Spittal Hill - Dumbest Place Ever for a Windfarm

[Rheghead]

Sounds to me like this windfarm on Spittal hill will be an ecological disaster that we all pay for in the long term while the developers get rich quick

How come? I've walked around Causeymire windfarm and I can't see an ecological disaster. No dead birds, pollution or 'owt.

Pumping zillions of tonnes of coal into the atmosphere sounds like an ecological disaster, mind.

[Tilter]

Pumping zillions of tonnes of coal into the atmosphere sounds like an ecological disaster, mind.

Yes it is. Nothing we can do with a few windfarms in Caithness producing next to nothing by way of energy is going to make any difference to what China's chucking into the atmosphere. However, hopefully clean coal, carbon capture and all that will make a difference in future, though it would be better not to use so much in the first place. Then again, you can't stop China wanting to become like us - all developed and civilised (ha!)

Anyway, I still think Spittal's a really daft place for a windfarm for many many reasons I can't get into right now - maybe after I've had my tea.

Do you think Spittal Hill is a good place for a windfarm Rheghead?

[Rheghead]

Do you think Spittal Hill is a good place for a windfarm Rheghead?

I haven't seen the developer's report in relation to wind speeds and stuff. So I can't say.

[Tilter]

I haven't seen the developer's report in relation to wind speeds and stuff. So I can't say.

I believe the developer's Environmental Statement and Technical Summary are in Thurso library, and Spittal garage and Watten P.O if you wish to see them.

I expect the wind speeds are quite good. They're quite good in the whole of Scotland. However, from a planning perspective - landscape and visual impact, cumulative impact, impact on ecology, ornithology, cultural heritage, tourism, etc., it all looks pretty dodgy.

[hilary]

spittal hill a place of tranquil bliss ,will be no more if it is covered with giant turbines, they will be 300ft high and will beat and thrum and vibrate night and day .well if the wind blows.

[Rheghead]

I believe the developer's Environmental Statement and Technical Summary are in Thurso library, and Spittal garage and Watten P.O if you wish to see them.

I expect the wind speeds are quite good. They're quite good in the whole of Scotland. However, from a planning perspective - landscape and visual impact, cumulative impact, impact on ecology, ornithology, cultural heritage, tourism, etc., it all looks pretty dodgy.

I can see a problem with visual impact but only if you have adopted the idea that windfarms are bad from a visually impact point of view. Plenty of folk don't see a problem.

There is a problem with ornithology but only from the protection of target species eg white tailed eagle (which aren't resident in Caithness).

I can't see a problem with the other things you have stated, the protection of cultural sites and views don't seem to do anything to halt or retard global warming, in fact the oppposite, it just promotes people to get in their cars and gawk at landscapes.

[rupert]

I can see a problem with visual impact but only if you have adopted the idea that windfarms are bad from a visually impact point of view. Plenty of folk don't see a problem.

There is a problem with ornithology but only from the protection of target species eg white tailed eagle (which aren't resident in Caithness).

I can't see a problem with the other things you have stated, the protection of cultural sites and views don't seem to do anything to halt or retard global warming, in fact the oppposite, it just promotes people to get in their cars and gawk at landscapes.

Your right, there is a problem with ornithology and that is because we have a significant number of target species that need protection in the vicinity of this proposed site (although why other poor little birds who are going to get minced do not matter is beyond me).

Of course, don't forget that tourism is Scotland's biggest industry and employs (I believe) one in five people in the Highlands. People come to the Highlands to gawk at the scenery, as you put it, in their polluting cars, but they then stay at the b & bs, hotels, use the pubs and chip shops etc. etc.

The visual impact is another matter - there is a whole lot of difference between viewing a thirty turbine windfarm on a distant hill top as you travel down to Inverness and viewing same size windfarm less than 900 metres away. This, by the way, is the distance one poor person's house is going to be away from it.

There is no getting away from the fact that the siting of this development is unbelievably insensitive to the local community and thats all there is to it.

[Tilter]

views don't seem to do anything to halt or retard global warming,

Rheghead
You're being just a teeny bit obtuse again. This windfarm will have nothing to do with global warming. It will have a lot to do with developers making a lot of money off of other people's backs. Wind farms make for very unpleasant next door neighbours. And Spittal hill and its surrounding area have residences, settlements even, all around it. Good places for windfarms, if you believe they are a fantastic weapon against global warming, are where they are well away from people and protected species.

[hilary]

the cumulative impact of such a big wind farm development could have serious and damaging effect on the character of our unique landscape and the health of the inhabitants.could also destroy tourism in Caithness.

[Rheghead]

the cumulative impact of such a big wind farm development could have serious and damaging effect on the character of our unique landscape and the health of the inhabitants.could also destroy tourism in Caithness.

The reverse is true.

The cumulative impact of everyone who perceives that windfarms will have a damaging effect on the character of our unique landscape and the health of our inhabitants will ironically have the effect of damaging our unique landscape. The experts predict that global temps will rise by 1.4-3.8c over the next 100 years which will devastate our and third world countries. Yes, it is that serious.

[MadPict]

..and the teeny tiny bit of difference that turning the UK into one big wind factory will be wiped away in a blink of the eye by the likes of China and India and Africa pursuing their "right" to pollute the planet in the same way the developed world did.......

