View Full Version : Beatrice Off-shore Wind Farm
Green_not_greed
31-Dec-07, 13:06
The .org front page includes the following:
"Can Wind Power Find Its Footing in the Deep? (http://www.saveoursound.org/site/News2?JServSessionIdr012=khihal3nm2.app6b&page=NewsArticle&id=5563&news_iv_ctrl=-1)
This item was found on the Save Nantucket Sound (http://www.saveoursound.org/site/PageServer) web site and helps show that there will be arguments for and against placing turbines in the sea. As the number of turbines increases in the Moray Firth at the Beatrice site will there be similar objections here?"
The Beatrice scheme is a 5 year test scheme initially for 2 x 5MW turbines but (if successful) to be increased to a now unspecified number of turbines. I recall that 100 x 5MW turbines was being discussed some time ago. Further info can be found at http://www.beatricewind.co.uk/home/
Is anyone bovvvered? Does anyone believe that more in the sea means less in Caithness - so is it a good thing? Should we support it? If no-one objects does that mean that were are all NIMBYs? Does anyone really care?
Interesting that the figure for the final number of turbines has disappeared from their website - it used to state 200 but this can now only be found on older pages of other sites, e.g. BBC
The structures will test the feasibility of a 200-turbine wind farm next to the Beatrice oilfield.
Although I'm sure many of us would prefer offshore to onshore, we can't ignore the effects of this on wildlife and shipping. How will the power get to where it will be used? The existing 2 turbines can be seen when driving along the coast that side of Caithness so what will 200 look like? Are we going to have massive windfarms all round our coast, which is predicted by some?
Just one thing has been bothering me lately, with all these wind farms off shore etc. if global warming causes a stoppage of the Gulf stream therfore causeing a massive freeze up in Europe as some believe could happen then all this enegy reserve that we would then need would be wrecked due to the Ice (Glaciers) building up and the what or do our children children go to live in the south of france ? any Ideas any one?
j4bberw0ck
31-Dec-07, 15:58
Bobbyian, given where you are, mate, I think I'd be heading sort of Munich / Salzburg / Slovenia sort of direction :lol::lol: .
I don't think offshore windfarms will affect shipping to a great deal, firstly because the windfarms should be sited outwith of any shipping lanes in the first place and secondly, the site will be well charted once built and avoided as ships can almost be pilotted via GPS these days.
Shipping can go off course and/or get into trouble for any number of reasons. If they didn't, there would be no more wrecks and tragedies at sea. Seems to me these could be just one more hazard. What will they do to make them visible in dark, stormy weather ? If a ship goes out of control, how will it avoid a huge windfarm?
j4bberw0ck
31-Dec-07, 20:09
Windpower is a political solution because it allows politicians to be allowed to claim they're "doing something" to "save the planet".
Large scale wind power is a liability because it can't be controlled. The attached document (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20060331_wind.pdf) makes it clear and refers to the need for brown-outs in California, and the need to deal with supply fluctuations elsewhere - Denmark, Ireland and the UK all get a mention.
Section 7, page 11; Section 10. page 13; Section 11, page 15; and Section 12, page 16 especially focus on some of the problems. Wind power does not work as a substitute for conventional generation. If the UK develops large scale wind turbine generation then we are booking ourselves a lifetime of powercuts and brownouts with no meaningful reduction in carbon emissions overall.
Off-shore wind farms sound OK until you look at bird migration routes. There have been a lot of off-shore wind turbines built down the coast of Norway and they are now finding a lot of migrating birds, such as Sea-Eagles, are being killed. It is never plain sailing with these things is it?
Windpower is a political solution because it allows politicians to be allowed to claim they're "doing something" to "save the planet".
Large scale wind power is a liability because it can't be controlled. The attached document (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/20060331_wind.pdf) makes it clear and refers to the need for brown-outs in California, and the need to deal with supply fluctuations elsewhere - Denmark, Ireland and the UK all get a mention.
Section 7, page 11; Section 10. page 13; Section 11, page 15; and Section 12, page 16 especially focus on some of the problems. Wind power does not work as a substitute for conventional generation. If the UK develops large scale wind turbine generation then we are booking ourselves a lifetime of powercuts and brownouts with no meaningful reduction in carbon emissions overall.
LOL! Come on J4bberwock, you should be doing better than this, give us better references than from a reknown Global Warming Sceptic who isn't even an academic in this subject. and whose credentials are called into question...
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Richard_S._Courtney
j4bberw0ck
31-Dec-07, 20:48
Power fluctuations in Denmark threatening the Western European grid - fact.
Power fluctuations threatening Californian power - fact
Power output variances reducing the efficiency of wind turbines to a laughably low level - fact
Need for subsidies from electricity payers to make wind turbines attractive - fact
Wind turbines being built solely for profit (through ROCs) by community groups, investors and large plc's - fact; it's a transfer of money from the poorest bill payers to the richest, and it's legal, and the government even subsidises it by giving them tax breaks, God help us.
Power fluctuations in Denmark threatening the Western European grid - fact.And nothing to do with wind energy and it is folly to compare the Denmark system with ours.
Power fluctuations threatening Californian power - factAgain, nothing to do with wind energy.
Power output variances reducing the efficiency of wind turbines to a laughably low level - factIt is an intermittent energy source.
Need for subsidies from electricity payers to make wind turbines attractive - factIt is the same for other renewables and nuke.
Wind turbines being built solely for profit (through ROCs) by community groups, investors and large plc's - factFor profit? So what? Money makes the world go around, you would have an extra gripe if they weren't profitable.; it's a transfer of money from the poorest bill payers to the richest, and it's legal, and the government even subsidises it by giving them tax breaks, God help us.
The richest in society tend to use more energy so the opposite is true.
[Wind turbines being built solely for profit (through ROCs) by community groups, investors and large plc's - fact; it's a transfer of money from the poorest bill payers to the richest, and it's legal, and the government even subsidises it by giving them tax breaks, God help us.[/QUOTE]
If people in Caithness were aware of the individuals and big business who are galloping to invest in prospective and already operational wind factories up here, they would have to be worried. It is one of the biggest growth areas for investment of funds because of the political guarantees, and the subsidies and ROC values. All the big investment consultants are touting this as one of the best places to put your money.
Any time you see a small plane or helicopter circling the Caithness hills, there is probably some fat cat on board surveying your special places with a view to putting their money into something to make them fatter. This is fact.
Wake up everybody - you saw it happening with conifer plantations - when all your upland areas and the factories installed on them belong to the City slickers, then kiss your tourist industry , your peatlands and your beautiful skies, your wilderness areas a fond goodbye. ]
Take your paltry "community benefit" sums from them - just a bit of chicken feed thrown to keep you happy, and to get "planning gain" - bribery to anyone with any eye for the true picture, - and forget about doing anything really positive and long-term about the local economy.
Caithness has great assets, all of them subtle and special. These are what people will pay to see and experience. If you reduce them to the same banality that people have to endure anywhere else in the country, then you have nothing special left to offer.
hysterical nonsense!:lol: Caithness does have great assets, Wind for example. And some counties would love to have all this investment heading their way.
northener
31-Dec-07, 22:33
Putting aside Jabb and Rheggers scuffle over whether wind turbines are viable or not for a second-
Offshore windfarms wouldn't create an addition 'hazard to shipping', GPS and radar plus an efficient coastguard administration keep everything running smoothly. If one of the ships did conk out and run into a couple of turbines - well, tough on them.
It would be a lot less damaging than running aground in, say, the Pentland Firth for example.
We've got a drilling rig off Sinclair Bay for a month or so at the moment and no-one would worry about it causing a hazard to shipping any more than the existing rigs out in the North Sea. Obviously an attack of stupidity could break out - but that's life.
It would also make an ideal marine reserve area for marine life - no commercial fishing would be viable - thus creating a hands off area for various species. The commercial fishing sector are already throwing up their hands in mock horror at the idea that they may no longer be able to wreck all the seabed, but luckily, the more enlightened fishermen can see that this no-go area would be of benefit to all in the long run.
.
5000+ posts - just noticed that - there is a life outside the net you know, Reggy - Get out and enjoy it some time - Happy New Year to you
northener
31-Dec-07, 22:44
[quote=spurtle;316438
If people in Caithness were aware of the individuals and big business who are galloping to invest in prospective and already operational wind factories up here, they would have to be worried. It is one of the biggest growth areas for investment of funds because of the political guarantees, and the subsidies and ROC values. All the big investment consultants are touting this as one of the best places to put your money.
Any time you see a small plane or helicopter circling the Caithness hills, there is probably some fat cat on board surveying your special places with a view to putting their money into something to make them fatter. This is fact.
