Windfarm, Rannoch Moor.

/faints
 
If the link below works, you can click on the operational windfarms for current production figures against the quoted maximum for each. The north of Scotland ones show up once you click on those in the south of Scotland for some starnge reason. To be fair, it's warm, sunny and hardly any wind up here today, but at least the figures are real and not spin (sorry! :exit:)

http://standortkarte.oroe.info/index2.html?lang=en
 
POAH said:
on your door step ?
Click to expand...


Absolutely. Plenty of houses in the Dungeness (30 miles from where I live now) area I’d be more than happy to reside in.
 
The expected life off an offshore wind turbine is approx 20 - 25 years so in the span of the leases granted on all these sites there will be a rolling replacement programme of these turbines at a cost that will be met by whom???? If the subsidy to build them falls or is abolished then they won't get replaced. The only interest in building these wind farms for these companies is the guaranteed return to make the investment worthwhile.

The government are buying their reduction in CO2 targets in this way. Without the subsidies the only wind turbines you'd see would be on your neighbours house with a little man turning a handle!!
 
Peter B said:
If the link below works, you can click on the operational windfarms for current production figures against the quoted maximum for each. The north of Scotland ones show up once you click on those in the south of Scotland for some starnge reason. To be fair, it's warm, sunny and hardly any wind up here today, but at least the figures are real and not spin (sorry! :exit:)

http://standortkarte.oroe.info/index2.html?lang=en
Click to expand...

Now the hell are some of them consuming electricity? Maybe they really are being used as fans!
 
Alan Clogwyn said:
Now the hell are some of them consuming electricity? Maybe they really are being used as fans!
Click to expand...

When there is no wind to turn the blades, the windfarm still uses energy for heating, lighting, putting the kettle on, etc. http://www.aweo.org/windconsumption.html

There is also an article in the Telegraph that gives more info on performance http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...e-enough-power-to-make-a-few-cups-of-tea.html

I should point out that I'm not any expert on this, but Google can get you so much info in such a shorrt space of time .........................
 
AndyB1976 said:
Are those the only two options, wind and nuclear?
Click to expand...


well for land based powerstations with no CO2 release I suppose ( I could be wrong though) - solar power isn't really an option for scotland lol


how many people here actually live on rannoch moor?
 
Hydro Electric generates about 12% of Scotland's electricity, 145 schemes produce 1500 MegaWatts and there are more on the way. One of the big advantages of Hydro is that it can be turned on and off at will to meet demand, one of the things wind generators can't be relied on for and solar is useless for. Solar works on a small scale up here but it's not a real option as Poah says for commercial use. Tidal has real potential (pun) but it remains to be seen if it can be economically viable.
 
POAH said:
well for land based powerstations with no CO2 release I suppose ( I could be wrong though) - solar power isn't really an option for scotland lol


how many people here actually live on rannoch moor?
Click to expand...

Fair point, Nuclear seems to be the only one that reduces equivalent carbon output but where do we draw the line?

My main concern was protecting Rannoch Moor for what it is. Its not a place I visit too often, although its never that far away. I don't have property or business there, no secret agenda. I just believe Scotland's assets include the wild untamed lands themselves and its just not about having wind farms everywhere because we need the energy. We need more energy, we build more power stations, then we need additional energy - we are feeding the capitalist monster which just gets hungrier and hungrier. Then we need our population to rise to sustain the monster so we need more energy and so on.

Alex Salmond believes an independent Scotland will be one of the first carbon neutral countries (in Europe, the world, or maybe just Salmondland) but he is driving the economy on carbon; coal and oil so we arrive at a juxtaposition of a carbon neutral country from a carbon based economy.
 
A.S. is a discussion for a different thread, but just to correct you, oil is far from being at the top of the agenda, Scotland can succeed very well with or without it, the economy is not reliant on it.
 
I was just thinking about the staff not liking two threads getting political, not having a crack at you.
 
