Windfarm, Rannoch Moor.

And in my opinion the turbines add beauty to the landscape. The ones off the coast here are beautiful. I'm lucky enough to be able to have access to one on the docks and to stand under it is amazing.
 
These things are a cancer on our landscape and Salmond is a disgrace for allowing them to be installed in such beautiful places. They are a false economy too. Don't let leftie hippy mugs try to convince you otherwise.
 
Last edited:
BRASH said:
These things are a cancer on our landscape and Salmond is a disgrace for allowing them to be installed in such beautiful places. They are a false economy too. Don't let leftie hippy mugs try to convince you otherwise.
Click to expand...

Yep. It's costing the taxpayer a bloody fortune subsidising inefficiency. Commonly known as wind turbines.
 
its ridiculous - we've got more than enough wind already without farming it :lol:
 
Gaz J said:
Yep. It's costing the taxpayer a bloody fortune subsidising inefficiency. Commonly known as wind turbines.
Click to expand...
I thought it was nuclear that was heavily subsidised that's why they dropped it in the last century and as I understand the new stations that are to be built are also heavily subsidised.
 
They said the same things exactly about all those terrible hydro electric schemes that went in decades ago, they'll ruin the landscape!!
I live within sight of wind farms, pretty much everywhere I drive I can see wind farms and do you know? you just get used to them, or the bits of them that are visible since the largest parts tend to be hidden behind hills etc.
 
BRASH said:
These things are a cancer on our landscape and Salmond is a disgrace for allowing them to be installed in such beautiful places. They are a false economy too. Don't let leftie hippy mugs try to convince you otherwise.
Click to expand...

TP 'LEFTY' BINGO!!

HOUSE!
 
jakeblu said:
I thought it was nuclear that was heavily subsidised that's why they dropped it in the last century and as I understand the new stations that are to be built are also heavily subsidised.
Click to expand...


Yes the government have agreed a subsidised price for the nuclear station at Hinckley Point. From 2023 the company will be paid £92.50 per megawatt hour for 35 years.

We are currently paying around £95 per megawatt hour for wind power. Given that if a wind turbines efficiency is low, something that is conveniently overlooked by advocates of wind power, its a high cost to pay to blight the landscape.

UK pay 30% more for its wind energy that the average in other countries. Wind energy is 3 times more costly to produce than energy from fossil fuels.
 
Last edited:
Steep said:
They said the same things exactly about all those terrible hydro electric schemes that went in decades ago, they'll ruin the landscape!!
I live within sight of wind farms, pretty much everywhere I drive I can see wind farms and do you know? you just get used to them, or the bits of them that are visible since the largest parts tend to be hidden behind hills etc.
Click to expand...

Hydro dams are few and far between. Wind Farms are every bloody where:rolleyes:
 
norters said:
And in my opinion the turbines add beauty to the landscape. The ones off the coast here are beautiful..
Click to expand...

if wind turbines add beauty to the landscapes you see ,,,,,they must be pretty rough landscapes to start with
 
We have targets to meet and if you want clean power there are prices to be paid. I've never thought relying on wind power was particularly sensible and when driving around I can see many turbines standing still on calm days which seems to prove me right. That said tidal power is going to be better, it's regular and reliable although the equipment is going to be more expensive to maintain.
Solar power is getting more take up all the time, more and more houses have 'glass' roofs but you get the problem that power is not available when it's most needed, in the dark. There's been a battery developed for storing solar energy in the U.S. I came across it by accident while looking for something else. http://www.dailyplanetmedia.com/massive-batteries-storing-wind-and-solar-energy-for-the-grid/ but one battery is the size of a shipping container. I read that New York subway stations are getting these installed to power the system overnight.
 
norters said:
Beggars belief that people object to clean, renewable energy.
Click to expand...

Who objects to clean renewable energy? The so called last great wilderness in western Europe, an area of outstanding beauty, a Site of Special Scientific Interest and a Special Area of Conservation being peppered with turbines and access roads is what I object to. I also once read that the energy required to produce the concrete for the bases and transport it alone will never be repaid by the turbines in its lifetime. Also consider the energy required to quarry, crush and transport the stone.

I can't find that source but here is a faithful wiki quote ;-)

In modern cement kilns many advanced features are used to lower the fuel consumption per ton of clinker produced. Cement kilns are extremely large, complex, and inherently dusty industrial installations, and have emissions which must be controlled. Of the various ingredients used in concrete the cement is the most energetically expensive. Even complex and efficient kilns require 3.3 to 3.6 gigajoules of energy to produce a ton of clinker and then grind it into cement. Many kilns can be fueled with difficult-to-dispose-of wastes, the most common being used tires. The extremely high temperatures and long periods of time at those temperatures allows cement kilns to efficiently and completely burn even difficult-to-use fuels
Click to expand...

POAH said:
would you prefer a nuclear power station instead?
Click to expand...

Are those the only two options, wind and nuclear?

Steep said:
We have targets to meet and if you want clean power there are prices to be paid. I've never thought relying on wind power was particularly sensible and when driving around I can see many turbines standing still on calm days which seems to prove me right. That said tidal power is going to be better, it's regular and reliable although the equipment is going to be more expensive to maintain.
Solar power is getting more take up all the time, more and more houses have 'glass' roofs but you get the problem that power is not available when it's most needed, in the dark. There's been a battery developed for storing solar energy in the U.S. I came across it by accident while looking for something else. http://www.dailyplanetmedia.com/massive-batteries-storing-wind-and-solar-energy-for-the-grid/ but one battery is the size of a shipping container. I read that New York subway stations are getting these installed to power the system overnight.
Click to expand...


Who decides these targets and what happens if we don't meet them? Being a Scot yourself you'll be aware of John Muir and how he trailblazed across the USA, saving land for nothing more than what it is. Even the land the JMT owns in Scotland is bought and left alone, no visitors centres, no car parks. The land for what it is.

