UKC

In reply to Mark Phillips: I think they should dam the river lochy at the tail race

In reply to Erik B: Or fit dynamos to folk going up the Ben path

In reply to Mark Phillips:
Perhaps I should start another forum as I don’t want to pick on one planning application such as this one, as I don’t know all the merits and disadvantages of this case.

But would people rather have electricity produced from cloud making cooling towers and chimneys, that often blot the landscape near to urban areas, for example in Nottinghamshire, Greater Manchester or wind turbines on local hills? There can be tough choices, but surely building power stations vs wind turbines is there a real contest?
Or is it just NIMBYism?

For example: I wouldn’t want a power station built near me, but wind turbines on the local hill I wouldn’t mind compared to the alternatives! So I guess I am being NIMBY as I wouldn’t want a power station built near me!
In fact – proposed wind turbines near to me were turned down by the local council, so where does my electricity come from? Surely from the nearest coal, gas, nuclear power station behind the hill that I can’t see, but the people living near it can!

In reply to Mark Phillips:
I think a lot of us on here could benefit from reading "Sustainable Energy- Without the hot air" by David Mackay.

I know that its easy to use emotive words about a subject that people on both sides have good reasons to feel strongly about, but we need to look at the facts in a fair and balenced manner.

The book is pretty new, and is available free online, but crucially is endorsed by several prominent people on both "sides" of the argument.
You can either read it online, or download the pdf here: http://www.withouthotair.com/

The main aim of the book is to look at the feasability of lots of different energy technologies. I havent actually read it all yet, but have read the first few chapters and skimmed most of it, and it ive definatly learnt a lot so far!

In reply to j_duds:

I think it comes from a more theme/play park mentality of the Highlands often as if it's some kind of museum to be looked at and preserved. Much of the Highlands is a biological slum.

In reply to redherring: Thanks for the link - downloading now.

Others have made the point already that we need to generate electricity somehow and there is no free lunch. Fission - Uranium is not in infinite supply, nuclear waste is a problem that no country has solved, and the true costs per kWh are collosal. The general taxpayer and future generations will have to deal with that, along with decomissioning. Not to mention the undesirability of having huge amounts of nuclear material sloshing around with terrorists looking for easy targets.

Nuclear fusion - well, that would be nice, but we are no nearer cracking this than we were when I was a wee boy learning about this in school in the 80s. That's in spite of huge amounts of R@D compared to renewables.

I think that offshore wind, wave, solar water heating, etc could all make an impact, but ultimately we will have to cut our energy usage, and that includes travelling.

As for the turbines in question, I'm with Domhnall Morris on this - the hills above Caol / Corpach aren't fantastic, sure you'll be able to see them from the Ben, but you can see Fort William from the Ben and that ain't pretty. what about the traffic noise when you are climbing the Glencoe hills? I have more of an issue with the transport of electricity - pylons rather than an undersea cable (not as expensive as the power companies would have you believe).

In reply to Jamie Hageman:

You'd think they'd be able to do something with all the Hot air that UKC generates.

In reply to Glenachulish:

Good points. I'm all in favour of smaller community run windfarms, but the infrastructure that the larger ones need gives me cause for concern.Access roads, power lines and substations all have a negative impact on the environment imho.

In reply to Mark Phillips:

Are all you people completely nuts? Those of you who offer ANY opposition to renewable energy have absolutely no idea whats at stake here. In less than one hundred years from now, our grandchildren are facing no less than the collapse of society as we know it, and you're wittering on about 'visual amenity'.

If we don't deal with our carbon emissions, we bequeth these gifts to future generations within decades:
- quadruppling of food prices in real terms
- Electricity rationing like the 78 winter of discontent, only permanent
- refugee crisis in this country on the scale of what we see in sub-saharan africa

And I haven't even got started with the big unknowns like like the risk of a seven meter rise in sea-level due to collapse of the icesheets, or a shutting down of the gulf stream.

I'm sure you don't have 'anything against renewable energy sources'. Unfortuately, this sort of apathy won't cut it.

In reply to Toby S:

It's the larger ones that are needed though in order to make any dent on energy production.....

In reply to ruaidh:

4 legs good, 2 legs bad .. .. .. ..

In reply to Toby S:

OK Toby: your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to go down south and persuade them to turn all their lights off.


Northern Scotland is the only place in the entire world where there is world-class wind and world-class ocean power within striking distance of major population centres that can use the power. Nothing anyone says will change that fact.

It's rather like the old old situation with the path to the BenN. There were people in Fort William who thought they could ignore the problem and it would go away. The mountain was not going to go away and eventually we got a decent path. Discussing it for 20 years probably cost ten times what the path cost.

In reply to Jim Fraser:
Don't wanna. They're all savages down that way, they might eat me.

You go instead, you're older and less appetising

In reply to Mark Phillips:


On a good day half of scotland is visable...

In reply to Jim Fraser:



Agreed. Would it not be better with windfarms to pick a really big area (say all of the Mondliath, or Lewis) , cover it with 10,000 turbines and be done with it. This would affect only one area. At present sticking 3 turbines here and a dozen there ends up spoiling all the views.

In reply to MG:

Well, since the best winter navigation training area in Scotland has been ruined by the presence of the Farr wind farm at the north end already, you might expect that there would be little lost by putting more there. Technically there are problems with how much energy you can actually take out of the wind (35%?) and once you take it out then it's not there any more. I suspect that if you placed another windfarm next to Farr then the output at the existing turbines would suffer substantially. The whole plateau had 55m weather station masts on it for years to study the wind so none of this has been entered into lightly.

In reply to MG: not sure that I agree. Granted the aesthetic aspects of windturbines are a personal choice-but personally I would rather be able to see windturbines spread overthe country in clusters, than all shoved in one place. I quite like the look of turbines in small amounts, but I think the absolute local devestation a massive farm would cause makes very large scale farms only really suitable for offshore applications.

Anther factor which is important is that very big developments are inveriable funded and crucially owned by large multinational companies. While I dont know the situation with the fort william scheme proposed here, clusters are at a scale which makes them a realistic investment for rural comunities and farmers.

(I should say I am actually from the Isle of Harris(attatched to Lewis for those that dont know)- So maybe im just being another NIMBY. However on Harris we as a community have a wind cluster such as I discussed approved and ready to be built- which we hope will generate crucial jobs and funds.)

In reply to Jim Fraser: Interesting idea, but is it really the 'only' place? Better than California? NewSouthWales? Lima? Barcelona? Morocco? Cape Town? Japan? and all sorts of others no doubt, that I can't think of off the top of my head. West coast of Ireland can't be bad for wave and wind, and isn't that rather closer to a lot of British Isles population centres than most of northern Scotland?

Comparing an improved mountain path to the creation of a world class renewable factory of - presumably - mind boggling scale...hmmm... stretching an analogy beyond breaking point?

It's no wonder that lots of people baulk at the idea of a really big roll-out of wind power in the Highlands. And quite right too. It would be a philistine brutalist nightmare.

In reply to ruaidh: Oh, how could we have been so blind and selfish? Thank you for making that all clear. It is now obvious that we have to tarnish all that is beautiful and unique, if only to appease your headless chicken act. Otherwise we're all DOOMED.

In reply to ruaidh:



Then again you could consider what you're posting without offering such infantile, puerile Greenpeace crap !

You think that renewable energy will counter the highly subjective issues you parrot. Lets see...a burgeoning world population- 80 million in the UK by 2050 -huge growth in industrialisation-especially in highly populated nations like China and India. Massive rise in car use and air travel. Pollution of the seas and oceans.Depletion of fish stocks.Extinction of species.

Your hysterical ill considered response is akin to someone tackling the great fire of London with an egg cup.

Strong candidate for the annual 'Swampy on acid' award !

In reply to Jonno:

Put me down for the Swampy on acid award too, I think he was spot on.

In reply to Jonno:

Can I have some acid as well,MDMA supplies in the UK have dried up !

In reply to Mark Phillips: It always grates with me when someone complains about wind turbines. You can't have it all - wind turbines and perfect scenery. I'm not particularly bothered about seeing wind turbines on the hill. There's plenty of other views to be had in scotland anyway. I, for one, certainly won't be complaining.

In reply to Jonno:



http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462

Climate change myth: "Many leading scientists question climate change"
In fact, a recent poll found that 97.4% of active climatologists agree that human activity is warming the planet.
Read more here:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11654

If anyone's "parroting" lazy ideas here, it's you, Degsy

In reply to Erik B:

The tail race would potentially back-up and the turbines at the smelter wouldn't work too well, so could see Alcan/Rio Tinto or however being against that. Plus the Salmon lot would be up in arms.

My thing against wind turbines up here is the losses you get by having the 'ship' the electricity to where it is needed i.e. miles away.

In reply to dan bailey:

What did we do before you arrived to tell us how to think?

In reply to dan bailey:


Yes.

In reply to DougG:

Even if you accept man made global warming,to think that wind turbines will have the slightest impact is insane. How many wind zealots on here will be flying off this year to some exotic location,driving to work,eating imported food,changing their car,watching a plasma TV,leaving the computer on all day and a million and one things that make a Western consumer.

Never mind though. Just recycling your Guardians and Tesco plonk bottles and covering the hillsides with turbines should do the trick.

In reply to Jonno:

What planet are you on. Throwing out personal insults only makes your argument more pointless.

Out of interest, why is it that such huge exageration is used by people opposed.

Do you understand the meaning of the word ¨covering¨? If you do then you will quckly understand that this hill will not be covered.

In reply to DougG: Having spent a few years working in texas I'm used to dealing with hard line religious Rednecks, the type would shoot the last bold eagle and then change their emblem just because it costs too many tax dollars to protect it...One Senior exxon lad I got chatting with proceeded to enlighten me as to how it is that, "Big dinosaur bones are found in low lying rocks and only small fossilised creatures are found high on mountains. Well it was Noah's flood and all the heavy creatures like dino's sank to the bottom and all the wee yins floated to the top.....He was serious and to my horror he was a geologist!! No matter what he learned at Uni he was going to believe his pasture before science.
Just can't convince some people......

In reply to Jonno:

just out of interest, what's your proposed solution?

In reply to Tall Clare:

Best of luck with that one Clare...

In reply to all:

It's not just about climate change - it's about reducing dependence on fossil fuels and (localised) energy security

In reply to Tall Clare:

Solution to what ? To an overcrowded planet?To finite resources being devoured to the point of total depletion? To extinction of species on an unprecedented scale ? etc etc.

I don't know the solution but I know the problem. Rampant industrialisation and consumerism linked to a burgeoning global population.

There is no solution to that save turning the world on its head and returning to a pre industrial society and population level. That's not going to happen...unless Swine Flu wipes out billions!

The idea that wind turbines are going to contribute to countering ecological catastrophe is incredibly dumb, but then again UKC is swarming with smug dumbos who have the depth of a puddle when it comes to taking on board the direction we are heading or believing there are 'solutions'.

The old Ostrich technique appears to work well for them though !