.[/quote]
Spurtle, nice to know that in the Far North we are all simple-minded peasants who are purely here to be shafted by 'fat cats' from somewhere else.
Presumably all the major industries up here are financed by the good people of the Far North, with none of those evil 'fat cats' helicoptering away above us getting a sniff.
I'm pleased to hear that Dounreay, Vulcan, the Fishing Industry, the Offshore Industry, tourism, our airports, ferries, rail and road network have all been created purely by local people with local investment.
Yup, we've got to keep those 'fat cats' with their evil investment plans well away from Caithness.
This is a local county for local people! (with apologies to The League Of Gentleman:D).
.
I'm pleased to hear that Dounreay, Vulcan, the Fishing Industry, the Offshore Industry, tourism, our airports, ferries, rail and road network have all been created purely by local people with local investment.
.
It is interesting to know that the wind industry supports a similiar number if not more local people in employment per unit area than farming.
j4bberw0ck
01-Jan-08, 01:00
hehehehe - you mean that an industry funded by ROCs, and the transfer of money from the poorest to the richest through the necessity to buy power, is an exemplar of how farming works? And I'm no friend of the CAP or subsidies to farming.....
Rheggers, you really need to try to distinguish between what's good for the economy, and what's not. Subsidy of windfarms is not an economic benefit - it's a COST. Please do try to get up to speed with M. Bastiat. I promise you won't be disappointed as reason dawns!
Subsidy of windfarms is not an economic benefit - it's a COST.
It is part of our economy and one that is growing by 30% per year, providing employment and national security of energy not to mention the environmental benefits.;)
Happy new year, you are the first poster of 2008.
j4bberw0ck
01-Jan-08, 01:39
part of our economy and one that is growing by 30% per year, providing employment and national security of energy not to mention the environmental benefits
And that, in a nutshell, is why you need to read Bastiat. What is seen, and what is not seen. Any economist will tell you that the situation as it stands is nonsense.
LOL! Come on J4bberwock, you should be doing better than this, give us better references than from a reknown Global Warming Sceptic who isn't even an academic in this subject. and whose credentials are called into question...
Until I read "sceptic" instead of "fanatic" I thought you were talking about Al Bore!
Like the "Black Death" and "The Plague" Global Warming is the punishment of God for Mankind's evil ways. Break out the Sackcloth and ashes, wear the hair shirt and scourge ourselves daily to do penance for our sins!
We must pray daily at the Alter of the Great God of Science! Not much has changed since the first Biblical Harbingers Doom were around, just the name of the God has changed. .
There is a very true saying about computers, it’s called GIGO – Garbage in, Garbage out!
Like all statistics, if you fiddle with the information you feed in for long enough then you will arrive at the very information you are determined to find. By their own admissions, those producing the dire predictions have stated that it has taken them a great amount of time to produce the programs to get the predictions right. In other words, “That doesn’t give the answer we are looking for so let’s try again until we get it right!”
There ain’t no funding for saying “Everything’s fine so nothing needs to change!”
Most of the programmes and information you are spoon fed about Global Warming is to take the worst possible scenario and present it as being the very thing which is bound to happen.
It is claimed that the Gulf Stream has already slowed by a third. That would mean that it has far more time to lose the heat from the warm water it carries and therefore should already be afar cooler by the time it reaches here. That being the case we should already be feeling the effects of that by having far cooler winter than previously.
Has anybody noticed how horrifically cold it has been this last few winters, the blizzards have been unbelievable?
And the Power Factory out at Beatrice would be far less noticeable if they made the darned things in a pale grey rather than a screaming brilliant white.
I was going to have a nice big rant here but it looks like a lot of my points have already been put down in some form or other. The only one im going to make just now is this:
Shipping can go off course and/or get into trouble for any number of reasons. If they didn't, there would be no more wrecks and tragedies at sea. Seems to me these could be just one more hazard. What will they do to make them visible in dark, stormy weather ? If a ship goes out of control, how will it avoid a huge windfarm?
Regular windfarms are just as much of a danger for aeroplanes? Its a very small chance though as planes will be well away from them. The same applies to ships.
Regular windfarms are just as much of a danger for aeroplanes? Its a very small chance though as planes will be well away from them. The same applies to ships.
We are always told that we don't have low flying planes round here (those big noisy RAF things that come swooping down are just birds you silly people). I just hope they can see huge turbines on high ground on a cloudy day at that speed in time. As for shipping - I'm sure a few turbines would not be a problem but 200? That's going to take up quite a lot of sea. And is marine life really not going to mind all that noise and vibration. If onshore turbines can damage old houses, what will offshore ones do?
I'm not a scientist but I'm very suspicious of all this and one thing I do know - where money is involved, much else gets ignored.
I have to laugh at how loud everybody thinks they are. I have been inside them and only then can I detect any noise and that is only a very low hum. You can't anything outside apart from on the stillest of nights and even then its only a small swish as the blade moves past.
Interesting to note that unlike the UK where energy companies such as Scottish & Southern own the vast majority of wind turbines, in Denmark - who have set the pace regarding this form of energy - 80% are owned by individuals, usually in clusters of 2 - 3.. money into locals pockets instead of a few miserly quid into 'community funds' - for doing stuff the Council should be doing..
As for "Global Warming Sceptic" seems quite a few of 'em? http://www.oism.org/pproject/ (http://www.oism.org/pproject/)
PS. I once asked why these turbines are white and not blended in the surroundings; "white; to stop expansion"
j4bberw0ck
01-Jan-08, 14:11
Until I read "sceptic" instead of "fanatic" I thought you were talking about Al Bore!
What a wonderful point, JAWS! Wish I'd thought of it..... :lol::lol:
Typical of the anthropogenic climate change fascists that an unqualified, discredited figure like Gore is accepted as Saviour, while someone who might actually know something about power generation, though is not an expert in wind power per se, is derided because he isn't "an expert".
I'm also fascinated as to how Danish wind, Danish turbines and Danish electricity generated from them are somehow different to UK wind, turbines and electricity. Is there a sort of hazy line in the North Sea where the laws of physics change? Perhaps it's that for Danish electricity circuits with that macho Danish electricity, Power = (Volts squared) times Amps instead of our weedy British electricity where Power is just a pathetic Volts times Amps - is that why power surges into the European grid from Danish wind generation meant they had to build an interconnector to dump power to other countries so as not to fry half of Europe?
The richest in society tend to use more energy so the opposite is true.
The richest in society may well use more energy than the poorest, but so what, they can afford to, the poor cannot. It is highly likely that the poorest will be using even less due to increased prices caused by a subsidy system which will line the pockets of fat cats and local windfarm entrepreneurs alike. Is that fair?
I have to laugh at how loud everybody thinks they are. I have been inside them and only then can I detect any noise and that is only a very low hum. You can't anything outside apart from on the stillest of nights and even then its only a small swish as the blade moves past.
I can only report what people who live near windfarms say, not inside them. It's not the volume that's the problem. Even a comparatively quiet sound can get on your nerves if it's continuous. Do you actually live by a large windfarm?
I have to laugh at how loud everybody thinks they are. I have been inside them and only then can I detect any noise and that is only a very low hum. You can't anything outside apart from on the stillest of nights and even then its only a small swish as the blade moves past.
Even windfarm developers acknowledge that they cause noise. Why do you think they have to do background noise testing and present noise charts in the environmental statements?
I saw an interesting item on some of the disinformation being put out by the Save the Climate Promoters.
Somebody actually went to Anchorage, Alaska and interviewed the locals there.
It appears that the well published photograph of the two polar bears stranded on an iceberg showing it melting in the depth of winter was actually taken during the middle of summer when that is, and always has been since the last Ice-age, quite normal.
One thing I did notice with the two polar bears is that they are both absolutely focused on something in the same direction, and not at the camera. I would strongly suspect that they were looking closely at one thing most animals have on their minds, "Food"!
The people of Anchorage said that whilst they had some sympathy with the Ecologists their were not in the least amused by those who searched frantically, ignoring most of the bears, until they found one which looked particularly lean and hungry.
They pointed out that such bears were normally adolescent bears who were still not fully skilled at hunting.
What was the phrase somebody once used? Could it have been something like "An Uncomfortable Truth"?
I saw an interesting item on some of the disinformation being put out by the Save the Climate Promoters.
Somebody actually went to Anchorage, Alaska and interviewed the locals there.
It appears that the well published photograph of the two polar bears stranded on an iceberg showing it melting in the depth of winter was actually taken during the middle of summer when that is, and always has been since the last Ice-age, quite normal.
One thing I did notice with the two polar bears is that they are both absolutely focused on something in the same direction, and not at the camera. I would strongly suspect that they were looking closely at one thing most animals have on their minds, "Food"!
