I, as a long term lurker, have finally decided to comment, on a subject I know something about! My wife, and I, and half a dozen neighbours, are battling to stop our farmer neighbour putting up a wind farm next door. The first turbine to go up would be 420m directly upwind from us.... we will get a constant noise, and shadow flicker when the sun shines. As further turbines advance down the field towards us; the nearest could be only 100m from us. I can hear the cries of Nimby from some of you, but we have a valuable property, the value of which is going to drop dramatically. The property represents a lifetime of hard work from both of us. We wish, in the next few years to sell ( a house plus 4 letting cottages ) in order to retire. The turbines will make that very difficult, even if the price is slashed. Other neighbours will loose a lot of money too... and whilst this is happening the developer will make around £100k per annum, per turbine, with 10% going to the farmer. Not a bad return on the £500k cost of erecting each one. Is this a fair way to conduct an energy policy; even if they ever produce a significant amount of energy, which frankly they won't ?
@JosiasJessop " it's to do with the damage caused to the landscape in getting them there and maintaining them. "
Yes....it looks the same as those bulldozed tracks the Lairds do to allow the guests argo cat to make the accent.
Urm, they look nothing like them. Firstly, vast areas of uplands have virtually no vehicular access, even for Land Rovers and the like (hence the reason why quad bikes have been a boon for farmers). Wind farm access tracks require deep foundations to carry the heavy machinery that is required to get the turbines to their final locations, and are a much more extensive network. These tracks destroy the terrain they pass over.
For instance, see the multi-phased Crystal Rig development (1) in the beautiful (but sadly little known) Lammermuir Hills. The second extension to the wind farm alone required 28 km of haul roads. (2)
In that latter case, there was one small track in that area before the windfarm came, and that had only been built to provide access to a high-tension power line.
So all in all, nothing like your pathetic class-warfare comment...
"A huge majority of Welsh people do not want Scotland to vote for independence and think it would be bad for Wales, the results of an exclusive poll have revealed.
The results of the YouGov survey, which questioned more than 1,000 Welsh adults on how they would vote, found that 62% answered No when asked if Scotland should be independent, with just 16% saying Yes."
Can someone explain to me why the Scots who back independence also don't seem to want a nuclear deterrent?
Well the idea is that it means you're less likely to be invaded or threatened in the future, however unlikely it seems now. It also means you can spend less on other forms of defence. Not sure what it has got to do with the empire to be honest.
But either way I don't see the connection between a nuclear deterrent and independence.
Why would you need US permission to use your own nuclear weapons?
You seriously trying to tell me that UK could use Trident without US permission, dream on.
Well what other reason is there for having your own nuclear weapons?
Have you come up with that list of western countries that have been invaded in last 50 years.
If our military is so bad then perhaps it is wise to keep the deterrent.
What does the last 50 years have to do with it? You can't just extrapolate past events to predict what will happen in the future.
There's also no guarantee that the US will continue to promise to offer nuclear protection to Western Europe for ever.
I'm sure Cyprus would not have been invaded in 1974 had they had nuclear weapons. Or Ukraine last month.
So your theory is just bollocks, lets waste £100B on willy waving as we have no other more pressing needs in this country. I rest my case, Scotland has nothing to fear re anyone invading , money better spent on real threat such as terrorists etc.
"I'm sure Cyprus would not have been invaded in 1974 had they had nuclear weapons. Or Ukraine last month. "
You mean a limited nuclear war? And here was me thinking the idea was that M.A.D. ensured that would never happen, (Was someone being ironic when they gave it that name?)
I don't think either would have been invaded if a nuclear response was possible. That's why it is called a deterrent.
Can someone explain to me why the Scots who back independence also don't seem to want a nuclear deterrent?
If you're a Scot who wants rid of nuclear weapons, do you think there's a better chance of that happening with the continuing UK project or in an independent Scotland?
So long as you're a member of NATO, you're a nuclear-armed power, whether or not nuclear weapons are physically located on your soil.
Bollocks
Ah, a fine erudite post that completely explains Mr. G.'s understanding of NATO's nuclear posture and the effects of the non-proliferation treaty. It also sums up the SNPs defence plans, such as they are, as evidenced in the "White Paper".
Hurst, we are not big woosies that need to have nuclear missiles to make us tough. Far better things to spend the money on and the SNP defence plans are perfectly acceptable and in line with similar nations, who are all similarly secure, are very happy and rich and do not beggar themselves to cover insecurity or try and make out that they are big shots.
I wonder whether the troubles in the Ukraine may not have made people more favourably disposed to pay more for a power source outside Russia's control. I think of wind power as a pawl and ratchet that turns, variably it is true, only in our favour. I'm sure J-J will correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the UK (including especially Scotland!) is particularly well placed to garner wind power.
In any case, windmills can come down as readily as they go up, like these barn-like prefabs at industrial estates, or the appalling "London Eye".
So much misinformation in one post.
Firstly, the CCGT plants have to be paid for. They cost a great deal of money to build - in some cases, over a billion the 1,500 MW Thorpe Marsh was expected to cost £984 million). This has to be paid back. Then they need maintaining; again, this costs a great deal.
Although CCGT can be switched on and off easily, they're not earning when they're switched off.