In reply to Jonno:

so you think we're going to hell in a handcart and there's absolutely nothing we can do about it?

I hope you'll forgive me for saying this, but your posts on this topic don't suggest much of a wider reading on the subject.

In reply to Jonno: Seems ironic that you are accusing other people of having an ostrich mentality to these problems when you have yet to offer any reasonable solutions. Why do some people go straight from denial to despair with no in-between stage of looking for a way out?

In reply to Jonno:


Just remind us, how many miles have you done in that Skoda Octavia of yours?

In reply to Jonno:

Could you explain please, if you will, how stopping windfarms would have assisted me in converting the 7TM Tour to the Power Tour?

In reply to DougG:

I've never set myself up as a Eco saint...unlike some zealots on here ! I just recognize futility when I see it. If you think that Western man is going to rein in his consumerist lifestyle and that our industrial society can be Greenwashed over then I would like to say I admire your naive optimism....but I don't !

In reply to Jonno:

I am a WAVE zealot.



Scotsman reader: far more pedantic. Less art, more facts.

In reply to Jonno: I would like to say that I think Jonno's posts have made more sense than anyone else's on this thread, in my view. No-one here is widely read so any attempt to throw statistics and academic theorising out there is only going to be met with disbelief.

In reply to Andy S:

"When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it."

William Thompson, Lord Kelvin

For the benefit of those who are actually intersted in the numbers:
I really gotta recomend Prof David Mackay's book "Sustainable Energy: without the hot air".

Sorry for repeating myself its just not everyone can be arsed reading all 90something of these posts, so some of the newer folk could benefit from this. Whats it about? In his words:

"I’m concerned about cutting UK emissions of twaddle – twaddle about
sustainable energy. Everyone says getting off fossil fuels is important, and
we’re all encouraged to “make a difference,” but many of the things that
allegedly make a difference don’t add up.
Twaddle emissions are high at the moment because people get emotional
(for example about wind farms or nuclear power) and no-one talks
about numbers. Or if they do mention numbers, they select them to sound
big, to make an impression, and to score points in arguments, rather than
to aid thoughtful discussion.
This is a straight-talking book about the numbers. The aim is to guide
the reader around the claptrap to actions that really make a difference and
to policies that add up."

As I said before its available free online at http://www.withouthotair.com/

And no, I dont work for him!

In reply to Jonno: "The idea that wind turbines are going to contribute to countering ecological catastrophe is incredibly dumb, but then again UKC is swarming with smug dumbos who have the depth of a puddle when it comes to taking on board the direction we are heading or believing there are 'solutions'."

I don't know about everyone else on here, but I fully reckognise that wind power is only ever going to be part of a solution to climate change, but just because it is only part of a solution doesn't mean you should reject it, quite the opposite it means you should maintain a broader view about how many and the scale of the rest of the solutions and changes we need.

Talking of smug dumbos, I think I remember there being a message on here yesterday (since dissappeared) from you banging on about how it was clearly ridiculous that such a small percentage of the atmosphere as represented by CO2 could make a difference to the climate, and that it was also ridiculous that a 0.0001% (or however many decimal points there were) reduction could make a difference to this. Do I really have to answer this, or have you realised just how dumb a statement it was and removed it yourself?

In reply to EsT:



Actually it was someone else making that point against me,to which I responded that the 0.1 figure in real terms represented a 'highly significant'1.3 watts energy increase per square meter of earth.

I can- just about- accept someone's arguement that wind turbines can offer a limited back up source of energy to conventional power. What I find ludicrous is when some hysterical big girl's blouse starts banging on about wind turbines saving the baby whales and the rain forests.

The idea-in light of the factors mentioned above- that wind farms can make a meaningful contribution to reducing Co2 emissions is just King Canute stuff.

People want to stop looking at a Hollywood epic through a keyhole in the belief that they know what's going on on the screen. If they bothered to push open the door they would see the whole picture.

In reply to Jonno: No not the solar energy one, I thought you had put one up saying something about how it was ludicrous that such a small part of the atmosphere (as represented by CO2) can have such a big influence on the climate. And then following this up by saying that reducing the amount of CO2 we emit by a fraction of a % was also unlikely to make any difference. This post no longer seems to be there, did I imagine it? If so I apologise.

Several well respected studies from a wide variety of sources have demonstrated recently that we (UK or Europe) could feasibly go to a very high or completely renewable electricity supply. In northern Europe if we were to go for this then wind would provide a substantial portion of it.

In reply to Mark Phillips: Glen Loy is a quiet, peaceful and unspoilt place and the more developments like this that take over the land, the fewer there'll be to enjoy. Some might say that there's always another glen to enjoy just up the road, but when will it end. If it's not wind farms with infrastructure and buildings, it's other developments. I see the Scottish mountains in 100 years time completely surrounded by man-made structures, with just the upper parts of the mountains kept clear. Bit of a negative view I know, but I accept it's going to happen. I'm not angry, I'm just a little sad (that's sad as in upset by the way... I'm not saaaaad, as in Alan Partridge)

Jamie

In reply to Jonno:
>" The idea-in light of the factors mentioned above- that wind farms can make a meaningful contribution to reducing Co2 emissions is just King Canute stuff."

interesting, King Canute or Kung Cnut was a Viking King - It is such a wild, not profit making, resource sapping idea that private companies are prepared to invest nearly £5 billion pounds in a wind farm - http://ecoseed.org/index.php/general-news/green-politics/green-policies/eur...

In reply to EsT:

Presumably a great deal of the energy would be from the MCofS' other favourite renewables, Hydro and Pumped-Storage?

I love that organisation with its green aspirations but with the inability to understand that change will have to occur....

I live in Fort William and quite frankly I hope they build those turbines. Currently the view from the top of the Ben takes in the delightful hamlet of Corpach (relatively, wind turbines look attractive), and upteen cans of Bru and numerous crisp packets. Be honest, it is hardly the most scenic mountain in the world.

In reply to Jamie Hageman:

Don't worry wee man, it is actually very doubtful that will happen unless they find very valuable minerals in them there glens. It's just not economically viable to build these sort of developments in most of the country. I think you'll find the Far North West is pretty unspoilt and will remain so for a long time. Though from the tops of the hills those off-shore windfarms might be visible!

In reply to Jamie Hageman:

It´s also very boggy! Anyway, agreed, lovely place and Glen Suileag Bothy is also a great place. Many a night I have spent there or nearby steering young people through adventures that last a lifetime with a certain local outdoor centre....

In reply to Ssshhh:

And after a long time, it'll get developed because there'll be nowhere else to go

In reply to summo:

Why do you think big corporations like United Utilities, General Electric, N Power, et al are gathering like pigs around a trough to take advantage of the UK's subsidised wind industry ?

Like parts of agriculture, wind energy exists outside of the free market rules of supply and demand. The government forces the energy suppliers to source a percentage of their electricity from so called re-newable sources. If wind power had to exist within the same economic laws as say shipbuilding or house sales then it would soon die.
Profit driven energy suppliers would source their electricity from cheaper suppliers.

Interesting that investment in wind is dropping like a stone in the recession. Also interesting to see what a Cameron government will do next year given his preaching of the virtues of thrift.
Will a Conservative government still subsidise wind or will it cast it to the market and let the devil take the hindmost ?

It will be ironic if ten years from now our hillsides are covered with economically unviable dead,motionless turbines. A stark testament to knee jerk solutions and greed.

There are plenty of studies that show if we get a diverse enough spread of variable renewable energy (i.e. wind farms, stream and barrage tidal generators, wave energy all over the UK, Ireland and Europe) with effective interconnectors, the overall output is much more consistent.

Yes, this means that we will need to have excess capacity. What's wrong with this? Increased infrastructure costs?

Also, there are good innovative ideas coming to the fore - such creating hydrogen during peak generation times (high winds/waves, peak tide etc.) and then using it in fuel cells during the lulls to create a more consistent output.

People say "how can these technologies actually make a difference?"

Severn barrage (I know the ecological impact is a whole different matter) could produce up to 15GW - equivalent to 10 new Areva Nuclear stations.

An offshore "Energy Farm" could have 100 wind turbines, wave energy converters and tidal stream turbines. Output could be upwards of 500MW.

I still say we need to build a brand new high-capacity offshore interconnector off the west coast of Scotland and build some "energy farms" out there. I've been on boats since I was 2 months old and everyone I know aggrees - one bit of empty ocean is the same as the next, so let's get the wind, wave and tidal energy a decent distance offshore (tidal less so) and that will get round the NIMBYs and the energy density is much greater out there.

In reply to Donald M: You can think what you like old boy, and even say it out loud if you must, but I'm not sure I'm following you. Who's 'we' and where did I 'arrive' from?

In reply to Fultonius:

Clearly you have no seagulls in your family!


Nimby Gull,

Atlantic Ocean View.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: There's too many bleeding seagulls anyway. (To be honest, they don't stray that far offshore anyway - most of them live in Glasgow these days)

In reply to Jonno: In reply to Jonno: In reply to Jonno: If you simply had a completely unregulated, unfettered energy market then you would get massive market failures, such as the huge social and environmental cost of CO2 emissions that are currently inadequately internalised (have no or low cost to the generator). Subsidising renewable energy is a crude way (there are much better ways) of trying to correct this market failure. What's so wrong with that? If we went for a purely unfettered energy market you would get a lot of coal fired power stations...

Also, a substantial part of the subsidy, as you rightly point out, is due to the suppliers being forced to source a percentage of their energy from renewable sources. If wind turbines don't actually generate any energy, as you later insinuate, then this wouldn't encourage utilities companies to invest in them at all...

Investment in renewables is dropping because the price of fossil fuels is dropping, making fossil fuel options more economically competitive, this does not change the nature of the problems we face with climate change, and is another clear example of why your ideas of a "laissez faire" unfettered market driven approach to energy policy is a foolish one.

Care to clear up my previous confusion about your dissappearing post?

In reply to dan bailey:

The point I made, in a sarcastic way, is that in general people in the Highlands and in Scotland seem to be fairly supportive of wind power.

My theory about this is that the relationship between the land and people is fundamental to how they view developments such as these. Many people in Scotland dont see empty glens and vast areas of nothingness as a positive thing. They dont for a second want to see the place suddenly covered or think that that will be to their advantage but the feeling of remoteness is often seen as negative.

Others such as yourself do as it is the emptyness/wildness that attracts them. Its the getting away that is good.

These two viewpoints are not completely compatible. This is where the conflict can often arise.

Ive worked with many remote communities and spoken to many of the people who want to see a lively and vibrant and growing population in their areas. They dont see the Highland Museum as something which should take precedence over everything else.

