View Full Version : Council Planners don't oppose Dunbeath Windfarm but impose tough conditions!
ywindythesecond
03-Feb-10, 19:20
http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/5760/intheinterestsofvisuala.jpg
Next Tuesday 9th February, Highland Council Planning Committee will meet to decide whether to support or oppose Dunbeath Windfarm. Officials recommend approval, but want to impose tough conditions
"12. No name, sign or other logo shall be displayed on any external surfaces of the wind turbines or external transformer units save as required by law.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity"
http://www.highland.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/F12F873E-4299-4A46-A3BB-CEE413D67E33/0/Item21PLC0110.pdf
roadbowler
03-Feb-10, 22:24
they got to be having a laugh! [disgust][evil]
Better get your cameras out before that iconic view disappears for good. Caithness is fast becoming the dumping ground for the rest of Scotland.
annemarie482
04-Feb-10, 00:57
they really dont bother me, dont think they're that unsightly.
ywindythesecond
04-Feb-10, 10:40
they really dont bother me, dont think they're that unsightly.
http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/2189/toomuchofagoodthing.jpg
But don't you think you can get too much of a good thing? The picture above is a photograph of the existing Buolfruich windfarm next to the proposed Dunbeath one. It is tiny in comparison with the Dunbeath proposal, but between 2006 when it opened and the end of 2008, it earned 96,407 Renewable Energy Certificates (http://www.renewable-energy-foundation.org.uk/images/PDFs/REDs09/ref%20reds%20wind%201109.pdf (http://www.renewable-energy-foundation.org.uk/images/PDFs/REDs09/ref%20reds%20wind%201109.pdf) page 114) worth at least £4,338,315, and around another £1,575,000 worth in 2009. We all paid our share of this "subsidy" as it sneaks in through our electricity bills. Now you might say it is worth the price, but over the last six weeks when we needed it, Buolfruich and all other windfarms across the nation, have been seriously underperforming, and on several occasions have provided a statistical 0% of their rated capacity. We kept the lights on because we have reliable coal, gas, and nuclear power stations but both our wretched Governments want to close much of that down and are rushing us headlong into a reliance on onshore wind which cannot be relied on.
Dunbeath Windfarm is five times the size of Buolfruich, and will be subsidised by us to the tune of around £7,875,000 a year, but at 9.20pm on 18th January 2010, if it had been operational and performing at the same level as the rest of the windfarms that national grid monitors, it would have been producing 1.2% (792kw) of its 66,000kw capacity and instead of serving the needs of the 38,581homes claimed by BWEA (http://www.bwea.com/ukwed/planning.asp (http://www.bwea.com/ukwed/planning.asp) ,March 2005) it might have boiled 400 kettles.
Anyone who wants the techy back-up information, please PM me.
http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/2189/toomuchofagoodthing.jpg
But don't you think you can get too much of a good thing? The picture above is a photograph of the existing Buolfruich windfarm next to the proposed Dunbeath one. It is tiny in comparison with the Dunbeath proposal, but between 2006 when it opened and the end of 2008, it earned 96,407 Renewable Energy Certificates (http://www.renewable-energy-foundation.org.uk/images/PDFs/REDs09/ref%20reds%20wind%201109.pdf (http://www.renewable-energy-foundation.org.uk/images/PDFs/REDs09/ref%20reds%20wind%201109.pdf) page 114) worth at least £4,338,315, and around another £1,575,000 worth in 2009. We all paid our share of this "subsidy" as it sneaks in through our electricity bills. Now you might say it is worth the price, but over the last six weeks when we needed it, Buolfruich and all other windfarms across the nation, have been seriously underperforming, and on several occasions have provided a statistical 0% of their rated capacity. We kept the lights on because we have reliable coal, gas, and nuclear power stations but both our wretched Governments want to close much of that down and are rushing us headlong into a reliance on onshore wind which cannot be relied on.
Dunbeath Windfarm is five times the size of Buolfruich, and will be subsidised by us to the tune of around £7,875,000 a year, but at 9.20pm on 18th January 2010, if it had been operational and performing at the same level as the rest of the windfarms that national grid monitors, it would have been producing 1.2% of its capacity (792kw) and instead of serving the needs of the 38,581homes claimed by BWEA (http://www.bwea.com/ukwed/planning.asp (http://www.bwea.com/ukwed/planning.asp) ,March 2005) it might have boiled 400 kettles.
Anyone who wants the techy back-up information, please PM me.
This is my opinion and I can't remember where the info. came from (I may have made it up) But there is one Magnox reactor still generating at Hunterston on the west coast and in the hills right behind it, so visually it appears to be sitting on top (as viewed from the Isle of Cumbrae). There is a medium size wind farm. The info I have is that if the turbines turned for 365 days in a year, it wouldn't match the output from Hunterston in a single day.
Am I barking or does this sound feesable?
Well at least these farmers who put turbines upon their land - who profess the only reason they are doing so is to reduce CO2 emissions - are supporting their beliefs by the introduction of the legislation presently going through the Scottish Parliament that will ban Muirburn (burning of heather, grass and moorland). Thus following the ban on stubble burning in England and Wales - good to see that Scotland is doing it's bit*.
Further legislation is planned on the burning of Peat as a heating source, "Burning peat could be a major contributor to the as yet unexplained accelerating build-up of CO2 in the atmosphere since 1998," says Jack Rieley of the University of Nottingham in the UK
Personally can't see how banning peat burning in domestic homes would be workable, various suggestions from MSP Brian Goodson (Greens) is that a licence to extract Peat for personal use could be envisioned, with a hefty increase in costs if buying of commercially available fuel. "we must move away from this archaic practice that in no way helps us fight global warming, heating sources must be obtained from environmentally friendly sources, such as Hydro or wind power" says Goodson.
I used to burn the peats, as do most in this area, and on retrospect, yes, taking into consideration the number of peat fired homes, it is a considerable amount of greenhouse gasses that are emitted.. we shall see how the legislation passes through parliament.
*Emissions from agriculture and agricultural land use have to be reduced in 2020 from 2006 levels by
0.7 MtCO 2e (34% Scottish target) or 1.3 MtCO 2e (42% Scottish target). Emissions from agriculture and agricultural related land use form a significant proportion of Scotland's greenhouse gas emissions although some of the emissions figures are very uncertain.
Of course the above is a load of rubbish (especially when landowners say it's to save the planet) it's down to money, purely and simply. Not one powerstation will/has closed. Electricity prices will not reduce (£10,000 paid for each turbine to the farmer, has got to come from somewhere), CO2 will not reduce. A 'high' over Scotland in the future will see no wind power and, with Scotland having no nuclear, will be forced to buy at high prices electricity from England. Scotland will lose it's uniqueness for a political point. etc
ywindythesecond
04-Feb-10, 13:55
This is my opinion and I can't remember where the info. came from (I may have made it up) But there is one Magnox reactor still generating at Hunterston on the west coast and in the hills right behind it, so visually it appears to be sitting on top (as viewed from the Isle of Cumbrae). There is a medium size wind farm. The info I have is that if the turbines turned for 365 days in a year, it wouldn't match the output from Hunterston in a single day.
Am I barking or does this sound feesable?
Not far wrong ducati. Ardrossan Windfarm earns about 80,000 Rocs in a year, so generates 80,000 MWH. Hunterson is rated at 1288MW. If it operates at 80% load factor, then it generates 1288x0.8x24=24730MWH/day. So Ardrossan WF generates about 3.25 daysworth of Hunterston's output in a year but you have no way of telling when you are going to get it , or even if you will need it at the time it is available.
