This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
MCofS Chief Officer, David Gibson, said: “It appears Ben Wyvis – a superb mountain which welcomes visitors arriving from the south to Inverness and the Moray Firth area - has become an unfortunate magnet for wind farm developers. A previous bid to build a wind farm in the area was withdrawn in the face of local and national opposition, and we urged PI Renewables to do the same.
“However they lodged a formal planning application just before Christmas. The timing may well have meant it slipped by some interested parties, but we would remind people now that the deadline for objections is 7th February – so if you want to oppose this totally inappropriate application, you need to act now.”
He added: “We’re astonished that a developer can even consider siting a wind farm inside a Special Landscape Area.”
"totally inappropriate application" .......Hmmm considering that windfarms are a renewable clean energy which is protecting this precious environment don't you feel that it is more sustainable than not doing it? What do you think the alternatives should be windfarms are great clean energy it's a shame people hate them. I like them just look at Denmark it does great.
“However they lodged a formal planning application just before Christmas. The timing may well have meant it slipped by some interested parties, but we would remind people now that the deadline for objections is 7th February – so if you want to oppose this totally inappropriate application, you need to act now.”
He added: “We’re astonished that a developer can even consider siting a wind farm inside a Special Landscape Area.”
"totally inappropriate application" .......Hmmm considering that windfarms are a renewable clean energy which is protecting this precious environment don't you feel that it is more sustainable than not doing it? What do you think the alternatives should be windfarms are great clean energy it's a shame people hate them. I like them just look at Denmark it does great.
In reply to PKAT:
Yes - the Dartmoor and mid Wales wind farms are Lovely to watch.
Yes - the Dartmoor and mid Wales wind farms are Lovely to watch.
Post edited at 07:23
In reply to PKAT:
i qiite like them, find them relaxing to watch. we have a fairly big offshore one here and i think it looks ok. they just have to get the output and efficiency up so they are more productive.
jeff
i qiite like them, find them relaxing to watch. we have a fairly big offshore one here and i think it looks ok. they just have to get the output and efficiency up so they are more productive.
jeff
In reply to PKAT:
Quite a big one on Romney Marsh near me.
I like them and find them futuristic and relaxing to watch.
Quite a big one on Romney Marsh near me.
I like them and find them futuristic and relaxing to watch.
In reply to PKAT:
TROLL
> "totally inappropriate application" .......Hmmm considering that windfarms are a renewable clean energy which is protecting this precious environment don't you feel that it is more sustainable than not doing it? What do you think the alternatives should be windfarms are great clean energy it's a shame people hate them. I like them just look at Denmark it does great.
TROLL
In reply to PKAT:
Having walked over Ben Wyvis and over the back and around to Strathpeffer, the mountain is trashed by the deer estate in my opinion. The issue of a windfarm should be secondary to getting the estate to look after the flora and fauna of this wonderful piece of land. The shape and geography of the east side in particular are just crying out to be managed properly.
Having walked over Ben Wyvis and over the back and around to Strathpeffer, the mountain is trashed by the deer estate in my opinion. The issue of a windfarm should be secondary to getting the estate to look after the flora and fauna of this wonderful piece of land. The shape and geography of the east side in particular are just crying out to be managed properly.
In reply to PKAT:
my problem with windfarms is that we the tax payer provide a financial incentive for them them to be built, we then have to pay extra to have the farm connected to the grid.
i'd like the only wind farms to be approved for the next 10 years to be built near to the population centres that benefit from them or "on" exisiting power lines. it seems to be more about making money than about "clean" energy.
plus peat bogs are a good CO2 store, digging them up to promote CO2 free energy seems counter productive.
as part of a coherent clean energy production they have their place though for sure.
how about... all new housing developments have ground source heat pumps, solar capture of some sort and a mini windfarm on the roof? makes more sense (unless you believe that free markets are more important than the planet)
my problem with windfarms is that we the tax payer provide a financial incentive for them them to be built, we then have to pay extra to have the farm connected to the grid.
i'd like the only wind farms to be approved for the next 10 years to be built near to the population centres that benefit from them or "on" exisiting power lines. it seems to be more about making money than about "clean" energy.
plus peat bogs are a good CO2 store, digging them up to promote CO2 free energy seems counter productive.
as part of a coherent clean energy production they have their place though for sure.
how about... all new housing developments have ground source heat pumps, solar capture of some sort and a mini windfarm on the roof? makes more sense (unless you believe that free markets are more important than the planet)
In reply to PKAT:
If wind farms made sense, they would be viable without a big fat taxpayer funded subsidy.