In reply to Mark Phillips: Can I just ask the pro wind-ers* on here a couple of questions:

1. Do you think anywhere and everywhere is fair game for the siting of 100m turbines (plus access roads, power lines etc)?
2. Or are there at least some places that you would prefer to see protected from these and other heavy industrial development?
3. If 2, how would you judge where should and where shouldn't?
4. If 2, how would you like us to ensure that non-build zones remained that way? Individual debates like this, piecemeal, every time a new site is proposed? Or something a bit more concrete and statutory?
5. Are you comfortable with the possibility that the few turbines we're supposed to be specifically debating here could represent the thin end of a wedge, setting a precedent in the area and leading to more?
6. Does it not bother you that despite their proximity to a frankly not very pretty town these turbines would occupy a fairly central position in the west Highlands, and be clearly visible from the Ben, Aonachs, Grey Corries, Glenfinnan hills and even the fringes of Knoydart?

* maybe it's not a very helpful generalisation because it's not the technology we're debating here, merely the siting. But I can't think of another way to put it.

In reply to Donald M: Ah i see. Townie southerners don't understand country folk and just want to ride rough-shod. Where is this 'museum' you keep banging on about?

In reply to dan bailey:
No, you have fundamentally failed to listen or understand. Many of the people I refer to come into the category of southerners/townies.

However inconvenient it may be, the world doesnt work in black and white.

In reply to dan bailey:

Why is this important? From these summts you can see towns, pylons, masts, hydro-electric plants, aluminium plant, roads, train tracks, why should a few turbines make that big an impact?

In reply to Donald M: oh sorry, I misunderstood. I thought that's exactly what you were saying. That the world was black and white. Brigadoon vs Brave New World, or something. You have lost me D, I wonder if you attribute attitudes to me that I really don't hold?

In reply to dan bailey:

no


Wind farms arent ¨heavy¨ industrial development. Yes there are many areas where I wouldnt want them sited.

By a strategy for power generation and transport which takes account of the fact that most people live away from windy areas but that where a significant body of people want them they shouldbe considered. No one interest group should hold sway regardless of how loud they shout.


The precedent should not be set for non-build zones due to the follow-on effects on things like housing and the danger that vast areas cant be sued for anything other than being empty.


Yes, the plans can be resisted or approved on a case by case basis. A blanket no, never, becuase it might mean something else is not realistic.

Also, if people want them in their area then they should be considered.


The location in relation to centrality means nothing. Their location should be considered for its merits, neot because it is near some uncertain centre. The fact that these 4 turbines might be visible from Ben Nevis and the other areas doesnt bother me.

In reply to IainRUK: No you can't. Not from all of them by any means. Even from the Ben, which is closest to town, signs of the modern world are very small and very far below. Stick them up on a hill top and you've got something entirely different.

Just ebcause there is some already, why would more ugliness be a good thing, anyway?

In reply to Jonno:
"> Why do you think big corporations like United Utilities, General Electric, N Power, et al are gathering like pigs around a trough to take advantage of the UK's subsidised wind industry ?"

You clearly did not read the link, or google any associate info on it. The country is not the UK, the companies are not UK and there is NO grant referred to. This is a business deal, done in country that exports electricity. Why would you export electricity at a loss?
"> Profit driven energy suppliers would source their electricity from cheaper suppliers."

Do you buy your power from a green provider?

"> It will be ironic if ten years from now our hillsides are covered with economically unviable dead,motionless turbines. A stark testament to knee jerk solutions and greed."

In ten years time, those turbines will be keeping your lights on, as other power sources dwindle.

In reply to dan bailey:

I attribute no attitudes to you. I merely refer you to the debate about landuse and ownership and how this might effect communities in remote areas. You appear to be unaware of this debate and prefer to bang on about industrialisation.

In reply to Donald M: It's good to know where you're at Donald. No point debating otherwise. So, to paraphrase, you want a big industrial park / housing estate? Kind of like Inverness but country-wide?

In reply to dan bailey:
1 & 2) I genuinely happen to think that wandering through a field of windturbines is quite interesting, though generally they're fenced off now aren't they? Not quite sure a wind turbine counts as heavy industry?! I guess a wind turbine is heavy machinery but heavy industry? They don't exactly suck mineral wealth from the ground now, do they?
2,3&4)It is quite unattractive for energy companies to build in very remote areas so I'm not too worried about them building on the truly unspoilt area I enjoy.
5)"Thin end of the wedge" eh? Why do bullshitters always use this phrase. You'll be talking about bolts next.... I'm sure there eill be more wind farms, good.
6)What the hell does it matter that you see a few small towers in the distance? The chances of seeing that far from Knoydart most days is pretty remote. To be honest, with the exception of Knoydart, none of those hill areas are remote.

In reply to Donald M: I gathered this thread was about industrialisation. Care to enlighten me why landownership is such a relevant issue - though you've failed to mention it til now?

Local windmills for local people, and hang the rest, is it?

In reply to dan bailey:

Either you dont want to listen or take on board or dont understand. Either way your are making your own argument very weak.

Since you are against industrialisation, and since the outdoors and recreation are an industry as is stalking etc, does this mean you are against them too?

THis thread is about 4 turbines on Druim Fada near Fort William.

In reply to dan bailey: "* maybe it's not a very helpful generalisation because it's not the technology we're debating here, merely the siting. But I can't think of another way to put it."

I disagree that it's not the technology we're debating here. Whenever debates like this happen there is always at least an undercurrent from those people who are against the development of insinuation that wind power is ineffective.

You yourself called them "lazy straw man building" and a "headless chicken act", and other people talked about "motionless turbines". To me that seems that you don't think they are effective at generating electricity. The anti wind lobby has been very clever at taking a complex subject, making it seem easy to understand and completely ineffective. Many of their arguments seem well put and convincing until you delve a little deeper, and most of peoples objections to them on a technological standpoint are complete rubbish (eg. 30% "efficient"/never payback the energy or carbon invested in them/pointless because they require a spinning reserve etc etc).

The scale of the challenge we face with climate change is huge, and part of the solution is going to be making our energy sources much less carbon intensive. To do this with renewables will require a lot of onshore wind, a lot of offshore wind, a lot of solar, a lot of hydro, a lot of tidal and a lot of wave power. It's not a question of one or the other technology, none is enough in itself to provide for all our needs, and a diverse system is much more robust to changes in the weather. I also think that the scale of our response needs to be so large that I'm afraid our landscapes will change quite dramatically, but I don't think that will have such a negative impact on your hill walks as you seem to be scared it will.

In more detail the planning process for renewable power should be based on something like this, in order of importance:

1. Is the projected energy return over energy invested above a certain level that is decided to be a minimum we accept for projects?

If this is met then in most cases it should be allowed to go ahead. I agree that there should be a list of exceptional cases where local landscape is allowed to take precedence.

Unfortunately at the moment it is what is always objected to. I don't think this development will spoil my enjoyment of climbing/walking/running/skiing on Ben Nevis, in fact I think it might enhance it...

In reply to dan bailey:

No, yes, through the planning system, through the planning system. Having said that I don't think its sensible to have planning for power done at a local or regional level - it should be at a national(UK) level. Fiddling around with dozens of small-scale developments is costly and time-consuming. We need to decide on a major a renewables programme and have a coherent system of connectors etc. As I said above, I am much more in favour of a few major wind developments than many small ones.




See above.


Not unduly. Clearly there are areas that should be protected and Scotland probably needs to be clearly about where these are but saying a development can be seen from Ben Nevis and therefore shouldn't happen is silly - half of Scotland can be seen from Ben Nevis

In reply to Donald M:

Spell it out Donald. Sideways hints are hard to take on board without misunderstanding.


No i'm not. You're being silly. I live in an industrial civilisation and benefit from it daily. I just want to see wild land preservation built more rigorously into the planning system. That doesn't mean no wind farms, by any means, just imposing a set of priorities on their siting that many would prefer to ignore.


Ah, so it is. I thought you said it was about land ownership or rural vs urban or something. Be consistent, do.

In reply to dan bailey:

When did I say it was a good thing?

I just think there is a price to pay for energy generation.

In reply to Mark Phillips: What I can't see is where all the critics actually want to see wind farms and where they expect the country to get its energy supply from in 10 - 20 years time. Unless they know they are close to pegging it and don't really care and are living for the now!

In reply to EsT: The lazy straw man thing was in response to someone caricaturing the pro wild land attitude as necessarily some sort of climate change denial. Headless chicken act - did you read the post that was responding to? What else could you call it?

For what it's worth there's tons of bullsh*t on both sides of the debate. Yelling that we've got to wreck every single pretty place OR the planet is doomed is just as silly as claiming wind power doesn't stack up.

In reply to IainRUK: Of course there's a price to pay; it's the problem of radioactive waste reprocessing and storage from all the new nuclear power stations we desperately need to build; but we've hardly even begun to address that and seem to prefer tinkering around with a windmill here, a windmill there.

And yes, before anyone starts, I agree that wind is part of a balanced energy startegy

In reply to whoever it was who asked the questions about siting and to Jonno.

1) Siting should be done entirely on the basis of optimum resource potential. That should be the only consideration unless there is a choice of two sites (or more) with the same resource potential in which case secondary factors such as landscape impact should come into account.

2) Jonno - large utilites companies aren't gathering like pigs at the trough over wind generation, it's exactly the opposite, they are all pulling away from it and reducing investment.
So get your facts right before you rant.

In reply to dan bailey: Ok, glad you've not been completely sucked in by the anti wind brigade then. I stand by my point about insinuations from others on here that wind is ineffective.

I wouldn't polarise the debate into saying we've got to wreck every single pretty place (would this really wreck Ben Nevis?!?) or the planet is doomed, I'd just rather refocus it on the much bigger issues at stake rather than getting bogged down in whether this will change the view you have from the summit of Ben Nevis slightly.

In reply to Jonno:

Solution to sustainable energy needs. No one has claimed that is the only problem so a complete straw man...


You clearly have no understanding of what contribute means...so 10%+ of the UK's electricty needs would not be worthwhile according to you...


F*ck me - I used to think you were quite intelligent even if I disagreed with you. Now I realise that you are just another halfwit who thinks it is trendy to "rebel" against the mainstream views on climate change....only you and a few other deluded souls can the "truth".

In reply to dan bailey:

No - that would be as much nonsense as Jonno's position.


Yes, but I also don't think you can lump in wind turbines with other heavy industrial development - the scale of things is different.


Ultimately it has to be a judgment call, that is incredibly difficult to make, but shrilly shreaking blue murder every time that a planning proposal is made in a mountainous area is not the answer.


Don't know.


Complete unfounded speculation.


Not particularly given the first part of your sentence. Why is it any worse than Ft William or some god awful forestry scheme or hydro dam?

In reply to Jonno: (20:11 on Monday)

My post was deliberately alarmist cos I wanted to flush out the ignorance of at least one climate-change denier as an example of the sort of indignant apathy we face.

My "infantile, puerile Greenpeace crap" was actually based on the careful findings of the 4th IPCC assessment and the very excellent Stern report on the economics of impending shift in global climate. Although severe, I was careful to make sure my post was accurate.

Jonno demonstrates a very common sentiment among less informed sections of the population, namely that there is no crisis. The insulting but entirely empty response creates conflict by attacking the the messenger, but offers nothing to the the debate.

