at faster consumption rates that aren't fast breeding...
Hey Rheghead, what's all this about you saying Uranium only lasting five years? you wrote this:
10 Nov 07: How long do you think global uranium reserves are going to last even if the lead time was shorter?According to wikipedia, they will last 80 years at current consumption rates and conventional/economical viable reserves. If we boost nuke energy to 40 percent to take up what wind will provide, then assuming all other countries will do the same if they thought wind was rubbish then global uranium reserves are down to less than 40 years, at a conservative estimate.
Well I never!
Hey Rheghead, what's all this about you saying Uranium only lasting five years? you wrote this:
10 Nov 07: How long do you think global uranium reserves are going to last even if the lead time was shorter?According to wikipedia, they will last 80 years at current consumption rates and conventional/economical viable reserves. If we boost nuke energy to 40 percent to take up what wind will provide, then assuming all other countries will do the same if they thought wind was rubbish then global uranium reserves are down to less than 40 years, at a conservative estimate.
Well I never!
Different parameters, different scenario! You stated the French model, 76%, remember? Have you had a good time cherry picking through old posts?
ywindythesecond
22-Dec-09, 22:10
I haven't read all the posts on this thread because it is too long winded, but if the estimation is right and Spittal can provide enough power for 40'000 homes then maybe all the counties throughout Scotland should erect enough turbines to supply themselves, yes I know i haven't thought it through and the cost of setting up stations etc will make it, well i don't know what it would make it but no doubt some smarty pants will inform me, but if you believe the hype then we are supposed to be thinking of the future, so if all the counties were self sufficient then its a no brainer, and the amount of turbines in Caithness will be, I'll let you work it out for yourselves:confused
"Spittal can provide enough power for 40'000 homes", true, but only when the wind is blowing at its optimum speed. And although the wind blows at some sort of speed for most of the time, you never know what it will be doing at any time in the future.
What you can do is make a very close estimate of what demand will be at any time in the reasonably long term future and plan to have enough sources of power available to meet that demand at that time.
As you cannot rely on having wind energy available at any particular time in the future, you have to have another plan, which is to have enough conventional capacity available to meet the demand. Why pay for both, and why have a form of generation which cannot be relied upon?
I have just looked at http://www.xcweather.co.uk/ , Observations, and there is little wind over UK at the moment, so our fleet of wind turbines are seriously underperforming just when the country needs them most.
You could multiply their numbers manyfold and still have almost no power from them. These conditions happen frequently.
Caithness already has more than enough potential windpower to supply its needs in theory, but almost certainly we are, at the time of writing, reliant upon a nuclear power station in France topping up the UK grid to allow us to carry on as normal in Caithness.
"Spittal can provide enough power for 40'000 homes", true, but only when the wind is blowing at its optimum speed.
Wrong, it will supply that energy for 40,000 homes over the year at all its varying speeds.
Come on Reggy:
#65 "Different parameters, different scenario! You stated the French model, 76%, remember? Have you had a good time cherry picking through old posts?"
I also mentioned #52: "expect Vanuatu won't use THAT much - will it?.."
You must try to remember what you wrote.
#67 "Wrong, it will supply that energy for 40,000 homes over the year at all its varying speeds". Huh?
We’re a big supporter of wind, but at the time when customers have the greatest needs, it’s typically not available. Wayne Brunetti, CEO of Xcel Energy WIND FARMS PERFORM BRILLIANTLY if their average output reaches as much as 35% of their generating capacity.
On the very rare occasions, when conditions are ideal (typically a sustained wind speed of around 30 mph) wind farms can produce 100% of their generating capacity. But as the wind slows, electricity output falls off exponentially. In comparison coal fired plants run at about 75% capacity and nuclear plants can operate as high as 92% capacity. The evidence is that, throughout Europe, wind turbines have produced on average less than 20% of their theoretical (or rated) capacity in recent years. On-shore turbines in the UK ran at 24.1% of their capacity, in Germany was 14.7%. The figure for Denmark as 16.8%
Just a thought as I'm off to bed; not being one of these that stays up all night...
THE WIND FARM SCAM by Roger Helmer MEP
Even if you accept the theory of man-made climate change, wind turbines are a rotten way to reduce CO2 emissions, or to improve energy security. Wind farms are only viable with a complex structure of indirect subsidies, which amount to very nearly doubling the cost of electricity. The complex subsidy régime appears to be designed as a stealth subsidy, making it very difficult for the public or the media to see the sums involved. While the industry disingenuously argues that there are “no direct subsidies”, wind involves a total subsidy of as much as £60 per MWh, which falls directly on electricity consumers. The burden on consumers will grow as our government attempts to achieve its heroic renewables targets (as a recent OfGem report has confirmed).
http://rogerhelmermep.wordpress.com/ (http://rogerhelmermep.wordpress.com/)
ywindythesecond
22-Dec-09, 23:55
Wrong, it will supply that energy for 40,000 homes over the year at all its varying speeds.
It can't supply the same energy at varying speeds.
Otherwise, you are nearly right Reggy.
This is a true statement:
"It would supply enough energy for 40,000 homes over the year in spite of all its varying speeds, but it cannot be relied upon to do it when it is needed.
Tubthumper
23-Dec-09, 00:08
It can't supply the same energy at varying speeds.
Errr... I think you're wrong. Variable pitch blades, gearboxes, very wide range of useful 'blaw'...