So theoretically, you could replace Hunterson with about 112 Ardrossan windfarms, but as I write this wwwbmreports.com tells me that windfarms monitored by National Grid are operating at 19.7% of their capacity. Ardrossan operates at a high load factor for a windfarm, upper 30s, so you would still be 50% short of your requirement right now.
page 15 http://www.renewable-energy-foundation.org.uk/images/PDFs/REDs09/ref%20reds%20wind%201109.pdf
Not far wrong ducati. Ardrossan Windfarm earns about 80,000 Rocs in a year, so generates 80,000 MWH. Hunterson is rated at 1288MW. If it operates at 80% load factor, then it generates 1288x0.8x24=24730MWH/day. So Ardrossan WF generates about 3.25 daysworth of Hunterston's output in a year but you have no way of telling when you are going to get it , or even if you will need it at the time it is available.
So theoretically, you could replace Hunterson with about 112 Ardrossan windfarms, but as I write this wwwbmreports.com tells me that windfarms monitored by National Grid are operating at 19.7% of their capacity. Ardrossan operates at a high load factor for a windfarm, upper 30s, so you would still be 50% short of your requirement right now.
page 15 http://www.renewable-energy-foundation.org.uk/images/PDFs/REDs09/ref%20reds%20wind%201109.pdf
Thanks for that. So, as I suspected, to replace two or three decent capacity, modern nuclear power stations we are going to have to carpet Scotland wall to wall with wind farms. And even then, we wouldn't have the same reliability.
'windfarms monitored by National Grid are operating at 19.7% of their capacity.'
That's terrible!!!!!
I simply do not understand Ministers' total fixation on windpower, which costs billions and as we all know doesn't produce the goods (apart from all the damage done) when they could use some of that money to transform the energy efficiency of homes throughout the country. They keep telling us how much domestic energy is wasted so why don't they do something about that instead? If only they would switch the emphasis from generation to conservation and produce a permanent solution.
The BBC News website today picks a heading for its item on Dunbeath
The project's supporters said the turbines would tackle climate change
As if those 22 turbines will make the slightest impact on climate change. What they will impact on is the people living nearby, the mountains, the wildlife, tourists, and the bank balances of a very few.
Well this headline has made me and a few Leithers very happy, thank you Caithness, for all that wind.
http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topstories/7bn-offshore-wind-turbines-blow.6042419.jp
ywindythesecond
04-Feb-10, 16:43
Thanks for that. So, as I suspected, to replace two or three decent capacity, modern nuclear power stations we are going to have to carpet Scotland wall to wall with wind farms. And even then, we wouldn't have the same reliability.
That's it in a nutshell ducati. This is how reliable it has been over the last four days. The red line is actual power generated out of 1588MW possible, measured at half hour intervals.
http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/905/jan31tofeb3.jpg
Even Chance
04-Feb-10, 17:04
they really dont bother me, dont think they're that unsightly.
Yer no e only one til lek em Annemarie. I quite lek them as weel.
Ive been up til e top of one on e Cassiemire and boy whit a view fae up there!!
Go Nuclear!
I still maintain it is the only feasible "green" way forward.
On a local level, get Dounreay online, cut down all these monstrosities.
I'm tired of looking out of my window and wandering around looking at these awful statues, occasionally they turn, but never do you see all of them turning.
Elecricity generation and distribution professional engineers with years of 'hands on' experience tell us that wind as as source of electricity generation is a fallacy. Here in the UK .... EU money fuels the greed for large scale wind turbines and has totally distorted any sane scientific discussion. Fact based on knowledge not 'green' whimsy
Go Nuclear!
I still maintain it is the only feasible "green" way forward.
On a local level, get Dounreay online, cut down all these monstrosities.
I'm tired of looking out of my window and wandering around looking at these awful statues, occasionally they turn, but never do you see all of them turning.
I agree although D is too old and there ain't much left.
We need a replacement for Hunterston A and shortly B and Torness, and we need to start planning now, so first job: get rid of that fat idiot at Holyrood. :D
I agree although D is too old and there ain't much left.
Aye, But the site is there, the facilities are there/getting ripped out. The basic infrastructure is there.
Can't be that hard can it?
I'm sure we could cobble something together, not much to this nuclear fisics stuff, sure there's a book on tinterweb about it.
Aye, But the site is there, the facilities are there/getting ripped out. The basic infrastructure is there.
Can't be that hard can it?
I'm sure we could cobble something together, not much to this nuclear fisics stuff, sure there's a book on tinterweb about it.
OK. I'll meet you over there on Sat morning with ma fissionable material and we'll see whats what.
It will only end up being a curling pond or something equally useful otherwise. [lol]
Has the whole country gone mad?
The government takes us to war at what cost, as well as that of human life? They give all our money to bale out the banks, so that they can go on ripping us off. The country is absolutely bankrupt, and they want to waste money on an unimaginable scale in order to meet climate change targets with these things - they are the biggest white elephant ever, and will destroy the one sustainable industry which we still have - tourism.
Of course we all want Mr M-T to increase his already sizeable fortune through this desecration of the landscape, but don't imagine you will get free/cheap electricity through it - quite the reverse. Lucky to get any at all, if this is what we rely on.
Anyway, I thought the Peatlands are supposed to be protected, as they are one of the best carbon sinks in existence.
If you want to save a precioous and fragile landscape for the future, be sure to let your feelings known at the hearing
Has the whole country gone mad?
Yes. Haven’t you been following?
OK. I'll meet you over there on Sat morning with ma fissionable material and we'll see whats what.
Sounds like a plan, I've got a thermonuclear chamber knocking about in me shed, I'll bring that an' some Stella, I never have any bad ideas when I've had a tipple.
occasionally they turn, but never do you see all of them turning.
Would you believe it, but they only turn when there's sufficent wind to turn them !! Anything over a constant 4 mph will do.
As for not seeing all of them turning, I can give you a wee insite into the reason why. It takes approx 1 week to service the average 2MW-ish wind turbine, sometimes longer if the service includes oil changes. So let's take Causeymire with 21 turbines. For nearly, and sometimes over, half the year, you'll see one turbine stopped for routine maintenance during the week. There are other reasons too. Any work that's required to be carried out means that the turbine needs to be stopped, thus allowing the techicians to axcess and perhaps climb the machine. Reasons include retrofits, planned grid outages, faults ( yes, just like any major electrical or mechanical component, wind turbines can have problems too ), general inspections and excess icing in winter. These are the most common causes of non running turbines...
Would you believe it, but they only turn when there's sufficent wind to turn them !! Anything over a constant 4 mph will do.
As for not seeing all of them turning, I can give you a wee insite into the reason why. It takes approx 1 week to service the average 2MW-ish wind turbine, sometimes longer if the service includes oil changes. So let's take Causeymire with 21 turbines. For nearly, and sometimes over, half the year, you'll see one turbine stopped for routine maintenance during the week. There are other reasons too. Any work that's required to be carried out means that the turbine needs to be stopped, thus allowing the techicians to axcess and perhaps climb the machine. Reasons include retrofits, planned grid outages, faults ( yes, just like any major electrical or mechanical component, wind turbines can have problems too ), general inspections and excess icing in winter. These are the most common causes of non running turbines...
I thought it was about 10 mph?
'Wind turbines start operating at wind speeds of 4 to 5 metres per second (around 10 miles an hour) and reach maximum power output at around 15 metres/second (around 33 miles per hour). At very high wind speeds, i.e. gale force winds, (25 metres/second, 50+ miles/hour) wind turbines shut down.'
http://www.bwea.com/ref/faq.html#blow (http://www.bwea.com/ref/faq.html#blow)
I thought it was about 10 mph?
'Wind turbines start operating at wind speeds of 4 to 5 metres per second (around 10 miles an hour) and reach maximum power output at around 15 metres/second (around 33 miles per hour). At very high wind speeds, i.e. gale force winds, (25 metres/second, 50+ miles/hour) wind turbines shut down.'
http://www.bwea.com/ref/faq.html#blow (http://www.bwea.com/ref/faq.html#blow)
2 -2.5 m/s for the 2.3MW turbines at Causeymire. About 4 / 5 mph to be more accurate..
Would you believe it, but they only turn when there's sufficent wind to turn them !! Anything over a constant 4 mph will do.