If wind farms made sense, they would be viable without a big fat taxpayer funded subsidy.
Post edited at 08:53
In reply to rallymania:
Are you lumping windfarms in the same bracket as hospitals, schools and roads?
Windfarms are private enterprises run for profit. What annoys me is that profit comes from taxes.
Are you lumping windfarms in the same bracket as hospitals, schools and roads?
Windfarms are private enterprises run for profit. What annoys me is that profit comes from taxes.
In reply to 999thAndy:
Why exactly does that annoy you and what would you suggest as an alternative? I'm assuming you'd agree we really can't just keep burning fossil fuel forever?
jk
> Windfarms are private enterprises run for profit. What annoys me is that profit comes from taxes.
Why exactly does that annoy you and what would you suggest as an alternative? I'm assuming you'd agree we really can't just keep burning fossil fuel forever?
jk
In reply to jkarran:
It annoys me because money is being taken from my pocket to fund wind on the promise that it will "bootstrap" the technology into something that can actually meaningfully contribute to our energy security.
To date all it is doing is making the ROI on conventional plant worse, making it harder for people to invest in, e.g. CCGT plant. It's also diverting money that could go into constructing modern fission plants.
I agree - and I suggest that there is no way on this earth that wind can be the primary source of energy for Britain going forwards. As such our priority should be in identifying that source and making it happen, not in squandering all the money on something that will only ever fritter away at the edges of our energy needs.
Before anyone points me to Gridwatch to proudly proclaim that wind is currently providing 2.99% of our electricity, that corresponds to about 0.74% of our total energy requirements. Can you imagine having 135 times as many wind turbines, and some magic future energy storage system, and what that would do to the countryside, or cost?
I would happily pay 2x my current electricity bill if the surplus was going to investment in Thorium cycle fission reactors and a modern waste processing facility.
> Why exactly does that annoy you and what would you suggest as an alternative? I'm assuming you'd agree we really can't just keep burning fossil fuel forever?
It annoys me because money is being taken from my pocket to fund wind on the promise that it will "bootstrap" the technology into something that can actually meaningfully contribute to our energy security.
To date all it is doing is making the ROI on conventional plant worse, making it harder for people to invest in, e.g. CCGT plant. It's also diverting money that could go into constructing modern fission plants.
> I'm assuming you'd agree we really can't just keep burning fossil fuel forever?
I agree - and I suggest that there is no way on this earth that wind can be the primary source of energy for Britain going forwards. As such our priority should be in identifying that source and making it happen, not in squandering all the money on something that will only ever fritter away at the edges of our energy needs.
Before anyone points me to Gridwatch to proudly proclaim that wind is currently providing 2.99% of our electricity, that corresponds to about 0.74% of our total energy requirements. Can you imagine having 135 times as many wind turbines, and some magic future energy storage system, and what that would do to the countryside, or cost?
I would happily pay 2x my current electricity bill if the surplus was going to investment in Thorium cycle fission reactors and a modern waste processing facility.
Post edited at 10:10
In reply to wintertree:
It may not be the most effective way of achieving that bootstrap effect but it's probably better than doing nothing.
The problem with next generation fission is not up front investment (at least no worse than any industry seeking investment in the midst of a deep depression), it's down the line risk given we still have no real certainty over the costs and responsibilities and facilities for decommissioning and disposal.
I agree and disagree. Clearly wind alone will never be enough but we seem to differ on the contribution we think it can make.
Frankly, yes, I can imagine 100x as many turbines as there are today. I don't think it's a great idea, certainly not unless they were developed alongside adequate storage but perhaps 10x as many alongside pumped storage (perhaps lagoons), that I think would be worthwhile. As to what it would do to the countryside: Nothing we haven't done before in one form or another.
Very sensible.
jk
> It annoys me because money is being taken from my pocket to fund wind on the promise that it will "bootstrap" the technology into something that can actually meaningfully contribute to our energy security.
It may not be the most effective way of achieving that bootstrap effect but it's probably better than doing nothing.
> To date all it is doing is making the ROI on conventional plant worse, making it harder for people to invest in, e.g. CCGT plant. It's also diverting money that could go into constructing modern fission plants.