Unfortunately, this strategy by the oil and energy lobby has been very effective in the US, and this country to a lesser degree. It presents those of us who care about our children's future - cos lets face it, we personally wont have to deal with our legacy - with a problem:

Do we
a) take a "softly-softly" approach, and hope policy makers will urgently grow brains by themselves, or
b) shout about it and be labelled a bunch of yogurt weaving swamys.

In reply to ruaidh: Good post!

In reply to EsT: Ive done my bit, ive invested in a wind turbine company, theres lots of money to be made. Its quite cool really, I even get to watch the specially built ships pass my flat several times a week with the wind turbine masts heading for the KGV docks in glasgow.

Francis, I couldnt think of a better place for a hooveresque dam than the river lochy tailrace

In reply to ruaidh:

Apologies, I've just read some of Jonno's subsequent posts, and see his position is a little different from the apathetic climate-change denier. I would classify Jonno as a 'climate-change-solution' denier. Which in a way is more difficult to deal with because you cannot scientifically demonstrate the success of political change.

In reply to Jonno: Incidentally the scale of the problem is not an excuse for inaction. There is not going to be a silver bullet tht solves all the problems, it is only going to be through concerted incremental action that we even get close to preventing any disasters.

In reply to MJH:

There is no doubt that people should lead better lives and tread more softly on the earth. That includes recycling,consuming less and stop taking air flights amongst a thousand and one other things.
Point is.The Genie escaped from the bottle 200 years ago when we entered the industrial age with all that entails. Consumption of finite resources,materialism,pollution etc etc.
When China and India got on board the consumer gravy train we reached a tipping point from which there is no going back. We can't turn back the clock to pre industrial population levels or levels of consumption.

It always amuses me when these hysterical...usually urban middle class individuals...become Eco-Talibanists. Accusing the disbelievers of heresy and betrayal of the environment as if they had more than a gnat's understanding of the social,cultural,economic and political actions required to cure the earth's ills.

I love these people. Lets recycle our Observers,Chardonnay bottles and Whiskers tins at Sainsburys and you know 'Like well wind turbines..they're just so cool ya! Soaring symbols of free clean green electricity. Jocasta and I just love them !'

Next minute they're planning their flights to Morocco and a skiing trip to Colorado. As if recycling and supporting wind power can alleviate the worst excesses of their life style. Hypocrites as are so many wind zealots on here.

I've considered myself an environmentalist all my adult life and live a greener lifestyle than most. I'm not stupid enough however to think that pointlessly destroying our wild spaces with wind farms is going make the slightest difference to global warming.

To end on a philosophical note. Perhaps it is too late for mankind and who are we to claim that we don't deserve it? After all, ever since homo sapiens crawled out of the primordial swamp we've fecked up the planet big style. Perhaps when Mother Earth has shaken us off her back she can start again without the curse of humanity dragging her into the abyss.

Jim Fraser:

Everywhere that has exceptional wave and wind energy available will be in an area of low population density, limited industrial activity and will probably be of outstanding natural beauty. Human beings seek shelter before anything else. This is the nature of things. This is why Newfoundland and Tierra del Fuego and Shetland are sparcely populated and with limited industrial development.

Get used to it.

Twenty years from on, when we know 100 times more about wind energy than we do now, we can go to this wind farm, undo some bolts and carry the steel and copper away to the scrap dealer. Except on very close inspection, nobody would know it had ever been there. With a handful of explosive in each foundation followed by a bit of tidying up, the whole place would look good as new inside 2 years. In terms of permanent visual impact, this is insignificant.

In reply to Jonno: It seems like you're accusing a whole load of people you don't know of great depths of shallowness and naievety that you have no evidence for. Do you really think we believe that building wind turbines and recycling our papers is ALL we need to do? That the scale of our current response to climate change is inaddequate is surely an argument for making our response bigger rather than scrapping it altogether.

In addition you seem to have given up on the possibility of getting ourselves out of this mess when there are numerous coherent views of how there is a chance we can do this.

I'm still waiting for you to clear up the missing post mystery, until you do that I can't make up my mind as to whether you're a climate change denier who when he fails to convince everyone else of his myopic viewpoint switches straight to "oh yes well it is clearly a problem but we're all f*cked anyway so we may as well enjoy it while it lasts", or just a doomsayer...

In reply to Mark Phillips:

would echo what redherring said about dave mackay's book - it summarises a lot of the energy/lifestyle issues people are talking about here, he seems to have researched almost everything, and gives numbers! and no, it doesn't conclude with an easy way out

http://www.withouthotair.com/

In reply to Jonno:

Out of interest, do you feel the use of personal insults strengthens your argument?

In reply to Jonno:

This boy has no idea how much smarter and more observant wild species are than he is.

In reply to Jim Fraser:

This has been a really instructive thread, in more ways than one. The star return has been Dave MacKay's online book:
http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/Contents.html

Regarding a certain confused and inconsistent doomsayer/naysayer (can't really decide which), please may I suggest...

... DFTT

In reply to Donald M:

What insults. Observations of stereotypes maybe. It's certainly true that hysteria tends to be the preserve of the urban middle class eco-talibanist.
But then,they tend to parrot slogans and offer cliches instead of thinking for themselves.

No crime to point this out.

In reply to Jonno:
... urban middle class eco-talibanist.

!?!?

In reply to EsT:

I'm not with you on the missing post business.The thread is still there as far as I can see. The one which suggests the global warming theory is not as cut and dried as people like you seem to think.

In reply to MG:

Last time I heard 'Urban' wasn't an insult. Ditto 'middle class' Ditto 'Talibanist'.

In reply to Jonno:

Likening someone to a murderous bunch of medieval religious fanatics is not an insult?! Given your never ending references to "country folk" and similar I think we can also assume that you were using urban and middle class in a derogatory way.

In reply to Jonno: Ah yes, just found it eventually, and it wasn't from you. Was this: "Its great really 99% of everything in the whole solar systems is the sun, however the planet is heating up at an out of control rate because the tiny little things crawling about on the surface are burning 0.00001% too much mud and if it's cut by 0.000000001% per year in the next 30 cycles we'll all be fine.... go figure!" from another thread.

Sorry about the confusion.

So let me get this straight, do you think that anthropogenic CO2 emissions have a significant effect on the climate or not?

In reply to EsT:



certainly but perhaps not as significantly as other natural factors ?

Put me down as 'agnostic'.

In reply to MG:


Well its the mainly urban middle classes who continue to display breathtaking contempt towards their country bumpkin cousins. A form of insidious urban imperialism. 'You can take our industrial crap and lump it, after all, Nanny knows best'.

In reply to edg:


This development has been approved. The windmills will be going up.

Sxx

In reply to Jonno: Rubbish. Many people in the country support wind farms.

In reply to Mark Phillips: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought electricity could be carried through wires and cables. Why aren't the windfarms in Wolverhampton, and the cables fed around the Island? Why does the windfarm have to be in such a sensitive area?

Apologies to Wolverhamptonites, but it looked grotty from the train

In reply to IainRUK:

... and rely on "industrial crap" to at least as greater extent as urbanites to maintain their lifestyles.

In reply to Jonno:

Seconding Iain, You represent noone at all. Many people in rural areas support wind power.

When the major industrialisation came of many Highland glens it was welcomed by thousands as it gave the electricity.

In reply to Jonno:

Which is all very noble and worthwhile, but given the scale of the problem (which you seem to begrudgingly admit) why handicap the drive for renewable energy as part of the solution. As I said earlier or on a different thread of yours - if the predictions about climate change are right then habitat and land changes will be far more devastating than anything we could hope to do with wind turbines.


None of which are reasons not to try and prevent worse happening. Smacks of resignation that the battle can't be won so why bother - an attitude that is surprising for someone who claims to be an environmentalist.


Only if you assume that the tipping point has been reached....which most people don't.


Ah back to the veiled insults that only you see the light...that's the spirit. If in doubt attack the man rather than debate the argument.


Pot calling the kettle black here.


Yet again personal judgments about people you know nothing about whilst "bigging yourself up" as doing more than most.

>I'm not stupid enough however to think that pointlessly destroying our wild spaces with wind farms is going make the slightest difference to global warming.

However you are clearly stupid enough to not understand why low carbon energy is important.

In reply to Donald M:


Perhaps that's the rural Scottish mentality ? Far be it for me to offer any cliche regarding the Scots and cash !

In this area. A development by a German firm was recommended for rejection by the planning officer. Voted against by 19 votes to one. Opposed by every community council and 9 out of 10 local people.
The developer lodged an appeal which was heard by an unelected civil servant from Cardiff who upheld the appeal.

That's democracy UK style for you. If that had happened in Zimbawbe we would just say what do you expect.

In reply to Jim Fraser:

Are you not aware of this one - 140 wind turbines, at last count there were 123 completed already !

http://www.scottishpower.com/uploads/WhiteleeWindfarmInformationLeaflet.pdf

In reply to Jamie Hageman:

It helps to put windmills on exposed high ground where there is a lot of wind. They would improve the look of wolverhampton a lot but wouldn't generate much power...

In reply to Jonno:


I don't know the details of that case but in general I don't see why 19 locals should be able to veto power schemes that may benefit 1000s or more. That's not to say their views should be ignored but sometimes the bigger picture must override local issues. Ideally of course any scheme would benefit locals too. Probably more needs to be done to ensure this is typically the case.

In reply to MG:


The case is the usual pigs at the trough syndrome. At the end of the day its about profits for the energy companies and landowners. PR for politicians and a smug warm glow for ignorant 'greens'...with a very small g!

As far as a low carbon future or security of our energy supply is concerned,it's pure fiddling while Rome burns.

6.7 billion world population at present. 9 billion in 2040 and you think covering the countryside with wind farms will make a difference.

Do me a favour !!!!

In reply to MG:


Oh yeh...should have added.They used that one when Trump wanted to build his tacky Trumpton on Sea in Aberdeenshire. Bloody democrats ehh !

In reply to Jonno:


How can energy companies make a profit if wind farms don't work? You can't have it both ways.

In reply to Jonno:


Yes. If we and the rest of world get even a modest 20% of our energy from renewables that will make a difference. Obviously depending where you are different types of power will be most appropriate. Scotland is windy so wind and wave power make sense. In the Sahara I would guess solar is more appropriate.

In reply to Jonno:

You clearly seem incapable of reading any replies, as well as the literature out there. There is no 'pigs at the trough' and little money is being made out of windfarms.

As I said before, get your facts right.

In reply to Jonno:

Yes I know. I didn't think that should have been a national issue as it was basically a local development - golf course for Aberdeen decide in Aberdeen; power for the UK decide at UK level. A question of judgement though.

In reply to IainRUK:

Subsidies. You know like hill farmers get. Energy companies like Scottish Power have to buy a proportion of their energy from so called renewable sources.
Rather like the government telling Tesco they have to buy 15% of their sausages from the 'Lard & Sawdust' sausage company.
Until the recession it was a license to print money that's why US and European energy companies have been gathering like the proverbial pigs at a trough.

In reply to Jonno: Those don't cover development though.