As for not seeing all of them turning, I can give you a wee insite into the reason why. It takes approx 1 week to service the average 2MW-ish wind turbine, sometimes longer if the service includes oil changes. So let's take Causeymire with 21 turbines. For nearly, and sometimes over, half the year, you'll see one turbine stopped for routine maintenance during the week. There are other reasons too. Any work that's required to be carried out means that the turbine needs to be stopped, thus allowing the techicians to axcess and perhaps climb the machine. Reasons include retrofits, planned grid outages, faults ( yes, just like any major electrical or mechanical component, wind turbines can have problems too ), general inspections and excess icing in winter. These are the most common causes of non running turbines...
Interesting info'
I kinda gathered there would be servicing and faults etc. But wind technology isn't new and it's pretty simple stuff so I would expect an available uptime to be pretty high.
One day recently out of 8 turbines that are local to me only 1 was turning, now that's a lot of servicing or a lot of failures.
Tubthumper
04-Feb-10, 22:49
How much of the £7.5m+ earned by this proposal each year will be going into a local community fund?
And how many jobs will be created?
Interesting info'
I kinda gathered there would be servicing and faults etc. But wind technology isn't new and it's pretty simple stuff so I would expect an available uptime to be pretty high.
One day recently out of 8 turbines that are local to me only 1 was turning, now that's a lot of servicing or a lot of failures.
This could point to a grid outage ( testing transformer oils or the like ), or a full crew of tech's could have been playing catch up with late servicing...
Tubthumper
04-Feb-10, 22:54
This could point to a grid outage ( testing transformer oils or the like ), or a full crew of tech's could have been playing catch up with late servicing...
I'm glad to see someone on here who actually knows about the realities of wind generation. How many Techs are employed at the Causeymire windfarm?
or a full crew of tech's could have been playing catch up with late servicing...
Hmmm, how do they travel and how much kit do they need?
How much of the £4m+ earned by this proposal each year will be going into a local community fund?
And how many jobs will be created?
Not sure about the amount generated for the local fund, but I expect that any information would be avaliable to view in various press releases..
21 turbines would create between 4 - 5 full time careers...
I'm glad to see someone on here who actually knows about the realities of wind generation. How many Techs are employed at the Causeymire windfarm?
There are four local lads and 3 chaps from another highland windfarm currently at Causeymire. The same company also looks after the turbines at Forss..
Tubthumper
04-Feb-10, 23:05
Not sure about the amount generated for the local fund, but I expect that any information would be avaliable to view in various press releases..
21 turbines would create between 4 - 5 full time careers...
So there are 4-5 people working on the Causeymire site on any given working day, am I right?
Tubthumper
04-Feb-10, 23:09
There are four local lads and 3 chaps from another highland windfarm currently at Causeymire. The same company also looks after the turbines at Forss..
Is it the same company that maintains all the wind turbines in the county?
Hmmm, how do they travel and how much kit do they need?
They travel by the use of service vans ( 3 tech's per vehicle ), and they need various kit for carrying out normal day to day tasks. One service van is sufficent for most activities.
So there are 4-5 people working on the Causeymire site on any given working day, am I right?
4 tech's as a minimum. 7 is a more accurate number..
Is it the same company that maintains all the wind turbines in the county?
No.
Causeymire and Forss = Siemens Power Generation
Bilbster = RePower ( 3 ) and Nordex ( 3 )
Dunbeath = Vestas A/S
Tubthumper
04-Feb-10, 23:16
4 tech's as a minimum. 7 is a more accurate number..
Sorry for harping on here, but are the 4 techs carrying out servicing or on control room/ monitoring duties?
Also where are they based - I may have missed something but I don't remember seeing a permanently-occupied building on the site. Not during the working day anyway.
Tubthumper
04-Feb-10, 23:18
No.
Causeymire and Forss = Siemens Power Generation
Bilbster = RePower ( 3 ) and Nordex ( 3 )
Dunbeath = Vestas A/S
This is good stuff, far better than all that scientific tripe that was going on two weeks back!
So do RePower & Nordex have their own techs on-site?
Sorry for harping on here, but are the 4 techs carrying out servicing or on control room/ monitoring duties?
Also where are they based - I may have missed something but I don't remember seeing a permanently-occupied building on the site. Not during the working day anyway.
The tech always have somthing to do !! The priority at all times is to rectify any faults that occour and following that, routine maintenance.
They have a base ( secret location :-) ) very close to one of the windfarms.
This is good stuff, far better than all that scientific tripe that was going on two weeks back!
So do RePower & Nordex have their own techs on-site?
I think that these two companies have travelling techs, due to the fact that they only have 3 turbines each in the county..
2 -2.5 m/s for the 2.3MW turbines at Causeymire. About 4 / 5 mph to be more accurate..
Sorry, but got the info from The British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) 'is the trade and professional body for the UK wind and marine renewables industries.' thought they would know what they were on about..
Tubthumper
05-Feb-10, 13:09
They have a base ( secret location :-) ) very close to one of the windfarms.
I suppose that solves my mystery of where the workers go for tea and poops!
As for the council not opposing the proposal - is that because there wasn't much protest or because they don't see much point (the Scottish government will approve it anyway?)
Over 800 letters of objection I believe, plenty of protest I would say.
Sorry, but got the info from The British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) 'is the trade and professional body for the UK wind and marine renewables industries.' thought they would know what they were on about..
I dare say that their information is a general accumulation of facts and figures from the wind energy sector. The figures that I've quoted relates to the turbines at the Causeymire, as previously stated. Turbines vary in specification depending on their output and manufacturer...
Green_not_greed
05-Feb-10, 21:09
Over 800 letters of objection I believe, plenty of protest I would say.
In the past I would have agreed but when you see 18,000 objections bulldozed over for Beauly-Denny it does make you think what - if any - level of protest would make any difference to our wee dictator in Holyrood.
Sorry to say i told you so but , i did give Caithness folk the heads-up on the Turbine /Council sell out 4 years ago .I stated that Caithness was to be used by the Council as a dumping ground of the Turbine Industry ..I was slated by a good few folk who are of The Turbine Loves Party, they said my statement was rubbish ..Caithness was solded out to stop the Turbine guys putting them up in/around Inverness .,its all about votes and we just dont matter .Get used to it ,just wait for the Council cuts .The big axe will cut the deepest here ...
Being back the County Council ...
I suppose that solves my mystery of where the workers go for tea
We prefer strong Danish coffee :-)
Tubthumper
05-Feb-10, 23:36
We prefer strong Danish coffee :-)
Is that to go with the Danish turbines...?
ywindythesecond
06-Feb-10, 00:14
I dare say that their information is a general accumulation of facts and figures from the wind energy sector. The figures that I've quoted relates to the turbines at the Causeymire, as previously stated. Turbines vary in specification depending on their output and manufacturer...
Like Beki, I am a little surprised at the low speed you say Causeymire turbines start generating at. Could you post the manufacturer's literature showing this please.
In the past I would have agreed but when you see 18,000 objections bulldozed over for Beauly-Denny it does make you think what - if any - level of protest would make any difference to our wee dictator in Holyrood.
This is how it goes -
1. You spend hours working out what you are going to say and how you are going to put it down on paper and how you are going to get across to these people how this wind farm will affect your life.
2. You send it in to the Government before the deadline, hoping that someone will take notice of yours and your neighbours heartfelt concerns.
3. Some admin lady scans it into a computer, ticks a few boxes in a spreadsheet document and files it in a cardboard box never to see the light of day again.
4. The planning authority don't get to see it, they get the spreadsheet where your concerns have been reduced to a few ticked boxes.
5. Your councillors don't get to see it - don't forget it's still buried somewhere under all the other thousands of boxes of objection letters piling up in Glasgow.
6. The person writing the report for the Minister doesn't read it
and lastly -
7. The Minister never gets to see what you've written and would never think to ask to read it. (He's not bothered as long as those turbines are nowhere near him).
so, all in all it was a complete and utter waste of time and effort as democracy died long ago in this crazy place.
Cinderella's Shoe
06-Feb-10, 00:40
being back the county council ...
hear hear !!!!!!!!!