POAH said:
how many people here actually live on rannoch moor?
Click to expand...

We're Kinloch Rannoch which is on the edge of it.

Certainly closer to the windfarm site than the area people think of as being 'Rannoch Moor' - the bit they see from the A82 en route to Glen Coe.
 
Last edited:
Moadib said:
Which means they scan export sufficient power for 153,000 homes, and get money for it. That's a good thing surely?
Click to expand...

The island location needs an interconnector to the mainland which is currently priced at £550million and certain to rise by 2018 when it is supposed to be completed. This will have to be subsidised over and above the existing subsidies to windpower, so it isn't a terribly smart economic move and can only make electricity even more expensive than it currently is. Windpower absolutely has its place in an overall mix of power sources, but we're heading to an over-reliance on wind as it is cheaper to install than potentially more reliable tidal power and that isn't a good outcome. Generation closer to market makes sense and that can be done offshore in the North Sea all the way down to the English Channel, rather than in farflung (from the market) Shetland.
 
For the same money we could buy half a tram.....seems quite cheap :)

I take the point, but wind farms need to be near wind. If the wind makes Shetland a prime site, then it's one that should be considered on that basis. Money-wise, the state has printed itself up about 400 billion since the credit crunch, and spending 1/800th of that on a cable to connect the UK to a sustainable ongoing energy source seems a much better use than bailouts. Incidentally I guess the cable will be two way, so Shetland would be connected to the national grid, and get access to gas, oil, nuclear power etc.
 
AndyB1976 said:
Cheers but its ma thread, I'll discuss wit i want - seeya! :wave:
Click to expand...
Steep said:
I was just thinking about the staff not liking two threads getting political, not having a crack at you.
Click to expand...
As long as the discussion remains calm and collected, no personal insults, isn't heavily biased to one party / person or another (either way) etc.
Then crack on :thumbs:
 
POAH said:
would you prefer a nuclear power station instead?
Click to expand...

I love nuclear. The more the merrier. I am dead serious here BTW.

OTT there is one reason I respect Thatcher - she nearly killed off coal. Sadly it wasn't quite enough.
 
daugirdas said:
I love nuclear. The more the merrier. I am dead serious here BTW.

OTT there is one reason I respect Thatcher - she nearly killed off coal. Sadly it wasn't quite enough.
Click to expand...

Kind of ruined hundreds of thousands of families though. Good job they were all expendable working class people though hey :)
 
This is what happens when the view is too good! if it had been ruined by wind farms this car wouldn't have crashed ;)

View attachment 15867
Image by E. Rosier on Facebook.
 
norters said:
Kind of ruined hundreds of thousands of families though. Good job they were all expendable working class people though hey :)
Click to expand...

Well they've all managed to do that in one way or another :lol:
 
daugirdas said:
No, you can't help poor parking skills :)
Click to expand...
I'd say it was "considerate" parking TBH.
He's / she's not causing an obstruction.
Parked off the high-way, so no one should run into the back of them either :thumbs:
All in all, I'd say nice job :)
 
lolol, the driver was damned lucky truth be told, if his right front wheel had gone over too there's a very big and steep drop, I doubt he'd have survived.
 
daugirdas said:
I love nuclear. The more the merrier. I am dead serious here BTW.

OTT there is one reason I respect Thatcher - she nearly killed off coal. Sadly it wasn't quite enough.
Click to expand...
If we generated more of our energy via nuclear power our fuel bills would be considerably higher, unless of course the government of the day was prepared to subsidise it as it is promising for the new plants that are to be built.
 
Steep said:
lolol, the driver was damned lucky truth be told, if his right front wheel had gone over too there's a very big and steep drop, I doubt he'd have survived.
Click to expand...
Oops. that's not obvious from the image.
Maybe its not quite that funny after all ;)
 
jakeblu said:
If we generated more of our energy via nuclear power our fuel bills would be considerably higher, unless of course the government of the day was prepared to subsidise it as it is promising for the new plants that are to be built.
Click to expand...

