I'm a regular passer-by of the Forss windfarm on my bike. I've failed everytime to hear the turbines from the road which is about 850m. I will be happy to invite anyone to come with me to verify that fact.
Printable View
Aren't the 38 companies who have registered interest in the Pentland Firth tidal races just doing the same?
What about Pelamis? Same there I think.
I think out of all the things that the Labour party have done, incentivising the likes of Charlie Sutherland to build a windfarm of all things to make money has to be one of their successful achievements.:lol:
I am with anneoctober here. The developer is not interested in any issues other than making money. The people of Shebster and surrounding area will not benefit in any way and were not fully consulted over this. The wind farm at the Causwaywire is there to stay so instead of blotting the caithness with a turbine here and a turbine there, put all proposed turbines on the existing site at Causwaymire.
So I understand it has been approved for planning permission.
That would be far too sensible in the eyes of the folks in charge of this money. IMHO this type of suggestion should have been made mandatory in the constitution and the fund should never be supporting schemes which blatantly consume power. Of course this would have meant lower profits to the electricity companies/developers.
Seem to remember a couple of years ago someone cut down one of Charlie Sutherland's Anemometer masts, seemed local folk were not impressed, not sure but does not Charlie live quite some way from the proposed windfarm?
Unfortunately I find myself in total disagreement with you Rheghead - the one major failure of the Labour Government is to completely over amplify the benefits of 'green power' and ignore the fact that currently wind power is unable to provide reliable energy needs of today. Furthermore the Labour is ignorant of the necessity of nuclear power in a modern day society. The Blair/Brown governments have run away from the admission the nuclear power is currently the only answer to energy requirements.
I do however believe we must try to reduce the reliance on fossil fuels and perhaps wind and tidal energy will play a role in this. However the way in which the Labour administration has conducted the proliferation of windfarms is truly irresponsible. I believe that cash-strapped farmers have been exploited in the name of "raising community funds". Ironically windfarm proposals in Caithness have not led to community cohesion but rather segregation.
At some point there will be questions raised why applications in West Caithness are being refused well below the national average since it is one of the most sparsely populated areas in the country.
I don't think it needs any explanation. However, for your benefit, Charlie is a grassroots sort of person with a bit of land and an eye for a business venture , what the Government want to carry through their aim of getting their renewable targets met. He responded to the lure of money facillitated by the Renewable Obligation. Pretty Simple really.:roll:
You can't make an omelette without cracking a few eggs.
"Because its not suitable" would appear to be the answer you are struggling with. The area is populated by a dispersed community - so that finding a suitable area for an industrial development, far from peoples houses, is rather difficult. To date, Councillors and Reporters have come to the same conclusion, which is why wind turbine proposals for Lieurary, Borrowston, Baillie and Shebster have been thrown out. [Baillie of course remains with the Reporter - Councillors rightly voted it out].
At yesterday's Shebster planning hearing, evn Cllr Smith would not support wind turbines that were less than 1km from houses. CllA Mackay hit the nail on the head, when he said that Caithness was approx 600 square miles in size, yet once again Councillors were faced with a wind turbine proposal close to houses. He suggested that remote areas would be far better suited for turbine development - and Councillors appeared to agree with that view.
Offshore not onshore.......