The people of Anchorage said that whilst they had some sympathy with the Ecologists their were not in the least amused by those who searched frantically, ignoring most of the bears, until they found one which looked particularly lean and hungry.
They pointed out that such bears were normally adolescent bears who were still not fully skilled at hunting.
What was the phrase somebody once used? Could it have been something like "An Uncomfortable Truth"?
If Morecambe and Wise filmed their Xmas Specials in August, does that mean there isn't a festive period in December? It is a fact that there is now a open-all-year north-west passage north of Canada. Is that an uncomfortable truth for you?
The richest in society may well use more energy than the poorest, but so what, they can afford to, the poor cannot. It is highly likely that the poorest will be using even less due to increased prices caused by a subsidy system which will line the pockets of fat cats and local windfarm entrepreneurs alike. Is that fair?
Yes because it is the rich that will pay more thus it is the rich subsidising the poor. As the process goes on the renewable energy companies will invest further into more schemes so the price of the RO will reduce. By that time everyone is a winner because we are closer to a low carbon economy.
Cinderella's Shoe
01-Jan-08, 20:22
It is interesting to know that the wind industry supports a similiar number if not more local people in employment per unit area than farming.
Absolute crud. Justify this statement!
Absolute crud. Justify this statement!
Not crud
Just look up the national farming statistics, workout how many persons work
per square kilometre, then compare that with how many persons work on the maintenance of windfarms in Caithness. In fact, I was being generous, there are nearly twice as many people working on windfarms per unit area compared to farming.
Cinderella's Shoe
01-Jan-08, 21:18
Its still crud. Not a single figure given in answer. There are no full-time Caithness jobs from wind farms. Period.
Its still crud. Not a single figure given in answer. There are no full-time Caithness jobs from wind farms. Period.
It isn't crud.
You never asked me to work it out, just to justify it. I gave you a set of instructions, consider it a wee project for yourself to do. I've done my homework as anyone will tell you.
I'm tired of putting facts to figures with references in the hope that sometime someone will realise that the anti-wind position is full of erroneous statements.
If you want to believe in antiwind crud, go right ahead, I can't stop you. Perhaps I must have dreamed up the advertisement for fulltime maintenance staff required about 6 months agoo?
Its still crud. Not a single figure given in answer. There are no full-time Caithness jobs from wind farms. Period.
Actually.....I know a guy that works full time on a windfarm in caithness...sorry x
Yes because it is the rich that will pay more thus it is the rich subsidising the poor. As the process goes on the renewable energy companies will invest further into more schemes so the price of the RO will reduce. By that time everyone is a winner because we are closer to a low carbon economy.
What absolute tosh!! The rich may well be paying more, but all they are subsidising are the shareholders of the windfarm companies. Try explaining this to a pensioner surviving on the paltry state pension and struggling to pay his ever increasing electricity bill whilst windfarm developers get rich quick. The Rocs subsidy system is an ill-thought out scheme which does not one jot to alleviate fuel poverty but makes a very few very rich indeed.
I can only report what people who live near windfarms say, not inside them. It's not the volume that's the problem. Even a comparatively quiet sound can get on your nerves if it's continuous. Do you actually live by a large windfarm?
No, do you? You are reporting what others have said. I have spent long periods near them. If it is continuous then yes. But there are no houses near enough to them to cause this problem?
There are no full-time Caithness jobs from wind farms. Period.
Actually thats what my dad does....
Not crud
Just look up the national farming statistics, workout how many persons work
per square kilometre, then compare that with how many persons work on the maintenance of windfarms in Caithness. In fact, I was being generous, there are nearly twice as many people working on windfarms per unit area compared to farming.
And even more tosh (or crud)!! Once a windfarm is built you may manage one full-time job and a few bits and pieces of work if things break down. Farming has employed people through the generations and family farms will continue to do so. Not forgetting of course, all the other businesses linked to farming such as - auctioneers, hauliers, feed merchants, fuel suppliers, a.i. services, insurance companies, etc. etc. etc. etc.
No, do you? You are reporting what others have said. I have spent long periods near them. If it is continuous then yes. But there are no houses near enough to them to cause this problem?
OK so you have spent long periods near them, what a couple of hours at a time or even half a day? Assuming we are talking about the Causeymire wind farm, agreed houses are not nearby, but there are people that live a considerable distance away, for instance in Mybster and Westerdale who find the noise very disturbing. The current proposals in the pipeline, such as Spittal Hill and Baillie, will be much closer to houses and therefore, present a much bigger problem regarding noise.
I would say that 30m is a more than acceptable limit. You couldn't hear it outside then let alone in a house. And nothing is allowed that close anyway? People may say that the noise is disturbing, but to me I can't hear a thing so I would guess that they just don't like the look and are exaggerating certain factors to make the problem sound worse than it actually is.
j4bberw0ck
01-Jan-08, 23:37
Yes because it is the rich that will pay more thus it is the rich subsidising the poor. As the process goes on the renewable energy companies will invest further into more schemes so the price of the RO will reduce. By that time everyone is a winner because we are closer to a low carbon economy.
Hoo boy. An industrial chemist you may be, but an economist you clearly aren't! The rich are subsidising the poor? Yep, and pigs fly. If the price of the RO falls, windmills will stop being built overnight, as the government well knows, which is why the cost of the RO will never fall. And there is no proof for, and plenty against, us being "winners" in a low carbon economy. A low carbon economy is a low-wealth economy, which is the worst of all legacies to bequeath to future generations.
Rheghead, you're talking out of the thing you should be sitting on.
I would say that 30m is a more than acceptable limit. You couldn't hear it outside then let alone in a house. And nothing is allowed that close anyway? People may say that the noise is disturbing, but to me I can't hear a thing so I would guess that they just don't like the look and are exaggerating certain factors to make the problem sound worse than it actually is.
I don't understand - are you serious about 30 metres being an acceptable distance for a house to be next to a large wind turbine? Obviously, nothing would ever be built that close but I have stood at the gate next to the nearest of the Causeymire turbines to the road and the noise can be very loud, depending which way the wind is blowing. It may well be that at certain distances you hear the accumulated noise from all of the turbines rather than maybe being close by to one and only hearing that. Certainly if you look at environmental statements there is always a whole chapter devoted to noise, so it is obviously a recognised problem within the industry.
And if enough people complained about the curvature of a 2 cm wide band on the blade 4.34m from the tip then it would have a chapter on that too.
What absolute tosh!! The rich may well be paying more, but all they are subsidising are the shareholders of the windfarm companies. Try explaining this to a pensioner surviving on the paltry state pension and struggling to pay his ever increasing electricity bill whilst windfarm developers get rich quick. The Rocs subsidy system is an ill-thought out scheme which does not one jot to alleviate fuel poverty but makes a very few very rich indeed.
The alternatives are even more expensive according to the Stern report et al. Do you think the energy companies won't pass on the EU fines to the bill payers for not meeting our targets? You may want to opt for a feed in tarrif but the net effect is that the bill payers end up paying more.
Just admit it, this discussion isn't about ROCs, it is all about that you don't like windfarms.
And if enough people complained
I think you've said it all. If you can't (or won't) hear them then you need your ears testing or you are obviously wearing a good set of ear plugs.
And even more tosh (or crud)!! Once a windfarm is built you may manage one full-time job and a few bits and pieces of work if things break down. Farming has employed people through the generations and family farms will continue to do so. Not forgetting of course, all the other businesses linked to farming such as - auctioneers, hauliers, feed merchants, fuel suppliers, a.i. services, insurance companies, etc. etc. etc. etc.
Just do the maths with properly sourced data and stop waffling.:roll:
I think you've said it all. If you can't (or won't) hear them then you need your ears testing or you are obviously wearing a good set of ear plugs.
I didn't contradict my self if you read my previous post:
I would say that 30m is a more than acceptable limit. You couldn't hear it outside then let alone in a house. And nothing is allowed that close anyway? People may say that the noise is disturbing, but to me I can't hear a thing so I would guess that they just don't like the look and are exaggerating certain factors to make the problem sound worse than it actually is.
Just for the records, my hearing is perfect and I have never worn ear plugs.
Just admit it, this discussion isn't about ROCs, it is all about that you don't like windfarms.
Actually if you read my post I was discussing Rocs - and they are inextricably linked to windfarms. No Rocs = no windfarms. Your right though, I don't like windfarms and the injustices of the Rocs system is one of the reasons why (amongst many others). As to your rudeness about my waffling, I think I can waffle along with the best of them, thankyou very much!
Actually if you read my post I was discussing Rocs - and they are inextricably linked to windfarms. No Rocs = no windfarms. Your right though, I don't like windfarms and the injustices of the Rocs system is one of the reasons why (amongst many others).