Being back the County Council ...
I agree with this too.
Regional councils were abolished in the rest of the country long ago but Highland stayed because boundaries were based on population and not on area or diversity. Central belt politicians have never had much of a clue about how things work north of Milngavie or South Queensferry and evidently the same applies to those in 'Ness.
We had a Town Council and a County Council when I was a bairn for heaven's sake. :roll:
Tubthumper
06-Feb-10, 01:06
We had a Town Council and a County Council when I was a bairn for heaven's sake. :roll:
Westminster, Holyrood, Inverness, Wick, Thurso....how many layers of parasites can we afford, for goodness' sake??
I take your point but methinks you exaggerate a tad. We didn't have Highland Council or Holyrood in the owld days and Wick and Thurso were in the same layer.
Anyways, even I wouldn't advocate both town and county council layers but it does seems that no-one on the Org is happy with the current system in Highland. Given the total botox posted on the naive dogma threads it's evident that the Org isn't representative of the population as a whole but I don't see any posts in support of the current Highland Council setup. :confused
Tubthumper
06-Feb-10, 01:17
Given the total botox posted on the naive dogma threads it's evident that the Org isn't representative of the population as a whole but I don't see any posts in support of the current Highland Council setup. :confused
You're right, it is a load of pants, isn't it? And not nice pants either. We're talking sagging, washed-out grey coloured huge pants with the elastic gone at the waist. :eek:
Aren't they the pants Jordan wore in the Jungle? They must be worth a fortune.
I like windmills. Giant red and white ones that spell out Coca Cola in their sails as they turn would be nice. Now that would be a tourist attraction.
Is that to go with the Danish turbines...?
Pretty much. It's a taste that some have aquired after working with Danish techs..
Like Beki, I am a little surprised at the low speed you say Causeymire turbines start generating at. Could you post the manufacturer's literature showing this please.
Please read back to my previous post. The statement that I made clearly says that the turbines start OPERATING at the wind speed quoted. Not GENERATING..
Please read back to my previous post. The statement that I made clearly says that the turbines start OPERATING at the wind speed quoted. Not GENERATING..
LOL! Are we all expected to be familiar with the technical jargon of windfarms before contributing to this thread? :D
I would never have guessed that operating meant the things were turning without generating anything.
Thanks for the clarification anyways.
Tubthumper
06-Feb-10, 12:03
Pretty much. It's a taste that some have aquired after working with Danish techs..
Georgen: See when the turbines are being erected and connected - Who does all that work?
I know the local contractors set the plinths, provide craneage etc, but is it the manufacturer (ie Danish coffee preferring Vestas guys) who do the bolting together, connection, balancing, commissioning and so on?
Mr P Cannop
06-Feb-10, 12:05
I agree with this too.
Regional councils were abolished in the rest of the country long ago but Highland stayed because boundaries were based on population and not on area or diversity. Central belt politicians have never had much of a clue about how things work north of Milngavie or South Queensferry and evidently the same applies to those in 'Ness.
We had a Town Council and a County Council when I was a bairn for heaven's sake. :roll:
as they say in the house of commons order order
Boozeburglar
06-Feb-10, 12:23
Please read back to my previous post. The statement that I made clearly says that the turbines start OPERATING at the wind speed quoted. Not GENERATING..
The quote Bekisman used regarding the wind speed of 10mph clearly used operating to mean generating,
'Wind turbines start operating at wind speeds of 4 to 5 metres per second (around 10 miles an hour) and reach maximum power output at around 15 metres/second (around 33 miles per hour).
You 'corrected' him, suggesting 4/5mph.
2 -2.5 m/s for the 2.3MW turbines at Causeymire. About 4 / 5 mph to be more accurate..
A wind turbine operating, to the vast majority, means generating.
The quote Bekisman used regarding the wind speed of 10mph clearly used operating to mean generating,
You 'corrected' him, suggesting 4/5mph.
A wind turbine operating, to the vast majority, means generating.
I can see how the different terminology used here has caused an element of confusion. To technicians, a wind turbine being operational means that it is in a state of readiness, and / or running, regardless on the level of production / generation if you will. My apologies for any confusion caused.
My input on this thread is purely to offer a different point of view and hopefully enlighten the willing to understand some of the various workings and activities of our windfarm and turbines. Technicians sharing information between themselves is a normal day to day process for us, but relaying the information into the mainstream means that it can often get lost in translation..
Thanks for the clarification george. It's nice to hear from someone who actually works in the industry.
It's a pity Highland doesn't have a large number of lochs or potential lochs high in the hills, each with a sister loch in the valley below. That's what you need for renewables to work on demand.
All we need now to put us straight is a Caithness chiel from the top of the US pharmaceutical industry and a top intelligence expert from the Pentagon. I know one of the former but I don't know if he's a member here and I knew one of the latter until he was killed entering his place of work at high speed. :~(
Boozeburglar
06-Feb-10, 14:47
To technicians, a wind turbine being operational means that it is in a state of readiness, and / or running, regardless on the level of production / generation if you will. My apologies for any confusion caused . . .
. . . relaying the information into the mainstream means that it can often get lost in translation..
Who is confused?
You are not talking some esoteric language, you are talking English.
That definition of operational is universal.
However, we were talking about the use of the term 'operating' and I was pointing out that you corrected someone's post, wherein it was clear that term was being used to descibe generation, and your 'correction' thus suggested that your figure of 4/5mph was a generating speed.
These generators only have one purpose, if you ignore the subsidies and tokenism for a moment.
The purpose defines their status, regardless of who is describing it.
Is their purpose to turn or to generate power?
Who is confused?
I think you yourself may be confusion operational with functional...
Just because something is operational doesn't mean it is generating at optimal output.
Boozeburglar
06-Feb-10, 15:17
However, we were talking about the use of the term 'operating' and I was pointing out that you corrected someone's post, wherein it was clear that term was being used to descibe generation, and your 'correction' thus suggested that your figure of 4/5mph was a generating speed.
Thanks for the English lesson, and all that, but the definition of 'operational' was never the question.
Thanks for the English lesson, and all that, but the definition of 'operational' was never the question.
Must've got the wrong end of the stick again :o
Who is confused?
You are not talking some esoteric language, you are talking English.
That definition of operational is universal.
However, we were talking about the use of the term 'operating' and I was pointing out that you corrected someone's post, wherein it was clear that term was being used to descibe generation, and your 'correction' thus suggested that your figure of 4/5mph was a generating speed.
These generators only have one purpose, if you ignore the subsidies and tokenism for a moment.
The purpose defines their status, regardless of who is describing it.
Is their purpose to turn or to generate power?
I think that you know the answer to your question already ? Our turbines need to be in a state of rediness to generate power. If they don't turn, they don't generate.
I'm starting to think that you're not a great fan of these machines. Ah well, different strokes for diferent folks and all that..
I think that you know the answer to your question already ? Our turbines need to be in a state of rediness to generate power. If they don't turn, they don't generate.
I'm starting to think that you're not a great fan of these machines. Ah well, different strokes for diferent folks and all that..
Sorry georgen, you are labouring under the misapprehension that the people you are talking to are reasonable and sane. It should be dawning on you by now that the majority are off their heads!
Still doesn't mean we want a bunch of windmills that will never even pay for themselves, never mind contribute to lowering CO2 emissions. Will be built using UK subsidies by foreign manufacturers, and all so that they can be pointed at by politicians saying ooh look how green we are. For this purpose they just need to turn, not generate.
Georgen: See when the turbines are being erected and connected - Who does all that work?
I know the local contractors set the plinths, provide craneage etc, but is it the manufacturer (ie Danish coffee preferring Vestas guys) who do the bolting together, connection, balancing, commissioning and so on?
Well, in Siemens case, they tend to employ sub contractors from the local area to erect the turbines. These subbies are normally kept on as long as there's work for them. They'll tend to put the turbines up and cable them, and the Siemens guys carry out the commissioning and final grid connection. This was certainly the case 4 years ago whilst I was a sub contractor.