What hacks me off is the claims of lots of jobs. Same as this proposed Georgemas Combined Heat & Power plant - one man & his dog, and the man's only there to keep the dog's water bowl filled.
ywindythesecond
23-Dec-09, 00:34
Errr... I think you're wrong. Variable pitch blades, gearboxes, very wide range of useful 'blaw'...
What hacks me off is the claims of lots of jobs. Same as this proposed Georgemas Combined Heat & Power plant - one man & his dog, and the man's only there to keep the dog's water bowl filled.
Sorry Tubthumper, no amount of engineering can induce a wind turbine to produce electricity when there is no wind.
Tubthumper
23-Dec-09, 00:40
Sorry Tubthumper, no amount of engineering can induce a wind turbine to produce electricity when there is no wind.
OK. But when there is some wind...
But if the development only gets a handful of objections from those living nearby (<2 km) and you pitch that against the groundswell of national public support for wind energy and the positive effects of wind energy in terms of pollution-free energy (Spittal will provide energy for ~40,000 homes) and climate change (and I've read virtually all the contrarian claims), don't you think there should be more bias towards granting planning permission in order to avert an ecological disaster on a global scale not just to save the view for a few?
The needs of the many outnumber the needs of the few and our priorities need more balance to reflect that.
The whole point of having a planning process is so that ideas like this never make it off the drawing board. There is no justification for saying that because some gung-ho wind farm developer wants to stick up 30 turbines adjacent to other's homes these people's lives should be trashed to salve the consciences of everyone else. If, and it's a big if, we are to have more wind farms in Scotland or even Caithness, then there are places that may be able to accomodate turbines without being close to homes. Spittal Hill is not a suitable site for a large wind farm for numerous reasons and the planning system should, and I'm sure will, throw this proposal into the shredder where it belongs.
go to www.spittalwindfarmopposition.co.uk (http://www.spittalwindfarmopposition.co.uk) to object and help out the hard pressed locals.
Come on Reggy:
#65 "Different parameters, different scenario! You stated the French model, 76%, remember? Have you had a good time cherry picking through old posts?"
I also mentioned #52: "expect Vanuatu won't use THAT much - will it?.."
You must try to remember what you wrote.
How do you know that vanuatu people don't aspire to using that amount? Come on, be sensible.
The whole point of having a planning process is so that ideas like this never make it off the drawing board. There is no justification for saying that because some gung-ho wind farm developer wants to stick up 30 turbines adjacent to other's homes these people's lives should be trashed to salve the consciences of everyone else. If, and it's a big if, we are to have more wind farms in Scotland or even Caithness, then there are places that may be able to accomodate turbines without being close to homes. Spittal Hill is not a suitable site for a large wind farm for numerous reasons and the planning system should, and I'm sure will, throw this proposal into the shredder where it belongs.
go to www.spittalwindfarmopposition.co.uk (http://www.spittalwindfarmopposition.co.uk) to object and help out the hard pressed locals.
The other side of the planning process is to get developments of national interest built which may be against the wishes of the local population. Everyone accepts such developments like prisons, waste water plants and airports need to be built but they need to go somewhere.
What we see here is nimbyism taking place.
This is a true statement:
"It would supply enough energy for 40,000 homes over the year in spite of all its varying speeds, but it cannot be relied upon to do it when it is needed.
True and that is why they are essential for baseload energy provision.
I see Rheghead is now accusing us folks who don't want our beautiful country despoiled, and are fully aware there are areas where these things can be situated without ruining their lives, of being called Nimby's, quote: #77: "What we see here is nimbyism taking place"
Gracious me Reggy, I suggest you do a little research and direct your insults to the developers; two brothers, one who lives 20 miles away from the proposed windfarm and the other is down in Edinburgh (PS that is nimbyism)
I see Rheghead is now accusing us folks who don't want our beautiful country despoiled, and are fully aware there are areas where these things can be situated without ruining their lives, of being called Nimby's, quote: #77: "What we see here is nimbyism taking place"
Gracious me Reggy, I suggest you do a little research and direct your insults to the developers; two brothers, one who lives 20 miles away from the proposed windfarm and the other is down in Edinburgh (PS that is nimbyism)
Is that the same brand of nimbyism that stopped Ormlie renewables from partnering a development in Shebster? :roll:
The other side of the planning process is to get developments of national interest built which may be against the wishes of the local population. Everyone accepts such developments like prisons, waste water plants and airports need to be built but they need to go somewhere.
What we see here is nimbyism taking place.
Oh dear, we're having to resort to insults now. Shame you can't come up with a good argument; but hey, if you want to drop down to the developers level and sling mud like them, so be it. I've heard it all before - sticks and stones Rheghead, sticks and stones.
As Bekisman says these two are the ultimate nimbys.
Where's the insult? :roll:
Can you give any reference to back up the accusation that the developers have been slinging mud or giving insults? I suspect you can't.
Jeeez...
My thanks to Mrs A.L. Cumming for this excellent piece by someone who will be directly involved in Spittal Hill Wind Farm.. read and take note!
"I am an objector to the Spittal Hill wind farm. Not a NIMBY, not a scaremonger, not a nit-picker. Just an ordinary resident of the area who knows, from personal observation and the experience of others forced to endure life close to a wind farm, that I am among those who will be most affected by the presence of this industrial development.
If the application was for one hundred small individual wind turbines, to serve the individuals within the community or the inhabitants of the local villages, I, and probably every other objector, would applaud both the financial and the environmental benefits.
