Walkhighlands

welshwalker wrote:

This is something that also concerns me, there's probably an obligation on the Owner to remove the turbines and reinstate the land (although I'm not sure the politicians will have thought that far) I'm sure some clever accountant will see the opportunity to avoid these costs by selling off the 'assets' to "Rogue Renewables PLC" who will then go belly up when the subsidies run out leaving the tax payer to pick up the bill.

Unless someone can educate me to the contrary?

It is pretty hard to reinstate the land when you're talking about peat bogs which have taken thousands of years to form. When they are destroyed, there is a huge release of CO2. There is also a huge amount of CO2 in the production of the tens of thousands of tonnes of concrete used for the foundations and the servicing tracks which go to each of the turbines. The industry doesn't mention any of the figures for the CO2 production due to the massive amounts of concrete used. Funny that, as it would make onshore wind power look much less environmentally friendly than it currently does in terms of CO2.

There's an application been put in where I live, and it involves the removal of an estimated 65,000 cubic metres of peat, which will be replaced with an equivalant amount of concrete. Given that peat helps retain water, it will no doubt be displaced to the local villages and roads which are already suffering badly from flooding.
https://eplanning.northlan.gov.uk/Onlin ... /00602/FUL

I always wondered about you Malky. You seemed to be just over the fence on the side of Windfarms whenever a discussion took place. Now I know. You are one of them I am surprised though. An educated young man like you and you seem to completely ignore the obvious. Weird.

6. I have passed Whitelea windfarm (215 turbines) on many occassions and seen few turbines rotating in good wind conditions. The windfarm get huge payments when they are told not to produce because the infrastructure cannot take the load on full production and in no wind conditions they obviously produce nothing. The footprint of this windfarm is huge. and only has a rating of 539MW.

Monty, I knew the girl who did the planning for Scottish Power on this site. She explained to me that the reason you often see this is that the wind farm in question will have arranged to supply power to the grid at a certain time, when it is not needed, perhaps due to low requirements at that point, it wont be used (I still don't like the site mind!).

I posted a walk report from pressendye where there is an application in with Aberdeen council for a wind farm on it. Mibee they should make union terrace gardens in to a wind farm since they are not going ahead with raising it Even in the sunk garden I reckon they would still be high enough to catch the wind

Why do they always paint them white? It looks like they have been designed for maximum visibility. So the birds can see them? I know they won't be invisible but surely an alternate paint scheme would help.

Is there any hard and objective/independent data on the carbon balance of these things? It would certainly help to see the balance between carbon cost of manufacture and installation, peat, energy of steel etc.as compared to the carbon saved through the energy generated during the turbines' life cycle. I'm sure there is a lot of hot air talked by both sides as a substitute for hard facts. For example I don't understand how some people claim there is no energy/carbon saving because oil and gas power stations have to be running as back up anyway. Don't these back ups run therefore run at reduced capacity while the wind is blowing or does the extra energy generated from the wind just evaporate? Where is the data...?

I remember from my time in the plastics recyling industry where everyone had an opinion and generated their own data to prove themselves right. Great for the consultants but not much use for getting consensus.

This thread has made me less convinced by the arguments for wind farms, but I haven't crossed to the no side yet!

It's not just the wind turbines and where they are situated.
After all these planned windfarms are built, the realisation dawns that new or bigger pylons need to be put up and other areas are then blighted.

Rudolph, again, same person in industry said its to do with aviation law, they have to be visible.

I agree with the point about the pylons, I don't think people realise how big th Denny to beauly line will appear.

As an alternative to turbines... We had a good option in my view down in wales, whereby they proposed to put a barrage across the Severn which I think it is estimated would provide 20 per cent of England's power requirements. The downside being the loss of breeding habitats and feeding areas for fish and birds. I guess whichever option is chosen, there will be someone that loses.

Thought this would of interest to those following this thread.
Call for Tourism To Save Scotland From Wind Farms
http://www.ukhillwalking.com/news/item.php?id=67387

ChrisW wrote:With Alex Salmonds view on windfarms I think the Scottish Highlands may soon look like the hills of California. Click pic for larger version

Wait another 10 years or so and not only scotland will be that bad but the whole of the uk will be that bad. I detest windfarms with a vengence don't give a frigging******* if we need em or not.Surely a better plan can be had apart from ruining the landscape.

Surely with the other choices being Nuclear and Hydro, windfarms must have the least amount of impact on the land? Reasonably easy to take down too I would have thought. Pity about the access roads they drive into them though.

welshwalker wrote:I would rather have a nuclear plant nearby than a wind farm, the former at least being worthwhile whilst the latter being utterly pointless. I don't see that the nuclear plant on the coast south of Edinburgh has caused any problems with house prices nearby.

Yes we need energy from somewhere. However, each winter when we get a nice big high pressure area over the uk, th temp drops and the wind does also. You don't get much contribution to the grid from turbines.

i am 100% with you on that one Utterly waste of time & MONEY

Why not stick an energy sewage processing plant in front of every politicians mouth.
Should generate enough power for the country given all the sh1te they speak

foggieclimber wrote:Why not stick an energy sewage processing plant in front of every politicians mouth.
Should generate enough power for the country given all the sh1te they speak

I'm designing one of these as we speak. Maybe I should bring some of the drawings north with me

Why not stick an energy sewage processing plant in front of every politicians mouth.
Should generate enough power for the country given all the sh1te they speak

Excellent foggie

I have tried making contact with my MSP on this matter and I have only got as far as her Parliamentary Assistant. In his reply he makes the following statement on behalf of the Scottish Government.

"The international community agrees that embracing renewable energy is a major priority and nowhere more so than in Europe where being able to provide energy independently will allow Scotland to be self-sufficient, while also able to provide energy to the rest of the continent."

I then asked if our country is being blighted to provide energy to other countries. The reply was "The development of these industries presents a valuable asset to Scotland and which can be turned into a major industry for years to come."

Whose country is this?