Still doesn't mean we want a bunch of windmills that will never even pay for themselves, never mind contribute to lowering CO2 emissions. Will be built using UK subsidies by foreign manufacturers, and all so that they can be pointed at by politicians saying ooh look how green we are. For this purpose they just need to turn, not generate.
Hear, hear!
I have never understood why we never hear a peep out of the tourism businesses up hear over the slow but sure turning of the Caithness landscape into a turbine wilderness. Do they not realise that they won't have a business if the tourists don't come anymore?
Boozeburglar
07-Feb-10, 00:10
I think that you know the answer to your question already ? Our turbines need to be in a state of rediness to generate power. If they don't turn, they don't generate.
I'm starting to think that you're not a great fan of these machines. Ah well, different strokes for diferent folks and all that..
I am not a huge fan of being misquoted and then being told I am confused, especially when in reality you are repeatedly missing my point. However, best move on.
I am a fan of wind power, but there was never any need to scatter them around in the way that has happened.
This thread was about the ridiculous nature of the planning for these industrial structures.
No amount of putting information about the operational side of the industry out to the 'mainstream', (interesting as it may be), is going to change the fact that the roll out of wind power has been hit and miss at best.
The way consents have been achieved has been devious and downright disrespectful of people's lives and home environment. It is all the more distasteful when you know the darn things don't solve the problems we face in any way that reflects the amount they are being subsidised versus other more reliable technologies.
Hear, hear!
I have never understood why we never hear a peep out of the tourism businesses up hear over the slow but sure turning of the Caithness landscape into a turbine wilderness. Do they not realise that they won't have a business if the tourists don't come anymore?
the tourist interest does not have a very co-ordinated voice up here - there is no part of any of the bodies who represent the industry, who are very interested in Caithness per se, but we tend to be lumped into "Highland" because that is their geo-political area. We are a very unique area that requires special marketing.
Caithness is an area which simply does not matter very much in the political world, not many voters, and anyway, we do not vote for the main parties, so we can easily be sacrificed to the whim of "green" target shooting. No other area of the country would put up with having their special landscapes despoilked like this. That's why we are so interesting to the power companies.
People just feel helpless in the face of the sheer numbers of applications coming in. Now that Beauly-Denny has been given the nod, there will be more.
In spite of HC designating areas like Dunbeath and Yarrows as of key significance to their tourism strategy (as archaeological landscapes) , both of these have highly destructive schemes which are going to conflict with that strategy.
Peatlands?? Even they are to be ignored.
Tourism is the one industry which works well and ought to continue indefinitely. If you are talking jobs, it employs more people than any other up here. Don't talk about wind farm jobs : in comparison, it is a joke.
It is a total tragedy.
If they solved the problem, you would have to accept them.
The government has already wrecked our economy, but somehow still has funds to pursue this complete white elephant for the benefit of a few already fat people, and to the detriment of anyone else's interest.
P.S. we are paying for it, and will pay more.
Boozeburglar
07-Feb-10, 17:24
the tourist interest does not have a very co-ordinated voice up here - there is no part of any of the bodies who represent the industry, who are very interested in Caithness per se, but we tend to be lumped into "Highland" because that is their geo-political area. We are a very unique area that requires special marketing.
Caithness is an area which simply does not matter very much in the political world, not many voters, and anyway, we do not vote for the main parties, so we can easily be sacrificed to the whim of "green" target shooting. No other area of the country would put up with having their special landscapes despoilked like this. That's why we are so interesting to the power companies.
People just feel helpless in the face of the sheer numbers of applications coming in. Now that Beauly-Denny has been given the nod, there will be more.
In spite of HC designating areas like Dunbeath and Yarrows as of key significance to their tourism strategy (as archaeological landscapes) , both of these have highly destructive schemes which are going to conflict with that strategy.
Peatlands?? Even they are to be ignored.
Tourism is the one industry which works well and ought to continue indefinitely. If you are talking jobs, it employs more people than any other up here. Don't talk about wind farm jobs : in comparison, it is a joke.
It is a total tragedy.
If they solved the problem, you would have to accept them.
The government has already wrecked our economy, but somehow still has funds to pursue this complete white elephant for the benefit of a few already fat people, and to the detriment of anyone else's interest.
P.S. we are paying for it, and will pay more.
So true, sad to see one of the most beautiful landscapes in the country being dismissed so readily.
Mr P Cannop
07-Feb-10, 18:49
whos all going to the meeting this tuesday ??
Tubthumper
07-Feb-10, 19:19
Meeting???:eek:
Mr P Cannop
07-Feb-10, 19:26
Meeting???:eek:
aye the meeting in Dunbeath
ywindythesecond
07-Feb-10, 19:57
Meeting???:eek:
This is where we started on this thread.
"Next Tuesday 9th February, Highland Council Planning Committee will meet to decide whether to support or oppose Dunbeath Windfarm. Officials recommend approval, but want to impose tough conditions"
Mr P Cannop
07-Feb-10, 22:54
This is where we started on this thread.
"Next Tuesday 9th February, Highland Council Planning Committee will meet to decide whether to support or oppose Dunbeath Windfarm. Officials recommend approval, but want to impose tough conditions"
whos all going to this ??
whos all going to this ??
I might be wrong, but isn’t it just a meeting of the council planning committee to make a decision based on submissions and evidence they already have?
Mr P Cannop
07-Feb-10, 23:19
I might be wrong, but isn’t it just a meeting of the council planning committee to make a decision based on submissions and evidence they already have?
yes its a hearing meeting these meeting can go on all day if need be whos all going to this ??
ywindythesecond
08-Feb-10, 00:50
I might be wrong, but isn’t it just a meeting of the council planning committee to make a decision based on submissions and evidence they already have?
Nearly right ducati, but the applicant has the opportunity to make his point and the people who have timeously objected and registered a wish to make their point at the hearing also have a right to speak. What is a bit disappointing is that the applicant has 10 minutes to make his point, and the objectors, all of them, regardless of number, have ten minutes between them.
Nearly right ducati, but the applicant has the opportunity to make his point and the people who have timeously objected and registered a wish to make their point at the hearing also have a right to speak. What is a bit disappointing is that the applicant has 10 minutes to make his point, and the objectors, all of them, regardless of number, have ten minutes between them.
That will be orderly then!
So if you haven't registered an objection (2 years ago by the look of it) Before I moved to the area. Is there any point in attending, other than to witness the decision?
That will be orderly then!
So if you haven't registered an objection (2 years ago by the look of it) Before I moved to the area. Is there any point in attending, other than to witness the decision?
Yes, it's worth going, even if you just show by extra numbers of people in the hall that the community is against this proposal (providing of course, you are against it!). If you need to get up to speed with what is really going on in the county regarding windfarms just visit the CWIF website www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk (http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk) for an eye-opener. You can object to all of the current applications that concern you there.
ywindythesecond
08-Feb-10, 20:00
That will be orderly then!
So if you haven't registered an objection (2 years ago by the look of it) Before I moved to the area. Is there any point in attending, other than to witness the decision?
Olivia is right ducati. The main reason that we have so many windfarm developments being foisted on us is that the people of Caithness are invisible to the Councillors. The only way we can make a difference is by being seen and heard. See you at Dunbeath tomorrow
Mr P Cannop
08-Feb-10, 20:20
Olivia is right ducati. The main reason that we have so many windfarm developments being foisted on us is that the people of Caithness are invisible to the Councillors. The only way we can make a difference is by being seen and heard. See you at Dunbeath tomorrow
let me know what all happens please ??
Boozeburglar
08-Feb-10, 20:31
I wish I could go, I would be interested. Darn.
Mr P Cannop
09-Feb-10, 17:24
what all happend at this meeting ??
Confused by ammendment made by councilors who seemed to accpet that there was considerable visual impact The decision was to reduce the number from 22 to 17. So we are all right as it was only the 5 they moved that had any visual impact. !!!!!