But that's cool cos we can sit and look out of our windows at the crappy wind turbines which we were forced to accept by politicians and greedy landowners on the ticket of saving the planet......

[sweetheart]

You don't work in any industry that is affected by tourism, for that matter,
your working in nuclear complex hardly makes you an unbias critic. You moved
up here and live on the taxpayer subsidy to nuclear energy, and you're pining
for more big-energy to muck up the landscape as you don't care, its your field.

I'm sure you feel very green every time you drive in to the green tesco's at
wick, where those green solar panels offset the parking lot and all the fuel
all of the north is using to drive there. Your sense that destroying
the last wilderspaces in europe to satisfy an impossible conundrum is
just cynical and destructive.

People are so trusting of the instutitons of democracy, much as so many people
believe that opposing this goldrush will work using traditional instutitons,
or even a highland renewable strategy.... but as we're seeing, there is no
method to the madness... its a pure gold rush, and the big money has
bought off the political parties who all suck on big green lies that you're
helping to spread that destroying the highlands with windfarms will
make *any* impact at all on global warming.

[Rheghead]

..and the teeny tiny bit of difference that turning the UK into one big wind factory will be wiped away in a blink of the eye by the likes of China and India and Africa pursuing their "right" to pollute the planet in the same way the developed world did.......

Without the west taking the lead on renewable energy then there isn't a cat in Hell's chance that China, India etc will follow. The UN recognises this and that is why they are promoting an 'expansion and contraction' policy on developing country's use of fossil fuels. It is a fact that renewable energy is more expensive than fossil fuel so how do we expect them to go for renewable energy?? Only when China etc are fully developed that they can afford to go fully renewables.

In the meantime, renewable energy will cut our fossil fuel useage and ween us from foreign fuel imports.

[Rheghead]

You don't work in any industry that is affected by tourism, for that matter,
your working in nuclear complex hardly makes you an unbias critic. You moved
up here and live on the taxpayer subsidy to nuclear energy, and you're pining
for more big-energy to muck up the landscape as you don't care, its your field.

What?? I don't have any connection with the nuclear energy industry!! So your assumption has fallen onto its face...

[MadPict]

The "expansion and contraction' policy" won't work.

We contract our dependence on fossil fuels and use even more expensive alternatives while the "third world" expands it's reliance on it's own 'homegrown' natural fossil fuel reserves.

They insist it is their "right" to follow a path of industrial revolution just as we did in the west, using the "don't do as we did but do as we say" argument against any attempt by the first world to stop them from driving the planet into an even worse state.

It's like bailing out a sinking boat with a fork.

[rupert]

The trouble is with wind turbines as a form of renewable energy is that they are inefficient and the energy they produce is poorly predictable. There will always have to be some guy stoking the fire to keep that dirty old fossil fuel station going for when the winds not blowing.
You would have to plaster the whole of Scotland with them to produce anywhere near the amount of energy we all consume. (And don't come back to me and say that would be OK because I cant see many tourists visiting one big wind factory - once you've seen one windfarm you've seen them all). Surely, for example, it would be better to make energy conservation measures in homes, schools and offices compulsory and really cut down on our energy usage.
The developers of Spittal Hill windfarm are doing it purely as a business venture not to save the planet I can assure you.

[Rheghead]

The trouble is with wind turbines as a form of renewable energy is that they are inefficient and the energy they produce is poorly predictable.

All forms of renewable energy is subject to intermittency problems.

Fuel efficiency means nothing in the context of renewable energy as the fuel is free. And conventional power plants used as back-up can react to a short fall from the wind energy sector in minutes making predictability a weak arguement for the time being.

As Scotland goes for a mad dash for renewables under an SNP government, the Highlands will be exploited with turbines to make up for its anti nuke manifesto. So the biggest problem is storage and distribution of renewable energy to the parts of the country that need it most and when they need it.

[badger]

Actually no, renewable energy isn't free. The reason so many developers are rushing to cover Caithness in windfarms is because of the ROCs - a system which pays a certain amount for every MW of electricity generated from renewable sources. Yet another bright idea of govt. not sufficiently thought through. The result, as reported by OFGEM, is that -

We fully support the Government's aims of reducing carbon emissions and promoting renewable generation but we think there are cheaper and simpler ways of meeting these aims than the RO scheme which is forecast to cost business and domestic customers over £30bn.

Which is why electricity costs to customers are already soaring.

If it kills off the local tourist business, which it almost certainly will unless future developments are stopped, that is yet another cost to the area with many people simply going out of business.

[Rheghead]

Actually no, renewable energy isn't free.

You have failed to read my post properly.

I said the fuel is free, not the energy to the customer. Thermal efficiency is totally irrelevent when discussing windfarms. However, the thermal efficiencies of coal, nuke and gas varies from 20-50% depending on age of plant.

However, renewable energy mitigates net fossil fuel energy on the grid so in terms of fossil fuel efficiency, windfarms are 100% efficient apart from the <10% thermal losses which all generators are subject to.

[MadPict]

Thankfully there is not enough sun for these to be an option......

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6616651.stm

But like Caithness, it is not the locals who will benefit -

The vision is of the sun-blessed lands of the Mediterranean - even the Sahara desert - being carpeted with systems like this with the power cabled to the drizzlier lands of northern Europe. A dazzling idea in a dazzling location.

Power hungry Europe will get the output....