Secondly, the turbines themselves are not necessarily the problem in up,and areas. Firstly, they are massively costly themselves. Secondly, they require massive tracks to be built to reach them. In the case of the one local to me that's hardly a problem - it's on an old airfield and I have absolutely no problems with it. When it's in a wilderness area, these tracks can devastate the landscape for millennia. Finally, you need the power lines to reach them. Again, that
Interesting. But as a first guess I'm willing to pay the cost always hopeful for improvements in technology and life style down the line.
What sort of improvements are you thinking of? Or are you just hoping with no basis for those hopes?
This would be better discussed over beer I think. Yes I was suffering a bout of optimism, perhaps not really justified given our history. I would just say that population and building expansion are wreaking fair havoc on our landscape. Local to me is a small wind farm of seven. A footpath goes by them and, apart from their clear "un-naturality" (as are cars!!) there seems to be no particular upset.
Sounds like a good excuse for a beer. ;-)
But your comment "I would just say that population and building expansion are wreaking fair havoc on our landscape." proves my point. When we have areas that are still wilderness or near-wilderness, surely it is best to be protecting them rather than building on them?
Again, I have few problems with wind farms in lowland areas as long as they are economic, and the same goes for offshore.
Can someone explain to me why the Scots who back independence also don't seem to want a nuclear deterrent?
Well the idea is that it means you're less likely to be invaded or threatened in the future, however unlikely it seems now. It also means you can spend less on other forms of defence. Not sure what it has got to do with the empire to be honest.
But either way I don't see the connection between a nuclear deterrent and independence.
Why would you need US permission to use your own nuclear weapons?
You seriously trying to tell me that UK could use Trident without US permission, dream on.
Well what other reason is there for having your own nuclear weapons?
Have you come up with that list of western countries that have been invaded in last 50 years.
If our military is so bad then perhaps it is wise to keep the deterrent.
What does the last 50 years have to do with it? You can't just extrapolate past events to predict what will happen in the future.
There's also no guarantee that the US will continue to promise to offer nuclear protection to Western Europe for ever.
I'm sure Cyprus would not have been invaded in 1974 had they had nuclear weapons. Or Ukraine last month.
So your theory is just bollocks, lets waste £100B on willy waving as we have no other more pressing needs in this country. I rest my case, Scotland has nothing to fear re anyone invading , money better spent on real threat such as terrorists etc.
Ah well if you have a crystal ball which can accurately predict all future risks then you should have said so earlier.
Which is fair enough, but isn't the policy also to belong to NATO?
Hurst , 25 other members do not have nuclear weapons, so no big deal , and in teh end who cares we can do without NATO if required.
Ah, but, Mr. G., no NATO country has a policy that Nukes cannot be based on their territory. NATO is for all sorts of reasons a nuclear armed alliance.
If iScotland does not want to be part of NATO then that's fine, but that isn't the current SNP policy is it? Isn't being part of NATO part of the Yes votes offering?
I think it was a bit over a year ago I raised on here with you the question of RN shipbuilding post independence and you said that it was OK because Scotland neither wanted nor needed the work. Since then others have mentioned the possibility that Scotland's financial services industry would flee south in the event of independence, your response was that was OK because Scotland neither wanted nor needed that industry. Aside from the oil/gas fields, which depend on non-Scottish companies how do you see iScotland earning its place in the world?
It is worth a look at the Ecotricity website which reveals that they are anti-fracking. Also they are against any energy that is not renewable, It is a very emotional website which conceals the subsidies that it receives for wind farm produced electricity
I, as a long term lurker, have finally decided to comment, on a subject I know something about! My wife, and I, and half a dozen neighbours, are battling to stop our farmer neighbour putting up a wind farm next door. The first turbine to go up would be 420m directly upwind from us.... we will get a constant noise, and shadow flicker when the sun shines. As further turbines advance down the field towards us; the nearest could be only 100m from us. I can hear the cries of Nimby from some of you, but we have a valuable property, the value of which is going to drop dramatically. The property represents a lifetime of hard work from both of us. We wish, in the next few years to sell ( a house plus 4 letting cottages ) in order to retire. The turbines will make that very difficult, even if the price is slashed. Other neighbours will loose a lot of money too... and whilst this is happening the developer will make around £100k per annum, per turbine, with 10% going to the farmer. Not a bad return on the £500k cost of erecting each one. Is this a fair way to conduct an energy policy; even if they ever produce a significant amount of energy, which frankly they won't ?
It is a scandal, worst case they should be forced to buy your property at market value. However that is the Tories for you , they are happy to line their pals pockets at other peoples expense.
The Highlands are no where near a wilderness....it is overgrazed (mainly by deer these days) playground for the rich. They call it "mambo" miles and miles of bloody nothing.
Can someone explain to me why the Scots who back independence also don't seem to want a nuclear deterrent?
If you're a Scot who wants rid of nuclear weapons, do you think there's a better chance of that happening with the continuing UK project or in an independent Scotland?
So long as you're a member of NATO, you're a nuclear-armed power, whether or not nuclear weapons are physically located on your soil.
I'd be comfortable not being a member of NATO. That notwithstanding, perhaps the NATO members most emotionally attached to being a nuclear armed power should base them on their own territory.
But, SNP policy is now to be part of NATO. What is the ethical difference between possessing nuclear weapons on your own soil, and letting others use, or threaten to use, them on your behalf?