The burning of coal is due to cause very significant effects on the climate and economy (the two are linked at some point) pretty much imminently. Can we afford not to pay for nuclear / renewables / development of new sources? I don't think so.
 
daugirdas said:
The burning of coal is due to cause very significant effects on the climate and economy (the two are linked at some point) pretty much imminently. Can we afford not to pay for nuclear / renewables / development of new sources? I don't think so.
Click to expand...
I am not arguing for the use of coal, I understand its effect on the environment but nuclear energy is expensive to produce. Thats pretty much what killed it off in the 80s when they privatised the energy companies. They separated it from the three new companies that were to be privatised in order to make the sale more attractive. No, for profit, company is interested in nuclear power unless it is heavily subsidised which is what is happening with the new builds. The problem is if in say 20years the subsidy becomes too great we will either be stuck with increasing high costs or have decommissioned power stations which cost a fortune to manage.
 
jakeblu said:
I am not arguing for the use of coal, I understand its effect on the environment but nuclear energy is expensive to produce. Thats pretty much what killed it off in the 80s when they privatised the energy companies. They separated it from the three new companies that were to be privatised in order to make the sale more attractive. No, for profit, company is interested in nuclear power unless it is heavily subsidised which is what is happening with the new builds. The problem is if in say 20years the subsidy becomes too great we will either be stuck with increasing high costs or have decommissioned power stations which cost a fortune to manage.
Click to expand...

Greedy private companies. The French manage just fine their nukes and are no1 technology developer in the world. Of course it is a lot easier to make profits from coal, but until carbon capture and recycling (not burying!) is perfected coal should be banned. There is simply no better viable alternative to nuclear today (renewables are encouraged but have a fair way to go before they are reasonably efficient and affordable)
 
viv1969 said:
Hmmmm....a documentary? Not quite.

Quote from the Director: "I am interested in the areas of documentary filmmaking where additional reality is created."

Facts not enough then, clearly :)
Click to expand...
Mmm, that's a bit unfair on the director I think. You imply that the director is trying to add something which was not there, but you do exactly that by selectively quoting what he said. In fact the director's whole quote is pointing out that one person's view of "the facts" is not the only view, and the way to perhaps show reality can be through many different interpretations (which is what the documentary tries to do, laudably I think, on such an emotive topic).

"I am interested in the areas of documentary filmmaking where additional reality is created. By this I mean, that I do not think reality constitutes a fixed entity which accordingly can be documented - revealed - in this or that respect. Instead, I suspect reality to be dependent on and susceptible to the nature of it's interpretation. I am in other words interested in the potentials and requirements of how reality can be - and is - interpreted." (my underline)​
 
I stand by my opinion.
Into Eternity is not a documentary, but a dramatisation.
 
I don't think anyone has asserted otherwise Ruth? It was posted in response to the point that coal should be banned, as we don't know how to capture and recycle the carbon - which is a fair point. But goes on to say that we should use nuclear - meanwhile as this docu-dramatisation points out, we have absolutely no knowledge of what to do with the wastes we create from nuclear.

I've no particular axe to grind regarding either (nor indeed Into eternity). Just that if we discard an option because of particular logic and concerns, we should apply those equally to the alternatives.
 
The movies own website cites it as a documentary, and it's marketed as a documentary.
 
Sorry Ruth, I must be missing the point here - it looks like you're arguing a point I've never made. I've not stated it to be anything at all, documentary or otherwise. I posted the link to highlight the issue of nuclear waste, and that we have as little idea of how to deal with that as carbon waste.
 
You didn't state anything, so perhaps that's the problem.
Why post a link with no accompanying reason or clue for doing so?
Even a short intro would give folk a clue.
Instead, the mystery link leads to a film which touts itself to be a documentary, yet isn't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top