Sainsbury's have just signed a deal to produce their own power from wind farms.

In reply to Jonno:

You clearly know nothing of the economics, the subsidies are not very effective as they aren't high enough.

God, it's like talking to a 5 yr old.

In reply to ClimberEd:


Funny...I posted this the other day which rather kicks that arguement into touch.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6073997.ece

In reply to Jonno: Are you by chance a townie who goes to the country once a month etc.. or has a holiday home in Cornwall? Bit like the townies who voted to ban hunting, most of whom had probably never seen one outside of a London back street.

Most of people on here, who in general are all for green energy, live and work in the environment you claim to be trying to preserve? I am at a loss to see the motive behind your stance?

In reply to summo:

Please PLEASE DNFTT

In reply to Jonno:

ROFLMAO - that supports my point entirely. They are all pulling out because there is no money to be made.

In reply to ruaidh: Sorry, DNFTT?

In reply to Jonno: You seem to have missed the point - of course renewable energy sources are more expensive than cheap coal. Simple reason that a coal fired plant until recently doesn't have to internalise the cost of the damage caused by CO2 in their prices - they can in effect pollute for free and make no contribution to the costs of the damage.

You are right in a sense that energy companies are forced to buy or generate from renewables (that is why it is called the Renewables Obligation) but I fail to see why you think it is a massive profit driver - it isn't. What the RO does is obligate the market to find the cheapest ways of generating a certain percentage of renewable energy and subsidises some forms of renewable energy - the subsidy is generated by a certificate trading scheme essentially paid for by the end user's (ie you and me) electricity bill. If a company produces more renewable energy than its target it can trade its certificates for "profit" but that only works if another company wants to buy some - the theory and practice being that the market will decide if it is cheaper to buy certificates from someone else or to invest in your own generating capacity.

It is nothing like the subsidies for hill farmers, but don't let the truth get in the way of your ignorance...

In reply to ruaidh: It's OK, googled DNFTT, quiet day, so I don't mind helping it along a bit..

In reply to Mark Phillips: Maybe the best solution we have for reducing Co2 is to use less power....Switch off most street lights, switch off the lights on monuments and switch off any other power waisting appliances.
Seems like it'll be some time before we see enough sustainable energy to make any real impact on Co2 increases, we need to look more critically at the organisations responsible for waisting large amounts of energy...

In reply to lynx3555: It isn't an either/or situation. We probably need to be doing both - increasing energy efficiency and reducing GHG emissions.

In reply to lynx3555: Your thinking is along the right lines, but at night we have a surplus of power at present, due to the fact you can't simply turn off power stations (you can turn windfarms, hydro off though). The excess power is very cheap, hence the development of economy 7 and pumped hydro power plants, like the ones in North Wales.

In reply to Jonno:


I had you down as something else entirely, I'm not sure if one word covers it though.

In reply to summo:

Yes you can. Gas-fired power generation can be ramped up and down quickly. Coal-fired generation is slower to respond, and nuclear is useless as a variable source (but perfect as baseload, requiring no change in output).

In reply to MJH:

No probably about it - we waste stupid amounts of energy and electricity. The depressing thing is how centred the solutions are on old-style centralised engineering solutions of new generation capacity rather than the more beneficial energy efficiency. There was a report published recently which showed the carbon cost benefits of a range of technologies, and energy efficiency won hands-down. Trouble is, as long as it's ex-CEGB people running OFGEM, it's going to stay the same old story.

In reply to tony: But that's just one type and they are not producing the majority of our power. Plus, gas prices are less than stable.

In reply to tony:

Good points, being a hydro geek it always interests me that stations such as Cruachan and Glen Doe actually use more energy than they generate but their advantage is that they can effectively be switched off and on.

There is something cool about being able to produce 480MW within 90 seconds.

In reply to Donald M:

That statement is factually incorrect

Do you mean it goes form producing 0MW to producing 480MW, in 90 secs?

In reply to Fultonius:

Yes I do. Actually they would be using say 10MW in spinning reserve in order to ensure a fast start-up.

In reply to DougG:

I particularly like the bit in the first article you refer to where the author holds up the examples of financial modelling and computerised stock trading as evidence that climate modelling works!

In reply to rogerwebb:

Nice one Roger!




There was a chap in Australia who published something about human ability to comprehend chaotic systems. It was about 8 or 9 years ago that I saw this on the net. The idea was that there are a few people whose brains can handle chaotic systems and this enables them to manage those systems or make basic predictions concerning the systems. This can be one chaotic system and not others. It was not about ordinary intelligence: it seemed to be independent of that. One of the key things was they were normally unable to explain to others how they did it and entirely unable to teach others how to do it.

I wonder how much relevence this has to the climate debate and how it is communicated. For instance, perhaps those who seem best able to communicate the issues are less likely to be the ones with the correct understanding. Perhaps this also affects the effectiveness of computer modelling.

In reply to summo:

In 2008, gas-fired generation accounted for 46% of the UK's electricity. Coal-fired generation supplied 31.2%, and nuclear 12.5%, with the rest coming from imports (through the cross-Channel interconnector) and oil and renewables.

In reply to ClimberEd:

If you understood even half of what is implied in the article then you would see the wind industry holding the begging bowl out for even bigger subsidies.

Funny how in the past two decades we've learned a lot about 'leaner, fitter' industries...'lame ducks'...'letting inefficient industries go to the wall' etc. We've witnessed Steelworkers, Dockers and Miners all fall victim to to the unsentimental laws of the market,supply and demand. However, farmers and energy company executives appear to be immune to these absolute economic rules.

I'm not sure why a coal mine producing an energy source and creating hundreds if not thousands of jobs is deemed less important than sweetening the bonuses of wind farm company shareholders ?

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I'm praying that the recession deepens and forces these fat cats out into the harsh spotlight of the market.

In reply to Jonno:

You are clearly deeply deluded.

If you hold such illogical views across the spectrum of life I would suggest seeking medical help to readjust you to the real world.

In reply to ClimberEd:


Then it makes me the polar opposite of you then thank Christ for that !

Not that I don't like sheep. I just don't want to be one !

In reply to Jonno:



Quality rant Jonno. Lovely mouth-frothing overtones.

Just clear something up for me. Are you bridling at urban dwellers, "middle class individuals" (whatever that might mean in your book), Sainsburys customers, environmentally conscious folk, or people called Jocasta, because it's not clear to me that you can tell the difference.

In reply to Jim Fraser:


You just need to apply fuzzy logic... quiet simple really.

In reply to Jonno:

These industries died because they were no longer cost effective, against foreign competitors. Partly because the UK improved workers conditions etc which pushed up the cost of the finished product.


Many mining jobs would have survived has they not all gone on strike for a year plus. But thats another arguement, totally removed from windfarm grants.


Who are the wind farm fat cats?

You class farmers as fat cats? As a frequent user of the hills I'm sure you have actually stopped and spoken to a hill farmer, of course you have, how silly of me. He probably told you how he started a B+B, sold local products on road side benches, or got rid of his livestock because he was making so much money and is consider moving to Monaco! There are super farms in the flat lands making a lot of money growing crops that are very well subsidised, but these are not your hill farmers. Speak to a Lakes farmer about the current initiative to reduce their sheep herds and see what answers you get. Most would love to get a turbine or two, but can't because they are in a National Park and would never get permission.

In reply to summo:

DNFTT

Do Not Feed The Trolls

In reply to ruaidh: I know you told me yesterday, it's like wet paint though!

In reply to Jim Fraser:

I was at a talk by Jim Lovelock and Jon Gray last weekend. Lovelock was quite critical of the top-down modelling methods that are the bedrock of the IPCC assessments. He advocated much more use of old-school science - going out and taking samples, making measurements, building a detailed picture from the bottom up.

Models give you very smooth forecasts, which can be useful in predicting ranges of outcomes, they don't reflect accurately what actually happens in chaotic systems. So when we get a relatively cool 'dip' in global temperature, as we've seen in the last couple of years, the models can't explain it, a gift to the anti-climate-action lobby. (Of course, averaged over time, the models become more accurate. This could mean - he said - we are due for a more severe 'upswing' in temperature when this cool period ends.)

At one point, a climate change modeller in the audience piped up 'in defence', explaining that modellers very fully aware of the limitations. Lovelock agreed. He went on to blame the centralised, big government funding mechanisms on the overreliance on modelling. After the massive computing infrastructure investment required to support the complex models (e.g.) at the Hadley Centre, there's no money left to pay for good, old-fashioned scientific sample-gathering expeditions to, say, Antartica or the Barants Sea-bed.

I think the parallels with the psychology behind the failure of modern financial modelling are very interesting.

In reply to ruaidh:
The problem with that approach being that you can only measure what has happened, and there is little scope for accurate forecasting, particularly over the kind of timescales involved in the IPCC reports, to the end of the century.

I'm not sure any models claim to give accurate forecasts over short timescales. There's certainly no suggestion that warming will follow a year-on-year increasing trend. As you say, any deviation from such a trend is pounced on by the denialists as 'proof' that the models don't work, despite the fact that the modellers don't make any such claims.

In reply to Jonno:

Did you read what I explained to you about the RO?


Pure intellectual brilliance - you don't see the mis-match in what you have written do you! First you rail against inefficient industries then say that coal mines should be supported...bonkers.

For the umpteenth time - coal fired generating capacity is cheap because it hasn't had to pay for the impact of the CO2 it produces (though this is slowly changing with CO2 emissions trading).

In reply to MJH:

dnftt

In reply to Jonno:

And this is the nub of Jonno's position - he sees accepting climate change and renewables as the trendy thing to do and in some perverse logic wants to "rebel" by adopting a position that Exxon executives would be proud of.

Go for it you crazy environmental non-conformist, however bear in mind that that in general there is a reason for scientific agreement in this field.

In reply to tony:

Hi Tony,

I agree. 'Old-fashioned' science - creating hypotheses, gathering data, testing theses - isn't really about 'forecasting' as we understand it today. Investigatory science (as opposed to modelling, which isn't really science in the classic sense at all) seeks to understand, not forecast. But thats not to say its not predictive. Understanding is probably the most important factor when it comes to predicting outcomes.

Modelling in climate change research is critical, absolutely. But effective modelling is wholly dependent on sound assumptions, and the point that Lovelock was making is that our understanding of climate change - in particular how to interpret the data - is still really very poor.

In reply to ruaidh:

Lovelock does need to be taken with a slight pinch of salt though as he is a grizzled old doom monger.....

In the nicest way of course

In reply to MJH:

Guys, I gotta say it. This thread has been great - informative, lively, with a good deal of vigorous thought-provoking debate. Buts its been badly marred by certain unconstructive, vacuous, and at times offensive posts.

You can't argue rationally with someone who isn't rational. Please, DNFTT.

In reply to MJH:


Yet, coal will return. It is happening already.

For the British, with a sound scientific and engineering history and a track record in coal usage, mining and gasification, this should be a gift. We should be able to make ourselves the clean coal capital of the world, make a fortune and help the rest of the world reduce its fossil fuel impact. What will actually happen is that the usual suspects, the Germans and the scandinavians, will p1ss all over us, collecting all the glory, all the money and all the energy.