It is not.
Spittal Hill wind farm is an industrial development to produce power for profit. The power will be sold by the company producing it and the profit pocketed by the company owning it. The profit will be great and the company slice of the cake will be very large. The company will then throw the crumbs in the form of community benefits to those who live in the area.
These are the people who will see what the company already know — that structures of great size, positioned on elevated ground lacking any natural feature to mitigate their impact, will dominate the surrounding landscape. These are the people who live near and in some cases right under it who will never be able to ignore its presence.
These are the people who will endure the noise produced. Yes, there is noise: low-frequency, constant, set-your-teeth-on-edge, shorten-your-temper, keep-you-awake, no-escape-from-it noise. Ask those who live on the Causewaymire.
These are the people who will be most exposed to “flicker nuisance” — a soft label to hide the truth. This flicker has the same effect on the susceptible as strobe lighting. Even television programmes must give warning of this flicker effect. It can induce seizure, cause headaches, cause loss of concentration in drivers. It is too late after the event to discover that the man driving the truck was epileptic if the accident has resulted in loss of life.
These are the people who, if they find out too late that they cannot live close to this industrial development, will probably also discover that their houses are devalued and they cannot find a buyer. Will the community benefits trust make them a grant to enable them to move?
These are the people who are being asked to support the profit-making venture of a company fronted within the county by the ultimate NIMBY. Spittal Hill wind farm will not be in his back yard. It will be in theirs.
Wake up, folks. Smell the manure before it closes over your heads.
Mrs A.L. Cumming, Corsback Cottage, Gillock, by Watten."
Tubthumper
24-Dec-09, 00:43
Mrs Cumming, you obviously haven't considered the greater benefits of this proposal. And they are great. For the County, the UK and the world. Apparently.
By the way, are there any rich business types actually resident in your vicinity??
dont think getting rich makes anyone happy.going by the map there will be folks looking at these huge turbines from their front windows ,so what do we call them if they object?
I don't think we've had a definitive answer from chef4celebrations, (in reply to 'suppose you could have the luxury of being pragmatic when you live nowhere near em) he answered #19 "Well I DO and I am on the causeymyre.. not noisey at all.. I am the closest house to the windfarm.. [sound] only what I can describe as a sound like a fast flowing stream"
hilary #22 asked "how far are you approx from turbines"?
Both bekisman #23 and Bobonovich kinda worked it out it could be a fair distance away. c1770m?. just wondered if chef4celebrations could come back and give a more concrete answer..
Closest neighbours to Spittal will be about half that distance. People further south who are about 900 metres from a much smaller windfarm have had to move out of their house due to aerodynamic modulation problems. Something to do with the noise made by the blades passing the tower. So, why are we having a thirty turbine wind farm even contemplated at this close distance to homes?
Happy Christmas!
Closest neighbours to Spittal will be about half that distance. People further south who are about 900 metres from a much smaller windfarm have had to move out of their house due to aerodynamic modulation problems. Something to do with the noise made by the blades passing the tower. So, why are we having a thirty turbine wind farm even contemplated at this close distance to homes?
Happy Christmas!
Is that the family from Deeping something that had a team of environment monitors on their property for 6 weeks taking recordings? They reported back that they couldn't find any noises above acceptable limits.
Happy Christmas to you as well.
Is that the family from Deeping something that had a team of environment monitors on their property for 6 weeks taking recordings? They reported back that they couldn't find any noises above acceptable limits.
Happy Christmas to you as well.
Can you give a reference to 'They reported back that they couldn't find any noises above acceptable limits'?
As far as I know people have had to move from their homes due to noise or aerodynamic modulation, which I confess I know nothing about, after wind farms have begun working when they have been built too close to homes. Surely, you must admit it has got to be something drastic for someone to leave their home over it?
The whole point of locals objection to the Spittal Hill wind farm is that it will be too close to their homes and is so enormous. When was there ever any sense of proportion in this scheme? It all boils down to 'lets shove as many in to the land available and to hell with the neighbours'. If they had suggested three turbines on Spittal Hill instead of thirty then maybe there wouldn't have been such a hue and cry.
Have a read of this fact sheet from the 'Acoustic Ecology Institute': Wind Turbine Noise'
"recent UK government survey suggests that about 20% of wind farms tend to generate noise complaints." very interesting reading!
http://www.acousticecology.org/docs/AEI%20Wind%20Turbine%20Noise%20FactSheet.pdf (http://www.acousticecology.org/docs/AEI%20Wind%20Turbine%20Noise%20FactSheet.pdf)
Can you give a reference to 'They reported back that they couldn't find any noises above acceptable limits'?
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.
the opinion of the environmental health professionals was that at no time did the noise experienced or recorded amount to a statutory noise nuisance
I think you'll find that they were after a reduction in their Council Tax.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/7529713.stm
Cinderella's Shoe
27-Dec-09, 17:36
I don't believe it had anything to do with Council tax - read this statement and make up your own mind.
Statement from Jane Davis of Deeping St. Nicholas
Author: Davis, Jane
To whom it may concern.
My name is Jane Davis and I live 930 m from Deeping st Nicholas Wind farm just south of Spalding in South Lincolnshire.
There are 6 other houses a similar distance away from the turbines but ours is the only one downwind of the prevailing wind and our nearest neighbours are a quarter to half a mile away.