No the RO is inextricably linked to renewable energy. If the Government banned windfarms we wouldn't hear a hoot about the RO. Funnily enough, I haven't heard a peep from antiwindies about plans to increase the RO to 1.5X and 2X for offshore and other marine renewables, gosh, I wonder why that is?:roll:
Mr Me19: "Actually thats what my dad does...." in answer to: 'There are no full-time Caithness jobs from wind farms'.. Not really surprising you are so pro-wind farm then is it? and "I would say that 30m is a more than acceptable limit" is total rubbish; Wind farms provide serious noise pollution down-wind. An efficient wind turbine blade removes much energy from
the air. For this reason, a rotating blade generates pulses of reduced
pressure in the air flowing behind the turbine which provide loud,
throbbing, often subsonic noise
down-wind. An efficient wind turbine blade removes much energy from the air. For this reason, a rotating blade generates pulses of reduced pressure in the air flowing behind the turbine which provide loud,throbbing, often subsonic noise.
Hoo boy. An industrial chemist you may be, but an economist you clearly aren't! .
I know enough about economics to know that oil, nuke and gas will peak in the next coming decades and without a low carbon economy in place when that happens, then you can kiss your so-called cheap energy bills goodbye. Because we will be reliant on fossil fuels and we will face a mad rush for renewables.
The time is now to change our energy strategy to renewables before we have no choice. If we don't then the Government will force through onshore windfarms in the worst places of all for visual impact and the best for windspeeds. It will be a Soviet style take over just for a rush for wind.
If Morecambe and Wise filmed their Xmas Specials in August, does that mean there isn't a festive period in December? It is a fact that there is now a open-all-year north-west passage north of Canada. Is that an uncomfortable truth for you?Does one Swallow make a Summer? Trying to present Mid-Summer Day as a perfect example of the weather for the Winter Equinox as an current News Item be exactly the same as the making of a highly politically motivated Al Bore Comedy Film.
As far as Morecambe and Wise Christmas Shows go they were made as pure and simple entertainment and not as supposedly serious information with worldwide implications.
Had the TV Companies made the claim that Morecambe and Wise were actually being broadcast live at the time of transmission then they too would be equally guilty of telling outright lies in order to deceive the public.
Those who have the ability to remember the last twelve months will recall that there have been many instances of TV Companies being in very serious trouble for blatantly lying about what was supposedly factual and what was in truth total misrepresentation intended to deceive the public in general.
The "Experts" who are all supposedly agreed on the exact details of what damage Global Overheat will do to the world cannot even decide if I am going to die of thirst in a massive desert or be frozen solid under a mile of Arctic Ice Sheet.
Modern computer predictions of distant future happenings are simply the modern version of reading the sheep's entrails or casting the Rune Stones.
Pass the Crystal Ball somebody, please, I feel a prediction coming on!
the making of a highly politically motivated Al Bore Comedy Film.
It wasn't political.
I would say that 30m is a more than acceptable limit. You couldn't hear it outside then let alone in a house. And nothing is allowed that close anyway? People may say that the noise is disturbing, but to me I can't hear a thing so I would guess that they just don't like the look and are exaggerating certain factors to make the problem sound worse than it actually is.
If you can honestly say that standing near a windfarm you can't hear a thing, I can only assume the wind wasn't blowing and the turbines were asleep.
Green_not_greed
02-Jan-08, 14:01
It wasn't political.
I see that New Year resolution to start talking sense has gone already....
Not political? Of course not. The Democrats obviously see no votes at all in jumping on the green bandwagon. UK parties haven't done it either, I suppose.
Mr Me19: "Actually thats what my dad does...." in answer to: 'There are no full-time Caithness jobs from wind farms'.. Not really surprising you are so pro-wind farm then is it?
Its terrible isn't it? Thats how we get money and I have an opinion on it. This forum is getting worse and worse. There are no debates any more. Its all just "well if you don't agree then your wrong. I'm not going to try and see it from your point of view"
"I would say that 30m is a more than acceptable limit" is total rubbish; Wind farms provide serious noise pollution down-wind. An efficient wind turbine blade removes much energy from
the air. For this reason, a rotating blade generates pulses of reduced
pressure in the air flowing behind the turbine which provide loud,
throbbing, often subsonic noise
down-wind. An efficient wind turbine blade removes much energy from the air. For this reason, a rotating blade generates pulses of reduced pressure in the air flowing behind the turbine which provide loud,throbbing, often subsonic noise.
And also:
If you can honestly say that standing near a windfarm you can't hear a thing, I can only assume the wind wasn't blowing and the turbines were asleep.
The only time I have ever heard actually making a proper noise is when they were pitching themselves into the wind.
[quote=Mr_Me19;316967]Its terrible isn't it? Thats how we get money and I have an opinion on it. This forum is getting worse and worse. There are no debates any more. Its all just "well if you don't agree then your wrong. I'm not going to try and see it from your point of view" /quote]
I really don't see how you can moan about the lack of debate and accuse people who have a different opinion to yourself over say 'noise from wind turbines' of not seeing things from your point of view when it is quite obvious from your posts that you are not prepared to see it from anyone else's point of view. Specifically dealing with noise from wind turbines - you will find that the reason there is a chapter on noise in Environmental Statements is not about how many people complain, but about the fact that wind turbines cause noise and infact breach legislation on permitted sound levels if sited to close to dwellings, check the planning rules if you don't believe me.
Cinderella's Shoe
02-Jan-08, 16:13
Actually thats what my dad does....
I stand corrected. So, one full-time Caithness job. Possibly a few others. Certainly nowhere near as many employed in agriculture.
I stand corrected. So, one full-time Caithness job. Possibly a few others. Certainly nowhere near as many employed in agriculture.
I may be wrong here,but isnt it the farmers that are selling off their land for these windfarms?At quite a hefty profit as well?Dont they get a huge amount for the land and also money every year?Perhaps windfarms and livestock farms can get along side by side?As far as I am concerned windfarms are a good idea,I dont mind the sight of them,they DO provide employment...perhaps not as much employment as we would like,but then again Dounreay was supposed to give everybody a job and look how thats turning out..........x
ywindythesecond
02-Jan-08, 16:21
The time is now to change our energy strategy to renewables before we have no choice. If we don't then the Government will force through onshore windfarms in the worst places of all for visual impact and the best for windspeeds.
http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/233/16nu3.jpg
Like here perhaps?
This is the proposed windfarm at Bettyhill which is currently lodged with Highland Council Planning. Original plans were for 50 turbines. It is thought that the developer is just testing the water with two turbines and if it gets the go-ahead, the full number will be applied for.
From this viewpoint on the A836 just east of Bettyhill, only just over one third of the tower heights is visible.
I may be wrong here,but isnt it the farmers that are selling off their land for these windfarms?At quite a hefty profit as well?Dont they get a huge amount for the land and also money every year?Perhaps windfarms and livestock farms can get along side by side?As far as I am concerned windfarms are a good idea,I dont mind the sight of them,they DO provide employment...perhaps not as much employment as we would like,but then again Dounreay was supposed to give everybody a job and look how thats turning out..........x
Yes some farmers are trying to sell off their land - not always the ones that need the money most either. Doesn't do their neighbours much good though who have to see their peace disrupted and their property devalued. Doubt if it's going to do the tourist industry up here much good either, since the main reason people visit Caithness and Sutherland is for the peace and open skies. Tourism is a big employer up here. Dounreay was never going to give "everybody" a job but in its lifetime it has given thousands - compare that to one for windfarms. Most of the employment involved in windfarms is far away from here.
I dont disagree with you there badger,I know a few people who have worked on the windfarms and now work out of caithness.I still think by and large they are a good idea,but thats just my opinion.Tourists will still come here,lets face it they come in their droves and what is there here for them?JOG isnt exactly making them want to return :eek: a few turbines shouldnt put off most tourists x
I stand corrected. So, one full-time Caithness job. Possibly a few others. Certainly nowhere near as many employed in agriculture.
Well if you don't know the facts then how come you can make any such counter claim? I know of one fulltime worker, Me19's dad works fulltime, that is two, how many more will come to the fore?
I repeat again, go and seek out the facts then reassess your position.
Cinderella's Shoe
02-Jan-08, 19:12
seek out the facts then reassess your position.
The 2001 census shows 1221 people - 7.1% of the working population - employed in agriculture and fishing across Caithness & Sutherland. Correcting for population in Caithness gives 796 Caithness jobs. Thats a few more than 2 blade polishers.
I have friends that erect turbines...its a very dangerous job....calling them bladepolishers is IMO very downputting.....do you call farmers poopspreaders?
Cinderella's Shoe
02-Jan-08, 19:18
..do you call farmers poopspreaders?