In reply to Jim Fraser: No one is denying that, but clean coal is not cheap and will need subsidies that will make those given to renewables look tiny.

The budget sets out some vague-ish plans on clean coal at a reasonably large scale (the Germans have already got a relatively small demonstration plant running).

In reply to MJH:

Germany has enormous supplies of lignite. (I heard it said recently that the energy contained in these reserves is higher than that from all the oil & gas extracted from the N Sea.) But lignite is very dirty.

So they're very big on clean coal technology at the moment.

In reply to MJH:

Depressingly, what is being presented as 'clean coal' isn't really very clean. The plants proposed recently will reduce CO2 emissions by about one-fifth to one-quarter, so they will still be be emitting more CO2 than any other source. Couple that with the fact that the capture and sequestration requires considerable energy, it seems unlikely that the new plants will offer many benefits in overall efficiency and emissions. Does the German pilot plant have figures for kgCO2/MWh?

In reply to tony:

Nothing comes for free! Figures vary from the optimistic 10% extra fuel to 40%+.


No, I don't think so as they are only at the pilot plant stage. The plant is the Vattenfall Schwarz Pumpe plant and is about 30MW. The project aims to build a larger demonstration plant in 5-6 years with the eventual aim to have a near 100% capture and storage target for 20 Euros/tonne of CO2.

In reply to MJH:
If it's the latter, and if only 25% of the carbon is captured, the emissions per unit output will be worse than a conventional coal station!

Interesting that the Chinese projects all seem to involve gasification prior to combustions, and have pilot plants considerably bigger than the German one. Interesting times...

In reply to tony:

I think we need to get Senator 'Smokey' Joe Barton (Not the footballer!):



"Wind is God's way of balancing heat. Wind is the way you shift heat from areas where it's hotter to areas where it's cooler. That's what wind is. Wouldn't it be ironic if in the interest of global warming we mandated massive switches to energy, which is a finite resource, which slows the winds down, which causes the temperature to go up? Now, I'm not saying that's going to happen, Mr Chairman, but that is definitely something on the massive scale. I mean, it does make some sense. You stop something, you can't transfer that heat, and the heat goes up. It's just something to think about."

Genius.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/apr/23/oil-joe-barton

In reply to Toby S:

Outstanding! And to think, he probably says all that and manages to keep a straight face.

In reply to tony: It is only the UK that is suggesting 25% capture efficiency. No idea why.

Gasification means you can separate CO2 before combustion of the gas so might be easier to do, plus you get hydrogen IIRC.

In reply to MJH:



It was pretty obvious to most observers that I was pointing out that miners, dockers and steelworkers were left to wither and die in the harsh global market. Yet an industry like the wind industry which offers a technologically flawed system of generating expensive electricity..two to three times more expensive than conventionally produced electricity...has,like parts of agriculture,been given favourable trading benefits by the state. Enabling it to expand and benefit from a partially captive market.

Of course, we all know that energy company executives,like bankers and venture capitalists are far more worthy of subsidies,loans and state support than miners or shipbuilders. I'm sure a good Tory like yourself would agree.

Anyway...some good news...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/apr/28/vestas-wind-turbine-factory-...

In reply to Jonno:

700 people losing their jobs is good news?

In reply to Toby S:

Given the environmentally destructive trade they are in.....Yes

In reply to Jonno:

Do you actually bother to show the decency to read other people's posts or you just enjoy posting in ignorance?

>Yet an industry like the wind industry which offers a technologically flawed system of generating expensive electricity

In what way is wind power technologically flawed?

>..two to three times more expensive than conventionally produced electricity...has,like parts of agriculture,been given favourable trading benefits by the state. Enabling it to expand and benefit from a partially captive market.

Sigh, for the umpteenth time only because the competition is allowed to pollute at will. If coal fired power stations had to pay a reasonable price of r the cost of their CO2 emissions then the economics would be completely different (and wind would probably be cheaper). There is a report out today saying that the UK will need the price of CO2 per tonne to rise from £13/tonne to £200/tonne to reach its emissions reduction targets by 2050.

I am not sure why you would categorise someone who wants greater environmental protection and for heavy industry to have to pay for the pollution they cause as a Tory...yet another ad-hominem attack. I have made no judgment on who is more "worthy"...

In reply to MJH: PS what you seem incapable of understanding is that the subsidies for renewables do not generate huge profits, but make it possible for investment to be made.

Of course if your starting point is that climate change and human caused GHG emissions are all a load of nonsense (as your's seems to be) then that will always mean it is a waste of money.

I know I go on and on about freedom of expression but ...


This child is doing us a favour by showing us how it can come about that otherwise reasonable people abandon human rights principles and want to use violence against those who have only expressed their opinion.

In reply to Jonno:
Jonno I'm no fan of wind turbines in fact I think they're an appalling blight on our scenery. I couldn't be bothered joining in the debate but have learned a few things both for and counter my position. One of the things I've also learned is that you've lost the plot with that comment on people losing their jobs.

In reply to drmarten:

No apologies...As someone who detests the visual blight on our uplands and islands from wind farms. Why would I not have a spring in my step reading about the closure of the UK's only turbine factory.

Wouldn't a pacifist rejoice if the UK's only armament factory closed down or an anti vivisectionist celebrate the closure of a vivisection lab ?

I can't see anything outrageous in that ?

In reply to Jonno: You idiot. If you could put a link to some evidence showing a decline in wind turbines you might be on the right lines, you'll probably find that yet again other countries are making them better and cheaper so we import.

In reply to drmarten:

As said, it's a bit like closure of arms factories... always a difficult philosophical question... assuming one is against wind turbines, of course.

Personally I think they are a bit of a con, a way of showing the populations that the government is "doing something", just as the Martello towers built along the S Coast of England against Napoleon's 200 000 strong army was... and about as useful!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Absolutely. The whole 'green' issue has been appropriated by everyone from HSBC to Shell. As if a global banking corporation or Oil company can be Green.
Of course as you suggest. The government has used the wind power debate as a fig leaf to hide its shameful environmental record. Although some of them like Ed Milliband,I believe really have swallowed the wind energy companies' propaganda hook,line and sinker.

Hopefully the recession has smoked out the government and the energy corporations into the real economic world.

In reply to Jonno: Despite this thread running for a week. I still don't get your stance? Your view on the future power alternatives?

Your are anti something, but not for anything?

Do you live near a current windfarm with an axe to grind?

What's your beef as a yank would say?

In reply to Jonno:


The fact is that if the required action is to be taken in order to reduce emissions, everybody needs to do something. The major source of emissions is the burning of fossil fuels. Oil companies have a major role in this - if they see threats or challenges to their business, it's an economic reality that they need to respond to those threats.

Some oil companies, such as Exxon, spent considerable amounts of time and money fuelling the climate-change denialists in the States, with considerable success in the Bush era. Fortunately, the combination of a president who isn't in hock to the oil industry and shareholder pressure means that even Exxon are no longer sticking their heads in the sand.

Other oil companies, such as BP and Shell, take a different approach and are slowly remodelling themselves as energy providers - this makes perfect sense in the real economic world - they understand the way global infrastructures work on the scales needed to make the necessary changes, and they understand the degrees of investment needed.

You regularly bang on about it taking more than a bit of recycling to be green, and you're absolutely right - it needs a lot more than individual actions. Government action is essential, here and everywhere else - for example, only government can require electricity generators to install carbon capture technologies, and the only way to make that happen is through government financial support. If oil and energy companies don't respond to the environmental challenges, and aren't helped to do that by government, then we truly are screwed.

In reply to summo:


I shouldn't have to keep reiterating my position. As far as energy supply or contributing to Co2 reduction is concerned,Wind Power is seriously flawed. We could easily surpass any contribution wind power makes by simple energy conservation. A conservative estimate suggests that 37% of our energy produced in the UK is wasted. Simple things like leaving lights on,standby buttons,leaving computers running all day.Inappropriate street lighting,heating set higher than necessary. Ever driven past ICI at Runcorn on the M56. It's lit up like a Christmas Tree at night !

If we tackled energy waste we would not need to ruin our iconic land and coastscapes with what are INDUSTRIAL POWER STATIONS. Not Anthony Gormley sculptures!

The future for energy supply is carbon capture coal, nuclear with renewables..sensitively sited..in the mix. To me, harnessing the power of the sea has to be preferable to wind as it's visually less intrusive and a damn sight more reliable.

Wind Power is about political PR and profits.

In reply to Jonno:

Profits - that'll be economic reality perhaps?

In reply to Jonno:
To me, harnessing the power of the sea has to be preferable to wind as it's visually less intrusive and a damn sight more reliable.

Ah the old out of sight out of mind, the solution to pollution is dilution..the reason why I our seas are so polluted, people couldn't see the damage therefore it wasn't happening.

I think sea power generation does have a future, look at the seagen example near Belfast. Currently being reviewed but at the moment there seems little concern.

In reply to IainRUK:

And unfortunately, a great deal more expensive and unproven. In addition to the Seagen project you mentioned, there are assorted other projects such as Wavegen and Pelamis undergoing evaluation. At the moment, windpower is the cheapest of the renewables, although this may well change as technologies develop.

In reply to Jonno:

What did you think of the DTI Energy review in 2006?

(I'm assuming that with such strong opinions about the Government's track record and future plans, you'll have read it.)

In reply to Jonno:

You keep repeating this, but with little evidence. On what basis are you judging that wind power is seriously flawed in reducing CO2 emissions?

>We could easily surpass any contribution wind power makes by simple energy conservation.

That is not an excuse for not developing renewables. It isn't a case of either/or....

Not if we want to reduce our CO2 emissions by 80% by 2050.


Given that you rail against subsidies for wind, how do you think that CCS coal and other renewables are going to be funded without subsidies?

In reply to tony:

Despite Jonno's ignorance, this is the key factor in why there has been a rush to wind power through the RO, as that is precisely what the RO is supposed to do ie provide renewable power at the cheapest cost to the consumer.

In reply to summo:


Jonno's abandonment of Greenpeace and anti-windfarm stance co-incided with a proposal to site a windfarm somewhere not far from his house. Something to do with it affecting property prices............

In reply to Tyler:

Ah, good old "economic reality" then?

In reply to Jonno:


Like where?

In reply to Mark Phillips:

I like windmills they make me smile, whirring around, rather relaxing to look at.

And from a historical point of view many rural areas had lots of windmills to mill the corn or whatever. So old quaint windmills on the Fylde coast, Norfolk, Kent are old industrial buildings that are now 'heritage' - yet when we 'need' new power sources similar ideas are slated.

Life moves on, the landscape moves on - the Lake District as we know it is largely a result of mans uses - hill farming, foresting, water supply.....

In reply to Jonno:

Presumably you were delighted when the various car manufacturers had to lay off staff? What about the miners?