The wind farm was built last summer and became operational in early June — within 3 days we started having problems with the noise and hum emanating from the windfarm.
We did not object to the windfarm in the planning stage as we did not believe that there would be any issues for us, and we believed that wind power was a good way of meeting the energy gap. We did read some negative reports on the internet but could not believe there would be any issues for us as we were never specifically consulted, nor were any background noise readings taken at our house.
Since last June we have had constant issues with loud noises and low frequency sounds that create a hum in the house all the time. We have kept a log throughout. Many times last summer as we are downwind of the prevailing wind we were woken by loud “WHOOSHING” noises, that stopped us sleeping for more than 4 hours a night. We informed our local environmental health department in June and they came out and were astonished at the loud noise recordings that they made.
Due to the government’s preferred measure for assessing the noise from wind turbines known as ETSU-R-97, which averages noise peaks out over a period of time there is no recourse to justice under existing British law to assist us. We now know that although we were initially told less than 5% of wind farms have this problem the reality is likely to be in excess of 10% and research has been undertaken by the DTI & DEFRA which will be reported soon that will give further and better information on this. We hope that other research will follow. We have found the DTI & DEFRA and the wind farm operators to be supportive so far — but there isn’t anything that anyone can do, as …
We now know that we suffer from a phenomenon known as aerodynamic or amplitude modulation. We also know that “in general, turbines are noisier now than in 1993″. (Hayes McKenzie Partnership — Acoustic Experts in a report for Angus Council, Forfar, Scotland. June 2004). This seems to support the fact that the government found it necessary to set a specific measurement for wind turbine noise, and that there is a Noise Working Group that operates between DTI & DEFRA.
Aerodynamic modulation is not fully understood; Dr McKenzie from the Hayes McKenzie partnership in the closing statements in April 2007 for South Cambridgeshire District Council explained that:
Aerodynamic modulation exists, but there is no clear understanding as to what causes it.
It causes sleep disruption.
It is not covered by ETSU.
This site (Deeping St Nicholas) is a likely candidate.
There is a need to assess and potentially apply a correction to ETSU.
We do know and accept that not every wind farm creates noise issues but those that do make life impossible for those who live near them — and by near I mean less that 2km or 1.5 miles.
As a result of our difficulties we have been forced to find an alternative place to sleep — our sleeping house — which is 5 miles away in Spalding itself. After spending many nights “sofa-surfing” we reached the conclusion in December that we had to do this in order to be able to work and live safely — with a normal amount of sleep.
Because of our experiences we have been asked to many meetings across England and now Scotland by those areas where wind farm development is proposed. Most recently I have been to a public meeting in Farnell Village Hall to present my experiences in Deeping to St Nicholas to residents who live near the Monthreathmont, Angus site. Montreathmont is the forest/woodland on Montreathmont Moor where 19 x 120m turbines are proposed — about 6 miles from the Montrose Basin as the crow flies. The Mountboy site is on Rossie Moor is west of and within sight of Montreathmont. It almost borders the Montrose Basin SPA. Where 3 slightly smaller turbines are proposed.
What I find astounding is that wind farm developers and land owners will often attend these meetings with literature (as was the case in Farnell) that can really only be presented as including Terminological inexactitudes such as:
… “Modern wind farms are generally quiet”
… “property Values are not affected” (Our house which would previously have been worth about £180,000K is now likely to have a value of just the land £35K to 50K … and would not be marketable as a home for people to live in any longer.)
And finally:
… “I can categorically state that there is no significant infrasound from modern turbines.”
If the latter is true why do we have a report from Hayes McKenzie themselves that acknowledges that we do have low frequency here and this is also backed up by the fact that we are mole free?
One of our local land owners — who has some of our offending turbines on his land is now showing coach loads of people from other areas around “his” windfarm and reassures them that there is no noise from his turbines. He does not seem to see that there is anything wrong with that, but then I suppose given the income he is going to have annually over the next 25 years — he would say that wouldn’t he …
Jane Davis, April 2007
(copyright)
I don't believe it had anything to do with Council tax
Then why try to get a reduction in her Council Tax? :roll:
Was she not trying to show that her house had been devalued and even unsaleable?
It still remains that they must have been desperate to have to move out of their home.
ETSU-R-97, the guidance that wind farm developers use to assess the potential noise from their wind farm is out of date. It was based on turbines that were only tiny compared to the monsters of today. The Government should review this guidance and update it. In the meantime a precautionary approach should be adopted and no large wind turbine(s) should be built within 2km of anyone's home who is not participating in the scheme.
Please object to Spittal Hill wind farm at www.spittalwindfarmopposition.co.uk (http://www.spittalwindfarmopposition.co.uk)
Was she not trying to show that her house had been devalued and even unsaleable?
It still remains that they must have been desperate to have to move out of their home.
Moving out of their home or even selling it was never an issue. They are farmers and it is in their blood to inhabit their land at the cheapest possible rate going. Why do you think so many farmers are happy to have turbines on their land?
Moving out of their home or even selling it was never an issue. They are farmers and it is in their blood to inhabit their land at the cheapest possible rate going. Why do you think so many farmers are happy to have turbines on their land?