Certainly not, farmers are GOOD for the countryside!
The 2001 census shows 1221 people - 7.1% of the working population - employed in agriculture and fishing across Caithness & Sutherland. Correcting for population in Caithness gives 796 Caithness jobs. Thats a few more than 2 blade polishers.
So ok, 796 are working in agriculture and fishing, how many are working in just agriculture?
Cinderella's Shoe
02-Jan-08, 19:45
So ok, 796 are working in agriculture and fishing, how many are working in just agriculture?
Fishing is simply agriculture of the sea and rivers.......
Green_not_greed
02-Jan-08, 19:47
This is all getting a bit off-topic! Which is the proposed Beatrice off-shore wind farm.
Correcting for population in Caithness gives 796 Caithness jobs. Thats a few more than 2 blade polishers.
According to the Highland council ward statistics, only 82 people work in agriculture and fishing in Caithness.
http://www.highland.gov.uk/yourcouncil/highlandfactsandfigures/ward-statistics.htm
Cinderella's Shoe
02-Jan-08, 21:40
And from the 2001 census: 1221 across CASE in agriculture & fishing
source: www.hie.co.uk/HIE-Area-profiles-2003/ HIE-caithness-and-sutherland-area-profile-2003.pdf
Alternatively for Caithness alone 618 jobs in agriculture/fishing/forestry (5.3% of 11653 employed)
source: http://195.173.143.171/plintra/iandr/cen/prof_cai.htm
And from the 2001 census: 1221 across CASE in agriculture & fishing
source: www.hie.co.uk/HIE-Area-profiles-2003/ HIE-caithness-and-sutherland-area-profile-2003.pdf
Alternatively for Caithness alone 618 jobs in agriculture/fishing/forestry (5.3% of 11653 employed)
source: http://195.173.143.171/plintra/iandr/cen/prof_cai.htm
OK, it makes no odds, we will use your figures, even though they are inflated with other employment sectors, I will still accept them.
Now how many square kilometres in Caithness are classed as forestry/hunting/agricultural land? I would say this would be about 90% of the total area? Say 1598 sq km.
So the agricultural persons per sq km of agricultural land is ~0.4 workers per sq km.
The Causeymire windfarm supports 3 fulltime workers, and the windfarm stands on 1.3 sq km of land.
This means that windfarms support 2.3 workers per sq km.
A lot more than agriculture...
It is a fact that there is now a open-all-year north-west passage north of Canada.
It's a fact? It is not "open-all-year" - it's freezing back over now. And will probably be unnavigable again in a matter of weeks. Hardly "open-all-year".....
ywindythesecond
02-Jan-08, 23:40
OK, it makes no odds, we will use your figures, even though they are inflated with other employment sectors, I will still accept them.
Now how many square kilometres in Caithness are classed as forestry/hunting/agricultural land? I would say this would be about 90% of the total area? Say 1598 sq km.
So the agricultural persons per sq km of agricultural land is ~0.4 workers per sq km.
The Causeymire windfarm supports 3 fulltime workers, and the windfarm stands on 1.3 sq km of land.
This means that windfarms support 2.3 workers per sq km.
A lot more than agriculture...
The Causeymire windfarm supports 3 fulltime workers, and the windfarm stands on 1.3 sq km of land.
You are right about the three fulltime workers, but wrong about the 1.3 sq km, see following map with 1.3 sq km outlined.
http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/3422/causeymireiv4.jpg
See also
If you read something that you think is incorrect then it pays to check it up.
rheghead
You should remind yourself about this occasionally.
Before you write things which are incorrect.
Cinderella's Shoe
02-Jan-08, 23:49
Now how many square kilometres in Caithness are classed as forestry/hunting/agricultural land? I would say this would be about 90% of the total area? Say 1598 sq km..
More complete hogwash.
Agricultural land runs around the coast and inland across about Halkirk. Its nothing like 90% of the county! Agricultural land should be defined as the area under farms, not the hills and estates. Come up with proper figures if you are to have even a remote chance at being credible.
And who mentioned hunting?
The Causeymire windfarm supports 3 fulltime workers, and the windfarm stands on 1.3 sq km of land.
You are right about the three fulltime workers, but wrong about the 1.3 sq km, see following map with 1.3 sq km outlined.
http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/3422/causeymireiv4.jpg
See also
If you read something that you think is incorrect then it pays to check it up.
rheghead
You should remind yourself about this occasionally.
Before you write things which are incorrect.
Check your facts ywindy.
The area surrounded by the windturbines is 1.3 sq km. I have GPSed them and there is no mistake. Your rectangle is not representative of the true outline of the L shaped windfarm.
And if I was right about the 3 fulltime workers, why didn't you correct cinder's shoe about it for the sake of accuracy?:roll:
More complete hogwash.
Agricultural land runs around the coast and inland across about Halkirk. Its nothing like 90% of the county! Agricultural land should be defined as the area under farms, not the hills and estates. Come up with proper figures if you are to have even a remote chance at being credible.
And who mentioned hunting?
Check your figures for the 618 agricultural workers, it includes hunting so it must include the land for hunting upland deer stalking. Afterall, hunting is the agriculture of the upland areas.;)
Even if we keep the hunting workers in the 618, and change the land of agriculture to only forestry and farmland then you will still have a lot of fiddling to get it to be more than the employment per unit area of Causeymire.
ywindythesecond
03-Jan-08, 00:02
Just do the maths with properly sourced data and stop waffling.:roll:
Cost of subsidy of one (ONLY ONE) 2.5MW wind turbine over one year at current ROC prices, assuming 30% load factor.
2.5 MW x 24 hrs x 365 days x 30% load factor x £49.26/MWh ROC. (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.nfpa.co.uk/id10_rocs.cfm?pid=18) is £323,638.20 per turbine per annum!
And it is the electricity consumer who pays. (That's us by the way)
And here is the reference for the value of ROCS http://www.nfpa.co.uk/id9_info.cfm?pid=15&id=64
Tell me I'm waffling.
Cost of subsidy of one (ONLY ONE) 2.5MW wind turbine over one year at current ROC prices, assuming 30% load factor.
2.5 MW x 24 hrs x 365 days x 30% load factor x £49.26/MWh ROC. (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.nfpa.co.uk/id10_rocs.cfm?pid=18) is £323,638.20 per turbine per annum!
And it is the electricity consumer who pays. (That's us by the way)
And here is the reference for the value of ROCS http://www.nfpa.co.uk/id9_info.cfm?pid=15&id=64
Tell me I'm waffling.
So what? What would we be paying under a feed-in tarriff as suggested by Ofgem? We would still be paying more for our electricity, quite probably more as they would fix a tarrif for renewable energy sales. Under the RO, the price of ROCs will fall as conventional energy companies have no need to purchase them as they invest in renewable energy schemes.
The cost to the domestic consumer under the RO will be less than £9 per person per year in the UK by 2020, hardly breaking the bank to save the planet is it?
ywindythesecond
03-Jan-08, 00:48
Check your facts ywindy.
The area surrounded by the windturbines is 1.3 sq km. I have GPSed them and there is no mistake. Your rectangle is not representative of the true outline of the L shaped windfarm.
And if I was right about the 3 fulltime workers, why didn't you correct cinder's shoe about it for the sake of accuracy
Depends how you measure them. I can get it as low as 1.1337 sq km ,see below, but where do the angels go as they fall off the needles.http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/8168/causeymire2jr4.jpg
And as regards correcting people, I think it is obvious that I was correcting Cinder's point.
But why did you not correct Baillie Windfarm's view from Isauld Bridge for the sake of accuracy?
http://www.bailliewindfarm.co.uk/images/montage3.jpg
But why did you not correct Baillie Windfarm's view from Isauld Bridge for the sake of accuracy?
http://www.bailliewindfarm.co.uk/images/montage3.jpg
It isn't clear enough to get a good fix on any of the turbines to make any meaningful quantitative analysis, I made that quite clear in my post on the subject.
BTW, I noticed you have an extra turbine in the causeymire map, presumably from the expansion proposal, 008?(i have an extra turbine at ND1667 5046), even so, 1.6 sq km would be a fair figure to reflect that (I am not quibbling)and it would still demonstrate my point that windfarms actually do support more employment per unit area than farming. And that is just the maintenance staff.
ywindythesecond
03-Jan-08, 01:27
It isn't clear enough to get a good fix on any of the turbines to make any meaningful quantitative analysis, I made that quite clear in my post on the subject.
BTW, I noticed you have an extra turbine in the causeymire map, presumably from the expansion proposal, 008?(i have an extra turbine at ND1667 5046), even so, 1.6 sq km would be a fair figure to reflect that (I am not quibbling)and it would still demonstrate my point that windfarms actually do support more employment per unit area than farming. And that is just the maintenance staff.