But, but, but I'm not the SNP. If the SNP cobbled together some leasing deal for Trident staying at Faslane as part of an Indy Scotland becoming a NATO member, I'd stop voting for them.
If you think NATO is only an effective military alliance because of its nuclear capacity, I'd say the game's a bogey. I'd certainly suggest that there's certainly something deeply unethical about a state wanting to 'punch above its weight' by retaining nuclear weapons while having those weapons stationed in another state.
There is no doubt that the anti-fracking campaigners are rapidly and decisively winning the argument, admittedly based on pretty nonsensical scare stories. The scare stories are, however, sticking, and no-one is making an attempt to correct them. There is already a strong grassroots anti-fracking movement forming.
This is a potential electoral time-bomb in rural (currently Conservative) constituencies; it is currently hidden because UKIP are of course very enthusiastically pro-fracking, and thus are not in a good position to harvest the anti-fracking protest vote. However, I expect this to change; my guess is that UKIP will change their position simply because they will want whatever protest votes are going, and they don't have to worry about details like the economy, energy security, or the contribution gas can make to reducing C02 emissions.
Which is fair enough, but isn't the policy also to belong to NATO?
Hurst , 25 other members do not have nuclear weapons, so no big deal , and in teh end who cares we can do without NATO if required.
Ah, but, Mr. G., no NATO country has a policy that Nukes cannot be based on their territory. NATO is for all sorts of reasons a nuclear armed alliance.
If iScotland does not want to be part of NATO then that's fine, but that isn't the current SNP policy is it? Isn't being part of NATO part of the Yes votes offering?
I think it was a bit over a year ago I raised on here with you the question of RN shipbuilding post independence and you said that it was OK because Scotland neither wanted nor needed the work. Since then others have mentioned the possibility that Scotland's financial services industry would flee south in the event of independence, your response was that was OK because Scotland neither wanted nor needed that industry. Aside from the oil/gas fields, which depend on non-Scottish companies how do you see iScotland earning its place in the world?
Hurst , I am no expert on the fannies at NATO but believe many do not allow nuclear weapons in their country. The shipbuilding is almost gone in any case and would be far better after independence , diversifying and building Scottish navy ships plus other stuff that is currently bought in. Over 10,000 MODS jobs have been scrapped in recent years. We pay for it but get nothing in return. There will be no flight south of any business either , that is just scaremongering as per 1979, 1997 etc, pure bollocks. We currently have plenty of businesses in Scotland and will continue to do so after independence, for sure oil companies etc will be falling over themselves , BP announced another £600M investment just this week. We have oil , whisky , tourism , engineering , renewables , financial services , just for starters. We will do just fine when independent.
I, as a long term lurker, have finally decided to comment, on a subject I know something about! My wife, and I, and half a dozen neighbours, are battling to stop our farmer neighbour putting up a wind farm next door. The first turbine to go up would be 420m directly upwind from us.... we will get a constant noise, and shadow flicker when the sun shines. As further turbines advance down the field towards us; the nearest could be only 100m from us. I can hear the cries of Nimby from some of you, but we have a valuable property, the value of which is going to drop dramatically. The property represents a lifetime of hard work from both of us. We wish, in the next few years to sell ( a house plus 4 letting cottages ) in order to retire. The turbines will make that very difficult, even if the price is slashed. Other neighbours will loose a lot of money too... and whilst this is happening the developer will make around £100k per annum, per turbine, with 10% going to the farmer. Not a bad return on the £500k cost of erecting each one. Is this a fair way to conduct an energy policy; even if they ever produce a significant amount of energy, which frankly they won't ?
Simple solution: put up turbines on your property too !
Can someone explain to me why the Scots who back independence also don't seem to want a nuclear deterrent?
If you're a Scot who wants rid of nuclear weapons, do you think there's a better chance of that happening with the continuing UK project or in an independent Scotland?
So long as you're a member of NATO, you're a nuclear-armed power, whether or not nuclear weapons are physically located on your soil.
Bollocks
Ah, a fine erudite post that completely explains Mr. G.'s understanding of NATO's nuclear posture and the effects of the non-proliferation treaty. It also sums up the SNPs defence plans, such as they are, as evidenced in the "White Paper".
Hurst, we are not big woosies that need to have nuclear missiles to make us tough. Far better things to spend the money on and the SNP defence plans are perfectly acceptable and in line with similar nations, who are all similarly secure, are very happy and rich and do not beggar themselves to cover insecurity or try and make out that they are big shots.
Mr. G., Our posts keep crossing, my fault I am sure. The SNP "White Paper" section on defence is complete tosh and has no basis in reality. Far too much to go into in the time I have available to me now, Herself is shouting for attention. For the moment, let me point you at Denmark a country of 5.5m people, a member of NATO. Go look at her defences, then compare them with what the "White Paper" talks about (hint consider sunk costs).
One day, I shall sit you down with a large glass of something nice and you can explain to me why I am a fool/coward/Tory and any or all of the other epithets you like to throw at any one on here who disagrees with you. For now I must attend to Herself.
