OK but the Inquiry will be in session.
Ywindythesecond, I'll bring that book to the inquiry tomorrow at 10am if you can make it? cheers
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.
OK but the Inquiry will be in session.
Hi Olivia, just want to wish all you objectors well at the hearing. Keep us posted please. Who is the developer's attorney? And who is the objectors' attorney? Thanks.
I have always found the title of this thread strange. I would have thought Spittal Hill is a windy place and therefore a very suitable place for a wind farm.
Now I am even more surprised - because I have seen wind farms in far dumber places in what I would suspect (from your choice of words in more than one post) is your native America.
Yes, the story I heard from someone close to the original project was that Salter's wee scale model ducks worked in trials in a controlled environment with "perfect" waves in the carefully constructed wave tank in the lab, but they had problems if you relaxed any of those conditions, and they didn't scale up to the size that would be needed to generate anything useful. They would be destroyed at sea very quickly.
Salter himself is a very strange character. He's still full of ideas, mostly impractical, but he's a real conspiracy theorist, which means you can't have a normal conversation with him.
The figures I recall for wave energy range from 1% to 10% of our total needs, with the 10% being an "in your dreams pal" figure that no-one takes seriously. I get the impression that 1% or 2% maximum is more realistic, but that's not far from your estimate.
Just wondering how a huge public endorsement of a political party that puts Climate Change and carbon free energy more seriously than others will have on the final outcome of this inquiry?
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.
Thanks Tilter for your good wishes.
Lawyers - for the the applicants is Mr David Hardy of Cobbetts, for the Council is Mr James Findlay QC, for SNH is Ms Louise Coburn and for SWOG is Mr John Cambell QC.
Another robust round of cross-examination today of the SNH landscape witness. She stood her ground and as yesterday, with the Council's witness, was extremely competent and professional.
There's been a lot of debate about siting and design, different landscape character types, etc. etc. - I've learnt quite a lot and it's actually been very interesting!!
Back next week with the final landscape witnesses, then its policy and planning and conditions, noise and the Hearing session for us yokels.
Inquiry starts back 0930 am, Tuesday 10 May, Ross Institute, Halkirk - all welcome.
Last edited by Rheghead; 07-May-11 at 20:46.
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.
"Dumbest place ever for windfarm" - glad to see that others agree - its just been rejected by Scottish Ministers. The first one rejected in 4 years. And about time too. Great news !
Green but not brainwashed
Using the sun to provide hot water.
Driving a car that gets 73 miles per gallon.....
Absolutely fantastic news for everyone who has worked tirelessly over all these years to get this monstrosity rejected.
Well done the people of Caithness and beyond.
best news ever!! well done to the folk who put a huge effort into stopping this in its tracks!!
There are many people who recognise the great value of what we have now and are not convinced by the wind argument. These people simply want to preserve our unique landscapes and protect this county/region from exploitation. As do many others across the length and breadth of this country - and quite rightly so.
Scientists tell us that climate change is the biggest threat to those landscapes as well as the flora and fauna which they hold. So to me it is rather counter-intuitive that people should be against all wind farms wherever they may be proposed. (the glib response from an antiwind person that they are not against wind farms if they are in the right location notwithstanding)
The "don't look nice" argument falls flat on it face when one considers the impact of climate change and the deleterious effects of further conventional generation on the landscape like mining, smoke, radiation etc.
In a way, wind farms can or will be perceived as the guardians of the hills. History has yet to tell us on that. But one thing is for sure generally, the younger generation are set to gain the most from a low carbon generation but it is the older generation who hold the more social power who are the most set against wind power, presumably people don't like change as we get older and they fear for the value of their more expensive houses.
Last edited by Rheghead; 25-Jun-12 at 17:00.
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.
I'm all for trying to turn around climate change. (it won't happen, the best we can hope to achieve is to slow its pace a little) but I dont believe wind farms are the solution, even if the scale were increased by massive amounts. I feel I can believe what I like because there is so much contradictory 'evidence'. Anyone who believes you can stop it with wind power and exclude Nuclear is nuts.
Nobody is claiming wind farms are the answer, it is only the anti-wind brigade who claim that is what the politicians and green movement believe.
Nuclear only provides and can only provide 3% of all energy in the UK. It is a finite energy source and at present consumption rates, the uranium that is used will be all gone in 60-100 years based on current reserves.
So, we have an inverse linear relationship between consumption and resource availability. Increase it by 100% to reduce the need for renewables and you will shorten availability by 50%. We could be looking at uranium is all gone in less than 50 years in a desperate attempt to cut carbon dioxide levels. But carbon dioxide levels will still go up despite this unless society fundamentally changes to low carbon energy sources, not just because the uranium only scratches the surface of tackling climate change but because the half life of the rate at which the Earth's natural carbon dioxide sinks can suck in the CO2 is in the century level orders of magnitude.
That is why nuclear is just a token gesture.
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.
1.30am on 26th June, first day of the Druim Ba Windfarm Inquiry, 4686MW worth of connected windpower was producing 34MW.
Uploaded with ImageShack.us
I'm not unduly worried about that snapshot statistic because 26th June was one of the sunniest days of the year for solar energy systems to kick in big style. As you keep reminding us, there is a loose inverse relationship between absence of wind and lots of sun.
God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
Courage to change the things I can,
And wisdom to know the difference.
Bookmarks