Re Baillie windfarm ES visualisation from Isauld Bridge, why don't you apply
"If you read something that you think is incorrect then it pays to check it up.
rheghead "
You did a very good technical assessment on my photomontage of Baillie
windfarm from Reay Golf Clubhouse. Why won't you do one on the developer's picture from Isauld bridge? Surely the lack of clarity is something to be investigated?
Re Baillie windfarm ES visualisation from Isauld Bridge, why don't you apply
"If you read something that you think is incorrect then it pays to check it up.
rheghead "
You did a very good technical assessment on my photomontage of Baillie
windfarm from Reay Golf Clubhouse. Why won't you do one on the developer's picture from Isauld bridge? Surely the lack of clarity is something to be investigated?
Because I never saw anything incorrect about it, it was just unclear. Who am I to judge what 'average' weather conditions are?:confused
ywindythesecond
03-Jan-08, 01:41
Because I never saw anything incorrect about it, it was just unclear. Who am I to judge what 'average' weather conditions are?:confused
Let me get this right Reggy. You are presented with a picture which is supposed to show a number of 110 metre high wind turbines from a distance of about 3 miles on average, shows a blurry outline, and you give them the benefit of the doubt for perhaps taking the picture on a bad day? Will they not exist because of a bad picture? It is just not a bad picture, it just does not reflect reeality.
People might be forgiven for thinking you have an alternative agenda.
It is just not a bad picture, it just does not reflect reeality.
People might be forgiven for thinking you have an alternative agenda.
I could just say the same about your original montage that was expanded and cropped to emphasise the visual impact from the Reay golf club. But it was me that was accused of having half a brain and not knowing what i was on about and it was you who was being bulled up to being super careful, yet it was you who conceded that you had made some 'silly mistakes' and it was you who made veiled personal threats and it was you who had to ammend your montage in the end, without apology to me or the people of shebster and Reay.
Glass houses and stones...End of.
BTW, my prediction for the Baillie vote is 46% returned.
54% against, 46% in favour.
BTW, my prediction for the Baillie vote is 46% returned. 54% against, 46% in favour.
And I've no doubt if that is the case you'll be saying something along the lines of 'well the 54% who didn't vote must be in favour so doing the maths that means 100% are in favour'.
Green_not_greed
03-Jan-08, 13:39
The area surrounded by the windturbines is 1.3 sq km. I have GPSed them and there is no mistake.
More disinformation from an expert in the subject.
The Causeymire wind farm boundary is well outwith the area surrounded by the turbines. It is the site area that you should be using.
Green_not_greed
03-Jan-08, 13:52
BTW, my prediction for the Baillie vote is 46% returned.
54% against, 46% in favour.
Lets just see how previous surveys have been accepted by the developers, shall we? Here is a quote from the Baillie deveopers own site
2. Survey Findings
The initial response to the postal survey sent with the newsletter was not as high as expected with a low response rate of 9%. Additionally the results seemed biased and there were concerns over the representative nature of the responses received, such as duplicate returns from the same people and encouragement of windfarm opponents from outwith the sample area to complete copy questionnaires.
So if they'd had 100% positive response from 9% returned, would they have rejected the results? NO.
If there were duplicates received (as there are in the so-called support petition signed by people largely outwith Caithness) would they have been rejected? NO
If there was encouragement from pro-wind groups from outwith the area to participate in promotion, would it have been dismissed? NO. If fact the Baillie developers had to undertake this very approach to find any "local support". This "local support" largely came from a petition signed in Inverness, by people who are too far away from the site to care.
The current Baillie vote will ensure a proper representative poll across the people who will be most affected. This is democracy. Try it out!
Cinderella's Shoe
03-Jan-08, 14:09
BTW, my prediction for the Baillie vote is 46% returned.
54% against, 46% in favour.
I'd like to nominate this post as a contender for the 2008 Richard Head Award for most original humour.
More disinformation from an expert in the subject.
The Causeymire wind farm boundary is well outwith the area surrounded by the turbines. It is the site area that you should be using.
No matter how you shuffle the figures to pull the wool over our eyes, you cannot get away from the obvious fact that windfarms support more employment per unit area than farming.
Lets just see how previous surveys have been accepted by the developers, shall we? Here is a quote from the Baillie deveopers own site
2. Survey Findings
The initial response to the postal survey sent with the newsletter was not as high as expected with a low response rate of 9%. Additionally the results seemed biased and there were concerns over the representative nature of the responses received, such as duplicate returns from the same people and encouragement of windfarm opponents from outwith the sample area to complete copy questionnaires.
So if they'd had 100% positive response from 9% returned, would they have rejected the results? NO.
If there were duplicates received (as there are in the so-called support petition signed by people largely outwith Caithness) would they have been rejected? NO
If there was encouragement from pro-wind groups from outwith the area to participate in promotion, would it have been dismissed? NO. If fact the Baillie developers had to undertake this very approach to find any "local support". This "local support" largely came from a petition signed in Inverness, by people who are too far away from the site to care.
The current Baillie vote will ensure a proper representative poll across the people who will be most affected. This is democracy. Try it out!
There are a lot of 'ifs' in that post...:roll:
Green_not_greed
03-Jan-08, 18:24
No matter how you shuffle the figures to pull the wool over our eyes, you cannot get away from the obvious fact that windfarms support more employment per unit area than farming.
Not true! Do it properly with correct figures for employment and area and try again........
And I've no doubt if that is the case you'll be saying something along the lines of 'well the 54% who didn't vote must be in favour so doing the maths that means 100% are in favour'.
From what I have been told, a no vote is considered a yes vote.
Green_not_greed
03-Jan-08, 18:26
There are a lot of 'ifs' in that post..
...for once, you are correct! What an observer!
Not true! Do it properly with correct figures for employment and area and try again........
My employment figures are correct, ywindy has said so.;)
Your comment about the boundary is a tad disingenuous because the extension will cover that extra land and then they will have to take more workers on, such are the employment benefits that wind energy brings to the area.
Green_not_greed
03-Jan-08, 18:51
My employment figures are correct, ywindy has said so.;)
Your comment about the boundary is a tad disingenuous because the extension will cover that extra land and then they will have to take more workers on, such are the employment benefits that wind energy brings to the area.
So there are 3 people employed to do maintenance, tidy up and hide the numerous bird carcases, etc for all the Caithness windfarms?
My comment about the boundary is accurate, and you know it. The 3 turbine extension will simply cover additional land. I would be extremely surprised if there were any more jobs.
Can you fill us in on what 3 people actually do full time on a wind farm controlled from outwith the UK?
My comment about the boundary is accurate, and you know it.
I don't know it as you haven't come up with anything, as usual. If you think just 3 people can cope with all the extra work then you are mistaken. Even the Spittal windfarm state they plan 4-5 jobs.
ywindythesecond
03-Jan-08, 19:33
So there are 3 people employed to do maintenance, tidy up and hide the numerous bird carcases, etc for all the Caithness windfarms?
My comment about the boundary is accurate, and you know it. The 3 turbine extension will simply cover additional land. I would be extremely surprised if there were any more jobs.
Can you fill us in on what 3 people actually do full time on a wind farm controlled from outwith the UK?
GnG, I went on an archaeology and windmill visit to Causeymire WF about 2 years ago, conducted by the landowner, and one of the chaps who works there talked about the technical side of things. He was absolutely petrified at the thought of windies attacking him and hugely relieved that it didn't happen. He told me that there were three full-time employees, and I have no reason to doubt him. Their work was of a technical nature, but I can't remember the detail. Picking up birds wasn't mentioned.
Two more interesting facts emerged. At that time, the WF had not been shut down for high wind for ages. I seem to remember over a year. Also, wind is monitored every 15 minutes from Denmark. So the big blow which might topple one of them might never be detected. I remember thinking that if controlled locally, the decision to shut down would be made on the prevailing conditions, not snapshots.
And the third new fact was that they don't need electrical power to start them up, the wind does it.
As regards how much space a windfarm takes up I have come to the following conclusion over the past 2 or 3 years.
Large scale turbines are sited generally 350m apart. It obviously varies, but this is the generality. So each turbine occupies a space 350x350m. So each turbine needs 175 metres of land around it to fulfil its function. So if you want to calculate the minimum land-take for a windfarm, you need to draw a sensible line around the outer turbines, and then extend it out 175 metres.
If you remember, Bernard Ingham came to Thurso about 3 years ago and told us that a small nuclear power station could be built on land about the size of a (small number, 2 or 3) football pitch.