Confused by ammendment made by councilors who seemed to accpet that there was considerable visual impact The decision was to reduce the number from 22 to 17. So we are all right as it was only the 5 they moved that had any visual impact. !!!!!
If I've got this right (?) - The solicitor said that this still constitutes an objection to the application before them, i.e. for 22 turbines. Therefore, unless they come back with a new application for 17 turbines surely it will still be going to Public Local Inquiry? Don't forget SNH and Historic Scotland are still objecting. All hope is not lost, but I have to admit it was a very weird carry on. How removing those five turbines will lessen the impact I have no idea, and after all it appeared to be an idea written down on the back of a fag packet.
Mr P Cannop
09-Feb-10, 19:47
any one got any reports from the 2 hearings ??
The P & J has now published a report on this meeting. Cllr David Bremner proposed a motion to reject the Dunbeath application. He seemed to be the only councillor who had bothered to study it in any detail, having walked the strath and ascertained the obviously high volume of pedestrian traffic, and appreciated for himself the impact that the proposal would have for both visitors and locals who value this beautiful place.
He pointed out that the letters of support, which were numerous, tended to be “of a general nature” whereas objections were specific. Others could have told him that the promoters of the scheme were canvassing support in Inverness to what people thought was a general support for renewables. For the council to cast this as an even split in the community is to say the least disingenuous. The paperwork handed out at the meeting published the names and locations of objectors, who were overwhelmingly local (over 800). Curiously, the same was not given out for supporters.
After a short debate in which some councillors argued for and against, with at least some notion that they had actually formed a considered opinion – David Flear and Graeme Smith for example. Each taking up a different stance, but at least with some thought. Most sat dumbly without any hint of participation
Councillor Durham then moved an amendment that 5 turbines should be removed from the scheme.
There was a quick rustling of papers as councillors looked to see which ones he meant, and the thing proceeded to the vote without any further debate whatsoever. No-one questioned why these particular ones would make the slightest difference to the impact of the whole windfarm , or what effect that it might have on its viability etc etc. One by one, apart from the very few who seemed to have a view either way, the rest of the committee fell in with the amendment.
As an example of informed decision making, it doesn’t get much worse.
From the fine words spouted by McCorqudale, the chief planning lackey, on the need to meet government targets, it is obvious that this is the pressure to which party-aligned councillors are subjected, and to which all our precious landscapes in Caithness are to be sacrificed.
The amendment was a sop to local objectors,, and in my view, a total disgrace. The thought and debate that went into that decision was either arranged beforehand, or was seen as a convenient last-minute let-out for them.
Surely we can do without representation on this sort of level.
We need more independently-minded councillors like young Mr Bremner, who brings a bit of integrity and intelligence to proceedings, sadly lacking in the majority .
I left the meeting feeling that nowhere in the County is now safe in the hands of these pusillanimous fudge makers.
P.S. The Council's Renewable Energy Strategy" produced at over £10,000 cost to the public purse "has been superceded by national guidelines". The map which shows Dunbeath as an area to be given "Special Protection from Windfarms over 20MW" therefore means nothing.
Bye-bye local democracy
Boozeburglar
11-Feb-10, 11:40
Great report, even if it is depressing!
It was disappointing that the councilors who voted for the ammendment to the 17 had not given there reasons for removal of the 5 turbines The only reason seemed to be that they had stopped at the Museam and Tea room and these were the most obvious from that location If they had gone to the Inver Arms to stop I imagine it would have been a different 5 turbines that were taken out. Having seen the reports and the amount of studies that had gone into the application (although missing peat slide and Hydrology to a satisfactory level) to have councilors with no technical deatil availabe to them at the meeting to make that decision seems unbelivable.
I note that a couple of local councilors did not attend saving them having to make a decison in public effecting votes in the future.
Interesting to hear the Chairman D MacKay coming out strongly against the application.
3 of the 5 Caithness counciors were against with R Coghill not eligable to vote as he had put an objection in 5 years ago.
If the objectors had spoken as well as D Bremner i imagine that the result may have been different.
ywindythesecond
11-Feb-10, 19:19
It was disappointing that the councilors who voted for the ammendment to the 17 had not given there reasons for removal of the 5 turbines The only reason seemed to be that they had stopped at the Museam and Tea room and these were the most obvious from that location If they had gone to the Inver Arms to stop I imagine it would have been a different 5 turbines that were taken out. Having seen the reports and the amount of studies that had gone into the application (although missing peat slide and Hydrology to a satisfactory level) to have councilors with no technical deatil availabe to them at the meeting to make that decision seems unbelivable.
I note that a couple of local councilors did not attend saving them having to make a decison in public effecting votes in the future.
Interesting to hear the Chairman D MacKay coming out strongly against the application.
3 of the 5 Caithness counciors were against with R Coghill not eligable to vote as he had put an objection in 5 years ago.
If the objectors had spoken as well as D Bremner i imagine that the result may have been different.
AI Willie was also barred from taking part from foolishly thinking at some time in the past that he was supposed to represent the people. What really gets me is that we were scuppered by our own Caithness Councillors Flear and Thurso. The Baillie Reporter effectively said the people of Caithness are of no worth, and this lot have trashed our landscape treasure. What have we got left?
David Bremner as always spoke informedly and eloquently and, I am no fan of Graeme Smith in general, but his input was genuine and, if a bit wooly and lengthy, it was from conviction. I spoke to him later and told him so.
I have never understood the nonsensical idea of barring people who have a known view. Anyway, Graeme Smith has made many remarks supporting wind farms in general "The more the merrier" was the quote in our local organ. He is still capable of engaging his critical faculties on individual schemes, and I would never argue that he or any other should be barred from making their contribution. Robert Coghill stance on Dunbeath was quite likely to have been a consequence of talking to constituents as well as any preformed view he may have had.
Although I disagree with David Flear's position, he had the courage of his conviction, and was not afraid to voice it.
What I object to, is the unthinking acceptance by the majority of the councillors, of a totally new position that was not explored or questioned, and one had the impression that it was pushed through so that lunch was not held up.
The people of Dunbeath and the rest of Caithness who bothered to write over 800 letters of objection will, I hope, punish those people at the next poll. They certainly do not deserve such treatment at the hands of people who are there to represent their interests.
The sheep stock club talk of replacing their subsidies with income from this monstrous development, so that their families can continue to work the ground. Let's remind them that controlled burning, an essential management tool for both sheep and game and every other type of species that inhabit that area, will no longer be allowed. Their families will inherit a wasteland of rank overgrown heath interspersed with large concrete blocks, probably with derelict turbines attached ; for when the mills are redundant, I doubt their removal will be at the top of any administration's spending priority whatever the so-called guarantees given.
P.S. The Council's Renewable Energy Strategy" produced at over £10,000 cost to the public purse "has been superceded by national guidelines". The map which shows Dunbeath as an area to be given "Special Protection from Windfarms over 20MW" therefore means nothing.
Bye-bye local democracy
800 objections, might as well be 8,000. A foregone conclusion that one. Democracy? in Scotland it's a joke. In this respect what use are Highland Councillors? take Bailie, they were treated like naughty children and 'superseded' by David Russell, so-called Scottish Reporter; a pen-pusher from Edinburgh that rubber stamps policy from Hollyrood made up by that bunch of amateurs who really think that wind farms will save the planet - what a joke.
Say goodbye you Highlanders to your beautiful unspoilt country - the morons have it.
Tubthumper
11-Feb-10, 20:46
I was expressing concern about large scale industrial energy projects being stuffed in all over the Caithness landscape, lining the pockets of a few, creating a paltry number of jobs and taking no account of the opinions of local people.
A colleague said 'It's better than nothing.' I wonder how true that statement is?
Discuss
Cinderella's Shoe
11-Feb-10, 23:27
Now thats worth a thread on its own.....
Well said Spurtle. As I said before it seemed to be an idea written down on the back of a fag packet. Surely, this can be the only place in the world where a suggestion like this can be taken seriously. It's farcical and ludicrous.