I, as a long term lurker, have finally decided to comment, on a subject I know something about! My wife, and I, and half a dozen neighbours, are battling to stop our farmer neighbour putting up a wind farm next door. The first turbine to go up would be 420m directly upwind from us.... we will get a constant noise, and shadow flicker when the sun shines. As further turbines advance down the field towards us; the nearest could be only 100m from us. I can hear the cries of Nimby from some of you, but we have a valuable property, the value of which is going to drop dramatically. The property represents a lifetime of hard work from both of us. We wish, in the next few years to sell ( a house plus 4 letting cottages ) in order to retire. The turbines will make that very difficult, even if the price is slashed. Other neighbours will loose a lot of money too... and whilst this is happening the developer will make around £100k per annum, per turbine, with 10% going to the farmer. Not a bad return on the £500k cost of erecting each one. Is this a fair way to conduct an energy policy; even if they ever produce a significant amount of energy, which frankly they won't ?
It is a scandal, worst case they should be forced to buy your property at market value. However that is the Tories for you , they are happy to line their pals pockets at other peoples expense.
The Highlands are no where near a wilderness....it is overgrazed (mainly by deer these days) playground for the rich. They call it "mambo" miles and miles of bloody nothing.
You are off your head with class warfare, and have absolutely no clue.
If we ignore economics, for a second. The big problem with both fracking and wind is that locals will want neither. A single drilling rig is at least 60 flatbed loads (plus quite a few loads that are too big for flatbeds). Then there's a smaller number of loads of sand, but potentially more of water. (Which will then have to be taken away again.) And there are the frac trucks themselves, which will probably be only 5 or 10. There will be extensive digging up for gas collection pipes, which will require lots of compuslory purchase orders, plus a fair amount of disruption as roads are dug up.
When the drilling is going on, it will likely be 24 hours a day. And while it isn't particularly noisy, having light industrial facilities in operation for such a long time, with comings and goings of crews (and deliveries of pipes and valves, and the like) will no doubt have an impact on the local residents. Plus, there'll almost certainly be some flaring, which looks pretty ugly when it's 100 yards away at 4am.
Basically, no-one would want one - really - on their doorstep. On the other hand, everyone thinks the residents of Little Whittering (20 miles away) should stop complaining and accept fraccing...
@AnotherDave has the best idea: forget the 'Sovereign Wealth Fund' and directly bribe the local community. A 10% royalty to go to the local council would assuage a lot of concerns. (It might even, given enough time and suitably productive rocks, get rid of most of the Council Tax in more rural areas).
Whytlee, I seen the original raised peat bog drained and turned into a tax break forest, Apart from a few of the test blocks the trees are stunted and without value....but someone got rich.
A company we are working with has been asked by a supposedly Competent Authority to assess the viability of key installations when subject to grid electricity failure.
I, as a long term lurker, have finally decided to comment, on a subject I know something about! My wife, and I, and half a dozen neighbours, are battling to stop our farmer neighbour putting up a wind farm next door.
If you can demonstrate that the value of your property drops as a result (estate agent assessments before and after), aren't you entitled to compensation for precisely the value lost? Certainly if it was a public project this would be the case - not sure about the law in private cases.
Not disagreeing with being off my head. but not a clue? Do you think you are the only explorer of the highlands, and that you know more than the botanists who study the habitat?
Visit the Flow Country and see what tax break foresting was really like. On your way there stop a a few miles above the Devils Beeftub at the head of Loch Lomond.. and on the right hand side of the road you will see a small bit of what the highlands should look like. They excluded the deer and the place now looks like a jungle compared to the rest.
Whytlee, I seen the original raised peat bog drained and turned into a tax break forest, Apart from a few of the test blocks the trees are stunted and without value....but someone got rich.
Well, most of the forestry was created by the government to cope with a very real shortage of timber between the wars. The tax break forestry is wrong, and should be stamped on if it has not already.
But that's no reason to destroy more of the little wild land that is left...
The timber plantations were originally to be used as pit props for the coal mines, but like much else times changed and they decided on producing pulp,,,,,which has gone by the wayside as well. Learn the translation of the Gaelic place names on the Rannoch Moor, and that thousand year old bogwood is only about three hundred years old.
Bought the Times today. Congrats to PB (and indirectly the mods) getting a mention in the leader column re the blogosphere and Wollaston. The line I liked the most was "Some blog editors make no attempt to moderate the conversations that they host. Too often comment threads resemble argumentative sewers." PB is very rarely of the sewer which is a good thing!
The timber plantations were originally to be used as pit props for the coal mines, but like much else times changed and they decided on producing pulp,,,,,which has gone by the wayside as well. Learn the translation of the Gaelic place names on the Rannoch Moor, and that thousand year old bogwood is only about three hundred years old.
Rannoch Moor deforestation was mostly natural: "Deteriorating climactic conditions which resulted in accelerated rates of leaching, the growth of acid blanket peat, and a marked increase in areas of waterlogged ground, led to the gradual decline of trees and the evolution of the present-day landscape of blanket peat and heather moor."
Bought the Times today. Congrats to PB (and indirectly the mods) getting a mention in the leader column re the blogosphere and Wollaston. The line I liked the most was "Some blog editors make no attempt to moderate the conversations that they host. Too often comment threads resemble argumentative sewers." PB is very rarely of the sewer which is a good thing!
Why do they need to say "Some blog editors" when they actually mean Paul Staines ?