So if more and more farmers give over their land to wind turbines and for growing rapeseed etc. to be used as biodiesel isn't that going to create a food shortage? Also, the wind farm owners will need to recoup the cash they have spent and guess who'll be paying for that in higher electricity bills??? :roll:
But don't worry folks, at least we've saved the planet. Just no-one will be around to live on it.....we'll either have starved to death or commited suicide because we can't afford to live. :(
ETSU-R-97, the guidance that wind farm developers use to assess the potential noise from their wind farm is out of date. It was based on turbines that were only tiny compared to the monsters of today. The Government should review this guidance and update it. In the meantime a precautionary approach should be adopted and no large wind turbine(s) should be built within 2km of anyone's home who is not participating in the scheme.
Please object to Spittal Hill wind farm at www.spittalwindfarmopposition.co.uk (http://www.spittalwindfarmopposition.co.uk)
I believe that the planning guidelines are for a distance of at least 400 metres between turbine and a dwelling, but I know that double that distance is insufficient.
I agree that 2 km would be a far better distance for reducing noise.
ywindythesecond
28-Dec-09, 10:08
This shows how futile reliance on windpower is:
http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/9329/28120835.jpg
http://www.bmreports.com/bsp/bsp_home.htm
34 MW out of a connected total of 1588 in England and Wales over the half-hour period ending at 0830 today.
0.1% of required generation.
Gordon Brown wants 20% of our power from renewables by 2020, and Alex Salmond wants 50%.
Sheer lunacy.
ywindythesecond
28-Dec-09, 10:13
It just got worse:
http://img682.imageshack.us/img682/2950/28120911.jpg
ywindythesecond
28-Dec-09, 10:26
I believe that the planning guidelines are for a distance of at least 400 metres between turbine and a dwelling, but I know that double that distance is insufficient.
I agree that 2 km would be a far better distance for reducing noise.
Where do you get the 400m from Stavro? Scottish Planning Policy 6 (SPP6) says :
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.
34 MW out of a connected total of 1588 in England and Wales over the half-hour period ending at 0830 today.
0.1% of required generation.
Gordon Brown wants 20% of our power from renewables by 2020, and Alex Salmond wants 50%.
Sheer lunacy.
Are you going to report tomorrow's figures? :roll:
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/Rheghead/windtomorrow.jpg
ywindythesecond
28-Dec-09, 14:21
Are you going to report tomorrow's figures? :roll:
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/Rheghead/windtomorrow.jpg
Certainly. It will be interesting to see how good the forecast was.
Moving out of their home or even selling it was never an issue. They are farmers and it is in their blood to inhabit their land at the cheapest possible rate going. Why do you think so many farmers are happy to have turbines on their land?
I can't believe you have posted this. Did you not read the post by 'Cinders shoe' with the quote from the lady herself? Why can you not accept the fact that there can be problems with wind turbines?
Looking at all the evidence, and thanks Bekisman for that link, it would appear that there is a problem at some wind farms with noise and aerodynamic modulation. It looks like if you are unfortunate enough to live too close, if you live downwind of the turbines and if this little understood AM comes into play. Also, it seems things can be worse at night due to atmospheric conditions.
I can't believe you have posted this. Did you not read the post by 'Cinders shoe' with the quote from the lady herself? Why can you not accept the fact that there can be problems with wind turbines?
I have no doubt that some people have a problem with them.
But what am I supposed to think when there are people living closer to the wind farm who did not report any problems and professional noise monitors reported that noise guidelines weren't exceeded?
I used to live on a busy road, the traffic was awfully noisy but after a while I got used to it. In the summertime, the thing that could drive me to distraction was the gentle sound of a bluebottle buzzing around the bedroom and I couldn't sleep.
Noise is very subjective to every individual and you can only ensure that levels are not exceeded which is done at the planning stage.
I have no doubt that some people have a problem with them.
But what am I supposed to think when there are people living closer to the wind farm who did not report any problems and professional noise monitors reported that noise guidelines weren't exceeded?
I used to live on a busy road, the traffic was awfully noisy but after a while I got used to it. In the summertime, the thing that could drive me to distraction was the gentle sound of a bluebottle buzzing around the bedroom and I couldn't sleep.
Noise is very subjective to every individual and you can only ensure that levels are not exceeded which is done at the planning stage.
From Cinders post -
Aerodynamic modulation is not fully understood; Dr McKenzie from the Hayes McKenzie partnership in the closing statements in April 2007 for South Cambridgeshire District Council explained that:
Aerodynamic modulation exists, but there is no clear understanding as to what causes it.
It causes sleep disruption.
It is not covered by ETSU.
This site (Deeping St Nicholas) is a likely candidate.
There is a need to assess and potentially apply a correction to ETSU.
Obviously, this is a significant problem to those it affects. Accept it. As for planning - as I've said before the ETSU-R-97 guidance is out of date, hence the need for a greater seperation distance between turbines and homes.
Obviously, this is a significant problem to those it affects. Accept it. As for planning - as I've said before the ETSU-R-97 guidance is out of date, hence the need for a greater seperation distance between turbines and homes.
I accept she has a personal issue with turbines but she is an individual and her experiences haven't been confirmed by any independent study or any of her neighbours who live closer to the development.
The ETSU-R-97 guidance may be out of date and any changes must be made by thorough peer-reviewed and multidisciplined process rather than political pressure from lobby groups. The upshot of any call for change may even be an open door to a relaxation in the distances to turbines due to technology improvements.
http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/19445
Rheghead #104: "But what am I supposed to think when there are people living closer to the wind farm who did not report any problems and professional noise monitors reported that noise guidelines weren't exceeded?""