I was happy to point out to him that if you assume a football pitch is 100mx50m (which I know it is not so don't anyone correct me please) then a single typical turbine needs 24.5 football pitches worth of land. (3.5 longx7 wide)
Large scale turbines are sited generally 350m apart. It obviously varies, but this is the generality. So each turbine occupies a space 350x350m. So each turbine needs 175 metres of land around it to fulfil its function. So if you want to calculate the minimum land-take for a windfarm, you need to draw a sensible line around the outer turbines, and then extend it out 175 metres.
You have overlooked the fact that windfarms are often sited on a hexagonal grid system (see Baillie and Spittal) which means they are packed together more efficiently, for not just land use but for wind take-up, as well. So your squared 350²m figure is exaggerated and erroneous. Secondly, I dispute your assertion that you need to draw an area extending another 175m as the access to the windfarm will be gained from within the physical outer shape of the scheme. The worker's place of work is not outwith this as it would be environmentally undesirable, ie that is what access tracks are for! So the Causeymire windfarm area of work is ~1.6 sq km.
Bobinovich
03-Jan-08, 21:06
According to the Highland council ward statistics, only 82 people work in agriculture and fishing in Caithness.
http://www.highland.gov.uk/yourcouncil/highlandfactsandfigures/ward-statistics.htm (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.highland.gov.uk/yourcouncil/highlandfactsandfigures/ward-statistics.htm)
Yes, but according to the same statistics, there are even less (just 22 people by my maths) working in Energy and Water in Caithness! and what percentage do you take off for those working in Water?
Before anyone says this is covering old ground, my point is either you compare figures fairly or you find out up to date figures.
Before anyone says this is covering old ground, my point is either you compare figures fairly or you find out up to date figures.
The webpage containing the data that 82 persons working in agriculture and fishing was updated on 17th December 2007, however, for the sake of cordiality, I didn't mind using a figure of 618 persons working in agriculture, fishing, forestry and hunting to illustrate my point that windfarms support more persons in employment, even though the 618 data was 6 years out of date and grossly exagerated. The reduction may be a reflection of the effects of the Government's policies are having on farming?
The webpage containing the data that 82 persons working in agriculture and fishing was updated on 17th December 2007, however, for the sake of cordiality, I didn't mind using a figure of 618 persons working in agriculture, fishing, forestry and hunting to illustrate my point that windfarms support more persons in employment, even though the 618 data was 6 years out of date and grossly exagerated. The reduction may be a reflection of the effects of the Government's policies are having on farming?
Can you honestly believe that there are only 82 people in this county working in agriculture and fishing? Commonsense would tell you that for a county with a large farming community its going to have more than that number of people farming. It is a ridiculous argument to compare the size of a windfarm and number of people it employs 'per unit area' to agriculture. What point are you trying to make? Are you saying that because windfarms employ more people (your premis, not mine) we should cover the country in windfarms and forget farming and import all of our food?
Green_not_greed
03-Jan-08, 21:59
Large scale turbines are sited generally 350m apart. It obviously varies, but this is the generality. So each turbine occupies a space 350x350m. So each turbine needs 175 metres of land around it to fulfil its function. So if you want to calculate the minimum land-take for a windfarm, you need to draw a sensible line around the outer turbines, and then extend it out 175 metres.
Now that I can believe. Thanks for some common sense and with some proper data.
So on this basis, 21 turbines = 2572m2, 24 turbines = 2940 m2.
So based on 21 turbines, thats one job per 857m2, or 1.1 jobs per km2.
Dounreay occupies 140 acres (0.57km2) and employs over 2000 workers and contractors. Now THAT'S a comparison worth making.
So based on 21 turbines, thats one job per 857m2, or 1.1 jobs per km2.
I make that 1167 persons per km².;) Leave the sums to me, eh?
From what I have been told, a no vote is considered a yes vote.
Please explain, you have lost me now.
[quote=Rheghead] Even the Spittal windfarm state they plan 4-5 jobs.[quote]
Thats no doubt to enable them to scurry round early each morning tidying up all the carcasses from the swans and geese that have flown into the turbines during the night!
ywindythesecond
03-Jan-08, 22:18
Can you honestly believe that there are only 82 people in this county working in agriculture and fishing? Commonsense would tell you that for a county with a large farming community its going to have more than that number of people farming. It is a ridiculous argument to compare the size of a windfarm and number of people it employs 'per unit area' to agriculture. What point are you trying to make? Are you saying that because windfarms employ more people (your premis, not mine) we should cover the country in windfarms and forget farming and import all of our food?
Rupert, don't get carried away!
There are lies, damn lies, statistics, and things Reggy says! Of course there are more people farming in Caithness than work in windmills. I guess there might be about ten. Four, possibly five, actually maybe six, get a wage every week. The others are hopefuls.
Get a grip of yourself man!
ywy2
ywindythesecond
03-Jan-08, 22:32
[quote=Green_not_greed;317790]
So on this basis, 21 turbines = 2572m2, 24 turbines = 2940 m2.
Sorry GnG, Wrong.
Get your sums right or Reggy will twist things around.
21x0.35x0.35= 2.5275 sq km = one job per 842,500 square metres, based on 3 jobs at Causeymire WF
Rupert, don't get carried away!
There are lies, damn lies, statistics, and things Reggy says! Of course there are more people farming in Caithness than work in windmills.
ywy2
I never said that more people work on windfarms than farming in Caithness.
I didn't make up the statistics, they are on an up-to-date website which is fully publicly accountable. I have no reason to doubt their findings.
A lot of farm labourers work part-time on many farms thus give the impression that farms employ more. I see it all the time.
ywindythesecond
04-Jan-08, 00:31
:
Originally Posted by ywindythesecond
It is just not a bad picture, it just does not reflect reeality.
People might be forgiven for thinking you have an alternative agenda.
I could just say the same about your original montage that was expanded and cropped to emphasise the visual impact from the Reay golf club. But it was me that was accused of having half a brain and not knowing what i was on about and it was you who was being bulled up to being super careful, yet it was you who conceded that you had made some 'silly mistakes' and it was you who made veiled personal threats and it was you who had to ammend your montage in the end, without apology to me or the people of shebster and Reay
__________________
Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?
Douglas Adams
If you read something that you think is incorrect then it pays to check it up.
rheghead
A few things to sort out here.
Cropping and expanding a picture has the same effect as holding it closer to your eyes. There is no standard way of viewing a picture on the web. I told you how to view the Golf Club image correctly (see later) but I doubt if you have bothered.
I didn’t accuse you of having half a brain. I said “anyone with half a brain” and you appear to have associated yourself with this.
I did not make silly mistakes though I did agree to “careless errors”.(OK, much the same!)
I made no “veiled personal threats”. In a very moderate manner I drew your attention to your very immoderate post.
I didn’t have to "ammend" my montage, I chose to go along with you and let people decide who was right.
There is only one “m” in amend.
No apology is necessary from me, I have misled no-one. This is the Reay Golf Club picture before you had your say:
http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/2422/croppedbailliefromreaygck6.jpg
And this is the picture afterwards:
http://img206.imageshack.us/img206/9810/rhegwebsiteequivalentviry9.jpg
This is what I emailed you, followed by your reply.
I think it is you who owes the apology.
-----Original Message-----
From: Stuart
To: Rheghead@
Sent: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 10.27pm
Subject: Reay and Baillie
Evening R.
You have pretty rigorously interrogated my photomontage from Reay Golf Club and I have given you every assistance in doing it.
I acknowledge that the height of turbine 7 was wrong and was therefore over prominent.
I have adopted your lower figures for visible tower and modified my montage accordingly (except for the most recent exchange as I am satisfied with my figures).
You are generally satisfied that the horizontal and vertical scales match the landscape.
As regards how to represent colour and texture of a wind turbine, there is no substitute for relying on your own knowledge. A satisfactory method of turbine representation for hard copy viewing of a photomontage at a correct viewing distance won’t give the same result on a website, and vice versa.
The Golf Club montage on the CWIF website was meant for hard copy viewing and didn’t translate well. I am happy to publicly acknowledge this.
I have gone back to basic principles and recreated the montage from scratch with white turbines (which are fine on the web but don't print well). This is attached. There is now very limited “banding”, so turbines and rotors are shown at the correct size for individual distances. .
The principal differences from the first montage are:
(1) that nearer turbines shown at their correct size in the band are significantly larger than the average in that band. (Further away turbines are not significantly altered in appearance as the viewing curve flattens out with distance.)
(2) the horizontal spread of turbines is wider in the second montage. This is because since doing the original, I have refined the relationship between one degree of the compass and the printed page, which is greater than I originally calculated.
I hope you will agree that there has been no deliberate attempt on my part to deceive anyone through my photomontages, and that you will be happy to present the results of your inquiries on the .ORG.
Regarding my Golf Club image and the ES view from Bridge of Isauld, there is no direct comparison possible.