@JosiasJessop I don't intend to be mean to you, but on your rambles in the highlands have you noticed that the islands on most of the lochs are covered in trees? It wasn't climatic change, it was the exponential need for timber for the navy. I learned about the supposed climate change in school. but if you look, you can see it is utter nonsense.
Bought the Times today. Congrats to PB (and indirectly the mods) getting a mention in the leader column re the blogosphere and Wollaston. The line I liked the most was "Some blog editors make no attempt to moderate the conversations that they host. Too often comment threads resemble argumentative sewers." PB is very rarely of the sewer which is a good thing!
Why do they need to say "Some blog editors" when they actually mean Paul Staines ?
I've not read below the line on Guido for a long time but I suppose you must be right from what I remember. There was someone called 'Stanislav' or something like that about six years ago who was very funny, but I can't be bothered with vulgarity of it to see if he still posts. Too low brow.
Which makes me the most influential commenter on this topic of Scots independence in the UK.
I'm waiting for a cybernat to write a million-selling blockbuster thriller at the first attempt over a weekend and to gloat back at you when they sell the Hollywood rights to the Weinsteins for megabucks.
Not disagreeing with being off my head. but not a clue? Do you think you are the only explorer of the highlands, and that you know more than the botanists who study the habitat?
Visit the Flow Country and see what tax break foresting was really like. On your way there stop a a few miles above the Devils Beeftub at the head of Loch Lomond.. and on the right hand side of the road you will see a small bit of what the highlands should look like. They excluded the deer and the place now looks like a jungle compared to the rest.
Nope, don't think I'm the only person. It's just that you don't seem aware of the damage the wind farms are doing to some precious landscapes. The links I posted below show the damage well.
I've walked the West Highland Way, but I'm not aware of the Devil's Beeftub at the end of Loch Lomond. There's one near Moffat, but that's some distance away?
Besides, no one area shows what the Highlands 'should' look like. It's always been a massively varied landscape post-glaciation, and as the link I posted below shows, it changes. And the flora and fauna of the valley floor will always be radically different to that of above 2,000 feet.
The Flow Country is wonderful. I love it, although walking there alone is always rather scary. The forestation was terrible, as was the cutting of drains (did the EU give any money for that?). But again, it's a reason not to destroy any more of that landscape.
If you walked the west highland way the part that is regenerating would have been on your left before just before Chrianlarich, and also mea culpa, the falls and pool is called the devils bathtub, it is a mess now though as they put in a laybye and now it looks like a fly tip.
@JosiasJessop I don't intend to be mean to you, but on your rambles in the highlands have you noticed that the islands on most of the lochs are covered in trees? It wasn't climatic change, it was the exponential need for timber for the navy. I learned about the supposed climate change in school. but if you look, you can see it is utter nonsense.
Many are covered in trees, yes. Not all. And I would think the local environment on a loch-island is rather different to that in most of the Highlands.
I'll prefer to believe an analysis of pollen from geological strata suggesting it was climate change. (1)
A question: before the railway was built in the 1890s, how did the Navy get all this cut-down timber from Rannoch Moor, which is a famed desolate and hard to reach spot nowadays, yet alone centuries before?
Note: I am not suggesting that no timber was cut down; just that there would not have been much of it, and the majority of the landscape would have been as it is now.
It is a stunningly beautiful area, but in this case beauty is very much in the eye of the beholder. I've known walkers who hate bog and moorland walking, but I was raised in Derbyshire, and Kinder Scout was my playground for many years. I love that sort of terrain, an dit's been far too long since I was last up there.
The timber would have been transported in much the same way it was always done, They shifted stones from Wales to build Stonehenge, if a resource is needed, it will be moved. And you are never that far from the sea in Scotland. The pollen samples only show a change occurred, not particularly how. As for the railway, it actually floats on a raft of timber (due mainly to being driven through the lower elevations which were true bog"
Being anti-wind farm is one of those issues that David H was talking about on the last thread, like being against gay marriage, or once upon a time being against electricity pylons. Once they're around, people get used to them. The same might in time be true of fracking, but it's newer and people are warier - really cries out for pilots and further studies rather than a mad dash. The gas isn't going anywhere.
I've been offline for a couple of days - seems quiet though. Too quiet - must be a trap.
The problem is that people don't value visual pollution correctly: wind farms have huge externalities in the way that fracking doesn't. Pylons are a good example: they are hideously ugly & there would be a good case - perhaps in true Keynesian style - for burying the wires instead
Bought the Times today. Congrats to PB (and indirectly the mods) getting a mention in the leader column re the blogosphere and Wollaston. The line I liked the most was "Some blog editors make no attempt to moderate the conversations that they host. Too often comment threads resemble argumentative sewers." PB is very rarely of the sewer which is a good thing!
It was great to see the mention in the main Times editorial and it is largely true.
@Charles " Pylons are a good example: they are hideously ugly & there would be a good case - perhaps in true Keynesian style - for burying the wires instead "
To expensive,,,,power cables and railway lines are only buried when the alternative is losing too many votes
The timber would have been transported in much the same way it was always done, They shifted stones from Wales to build Stonehenge, if a resource is needed, it will be moved. And you are never that far from the sea in Scotland. The pollen samples only show a change occurred, not particularly how. As for the railway, it actually floats on a raft of timber (due mainly to being driven through the lower elevations which were true bog"
Yep, know that about the railway (Stephenson did the same with Chat Moss on the L&M). But it also proves my point: blanket bog does not build up overnight. In some cases, it is as slow as 1mm a year.