In reply to Tyler:

The usual ukc tactic - attack the poster rather than debate on his arguments! I don't know his reasons but what difference does it make to whether he is right or wrong? Quite often people only become aware of problems when they get hit in the face by them... this is perfectly natural and doesn't in any logical way reduce their arguments.

It's a poor way of discussing... and this from someone who rarely agrees with his views.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Don't worry Bruce. Certain UKC posters detest me with an almost pathological passion. Probably because I eschew the herd like instinct and follow my conscience on issues. Not offer knee jerk responses.

It's funny how someone so supposedly self motivated is left arguing passionately against a proposal 400 miles away after all the wind sceptics- including the OP- have fecked off !

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I wouldn't use the phrase 'attack'. But if you can understand why someone holds such a ridiculous viewpoint you can then explain to them why they are wrong and work through it so they understand the issue correctly.

In reply to Jonno:
"leaving computers running all day"

If your computer runs all day in sleep mode, is that cheaper than how many restarts for intermittent users?

"Inappropriate street lighting"

Street lighting is cheap, only in the peak of winter when it comes on at 3-4pm whilst most industries are still running at maximum capacity, does it impact on the UK overall demand.

"Ever driven past ICI at Runcorn on the M56. It's lit up like a Christmas Tree at night !"

Aren't they getting a waste burning power plant, you mind find there are safety reason for the lighting too?

>" The future for energy supply is carbon capture coal?" Already done to death, it's a stop gap at best and not a great one.

"nuclear" Yeah, we'll just knock a few of them up over the summer then.



Profits? are you actually admitting that it is profitable?

In reply to ClimberEd:


You must explain this 'ridiculous viewpoint ' to Chris Bonington, Doug Scott, Ed Douglas, Jim Perrin, Harold Drasdo, David Craig. The John Muir Trust, Ramblers Association, Scottish Mountaineering Assoc etc etc.

Personally I'd rather find myself as a fellow traveller with the above than be a lickspittle of the government,energy corporations and their media apologists who would happily destroy our few remaining wild places.

Even an incontinent doesn't shit in its own bed but the Wind Talibanists are obviously willing to give it a go !

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Someone asked the question directly, I answered. With regard to debateing Jonno's arguments this is seldom possible because he blithly ignores most points people make, instead prefering to talk in soundbites and cliches. For instance you'll notice he's ignored my question on where he believes nuclear powerstations should be "sensitively sited" in the UK.


It doesn't, it's just that I found his arguments in favour of renewable energy, prior to his volte face, more compelling than I find his arguments against them now.


I think Jonno was aware of the argunents before, he's not daft.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: Brilliant, this is the core style of Jonno to a T, see his middle class, urban, tory's comments. Someone can't disagree while coming from a similar background location obviously..

The standard UKC post is 'this is X people who disagree are ignorant or a racist/tory/nazi'.

In reply to Jonno:


Do you mean me? If so that is quite untrue.


Hmmm.....


Is that aimed at me? I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at.

In reply to Jonno:

Your last post changes your tune somewhat - you insinuate that you are against wind turbines only in certain locations. Wheras previously you have been against renewable generation, full stop.

I'm sure the list you mentioned are well aware of the sustinability issues that we face and the need for renewable energy generation and are in support of it, just perhaps not in certain locations.

In reply to ClimberEd:


Correct both the Ramblers and JMT are in favour of wind farms, just not in protected areas. Pretty much everyone can agree to this. They are certainly not of the Jonno raving opposition to everything stripe. There is no such thing as the Scottish Mountaineering Association...

OK...have to go out now but before I go I'll leave these two images taken in the Cambrian Mountains from the same spot but four years apart.


How I see the uplands.....
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~hills/cc/gallery/view2000.jpg


How the wind zealots see the uplands...
http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~hills/cc/gallery/view2004.jpg

I know what mountain environment I prefer !

In reply to Jonno:

I can't really get excited about either of them to be honest...

In reply to Jonno: I think they look OK and would not object to some on the hill behind me.

Or do you mean the man made hillsides, caused by over grazing of sheep and the commercial forestry growing non native trees?

In reply to Jonno:

I still stand accused of ignoring your arguments yet you have still failed to say where you think nuclear power stations could be sensitively sited......

In reply to Tyler:

Oh come on, be fair, Jonno's a man with principles! One of those principles being that he never answers awkward questions...

In reply to Tyler:

Certainly an area of potential political conflict since the devolved administration at Holyrood has made it clear that it won't have any N of the border.

In reply to DougG:

Which is a bit worrying, considering the likely closing dates of much of Scotland's generating capacity. We face the prospect of being an importer of electricity after decades of being an exporter. Not v. clever.

In reply to Mark Phillips: Being more of a "mother earth" type than a christian I find the attached proposal extremely offencive....do you think christians would accept this kind of desigration around their holy land marks.
http://www.stonepages.com/news/archives/003253.html

In reply to Jonno:
Are you objecting against, the power they have supplied to 42,000 homes, the estimated 4m tonnes of CO2 emissions will be saved over 25-year lifetime or their 58 megawatt capacity ?

Sounds horrendous to me, to think YOU have probably been using their power. Unless you only use energy from non green sources.

In reply to Bruce Hooker: Come off it Bruce - Jonno has been the prime proponent of ad hom attacks on this thread with his patronising guff about middle class guardian readers etc.

In reply to Jonno:


Ah yes a classic british hillscape, overgrazed and blighted by industrial forestry. Roads have been made, fences erected and the natural ecosystems distroyed by sheep and alien conifers. A classic green desert.



So what has changed? the roads have been resurfaced to prevent damage by heavier trucks (~0 environmental impact compared to building them in the first place) and we have a few turbines who's main aesthetic failing appears to be that they are new. I don't see Jono asking that the decaying and useless hulks of 18th and 19th century industrial activity be removed, no there picturesque and "natural" or "in sympathy with the enviroment".

Oh yes and the first has been taken on a sunny day and has a warming yellow filter while the second is taken on an overcast winters day and has a cold blue filter.

DON'T WORRY, WHEN WE RUN OUT OF OIL YOU WONT BE ABLE TO GET TO NEVIS ANYWAY BUT YOU MAY NEED TO MOVE A BIT CLOSER WHEN THE RISING SEA CLAIMS YOUR HOUSE

I have really had enough of people who can't look beyond their immediate self-interest at the bigger picture; many of these objectors will spend hours putting the world to rights as they drive their landrover to scotland from london having just finished their king-prawns flown in freshly from Sri Lanka. Sorry for the self-indulgent rant!

Just a few points to bear in mind, having read about 50% of comments posted.

*We need to produce low carbon energy due to climate change and dimishing resources.

*Nuclear power is not profitable/sustainable anywhere in the world without subsidy and only exists as an excuse for weapons. Trillions has already been spent accross the world without changing this fact. Wind turbines are already profitable with a fraction of the spend.

*We do not have a satifactory answer to the problem of nuclear waste, the containers degrade thousands of years before the waste.

*The idea that wind turbines create more impact than they alleviate is based on experimental technology of the late 80s and spread by opponents of wind energy to mislead the public. Full independant Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) to internationally recognised methodologies has proved that they are very beneficial.

*Similar LCA work for nuclear power cannot be done because we just don't know the future impacts. All attempts to represent it fairly have made very bleak reading.

*All positive LCA results have been produced by government and nuclear industries who have even ignored the decommissioning impacts let alone the long term management of a huge hunk of rotting radioactive power plant.

*This is an excellent place to have a turbine as there are copious quantities of wind; it will therefore replace the need to have them in several other places. If they are not in the mountains they will be near our houses and then we will moan and whinge all the more.

* Smaller versions of these turbines, windmills, have been present in our countryside for hundreds of years and are actually viewed as picturesque.

*We need this energy quickly as we are approaching a significant energy crisis, wind turbines can be manufactured and installed very quickly.

* Wind turbine installations are relatively unintrusive (compared to conventional alternatives)and allow dual use of the land for aniumal, leisure, crops etc. As transport becomes more expensive due to diminshing oil reserves, we may need to grow much more of our own food rather than shipping or flying it in.

* Materials used to build wind turbines can be 100% re-used or recycled. Materials used to build nuclear plants are largely contaminated and must stay in place as part of the structure, so the materials are lost resources.

There is more but I feel I have made a point!

In reply to macacao: I personnaly don't have an issue with wind power generation but what I do have issues with is putting them in locations that are either sacred or particularly pictursque.....It doesn't seem likely that we'll build the 100'00(ish)wind turbines needed to have any real impact as a power source...we need to be more careful as to where these turbines are being errected particularly since there numbers will be limited.

In reply to lynx3555:

It would be an absolute tragedy if that area was to have windfarms. People visit from all over the world to see the stones and the surrounding view. Again I've got no real issue if they're being sited in places with no particular historical significance but this proposal just seems to be incredibly ill thought out.

In reply to Mark Phillips:

OK, think this thread has passed its sell by date

Can it be moved to another forum.

In reply to macacao:

Oh Good...just what the debate needs. Neil from The Young Ones. 'First we sow the seed. Nature grows the seed and then we eat the seed'.
Leaving aside the usual puerile Greenpeace hysteria which is the lingua franca of those who would Greenwash the debate.

Allow me to outline where you and your hysterical ilk are missing the point. Nearly every country from Communist China to Capitalist USA is committed to economic growth. That means, In a world which will see its population rise by 33% in the next thirty years. A world of finite resources ravaged by over exploitation,pollution and extinction of species. Our leaders are committed to ratcheting up consumption. If you want a example of this look at the budget scheme to offer motorists £2k to trade in cars over 10 years to buy new cars. This is not aimed at putting 'greener' cars and the road it's aimed at stimulating consumption. If it was a green measure,the government would scrap tax on 10 years + cars and encourage us to maintain perfectly serviceable units and not consume even more of the earths resources by building more and more cars.

To our political masters,consumption is God. The only game in town is production and consumption at an ever increasing level. Fortunately it can always rely on suckers like you who in effect believe that by putting Elastoplasts on a body riddled with incurable cancer will somehow alieviate the worst symptoms.

Thankfully there are REAL environmentalists out there who don't take their credo from the environmental column of The Independent or a Greenpeace/FOE flyer. The movement 'Earth First' are one such organisation. Inspired into creation by the US Eco/Anarchist Edward Abbey. In particular his eco novel 'The monkey Wrench Gang' Earth First activists understand.... unlike lickspittles of the state like FOE's Tony Juniper.... that the typical UKC Elastoplast approach such as covering the hillsides with wind farms is nothing more than a futile gesture.
To effect real positive environmental change requires political action not pointless gestures. Basically we need a world turned upside down where the natural world takes precedence over the industrial world. Where we have zero economic growth. Consumption is drastically reduced and recycling of everything from cars to clothes is the norm.

Your simplistic philistine approach to our natural environment suggests that somehow you've missed the whole point about environmentalism.

In reply to Anonymous:

Four and a half thousand....and rising... reasons why that is bollocks !

In reply to Jonno:
Can you explain how all that squares with
"Hopefully the recession has smoked out the government and the energy corporations into the real economic world."?