SNH (who I'm no lover of) will have no doubt spent a very long time considering and concluding that the whole scheme will have a significant adverse visual and landscape impact and so should be refused and yet our lot (Mr Bremner, Mr Smith and Mr D Mackay excluded of course) can come up with a quick solution just before lunch. What a joke. One can only hope now that at PLI the reporter actually listens to the experts.
Now, I've just had another thought - if it's 17 turbines does it take it down to below 50 MWs? In which case, if I were Falck Renewables I'd quickly apply for 17 instead of 22 and get it through with Highland Council and forget the application to Scottish Ministers.
Oh what a crazy world we live in!!
ywindythesecond
12-Feb-10, 09:23
AI Willie was also barred from taking part from foolishly thinking at some time in the past that he was supposed to represent the people. What really gets me is that we were scuppered by our own Caithness Councillors Flear and Thurso. The Baillie Reporter effectively said the people of Caithness are of no worth, and this lot have trashed our landscape treasure. What have we got left?
David Bremner as always spoke informedly and eloquently and, I am no fan of Graeme Smith in general, but his input was genuine and, if a bit wooly and lengthy, it was from conviction. I spoke to him later and told him so.
How could I forget Councillor Fernie? Well it is as if he wasn't there. I can't recall him making any contribution other than the word "amendment", precisely the contribution made by Councillor Thurso.
Donny MacKay made a heartfelt plea from the Chair and looked quite stricken from where I sat.
Agree with him or not, at least Cllr Flear had an opinion, but we don't have any idea what thought or logic was applied to the decisions of Cllrs Thurso and Fernie, nor for that matter, the two other grey and voiceless Members from the south.
Is this really democracy? I suppose if the elected members don't tell you their views you won't know precisely why to elect them out, but please don't let that deter you!
ywindythesecond
12-Feb-10, 09:35
Now that I am on my high horse, there were a number of issues which came up. The Planning official did not know how far from Buolfruich Windfarm the development was. He told Members that Buolfruich turbines were 65m to the hub (54 feet higher than Causeymire). The site visit was supposed to go up the Strath to Loedebest but the official did not know the bus could reach there. Makes you wonder if he had actually been up the Strath himself. I was happy that the plan was to go to Loedebest because then members would experience the magic of the Strath for themselves. In the event we went to Buolfruich Windfarm and still at that time they were being told that these toytown turbines were ony 10 metres less than proposed at Dunbeath. He invited members to assess the noise from the turbines but gave them no guidance. At the hearing he corrected himself and gave the true Buolfruich hub height of 46m and rotor diameter of 44m. Dunbeath turbines are 125m to hub and the blade length is 45m!
And it was criminally negligent for the site visit not to have gone on to the Causeymire to see the mountains at their best and the destruction of our natural beauty already caused by Buolfruich.
ywindythesecond
12-Feb-10, 10:00
I was expressing concern about large scale industrial energy projects being stuffed in all over the Caithness landscape, lining the pockets of a few, creating a paltry number of jobs and taking no account of the opinions of local people.
A colleague said 'It's better than nothing.' I wonder how true that statement is?
Discuss
In the 24 hours ending 7.55 am today, of the 1588MW connected wind capacity across Scotland that National Grid meters and bases its generation plans on, less than 5% (under 80 MW) was actually generated for eight hours forty-five minutes in total.
At 8.50pm and again at 9.40pm on 10th February, generation bottomed out at 18MW, 1.13% connected capacity, or the equivalent of seven Causeymire turbines spread across Scotland.
In 2016 160000MW of fossil fuel generation is supposed to drop out of the system and be replaced by wind.
And the loaves and fishes were supposed to be a miracle?
It is not better than nothing, it is worse than nothing because the people who can and should be facing reality are our politicians who can't stop digging.
All this information is available at www.bmreports.com (http://www.bmreports.com) but you have to work to get it.
Anyone wants talked through it, pm me your phone number.
Now that I am on my high horse, there were a number of issues which came up. The Planning official did not know how far from Buolfruich Windfarm the development was. He told Members that Buolfruich turbines were 65m to the hub (54 feet higher than Causeymire). The site visit was supposed to go up the Strath to Loedebest but the official did not know the bus could reach there. Makes you wonder if he had actually been up the Strath himself. I was happy that the plan was to go to Loedebest because then members would experience the magic of the Strath for themselves. In the event we went to Buolfruich Windfarm and still at that time they were being told that these toytown turbines were ony 10 metres less than proposed at Dunbeath. He invited members to assess the noise from the turbines but gave them no guidance. At the hearing he corrected himself and gave the true Buolfruich hub height of 46m and rotor diameter of 44m. Dunbeath turbines are 125m to hub and the blade length is 45m!
And it was criminally negligent for the site visit not to have gone on to the Causeymire to see the mountains at their best and the destruction of our natural beauty already caused by Buolfruich.
I was thinking as he spouted forth 'what a good job this planning officer is making for the case for the windfarm', now that I've learnt about the dreadful errors he made with regards to size of the turbines he should be hung, drawn and quartered. The number and size of the things is a basic requirement to get right.
Infact, he did a better job of selling the case for the windfarm than the developers themselves.
The other thing I didn't like at the hearing is the developers taking up centre stage with their own tables, water etc. and yet the objectors just had to come forward and stand wherever they could to speak. In the past everyone was given the same opportunity to sit before the councillors and present their case.
I was thinking as he spouted forth 'what a good job this planning officer is making for the case for the windfarm', now that I've learnt about the dreadful errors he made with regards to size of the turbines he should be hung, drawn and quartered. The number and size of the things is a basic requirement to get right.
Infact, he did a better job of selling the case for the windfarm than the developers themselves.
The other thing I didn't like at the hearing is the developers taking up centre stage with their own tables, water etc. and yet the objectors just had to come forward and stand wherever they could to speak. In the past everyone was given the same opportunity to sit before the councillors and present their case.
Be fair, the first thing the Planning Officer said was to correct the turbine height. Of course it was too late by then to change the image already created in the minds of those on the site visit.
Everything is weighted in favour of developers - they have the money and we mere mortals have to know our place. They can appeal decisions - we can't. They can make all these rubbish claims about saving the planet in their publicity but it's not allowed to contest this at a hearing.
As to the landowners and crofters - they would do well to read this
http://www.wind-watch.org/alerts/2007/12/27/what-have-i-done/
Tubthumper
12-Feb-10, 20:19
£250k per year for a community fund is more than twice what Baillie are offering. The possibility of a community owned turbine or two could bring in some cash as well. And there will be three jobs or so once its running. So it's not all negative.
He told Members that Buolfruich turbines were 65m to the hub (54 feet higher than Causeymire).
At the hearing he corrected himself and gave the true Buolfruich hub height of 46m and rotor diameter of 44m. Dunbeath turbines are 125m to hub and the blade length is 45m!
In 2016 160000MW of fossil fuel generation is supposed to drop out of the system and be replaced by wind.
And the loaves and fishes were supposed to be a miracle?
Sheesh, the planning official was deadly accurate compared to you. :lol:
That would indeed be a miracle by anyone's standards. People who live in glass windmill land should count their zeroes before their criticisms are hatched. ;)
ywindythesecond
13-Feb-10, 09:24
Sheesh, the planning official was deadly accurate compared to you. :lol:
That would indeed be a miracle by anyone's standards. People who live in glass windmill land should count their zeroes before their criticisms are hatched. ;)
Thanks Crayola. I frequently forget I must not rely on my memory, but that was particularly careless. Dunbeath turbines are of course 125m to tip with 45m blades and 12,000 MW of fossil fuel generation is due to drop out of the system in 2016.
What did you think of the substance of the post which is that this week we have witnessed generation of only 1.13% (18 out of 1588MW) of connected wind capacity and wind is supposed to offset 12,000MW of reliable power by 2016? Is this a good plan?