The problem with next generation fission is not up front investment (at least no worse than any industry seeking investment in the midst of a deep depression), it's down the line risk given we still have no real certainty over the costs and responsibilities and facilities for decommissioning and disposal.
> I agree - and I suggest that there is no way on this earth that wind can be the primary source of energy for Britain going forwards. As such our priority should be in identifying that source and making it happen, not in squandering all the money on something that will only ever fritter away at the edges of our energy needs.
I agree and disagree. Clearly wind alone will never be enough but we seem to differ on the contribution we think it can make.
> Before anyone points me to Gridwatch to proudly proclaim that wind is currently providing 2.99% of our electricity, that corresponds to about 0.74% of our total energy requirements. Can you imagine having 135 times as many wind turbines, and some magic future energy storage system, and what that would do to the countryside, or cost?
Frankly, yes, I can imagine 100x as many turbines as there are today. I don't think it's a great idea, certainly not unless they were developed alongside adequate storage but perhaps 10x as many alongside pumped storage (perhaps lagoons), that I think would be worthwhile. As to what it would do to the countryside: Nothing we haven't done before in one form or another.
> I would happily pay 2x my current electricity bill if the surplus was going to investment in Thorium cycle fission reactors and a modern waste processing facility.
Very sensible.
jk
In reply to PKAT:
Until the MCofS names and shames the real developers, the landowners, the battle will continue to be lost. Years before planning authorities, government and so even hears about any application the landowners and power companies have got everything tied up and pre-empted any objections.
Stop it at source.
Until the MCofS names and shames the real developers, the landowners, the battle will continue to be lost. Years before planning authorities, government and so even hears about any application the landowners and power companies have got everything tied up and pre-empted any objections.
Stop it at source.
In reply to jkarran:
Clearly we can't go on burning fossil fuel forever. I just think the money being given in subsidies would be better spent on research rather than buying the MD a new Rolls. Why have windfarms suddenly starting appearing? Why aren't we harnessing wave or tidal power? surely the energy to be extracted from millions of tonnes of water moving due to gravity would give a better return on taxpayers money? Plus that energy source is predictable, twice a day regular as a clock. Or we could spend some money on building our own nuclear plants instead of putting the Chinese in charge of our energy supply.
> Why exactly does that annoy you and what would you suggest as an alternative? I'm assuming you'd agree we really can't just keep burning fossil fuel forever?
> jk
Clearly we can't go on burning fossil fuel forever. I just think the money being given in subsidies would be better spent on research rather than buying the MD a new Rolls. Why have windfarms suddenly starting appearing? Why aren't we harnessing wave or tidal power? surely the energy to be extracted from millions of tonnes of water moving due to gravity would give a better return on taxpayers money? Plus that energy source is predictable, twice a day regular as a clock. Or we could spend some money on building our own nuclear plants instead of putting the Chinese in charge of our energy supply.
In reply to 999thAndy:
Wind Farms haven't suddenly started appearing. First UK Wind Farm Delabole 1991.
Theoretically we have enough energy in the waves and tides to supply all our requirements, however harnessing that power is far from easy. The forces involved and the corrosive nature of salt water make building generators robust enough a huge and exceptionally difficult task.
> Clearly we can't go on burning fossil fuel forever. I just think the money being given in subsidies would be better spent on research rather than buying the MD a new Rolls. Why have windfarms suddenly starting appearing? Why aren't we harnessing wave or tidal power? surely the energy to be extracted from millions of tonnes of water moving due to gravity would give a better return on taxpayers money? Plus that energy source is predictable, twice a day regular as a clock. Or we could spend some money on building our own nuclear plants instead of putting the Chinese in charge of our energy supply.
Wind Farms haven't suddenly started appearing. First UK Wind Farm Delabole 1991.
Theoretically we have enough energy in the waves and tides to supply all our requirements, however harnessing that power is far from easy. The forces involved and the corrosive nature of salt water make building generators robust enough a huge and exceptionally difficult task.
In reply to Skip:
I'd like to see a graph plotted of windfarms built v time. I'm guessing there'd be a step change visible from when subsidies where introduced.
I never said wave or tidal power would be easy, that's why we need to do the R&D, which private enterprise can't afford.
I'd like to see a graph plotted of windfarms built v time. I'm guessing there'd be a step change visible from when subsidies where introduced.
I never said wave or tidal power would be easy, that's why we need to do the R&D, which private enterprise can't afford.