Quote: 'The windfarm at Deeping St Nicholas consists of eight 2MW REpower MM82 turbines. There are six other houses situated a similar distance away from the turbines. Ours is the only one downwind of the prevailing wind from the turbines and our nearest neighbours are a quarter to half a mile away, further away from the wind farm.'
Something to do with it?
..The presence of AM means that for instance when putting ear defenders on to work on a car with a defective alarm, the defenders blocked out the car alarm sound, but the turbine “noise” could be clearly heard and felt even with the defenders in place...
...Currently 38 operational wind farms in the UK have noise complaints being made about them of some type. AM affects the ability of nearby residents to rest or enjoy the peace that is the amenity of their home...
Full Text:
http://www.epaw.org/victims.php?lang=en&article=t1 (http://www.epaw.org/victims.php?lang=en&article=t1)
Rheghead #104: "But what am I supposed to think when there are people living closer to the wind farm who did not report any problems and professional noise monitors reported that noise guidelines weren't exceeded?""
Quote: 'The windfarm at Deeping St Nicholas consists of eight 2MW REpower MM82 turbines. There are six other houses situated a similar distance away from the turbines. Ours is the only one downwind of the prevailing wind from the turbines and our nearest neighbours are a quarter to half a mile away, further away from the wind farm.'
Something to do with it?
..The presence of AM means that for instance when putting ear defenders on to work on a car with a defective alarm, the defenders blocked out the car alarm sound, but the turbine “noise” could be clearly heard and felt even with the defenders in place...
...Currently 38 operational wind farms in the UK have noise complaints being made about them of some type. AM affects the ability of nearby residents to rest or enjoy the peace that is the amenity of their home...
Full Text:
http://www.epaw.org/victims.php?lang=en&article=t1 (http://www.epaw.org/victims.php?lang=en&article=t1)
Why would it have anything to do with it other than she will be downwind of the turbines more regularly? When the wind blows in the opposite direction which happens regularly, why is there no problem for the neighbours that are closer? And again, why didn't the monitors pick this up?
Of course it leaves the possibility that they could have been on site listening when the wind wasn't blowing in the prevailing wind in all those weeks which may be just unfortunate. She got her 20% reduction in her council tax anyway.
Iany changes must be made by thorough peer-reviewed and multidisciplined process rather than political pressure from lobby groups.
Except when it comes to global warming/climate change! :(
Yeah, I know, I'm being selective. :Razz
ywindythesecond
28-Dec-09, 19:24
She got her 20% reduction in her council tax anyway.
She got her council Tax reduction, and that isn't handed out with a box of cornflakes, because the person adjudicating on it agreed that her house had been devalued as a result of the windfarm noise issues.
I have read the transcript of the case and if someone better organised than me could link to it please, it would educate Reggy to actually read it. But no doubt we will learn that the adjudicator person was deceived by the wicked Davises.
She got her council Tax reduction, and that isn't handed out with a box of cornflakes, because the person adjudicating on it agreed that her house had been devalued as a result of the windfarm noise issues.
I have read the transcript of the case and if someone better organised than me could link to it please, it would educate Reggy to actually read it. But no doubt we will learn that the adjudicator person was deceived by the wicked Davises.
What does it say about the tribunal if they accept the emotional case of the appellent over the professional advice of their own investigators?
ywindythesecond
28-Dec-09, 19:36
Quote:
Originally Posted by ywindythesecond http://forum.caithness.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?p=637600#post637600)
She got her council Tax reduction, and that isn't handed out with a box of cornflakes, because the person adjudicating on it agreed that her house had been devalued as a result of the windfarm noise issues.
I have read the transcript of the case and if someone better organised than me could link to it please, it would educate Reggy to actually read it. But no doubt we will learn that the adjudicator person was deceived by the wicked Davises.
Reggy [What does it say about the tribunal if they accept the emotional transcript of the appellent over the professional advice of their own investigators?] Quote
I am so good at predicting maybe I'll try the horses next!
But no doubt we will learn that the adjudicator person was deceived by the wicked Davises.......
I am so good at predicting maybe I'll try the horses next!
Another dodge and sway...
So you do think that the Davises deceived the tribunal?
Would it be a fair comment that if someone was to claim a reduction on their Council Tax then it will be in their interest to make it 'worst case scenario'?
What does it say about the tribunal if they accept the emotional case of the appellent over the professional advice of their own investigators?
In this case I think it's been looked at sympathetically instead of scientifically, that the claimants emotional and mental state has suffered to a large degree. Would you disgree with the outcome if it were a member of your family and you had first hand knowledge of the suffering they had gone through?
In this case I think it's been looked at sympathetically instead of scientifically, that the claimants emotional and mental state has suffered to a large degree. Would you disgree with the outcome if it were a member of your family and you had first hand knowledge of the suffering they had gone through?
Reading between the lines on this case, I think Mrs Davis has got into a right old emotional state of her own making, irrational obsessions and Hell hath no fury etc notwithstanding.
Would I disagree with the outcome if Mrs Davis were a member of my own family? Crikey no! Owt for nowt and all that.:lol:
How would you feel if someone was paying less for their council tax if you were living nearer to the wind farm than them, especially when the adjudication only took account of her emotional charged case and seemed to ignore scientific evidence?
Reading between the lines on this case, I think Mrs Davis has got into a right old emotional state of her own making, irrational obsessions and Hell hath no fury etc notwithstanding.