Thanks Crayola. I frequently forget I must not rely on my memory, but that was particularly careless. Dunbeath turbines are of course 125m to tip with 45m blades and 12,000 MW of fossil fuel generation is due to drop out of the system in 2016.
What did you think of the substance of the post which is that this week we have witnessed generation of only 1.13% (18 out of 1588MW) of connected wind capacity and wind is supposed to offset 12,000MW of reliable power by 2016? Is this a good plan?
And are we the only ones in posession of this info?
You can't fight money with facts
Just to give an idea of the scale http://www.scottishrenewables.com/MemberSearch/List.aspx
a not comprehensive list of all the (mostly) commercial organisations with investment in Scottish renewable. They all want/need to make money out of it so a bit of a juggernaut I think.
Thanks Crayola. I frequently forget I must not rely on my memory, but that was particularly careless. Dunbeath turbines are of course 125m to tip with 45m blades and 12,000 MW of fossil fuel generation is due to drop out of the system in 2016.
I had no idea how big the windmills were but I could see that 160,000MW couldn't possibly be right so I just assumed you'd inadvertently inserted an extra zero into 16,000MW.
Thanks for the clarification. :D
What did you think of the substance of the post which is that this week we have witnessed generation of only 1.13% (18 out of 1588MW) of connected wind capacity and wind is supposed to offset 12,000MW of reliable power by 2016? Is this a good plan?It's a good plan if you have your head in the sand as Alex Salmond and others seem to have. Here is the monitored wind generation bar chart for the last 24 hours from your favourite website.
http://i50.tinypic.com/ouo2li.jpg
The average generated over the last 24 hours is 47MW. This is less than 3% of the maximum which as close to zero as makes no difference. :eek:
And it's only 10% of the expected average!
My company wants to become involved with renewables such as wind and marine but now I understand the reality I find the whole business to be far more flaky than investment banking was in recent years. Where are the concrete plans for export/import to countries with massive pumped storage? Even that would not be enough and far more will be needed. The post-invasion plans for running Iraq were impeccable by comparison.
All threads lead to Norway these days!
ywindythesecond
13-Feb-10, 15:41
I had no idea how big the windmills were but I could see that 160,000MW couldn't possibly be right so I just assumed you'd inadvertently inserted an extra zero into 16,000MW.
Thanks for the clarification. :D
It's a good plan if you have your head in the sand as Alex Salmond and others seem to have. Here is the monitored wind generation bar chart for the last 24 hours from your favourite website.
http://i50.tinypic.com/ouo2li.jpg
The average generated over the last 24 hours is 47MW. This is less than 3% of the maximum which as close to zero as makes no difference. :eek:
And it's only 10% of the expected average!
My company wants to become involved with renewables such as wind and marine but now I understand the reality I find the whole business to be far more flaky than investment banking was in recent years. Where are the concrete plans for export/import to countries with massive pumped storage? Even that would not be enough and far more will be needed. The post-invasion plans for running Iraq were impeccable by comparison.
All threads lead to Norway these days!
That is brilliant Crayola. I didn't know you could isolate the generation on the bar chart! Thanks!
That is brilliant Crayola. I didn't know you could isolate the generation on the bar chart! Thanks!
You're welcome. Thanks for bringing that website to my attention. It's been invaluable to my learning process.
It's even worse now.....
http://i50.tinypic.com/yjxh5.jpg
ywindythesecond
14-Feb-10, 13:20
It's even worse now.....
http://i50.tinypic.com/yjxh5.jpg
Thanks Crayola, but in that graph there is still a lot of orange, so people could think that meant a lot of electricity. I have been tracking wind output since 10th January when it dipped to 19MW. Here is the story so far for February.
http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/2779/feb14snapshot.jpg
http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/2779/feb14snapshot.jpg (http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/2779/feb14snapshot.jpg)
The numbers of homes is calculated per BWEA ie 30% load factor, average home consumption 4700kwh pa.
Putting it very simplistically, the space below the 475MW line and above the red graph line would be filled with homes with no electricity if we relied on wind.
This is our UK government's energy strategy, and the Trashitalls are even worse.
National grid consulted last year on how to balance the grid in 2020 when 35GW renewables would be connected, and suggested it could always rely on at least 10% load factor. E.ON said 5% was more realistic. If E.ON's more realistic figure was adopted, then for the last two days over 16 million homes nationwide would have been without electricity and on the evening of 10th February at 8.50 pm, that would have risen to nearly 19 million.
At the Dunbeath hearing, the Falck Renewables man scornfully rejected my suggestion that Dunbeath Windfarm could not be relied upon to contribute any more than 5% of its capacity to Scottish Government targets for renewables. Seems I was too optimistic.
Thanks Crayola, but in that graph there is still a lot of orange, so people could think that meant a lot of electricity.That's fair comment so here's the current bar chart showing nuclear (in grey) and wind (in orange) over the last 24 hours.
http://i45.tinypic.com/mhwkh.jpg
Do you see all that orange everyone? :lol:
At least you can see it if only just. You wouldn't see it at all if I compared wind with coal or gas generated electricity!
Thanks for the plot. I think you're right on all counts. But then I'm only just learning this game so don't get too excited! :lol:
That's fair comment so here's the current bar chart showing nuclear (in grey) and wind (in orange) over the last 24 hours.
http://i45.tinypic.com/mhwkh.jpg
Do you see all that orange everyone?
At least you can see it if only just. You wouldn't see it at all if I compared wind with coal or gas generated electricity!
Thanks for the plot. I think you're right on all counts. But then I'm only just learning this game so don't get too excited! :lol:
Certainly an eye-opener - pity the Executive can't (won't?) see it!
roadbowler
14-Feb-10, 17:42
sorry, when i reload it reposts as well!
roadbowler
14-Feb-10, 17:56
i admit i do not know the in's and out's of this situation but, there are lots of complaints about the conduct of the planning meeting both councillors and mistakes by planning officers. Now, how they can decide to just drop 5 turbines sounds fishy, especially with little time of consideration. A good friend mentioned to me that yea, the original application was probably for 17 intended all along. But, applying for 22 and then just hastily taking away 5 is giving the objectors a bit of what they want, therefore keeping them quiet. Sounds likely, as i've seen this kind of crap blatantly carried out before. Now, someone mentions there is no way to appeal. This is not correct. If there was maladministration occurring of any form, you can submit a Notice of Referral to the chief executives assistant and she is required to look into it and bring back to the table if even a hint of maladministration has occurred. Maladministration includes not taking human rights into account and much much more. It does not even need to be about legalities. If it has occurred you can get together and appeal in this way by this process. Just an idea.
ywindythesecond
14-Feb-10, 19:13
i admit i do not know the in's and out's of this situation but, there are lots of complaints about the conduct of the planning meeting both councillors and mistakes by planning officers. Now, how they can decide to just drop 5 turbines sounds fishy, especially with little time of consideration. A good friend mentioned to me that yea, the original application was probably for 17 intended all along. But, applying for 22 and then just hastily taking away 5 is giving the objectors a bit of what they want, therefore keeping them quiet. Sounds likely, as i've seen this kind of crap blatantly carried out before. Now, someone mentions there is no way to appeal. This is not correct. If there was maladministration occurring of any form, you can submit a Notice of Referral to the chief executives assistant and she is required to look into it and bring back to the table if even a hint of maladministration has occurred. Maladministration includes not taking human rights into account and much much more. It does not even need to be about legalities. If it has occurred you can get together and appeal in this way by this process. Just an idea.
You are right roadbowler, you can often spot the "sacrificial" turbines in the layout, Spittal Windfarm is typical of this, but on this occasion, the proposal was the inspiration of one Councillor acting alone. I actually witnessed the moment of inspiration. It was almost as if a speech balloon appeared above his head "I have just had a brilliant idea!!" but unfortunately he did not share it with me at the time, so I was as surprised as everyone else.
I don't think the developer will be happy with the present situation. All his sums will be up in the air. I think he would have preferred a definite "no" so he could let the legals go to town at an appeal and put himself at the benign mercy of the Scottish Trashitall Government.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.