To create a depth that would bother the railway navvies would have taken many, many centuries, and quite probably thousands of years. Far too long for the wood to have been cut down on mass for any heavy industry, yet alone the Navy.
It is worth a look at the Ecotricity website which reveals that they are anti-fracking. Also they are against any energy that is not renewable, It is a very emotional website which conceals the subsidies that it receives for wind farm produced electricity
As I highlighted the poll was commssioned by Ecotricity but that of itself does not mean it is biased. From the detail of the poll that we have I believe it was carried out in a fair manner.
The railway wasn't needed for transportation? As I pointed out, even in the stoneage people could shift bloody great stones miles, a bit of timber would hardly have posed much of problem to their ancestors? Especially when a profitable market was available.
@Charles " Pylons are a good example: they are hideously ugly & there would be a good case - perhaps in true Keynesian style - for burying the wires instead "
To expensive,,,,power cables and railway lines are only buried when the alternative is losing too many votes
From memory, burying high-voltage cables costs a minimum of ten times as much as the pylon method. If the cables are suspended in the air, the air radiates heat away. If they are buried, you need a medium to carry the heat away. In the case of a trans-Pennine 400Kv line, they use an old Woodhead Tunnel. Originally the cables were put in a water trough, and the water was 20 degrees warmer when it left the tunnel!
Whoever thought Angela Ripon and Paddy M was a winning double-act presumably paired Mick Fleetwood with Sam Fox at the Brits earlier in their career. Drivel.
I know the area around Wymeswold very well, having been born and raised in the area. We used to hide out in the old air field buildings with air rifles, pretending to be snipers, trying to hit the hares that infested the site. I paid a visit to friends still in Burton on the Wolds not long ago, and had a walk up to the place. It looks impressive, but is actually very discreet. The locals love it. It doesn't make any noise, masks the noise from the motorsport track that's still there, and more importantly, it put paid to the 6000 home new village that had been threatened for years on the aerodrome!
Being anti-wind farm is one of those issues that David H was talking about on the last thread, like being against gay marriage, or once upon a time being against electricity pylons. Once they're around, people get used to them. The same might in time be true of fracking, but it's newer and people are warier - really cries out for pilots and further studies rather than a mad dash. The gas isn't going anywhere.
I've been offline for a couple of days - seems quiet though. Too quiet - must be a trap.
The problem is that people don't value visual pollution correctly: wind farms have huge externalities in the way that fracking doesn't. Pylons are a good example: they are hideously ugly & there would be a good case - perhaps in true Keynesian style - for burying the wires instead
Mmm, but as Josias observes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder - how do you define "visual correctness"? I don't mind the look of pylons and positively like the look of wind turbines. A stretch of unbroken moorland doesn't interest me at all - for instance, the stretch of Northumberland west of Wooler seemed to be the dreariest place I've ever seen, but ~I know some who think it's great. I have no idea whether that's a common or rare view, and I can see a case for saying we need to protect a variety of views to cater for a variety of tastes. But "uninterrupted countryside"="great beauty" is not a universal opinion.
Being anti-wind farm is one of those issues that David H was talking about on the last thread, like being against gay marriage, or once upon a time being against electricity pylons. Once they're around, people get used to them. The same might in time be true of fracking, but it's newer and people are warier - really cries out for pilots and further studies rather than a mad dash. The gas isn't going anywhere.
I've been offline for a couple of days - seems quiet though. Too quiet - must be a trap.
The problem is that people don't value visual pollution correctly: wind farms have huge externalities in the way that fracking doesn't. Pylons are a good example: they are hideously ugly & there would be a good case - perhaps in true Keynesian style - for burying the wires instead
Mmm, but as Josias observes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder - how do you define "visual correctness"? I don't mind the look of pylons and positively like the look of wind turbines. A stretch of unbroken moorland doesn't interest me at all - for instance, the stretch of Northumberland west of Wooler seemed to be the dreariest place I've ever seen, but ~I know some who think it's great. I have no idea whether that's a common or rare view, and I can see a case for saying we need to protect a variety of views to cater for a variety of tastes. But "uninterrupted countryside"="great beauty" is not a universal opinion.
Josias, have you a connection to Tomatin and Strathnairn?
No and no, sadly. I think I stopped somewhere near Tomatin for petrol once, but that's as near as I get...
it was just the fact you had correctly spelt the unpronounceable local mountain range at the back of Tomatin made me think you must have local connections.
I know the area around Wymeswold very well, having been born and raised in the area. We used to hide out in the old air field buildings with air rifles, pretending to be snipers, trying to hit the hares that infested the site. I paid a visit to friends still in Burton on the Wolds not long ago, and had a walk up to the place. It looks impressive, but is actually very discreet. The locals love it. It doesn't make any noise, masks the noise from the motorsport track that's still there, and more importantly, it put paid to the 6000 home new village that had been threatened for years on the aerodrome!
As I have said passim, from the highest (man-made) hill in my village, I can see a wind farm (1), a windmill (2), a solar farm (3), and a modern wind-pump. I have no problem with any of them. I'd also be interested if anywhere else in the UK has such a good view of a range of modern and traditional green energy machines?