The real economic world - or at least the one that we've been working with for the past few decades - is the one that requires continuing growth. If you want the government and the energy corporations to work in that real economic world, you need growth.

If you want zero growth, you need a new economic model.

In reply to macacao:

Agreed - it seems more than a bit futile to protect landscapes from windmills only for climate change to either increase sea levels or actually more likely to change weather and habitat.


Where to start....

Weapons - absolute tosh. Very few (if any) new civilian reactors contribute to nuclear weapons material, nor is there any need for them to do so. We have more than enough weapons grade material to go round.

Profitable - you might want to tell that to EdF

Wind turbines are profitable - not really (despite what Jonno believes) they are only profitable with a subsidy (which it is quite right to give).


That really isn't true and depends entirely on your definition of satisfactory.


Agreed, though I do take the point that LCA rarely (if ever) considers visual impact which in itself has a value, but judging that value is v difficult.


That isn't true though. LCA is not really meant to be a way of comparing different technologies though it is often mis-used as such.



Completely untrue on the part of nuclear plants - a very small part of the plant is high level radioactive waste.

Oh dear you were doing so well then the wheels came off. Why do some persist in the outdated view that a) we can carry on without nuclear and b) that we must carry on without nuclear?

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~hills/cc/gallery/view2000.jpg

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~hills/cc/gallery/view2004.jpg

Why am I not surprised that wind Talibanists would prefer an upland covered with 300' high steel and concrete power plants to one covered with grass,heather and trees.

Talking of Talibanists. The Bishop of Hereford quite rightly compared the destruction of this part of the Cambrian Mountains with that perpetrated by the Taliban in Afghanistan when they blew up the thousand year old Buddhist statues 'The Buddhas of Bamiyan' To satiate their equally screwed up credo.

In reply to Jonno: All of which is a pathetic excuse for doing nothing now....

In reply to tony:

Where's the contradiction ? I want to see a world of sustainable economies not wedded to ecologically destructive economic growth. However,the double whammy is. We have a economic system which supposedly uses supply and demand within its structure BUT in the case of Wind Power forces energy companies to buy of proportion of its energy from the this source.
As I pointed out the other day. This is akin to forcing Tesco to buy 15% of its sausages from the 'Lard & Sawdust Sausage Company' regardless of quality.

In reply to Jonno: Yet again you allude to quality of power from wind and you have said before that it is flawed - would you care to explain this in more detail rather than some vague notion of the wind doesn't always blow.

In reply to Jonno: Sorry, but I have to conclude your are totally bonkers.

In reply to Toby S: The wind farm has been masterminded by city financier Nicholas Oppenheime, he'll no doubt be getting a princely sum for this....

In reply to Jonno:
The contradiction is your insistence that the energy companies work in the 'real economic world', but then insist that we need a new economic world. Which is to be?


No-one forces anyone to buy wind power. The Renewables Obligation requires energy companies to source renewable energy - there's nothing to constrain it to wind power. The reason wind power is the favoured option at the moment is because it's the cheapest option. The other renewables will only attain the same levels of affordability with considerable subsidy - more than wind power receives. I thought you were opposed to subsidies and wanted the energy companies to work in the 'real economic world'?

In reply to lynx3555:

Not my favourite person in the world.

In reply to davidwright:

Indeed. As I said earlier.

I think it goes without saying that Stone henge will never be blighted by 455ft high structures each spanning out 700ft across.....How is it that they can get away with building 53 of these structures around callanish?

In reply to lynx3555:

The Eishken wind farm cited in that link is based around a hill called Muaitheabhal, which is about 14 miles from Callanish. Given the number of days when it rains on Lewis, I'm not sure how visibly intrusive they would be at the stones.

In reply to lynx3555:

Basically the islands are suffering massive depopulation and have suffered from years of government neglect. They think they will get something out of it and have decided that it is worth it.

People who live hundreds of miles away and dont really care about the people living there matter less.

In reply to tony: The callanish site is massive and the hill you mentioned is within it and they will be clearly visable from the stone circle.
Interesting article....
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/scotland/Wind-farm-threat-looms-over.5...

In reply to Donald M: I fully appreciate the need for work on lewis and feel that other locations on lewis could have been considered befor this one. It will provide a lot of benefits to the community from this project but I again stress that alternative locations are being ignored and mainly because the land owner has been persistant about putting them on his land.

In reply to lynx3555:


This "within sight" of thing is absurd. It can used as an excuse for preventing any development anywhere.

In reply to MG: You miss the point...it is "within the site" hence the objections. Again do you seriously think the English people and tourists would be pleased seeing 53 455FT HIGH WIND TURBINES AT STONE HENGE.

In reply to lynx3555:

Just about makes my point. The sort of people who epitomise the Pigs at the trough mentality of the wind energy industry. As I said yesterday. It has nothing to do with reducing Co2 or providing alternative energy supply. It is purely about political spin and profits for landowners and shareholders.

As for long term jobs....That's an even bigger joke !

In reply to lynx3555:

The main Calanish stone circle - the famous one - is quite small. There may be other sites further inland, but there's nothing marked on the OS map within about 5 miles of Muaitheabhal, and I'd be surprised if there are any visitors to those sites - there's little but lochans and bog. The idea that the site would be desecrated seems to be a little exaggerated.

I'm not sure how you can say any wind turbines would be 'clearly visible' from the circle. For a start, there's another hill in the way, which would restrict the view somewhat, and weather and light conditions over the distance will reduce any visual impact considerably. I've got a wind farm about 12 miles away from me, and I reckon we can maybe see it 50% of the time - I've just had a look, and even tho' it's a clear day here, i can't make the turbines out.

In reply to lynx3555:


Above you said "they will be clearly visable from the stone circle. " Which is it? Anyway my point was general; there are many objections to wind farms because they can be seen "from the Lake District" or similar. To my mind such objections are silly.

In reply to lynx3555:

What about 455 ft high turbines 14 miles away, which is what would be happening on Lewis?

In reply to Jonno: Agreed!....I take this one particularly personal it's my Mecca.

In reply to lynx3555:

Fair points, the main location has been knocked back already as you know. In all fairness though its hard to say where would be considered suitable if views was the only consideration. MOst places in the islands have great views.

In reply to MG: Well given that most objections are aesthetic then 'within sight of' is entirely to the point I'd have thought. If we take 'within sight of' seriously then yes, there are rather fewer suitable sites for windfarms than windfarms-at-any-cost enthusiasts might like. My own answer to that would be too bad. We've all got to make sacrifices for the good of the planet, and learn to compromise. Even greenies.

In reply to dan bailey:

Isn't there a discussion about what 'within sight of' means tho'? As I mentioned, there's a wind farm 12 miles away from where I live. It is sometimes visible and hence 'within sight'. However, the idea that it's visually intrusive is absurd.

In reply to dan bailey:

There are barely any! The fact a wind farm can be seen from Ben Nevis should have no greater bearing on its approval than if it was any other development - forest, Tesco, road etc - that is none. We simply don't have space to not only protect national parks and so on but have 100 mile buffer zones all around them.

In reply to MG: If trees or Tescos were 100m tall and white and came in forests on hill tops then you might have a point. As it is, you really have missed the point...

And I do think we need buffer zones for sensitive areas. Though we might be able to bargain down a bit from 100 miles if you're willing to enter negotiations.

In reply to MG: Although I would repeat what I said several mile upthread. Scotland in particular needs to clearer about areas that should be protected, particularly as areas that until recently have not had developmental pressures seem to be becoming of more economic interest. I would support more national parks.

In reply to tony: where do you live?

In reply to MG: The hills around callanish play a huge part in wittnessing solar and lunar predictions. At certain times the moon rises behind the hills at certain points....Quote "One of the most spectacular places to view this is at Callanish on the Isle of Lewis where research has shown that the moon appears to rise from the hills of what is known as The Sleeping Beauty, skim the horizon and then set, briefly reappearing between the stones of the central circle".
from....http://www.megalithic.co.uk/article.php?sid=2146412503%20

In reply to dan bailey:

Crieff - we moved from Edinburgh last year. The wind farm we can see is on the Ochils.

In reply to MG: Desperately needed before it's too late imho. Nat Pks that is. Though country folk like Donald will probably gnash his teeth and accuse me of being a soft southern townie who simply doesn't understand local people, or something.

Sadly I think the pressure to develop across the board is going to outweigh the pressure to protect the landscape for a while yet. We may collectively wake up at some point, but not til lots of regrettable and unnecessary damage has been done.

But on a lighter note, it's Friday

In reply to dan bailey:


Ah yes. Must pack for climbing...Lakes!!

In reply to tony: I know the one then. I'd say whether something is intrusive isn't so much to do with whether it can be seen per se, but rather the nature and 'value' of the surrounding land. You can't object to everything, and the Ochils being what and where they are it's not really a farm to get twisted knickers over. Others elsewhere definitely are though. just my 2p

In reply to lynx3555:

And in what way would this be affected by wind turbines on Muaitheabhal? How much of an impact would something 14 miles away have from sighting at the Callanish circle.

If you're bothered about desecration of the stone circle, I would have thought the scruffy closed-down cafe about 50 yards away would be a more obvious target.

In reply to MG:


From the shoulder of the BenN you can see Caol Primary School. Now that really is ugly!

In reply to lynx3555:

Do we know for sure that the Callanish stones are not a neolithic attempt to harness the power of the elements?

In reply to tony: Unless you can fully understand the significance of the combination of stone circles, surrounding hills and Lunar paths then I'm afraid you wont get it. I personally have immense respect for the people who lived in lewis and constructed callanish.....they didn't need electricity and lived far more sustainable lives. Callanish was very special to those who chose the spot and built it. I feel it's extremely disrespectful but then it is a german land owner who obviously wants returns for his investment.

In reply to Jim Fraser: Along the same lines as Lochaber High School, in desperate need of a coat of paint or three - looks a bit like a prison at the moment

Glen Loy is very pretty and quite wild in its upper reaches. Any development with infrastructure up there would be sad to see. Can't they build the windmills in an ugly area and send the power to the nice parts?

In reply to lynx3555:

One significant thing. Your above Scotsman article continues the trend of describing those who oppose insensitive wind farm development as 'environmentalists'. Not a term which could remotely be used to describe the pro wind technophiles.

Interesting. My observations regarding those involved in this debate suggests that the anti wind power is largely drawn from what you would term 'the humanities'. Writers,artists etc. By contrast, the pro wind brigade seem to be essentially those from the Sciences,technology and engineering.

I refer back to 'Zen and the art of motorcycle maintainance' The romantics verses the classicists.

The point was proven when the two before and after photos of Cefn Croes produced pretty sobering and depressing reactions. Aesthetic appreciation and ecological awareness not very high on the technophiles list of priorities.

In reply to Jonno:
Writers,artists etc. By contrast, the pro wind brigade seem to be essentially those from the Sciences,technology and engineering.

You mean on one side romantics with no grasp of how things work and on the other people who might be able to solve some the world's problems?