Would I disagree with the outcome if Mrs Davis were a member of my own family? Crikey no! Owt for nowt and all that.:lol:
How would you feel if someone was paying less for their council tax if you were living nearer to the wind farm than them, especially when the adjudication only took account of her emotional charged case and seemed to ignore scientific evidence?
I'd start acting 'emotional' too and try get a reduction. Stamping your feet obviously works. :)
I'd start acting 'emotional' too and try get a reduction. Stamping your feet obviously works. :)
Would you be tempted to exaggerate your own experiences and yet make out you keep a pious opinion of wind energy overall?
Up to their dirty tricks!
Too long to reproduce here, but helps show what lengths some people go to get their wind farms built.. basically lack of truthfulness
ASA Adjudication on Infinergy Ltd 25th March 2009
http://www.asa.org.uk/Complaints-and-ASA-action/Adjudications/2009/3/Infinergy-Ltd/TF_ADJ_45978. (http://www.asa.org.uk/Complaints-and-ASA-action/Adjudications/2009/3/Infinergy-Ltd/TF_ADJ_45978.aspx)
From the executive summary of the much maligned ETSU-R-97 -
This document describes a framework for the measurement of wind farm noise and gives indicative noise levels thought to offer a reasonable degree of protection to wind farm neighbours, without placing unreasonable restrictions on wind farm development or adding unduly to the costs and administrative burdens on wind farm developers or local authorities.
Says it all really; come up with a set of rules that sort of show your doing something to protect the neighbours, but really your letting the developers bash on with only the barest of restrictions.
From the executive summary of the much maligned ETSU-R-97 -
This document describes a framework for the measurement of wind farm noise and gives indicative noise levels thought to offer a reasonable degree of protection to wind farm neighbours, without placing unreasonable restrictions on wind farm development or adding unduly to the costs and administrative burdens on wind farm developers or local authorities.
Says it all really; come up with a set of rules that sort of show your doing something to protect the neighbours, but really your letting the developers bash on with only the barest of restrictions.
Would you only accept an unreasonable degree of protection to wind farm neighbours and an unreasonable restriction on wind farm development?
Green_not_greed
28-Dec-09, 22:37
The amount of money to be made from wind turbines is - quite frankly - obscene. If a small amount of profit would be put aside to build them away from existing pylon lines - which is where everyone lives - in order to provide a feed line to the existing grid from a suitably remote location, then none of these problems would exist!
As we saw with Copenhagen, greed is driving the industry. "Saving the planet" comes well down the priorities list.
[I wonder how much energy was generated by wind in Caithness this past week? If you are relying on these things, then you had better get used to being very cold!
[I wonder how much energy was generated by wind in Caithness this past week? If you are relying on these things, then you had better get used to being very cold!
How much energy has been generated by the wind in all the comments on this post? It would generate Caithness alone for 20 years :-)
Build them wherever they want to, that's what I say.
How much energy has been generated by the wind in all the comments on this post? It would generate Caithness alone for 20 years :-)
Build them wherever they want to, that's what I say.
Your back garden? :)
Your back garden? :)
Why not? Couldn't give a flying one. There's no noise off them so no bother to me.
Handy for drying your clothes too! :)
tonkatojo
29-Dec-09, 18:08
Why not? Couldn't give a flying one. There's no noise off them so no bother to me.
I think you should try standing in tesco's car park and listen to the racket from their wind generators, when they'r working.
I think you should try standing in tesco's car park and listen to the racket from their wind generators, when they'r working.
You should try standing in Tesco's car park and listen to the racket from the cars......now which is better....I like cars... but I also like wind generators.....there's only one way to find out.....FIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!
tonkatojo
29-Dec-09, 18:17
You should try standing in Tesco's car park and listen to the racket from the cars......now which is better....I like cars... but I also like wind generators.....there's only one way to find out.....FIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!
I might be a bit slow what's cars got to do with wind generators ??
I might be a bit slow what's cars got to do with wind generators ??
Don't worry about it Tonka :D
andrew.bowles30
29-Dec-09, 18:50
not living in scotland at the moment i still belive there are other ways to get power the sea it is awash with free power just wanting to taped into it moves constantly and we have the tecno already to use its perfect no bluming big wind turbines blotting the fantastic land scape the best in the country :roll::lol:
Punctuation marks for sale.
Mixed bag of 100 commas, colons, apostrophes and full stops.
Only £1 per bag.
;)
ywindythesecond
29-Dec-09, 23:48
Quote:
Originally Posted by ywindythesecond http://forum.caithness.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?p=637600#post637600)
She got her council Tax reduction, and that isn't handed out with a box of cornflakes, because the person adjudicating on it agreed that her house had been devalued as a result of the windfarm noise issues.
I have read the transcript of the case and if someone better organised than me could link to it please, it would educate Reggy to actually read it. But no doubt we will learn that the adjudicator person was deceived by the wicked Davises.
Reggy, here is the ruling. Please read it.
http://info.valuation-tribunals.gov.uk/decision_document.asp?appeal=/decision_documents/documents/ct_england/2525475651032c.htm (http://info.valuation-tribunals.gov.uk/decision_document.asp?appeal=/decision_documents/documents/ct_england/2525475651032c.htm)
Green_not_greed
30-Dec-09, 14:10
Here's a letter from the other end of the UK. Some interesting points...
In America Native Indian tribes of the north-west coast used the totem pole as a way of communicating stories, myths and legends. The modern wind turbine bears some resemblance to these artefacts.