Josias, have you a connection to Tomatin and Strathnairn?
No and no, sadly. I think I stopped somewhere near Tomatin for petrol once, but that's as near as I get...
it was just the fact you had correctly spelt the unpronounceable local mountain range at the back of Tomatin made me think you must have local connections.
Heh. No, I just know the area vaguely from walking around aimlessly (otherwise known as lost). :-)
Whytlee, I seen the original raised peat bog drained and turned into a tax break forest, Apart from a few of the test blocks the trees are stunted and without value....but someone got rich.
Well, most of the forestry was created by the government to cope with a very real shortage of timber between the wars. The tax break forestry is wrong, and should be stamped on if it has not already.
But that's no reason to destroy more of the little wild land that is left...
We are seeing the new pylons being erected between Beauly and Denny so all the extra electricity being created in the Highlands and Islands can be shipped down to provide you folks in Englandshire with energy. I have to admit the new pylons are nowhere near as ugly and intrusive as I thought they would be. The Highlands have been covered with windfarms by the SNP government in Edinburgh who regularly overturn planning refusals by Highland Council. I have to say one gets used to them and while they may not be the most efficient source of energy or the least expensive, if it is a choice between blackouts (like the one the entire Highlands suffered on Wednesday night) and windmills, I'd build then everywhere.
The problem with the forestation of the 1970s and 1980s was that everyone planted those ghastly Norwegian fir trees because they grow quickly. I actually thought Caithness (the county of my ancestors) looked better covered in trees than just miles of bleak peat bogs but I would have preferred the forests to be Scots pine and Silver birch. Incidentally the tax relief under Schedule A was abolished by Margaret Thatcher and that was what brought the entire mass planting to a halt. Now most of those forests are being felled and as with those round my little place, replaced with broadleaf native species.
@Charles One of the Aberdeenshire land owners had a a similar plan. Unfortunately for him, the maturation of his trees co-incided with the rise of iron hulled ships. The legacy of the trees is truly spectacular though, so perhaps it wasn't in vain.
Comments
My wife, and I, and half a dozen neighbours, are battling to stop our farmer neighbour putting up a wind farm next door.
The first turbine to go up would be 420m directly upwind from us.... we will get a constant noise, and shadow flicker when the sun shines. As further turbines advance down the field towards us; the nearest could be only 100m from us.
I can hear the cries of Nimby from some of you, but we have a valuable property, the value of which is going to drop dramatically. The property represents a lifetime of hard work from both of us.
We wish, in the next few years to sell ( a house plus 4 letting cottages ) in order to retire.
The turbines will make that very difficult, even if the price is slashed.
Other neighbours will loose a lot of money too... and whilst this is happening the developer will make around £100k per annum, per turbine, with 10% going to the farmer. Not a bad return on the £500k cost of erecting each one.
Is this a fair way to conduct an energy policy; even if they ever produce a significant amount of energy, which frankly they won't ?
For instance, see the multi-phased Crystal Rig development (1) in the beautiful (but sadly little known) Lammermuir Hills. The second extension to the wind farm alone required 28 km of haul roads. (2)
Here's the full horror: just scroll around the area. Every turbine has a heavy-duty track leading to it.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Dunbar/@55.9000325,-2.5434908,1426m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x4887055dd8c95693:0xb3b047dbed3e10f2
Or even better, this one:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Dunbar/@55.8216525,-2.6656141,6371m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x4887055dd8c95693:0xb3b047dbed3e10f2
In that latter case, there was one small track in that area before the windfarm came, and that had only been built to provide access to a high-tension power line.
So all in all, nothing like your pathetic class-warfare comment...
(1): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_Rig_Wind_Farm
(2): http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archiveDS/archiveDownload?t=arch-823-1/dissemination/pdf/cfaarcha1-60179_1.pdf
The results of the YouGov survey, which questioned more than 1,000 Welsh adults on how they would vote, found that 62% answered No when asked if Scotland should be independent, with just 16% saying Yes."
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/wales-says-no-scottish-independence-7007185
No need. I have one of the biggest windfarms on the mainland on the hills above me.
141 in two days????]
It's almost exactly like that...
Far better things to spend the money on and the SNP defence plans are perfectly acceptable and in line with similar nations, who are all similarly secure, are very happy and rich and do not beggar themselves to cover insecurity or try and make out that they are big shots.
Brilliant. we can share out our nuclear arsenals among the other countries.....no more invasions!
But your comment "I would just say that population and building expansion are wreaking fair havoc on our landscape." proves my point. When we have areas that are still wilderness or near-wilderness, surely it is best to be protecting them rather than building on them?
Again, I have few problems with wind farms in lowland areas as long as they are economic, and the same goes for offshore.
If iScotland does not want to be part of NATO then that's fine, but that isn't the current SNP policy is it? Isn't being part of NATO part of the Yes votes offering?
I think it was a bit over a year ago I raised on here with you the question of RN shipbuilding post independence and you said that it was OK because Scotland neither wanted nor needed the work. Since then others have mentioned the possibility that Scotland's financial services industry would flee south in the event of independence, your response was that was OK because Scotland neither wanted nor needed that industry. Aside from the oil/gas fields, which depend on non-Scottish companies how do you see iScotland earning its place in the world?