In reply to 999thAndy:
There's plenty of R&D being done by private enterprise.
> I'd like to see a graph plotted of windfarms built v time. I'm guessing there'd be a step change visible from when subsidies where introduced.
> I never said wave or tidal power would be easy, that's why we need to do the R&D, which private enterprise can't afford.
There's plenty of R&D being done by private enterprise.
In reply to 999thAndy:
All the research in the world is no good if the technology can't be rolled out to compete commercially with fossil fuel which at present it can't, yet we need it to so our options are to subsidise one and or raise the tax on the other. The other options of course are to just wait for fossil fuel prices to keep rising as supply demand and supply get further out of step or develop a better alternative technology.
They haven't started appearing suddenly but they're currently in vogue because the subsidies are at a level where they're worth investing in.
Less mature technology, huge up front costs and higher risk requiring far bigger subsidy than is currently available. Also the environmental impacts are relatively unknown so I doubt we'll see anything but a modest pilot project (Cardiff bay?) and a few tidal stream turbines rolled out in the next 30 years.
Good idea. We shouldn't still be in the position of having to build more of the same fission plants especially given we aren't dealing with the waste sensibly but that's where we are. We really shouldn't be having to buy them in! Too late.
jk
> Clearly we can't go on burning fossil fuel forever. I just think the money being given in subsidies would be better spent on research rather than buying the MD a new Rolls.
All the research in the world is no good if the technology can't be rolled out to compete commercially with fossil fuel which at present it can't, yet we need it to so our options are to subsidise one and or raise the tax on the other. The other options of course are to just wait for fossil fuel prices to keep rising as supply demand and supply get further out of step or develop a better alternative technology.
> Why have windfarms suddenly starting appearing?
They haven't started appearing suddenly but they're currently in vogue because the subsidies are at a level where they're worth investing in.
> Why aren't we harnessing wave or tidal power? surely the energy to be extracted from millions of tonnes of water moving due to gravity would give a better return on taxpayers money?
Less mature technology, huge up front costs and higher risk requiring far bigger subsidy than is currently available. Also the environmental impacts are relatively unknown so I doubt we'll see anything but a modest pilot project (Cardiff bay?) and a few tidal stream turbines rolled out in the next 30 years.
> Or we could spend some money on building our own nuclear plants instead of putting the Chinese in charge of our energy supply.
Good idea. We shouldn't still be in the position of having to build more of the same fission plants especially given we aren't dealing with the waste sensibly but that's where we are. We really shouldn't be having to buy them in! Too late.
jk
In reply to jkarran:
I agree about tidal power. Attractive at first glance but the Devil is in the detail.
Wind has it's place certainly, but that's not on the side of Ben Wyvis or in the Monadhliath.
Looking at Gridwatch last night I was disappointed to see that coal accounts for far more electricity generation than nuclear. Either we should bite the bullet and double our nuclear capacity or do something serious about carbon capture.
I agree about tidal power. Attractive at first glance but the Devil is in the detail.
Wind has it's place certainly, but that's not on the side of Ben Wyvis or in the Monadhliath.
Looking at Gridwatch last night I was disappointed to see that coal accounts for far more electricity generation than nuclear. Either we should bite the bullet and double our nuclear capacity or do something serious about carbon capture.
In reply to Removed User:
I am hoping that a piece I have written about a single-turbine development in the National Scenic Area at Achiltibuie will go online shortly. It is a fascinating topic when you look at the cash involved.
I am hoping that a piece I have written about a single-turbine development in the National Scenic Area at Achiltibuie will go online shortly. It is a fascinating topic when you look at the cash involved.
Try http://bit.ly/1bEzr7c
For a good read on the topic
Interestinly MCofS has not objected to this scheme, for very good reasons, but hopefully this piece will give some insight into the process.
In reply to Richard Baynes:
Have you read this article!
Have you read this article!
> Try http://bit.ly/1bEzr7c
Have you read this article. It seems pretty clear the local community are just interested in profit and subsidies and not in the environmental damage that most of us see. We really do need to bite the bullet and buy nuclear as some of the landowners suggest.This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Fri Night Vid Finding Focus - Life Behind The Lens of a Climbing Photographer
This week's Friday Night Video is a portrait of a prolific climbing photographer from Wedge Climbing. Sam Pratt is well known in both the outdoor and competition scene but if you haven't heard of him, you've likely seen...
26 Apr
Loading Notifications...