I saw an interesting speech by Elon Musk (ex Paypal, now SpaceX, Tesla), part of it about future energy. He said calculations prove that enough solar energy hits the footprint of a nuclear power station than the station itself creates. He is not talking about the reactor building, but that and land or 'keep out zone' around it. It wasn't clear if this applied globally as an average or just specifically to drier countries, but interesting if true. They are also working on super capacitors to store the energy.

Can't remember when he talks about it but an interesting chat nevertheless



BRASH said:
These things are a cancer on our landscape and Salmond is a disgrace for allowing them to be installed in such beautiful places. They are a false economy too. Don't let leftie hippy mugs try to convince you otherwise.
Click to expand...

Modern hippys ain't hippy enough it seems. Where is Swampy when you need him?
 
Andy, John Muir did great things but you could lose Scotland completely in the average American forest and we have 5 million people living here who need power. John Muir was primarily concerned about logging destroying the natural forest habitat not adding turbines to an already barren landscape.
SSSIs are not created for the views but for the flora/fauna, turbines have little impact on either of those.
 
Ain't it ironic that fatty Salmond is promoting all this renewable energy crap blah blah blah but is intending using fossil fuel extraction as this country's main income (which won't happen because we'll never get Independence, rightly so but I think that's being discussed elsewhere).
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
big soft moose said:
its ridiculous - we've got more than enough wind already without farming it :LOL:
Click to expand...

BRASH said:
Ain't it ironic that fatty Salmond is promoting all this renewable energy crap blah blah blah but is intending using fossil fuel extraction as this country's main income (which won't happen because we'll never get Independence, rightly so but I think that's being discussed elsewhere).
Click to expand...


There is enough wind coming out the SNP to make those windfarms viable :naughty:
 
Theres enough hot air coming out of politiciand generally that we should hook them up to an airsource heat pump
 
AndyB1976 said:
Who decides these targets and what happens if we don't meet them? Being a Scot yourself you'll be aware of John Muir and how he trailblazed across the USA, saving land for nothing more than what it is. Even the land the JMT owns in Scotland is bought and left alone, no visitors centres, no car parks. The land for what it is.
Click to expand...
Interesting concept, the land for what it is. Personally I think it should be there to be enjoyed so car parks and walking/cycling trails are important.

Is there any proper evidence of whether or not a wind turbine produces more energy than is required to construct it? Seems unlikely that we'd have so many of them if they didn't 'break-even' but it could easily be more down to politics!
 
Steep said:
Andy, John Muir did great things but you could lose Scotland completely in the average American forest and we have 5 million people living here who need power. John Muir was primarily concerned about logging destroying the natural forest habitat not adding turbines to an already barren landscape.
SSSIs are not created for the views but for the flora/fauna, turbines have little impact on either of those.
Click to expand...

I never said SSSIs were created for the view. Its the principle of the JMT, the land for what it is. Just because its not a forest doesn't mean the principle can't be applied to unspoiled landscapes.

How are the turbines going to be supported on this marshland, considering the train line had to be effectively floated on wooden bearers. No impact on flora or fauna you say?

Scotland's landscape, habitat, flora and fauna are one of its biggest assets, but seems old Sheikh Al Salmond only has his eyes on the black stuff to which he can claim to offset the carbon by destroying the heart of the land by sticking windfarms everywhere.

Who sets the targets on carbon emissions/renewables you mentioned earlier?
 
Steep said:
Andy, John Muir did great things but you could lose Scotland completely in the average American forest and we have 5 million people living here who need power. John Muir was primarily concerned about logging destroying the natural forest habitat not adding turbines to an already barren landscape.
SSSIs are not created for the views but for the flora/fauna, turbines have little impact on either of those.
Click to expand...


One mans "barren" landscape is anothers unspoilt wild one.


.
 
TopBanana said:
Interesting concept, the land for what it is. Personally I think it should be there to be enjoyed so car parks and walking/cycling trails are important.

Is there any proper evidence of whether or not a wind turbine produces more energy than is required to construct it? Seems unlikely that we'd have so many of them if they didn't 'break-even' but it could easily be more down to politics!
Click to expand...

Yeah agree with all that you say..

I also bike, walk, photograph, wild camp in these areas literally on my doorstep. Without being able to see or visit these places up close and personal would we care? I recall someone saying that the damage we do to the sea its so infinitely worse than anything we have ever done on land. The reason nothing is done about it is because its hidden from view.

I don't know for sure about the net return but surely you would hope it would return more than a break even.

With subsidies also being paid it would make an interesting investigation as cash and energy can be viewed as two sides of the same coin.
 
AndyB1976 said:
I never said SSSIs were created for the view. Its the principle of the JMT, the land for what it is. Just because its not a forest doesn't mean the principle can't be applied to unspoiled landscapes.

How are the turbines going to be supported on this marshland, considering the train line had to be effectively floated on wooden bearers. No impact on flora or fauna you say?

Scotland's landscape, habitat, flora and fauna are one of its biggest assets, but seems old Sheikh Al Salmond only has his eyes on the black stuff to which he can claim to offset the carbon by destroying the heart of the land by sticking windfarms everywhere.

Who sets the targets on carbon emissions/renewables you mentioned earlier?
Click to expand...

Surprisingly little of Scotland is marshland and 'most' wind farms tend to be up higher where they catch the wind better. "No impact on flora or fauna you say?" no actually I didn't.

Your views on AS are yours, hope you don't mind if I disagree with them.

Renewables targets come from both UK and Scottish Gov, mostly Scottish.
 
Thinking about it, the wind farms on the causewaymire (Thurso Road) are built on peat bog, none of them have fallen down yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top