Stuck in the ground as allegorical gestures, wind turbines represent an illusion whereby the world is saved from the ravages of a changing climate through the communication of a fairy story.
The fable they are meant to convey is that by generating energy from the wind this will prevent toxic emissions to such an extent that we will gratefully accept their desecration of our sacred homelands.
Like the true totem, they are merely symbolism worshipped by a few true believers. Unlike the true totem, however, they are not harmless. They can kill wildlife and have the capability to threaten the health and welfare of people.
They are not benign figurative signals of hope, but trickery, sending out false messages of optimism.
Another American tribe, this time from the celluloid world of make believe, allude to lying as “speaking with forked tongue” – such is the voice of the wind turbine.
I Buxton
Ashwater, Devon
In case no-one has noticed - during this prolonged cold spell, none of the Caithness turbines have turned in over a week.
This country was once in the forefront of the development of nuclear generated power - we have handed that baton to the French, while we mess about with unreliable installations which threaten our one remaining sustainable industry - tourism.
The reality is, that, unless we can produce cleaner, effective base-load generation, we are going to have to rely on foreign power, or do without a reliable source of power altogether
The amount of money to be made from wind turbines is - quite frankly - obscene. If a small amount of profit would be put aside to build them away from existing pylon lines - which is where everyone lives - in order to provide a feed line to the existing grid from a suitably remote location, then none of these problems would exist!
As we saw with Copenhagen, greed is driving the industry. "Saving the planet" comes well down the priorities list.
I agree the turbines should be built away from folks front windows but there is no consideration for anybody when there is lots of money to be made at another persons heartache .
Thanks to everyone that has supported the opposition.
I've just read an article about the future costs to not just consumers like us, but also big industry, if the government pursues its ludicrous targets of going green.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/markets/article.html?in_article_id=496767&in_page_id=3&position=moretopstories
so we all pay obscene amounts of money to a few landowners and large foreign companies to pursue this green revolution, while the poor struggle even more to pay their electricity bills and big business goes out of business with the loss of thousands of jobs.
I've just read an article about the future costs to not just consumers like us, but also big industry, if the government pursues its ludicrous targets of going green.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/markets/article.html?in_article_id=496767&in_page_id=3&position=moretopstories
so we all pay obscene amounts of money to a few landowners and large foreign companies to pursue this green revolution, while the poor struggle even more to pay their electricity bills and big business goes out of business with the loss of thousands of jobs.
You are already paying at the rate of .15 pence/KWu . The provider does not have to mention this in your bill until you are using about 3000 units per month, but it is already factored into every electricity/gas bill. This is called the Climate Change Levy.
Wind energy is also a gold-plated investment for traders, as it is underwritten by the Government to a huge extent, and by consumers (paid for as above by you and me).
Just out of interest, a helicopter pilot whom I know quite well, says that a lot of his business comes from fat cats who want to fly over development areas to view possible opportunities.
Did we learn nothing from the devastation wrought on the Caithness peatlands through forestry speculation in the 60s and 70s?
The product or its effectiveness is not the point - it is the ability of whatever type of installation to turn the money mill that is important here.
come on folks we need a lot more objections to spittal hill wind farm after baillie "s approval.
the folks there cant afford to employ 2 men to stand on streets and get people to sign up for wind alliance .
ywindythesecond
13-Jan-10, 20:51
come on folks we need a lot more objections to spittal hill wind farm after baillie "s approval.
the folks there cant afford to employ 2 men to stand on streets and get people to sign up for wind alliance .
This is it from the picnic area at the end of Loch Watten
http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/8070/bwspittalwindfarmfromlo.jpg
This is it from the picnic area at the end of Loch Watten
http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/8070/bwspittalwindfarmfromlo.jpg
What is the angle of view for this photomontage? Is it typical of having been taken with a 50mm lens?
ywindythesecond
13-Jan-10, 22:23
come on folks we need a lot more objections to spittal hill wind farm after baillie "s approval.
the folks there cant afford to employ 2 men to stand on streets and get people to sign up for wind alliance .
This is it from Georgemas
http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/7707/spittalfromgeorgemas.jpg
This is it from the picnic area at the end of Loch Watten
http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/8070/bwspittalwindfarmfromlo.jpg
I like that view
This is it from Georgemas
http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/7707/spittalfromgeorgemas.jpg
and like this one also
I like that view
So do I - without the turbines.
Please object to Spittal windfarm at www.spittalwindfarmopposition.co.uk (http://www.spittalwindfarmopposition.co.uk)
Me? I love the second picture down.. very nice!
http://www.gardenvisit.com/blog/2009/10/19/upland-britain-with-a-blanket-cover-of-wind-turbines/
ywindythesecond
15-Jan-10, 19:35
You'll like this one Golach, it is the view from the village hall in Dunnet.
http://img682.imageshack.us/img682/707/spittalfromdunnethall.jpg
http://img682.imageshack.us/img682/707/spittalfromdunnethall.jpg
Oooh is that Spittal Hill windfarm I see yet again on the horizon?
www.spittalwindfarmopposition.co.uk (http://www.spittalwindfarmopposition.co.uk) please object now.
You'll like this one Golach, it is the view from the village hall in Dunnet.
http://img682.imageshack.us/img682/707/spittalfromdunnethall.jpg
http://img682.imageshack.us/img682/707/spittalfromdunnethall.jpg
If it was real it would be ok very graceful things windmils are :D
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.