The attached second GC montage when printed at a width of 526mm and viewed from a distance of 2056mm with your back to the east lounge window at the golf club will represent reality. The ES image printed at (approx) 400mm wide and viewed from the ES viewpoint from a distance of 380mm when standing at the Isauld bridge will represent reality (if the photographic image is good enough).
Any comments?
Stuart
----- Original Message -----
From: rheghead@
To: stuart@
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 2:35 AM
Subject: Re: Reay and Baillie
Thanks Stuart,
I think you have now faithfully represented the heights of the turbines on your photo montage as is as accurately possible in relation to the horizon. I agree that there was no intention on your part to misrepresent the heights of turbines in relation to the Shebster hill horizon. I am happy to say that in public. However, I do think that the enlarging and cropping does mislead in relation to the visual impact of the proposal though, I would think the publishing of the full montage vista would be more representative.
Thank you for cooperating with my concerns.
Cheers
ywindythesecond
04-Jan-08, 10:41
I do think that the enlarging and cropping does mislead in relation to the visual impact of the proposal though, I would think the publishing of the full montage vista would be more representative. Which you have still failed to do.
[quote=Rheghead;317906]Which you have still failed to do.
quote]
See second item on the CWIF website home page. It has been there since the last week in November.
I do think that the enlarging and cropping does mislead in relation to the visual impact of the proposal though, I would think the publishing of the full montage vista would be more representative. Which you have still failed to do.
Which you have still failed to do.
See second item on the CWIF website home page. It has been there since the last week in November.
Well lets get a few things straight about those montages of yours. The original montage from Reay golf club has an angle-of-view of 16°.
The Assessment of Windfarms:Best Practice report recommends using a standard 35mm camera with a standard 50mm lens to take montage backgrounds. This has an angle-of-view of 40°. In all cases, the photo proportions should be A3/A4 size, so to be as close to how the naked eye will view the scene. Neither of your original or revised montages fit this criteria.
The report criticises developers using lenses with angle-of-views greater than 40°, (especially those wide angle 90 degree lenses) that will mislead the public by under representing the height of the turbines. Likewise, angle-of-views which are less than 40° as with the original at 16° will do the opposite and mislead the Public by over emphasising the height of the turbines, especially if there is a foreground as is the case with the Reay montage.
Since you were a witness in the Beauly-Denny inquiry by making criticisms of the developers montages in relation to this issue, then you will appreciate that you are also misleading the citizens of Caithness by using the same technique on the Baillie windfarm proposal.
ywindythesecond
04-Jan-08, 23:16
[quote=Rheghead;318251]Well lets get a few things straight about those montages of yours.
This is where it started http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?t=35854 (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/showthread.php?t=35854)
I am not going to repeat earlier posts. Anyone interested can backtrack and find the background.
Why do you persist in not addressing the blurry image in the Baillie Windfarm Environmental Statement of the view from Isauld Bridge? You persist in attacking my images against even your own conclusions, but do not address this question.
Have you an alternative agenda?
ywy2
Why do you persist in not addressing the blurry image in the Baillie Windfarm Environmental Statement of the view from Isauld Bridge? You persist in attacking my images against even your own conclusions, but do not address this question.
ywy2
Purely because the creator of the developer's shabby montage is not available for comment and the creator of the misleading CWIF montage is available (but usually or invariably ducks and dives the issue).;)
ywindythesecond
05-Jan-08, 01:20
Purely because the creator of the developer's shabby montage is not available for comment and the creator of the misleading CWIF montage is available (but usually or invariably ducks and dives the issue).;)
I'm not ducking or diving anything, but I am pleased that you you have recognised that the developers montage is "shabby". Your word not mine, but I cannot disagree with it.
Would you like me to PM you the developer's phone number so you can get in touch with the developer's shabby montage creator, and ask for his comment?
I'm not ducking or diving anything, but I am pleased that you you have recognised that the developers montage is "shabby". Your word not mine, but I cannot disagree with it.
It would seem that the developers have not upped their game with regard to photomontages. A quote from SNH's initial response to the planning submission for the Spittal Hill development -
'Many of the visualisations are of a very poor quality taken on dull or wet days where the sky is dark and therefore not showing the turbines in a worst case scenario. These visualisations do not conform to the recommendations made in the SHN Good practice Guidance Visual Representation of Windfarms http://www.snh.org.uk/strategy/renewable/sr-we00.asp' (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.snh.org.uk/strategy/renewable/sr-we00.asp')
It would seem that the developers have not upped their game with regard to photomontages. A quote from SNH's initial response to the planning submission for the Spittal Hill development -
'Many of the visualisations are of a very poor quality taken on dull or wet days where the sky is dark and therefore not showing the turbines in a worst case scenario. These visualisations do not conform to the recommendations made in the SHN Good practice Guidance Visual Representation of Windfarms http://www.snh.org.uk/strategy/renewable/sr-we00.asp' (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www.snh.org.uk/strategy/renewable/sr-we00.asp')
That may be true, developers may be still using photographs which were created before the SNH made their recommendations, as in the documents you have made a link to. However, don't you think it will be reasonable and effective if CWIF and other antiwind groups were seen to be conforming to these recommendations so that the public can have trust in what their protest is about? If they were seen to be just as corrupt as the developers then the public will just lose interest and become apathetic, thus letting the door in for major and unwanted wind developments.
That may be true, developers may be still using photographs which were created before the SNH made their recommendations, as in the documents you have made a link to. However, don't you think it will be reasonable and effective if CWIF and other antiwind groups were seen to be conforming to these recommendations so that the public can have trust in what their protest is about? If they were seen to be just as corrupt as the developers then the public will just lose interest and become apathetic, thus letting the door in for major and unwanted wind developments.
With regard to the Spittal Hill photomontages and SNH's criticism - the SHN visual guidance report is dated 29 March 2006. I assume that is publication date. The application for the windfarm was submitted in April 2007, over a year later. It begs the question why did the developers produce montages that obviously fell well short of the guidance requirement? With regard to the public losing interest and becoming apathetic - it is quite staggering how many people you meet who are absolutely against the county being covered in huge windfarms. I don't think the public are losing interest at all and it is groups like CWIF that are doing a marvellous job in letting the public know what is going on - because as sure as eggs is eggs windfarm developers keep things close to their chest as long as they possibly can.
ywindythesecond
05-Jan-08, 20:22
That may be true, developers may be still using photographs which were created before the SNH made their recommendations, as in the documents you have made a link to. However, don't you think it will be reasonable and effective if CWIF and other antiwind groups were seen to be conforming to these recommendations so that the public can have trust in what their protest is about? If they were seen to be just as corrupt as the developers then the public will just lose interest and become apathetic, thus letting the door in for major and unwanted wind developments.
SNH were happy enough to accept my input into their consultation on visualisation of windfarms and my recommendations on larger scale images for public display have been adopted as good practise. See extracts below.
Paragraphs 240 and 264 are in the guidance as a direct result of my input.
http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/6553/image1vb9.jpg
http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/6931/image2jb6.jpg
With regard to the Spittal Hill photomontages and SNH's criticism - the SHN visual guidance report is dated 29 March 2006. I assume that is publication date. The application for the windfarm was submitted in April 2007, over a year later. It begs the question why did the developers produce montages that obviously fell well short of the guidance requirement? With regard to the public losing interest and becoming apathetic - it is quite staggering how many people you meet who are absolutely against the county being covered in huge windfarms. I don't think the public are losing interest at all and it is groups like CWIF that are doing a marvellous job in letting the public know what is going on - because as sure as eggs is eggs windfarm developers keep things close to their chest as long as they possibly can.
Does that mean you think CWIF should be conforming to the SNH guidelines of representing wiindfarms or not?
Does that mean you think CWIF should be conforming to the SNH guidelines of representing wiindfarms or not?
I have no reason to believe that they are not. I find their website very informative.
I have no reason to believe that they are not. I find their website very informative.
I assume you would like to think it is important that they are? It may come as a surprise to you that they aren't, they are produced by using the same techniques (but in the opposite way) that developers use.
Surely if windfarms are that bad for visual impact then their representations in montages don't need to be distorted. The creator just needs to follow the guidlines as described by the SNH.
ywindythesecond
06-Jan-08, 03:17
I assume you would like to think it is important that they are? It may come as a surprise to you that they aren't, they are produced by using the same techniques (but in the opposite way) that developers use.
Surely if windfarms are that bad for visual impact then their representations in montages don't need to be distorted. The creator just needs to follow the guidlines as described by the SNH.
Define distorted please.
See also http://forum.caithness.org/showpost.php?p=318931&postcount=120 (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://forum.caithness.org/showpost.php?p=318931&postcount=120)
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.