Which farm's that? Clyde? Whytelee?
But that second link is really quite chilling, especially when zoomed out a little. Here it is again:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Dunbar/@55.8216525,-2.6656171,6370m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x4887055dd8c95693:0xb3b047dbed3e10f2
The Highlands are no where near a wilderness....it is overgrazed (mainly by deer these days) playground for the rich.
They call it "mambo" miles and miles of bloody nothing.
If the SNP cobbled together some leasing deal for Trident staying at Faslane as part of an Indy Scotland becoming a NATO member, I'd stop voting for them.
If you think NATO is only an effective military alliance because of its nuclear capacity, I'd say the game's a bogey. I'd certainly suggest that there's certainly something deeply unethical about a state wanting to 'punch above its weight' by retaining nuclear weapons while having those weapons stationed in another state.
There is no doubt that the anti-fracking campaigners are rapidly and decisively winning the argument, admittedly based on pretty nonsensical scare stories. The scare stories are, however, sticking, and no-one is making an attempt to correct them. There is already a strong grassroots anti-fracking movement forming.
This is a potential electoral time-bomb in rural (currently Conservative) constituencies; it is currently hidden because UKIP are of course very enthusiastically pro-fracking, and thus are not in a good position to harvest the anti-fracking protest vote. However, I expect this to change; my guess is that UKIP will change their position simply because they will want whatever protest votes are going, and they don't have to worry about details like the economy, energy security, or the contribution gas can make to reducing C02 emissions.
The one in the link is in the borders , east coast
Mr. G., Our posts keep crossing, my fault I am sure. The SNP "White Paper" section on defence is complete tosh and has no basis in reality. Far too much to go into in the time I have available to me now, Herself is shouting for attention. For the moment, let me point you at Denmark a country of 5.5m people, a member of NATO. Go look at her defences, then compare them with what the "White Paper" talks about (hint consider sunk costs).
One day, I shall sit you down with a large glass of something nice and you can explain to me why I am a fool/coward/Tory and any or all of the other epithets you like to throw at any one on here who disagrees with you. For now I must attend to Herself.
Tinkerty-tonk
http://www.sundaypost.com/news-views/scotland/salmond-s-great-wind-farm-rip-off-1.271296
http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21572234-how-independence-might-threaten-one-snps-favourite-industries-caution-wind
that is the SNP for you , they are happy to line their pals pockets at other peoples expense.
When the drilling is going on, it will likely be 24 hours a day. And while it isn't particularly noisy, having light industrial facilities in operation for such a long time, with comings and goings of crews (and deliveries of pipes and valves, and the like) will no doubt have an impact on the local residents. Plus, there'll almost certainly be some flaring, which looks pretty ugly when it's 100 yards away at 4am.
Basically, no-one would want one - really - on their doorstep. On the other hand, everyone thinks the residents of Little Whittering (20 miles away) should stop complaining and accept fraccing...
@AnotherDave has the best idea: forget the 'Sovereign Wealth Fund' and directly bribe the local community. A 10% royalty to go to the local council would assuage a lot of concerns. (It might even, given enough time and suitably productive rocks, get rid of most of the Council Tax in more rural areas).
A company we are working with has been asked by a supposedly Competent Authority to assess the viability of key installations when subject to grid electricity failure.
Visit the Flow Country and see what tax break foresting was really like.
On your way there stop a a few miles above the Devils Beeftub at the head of Loch Lomond.. and on the right hand side of the road you will see a small bit of what the highlands should look like. They excluded the deer and the place now looks like a jungle compared to the rest.
Write to David Cameron and ask him about tips and pitfalls?
But that's no reason to destroy more of the little wild land that is left...
As for forestry sources, the history of the Forestry Commission is vital reading.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forestry_Commission#History
If you look at the stats, then the FC owns over a third of all the UK's woodland. However, theirs is massively weighted towards the hated coniferous woodland when compared to non-FC woodland, which is majority broadleaved.
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/website/foreststats.nsf/36229df9e13e849e80256c090045f2fd/woodland.html
"Deteriorating climactic conditions which resulted in accelerated rates of leaching, the growth of acid blanket peat, and a marked increase in areas of waterlogged ground, led to the gradual decline of trees and the evolution of the present-day landscape of blanket peat and heather moor."
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3038192?uid=3738032&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21104034281863
I don't intend to be mean to you, but on your rambles in the highlands have you noticed that the islands on most of the lochs are covered in trees?
It wasn't climatic change, it was the exponential need for timber for the navy.
I learned about the supposed climate change in school. but if you look, you can see it is utter nonsense.
I've walked the West Highland Way, but I'm not aware of the Devil's Beeftub at the end of Loch Lomond. There's one near Moffat, but that's some distance away?
Besides, no one area shows what the Highlands 'should' look like. It's always been a massively varied landscape post-glaciation, and as the link I posted below shows, it changes. And the flora and fauna of the valley floor will always be radically different to that of above 2,000 feet.
The Flow Country is wonderful. I love it, although walking there alone is always rather scary. The forestation was terrible, as was the cutting of drains (did the EU give any money for that?). But again, it's a reason not to destroy any more of that landscape.
I'll prefer to believe an analysis of pollen from geological strata suggesting it was climate change. (1)
A question: before the railway was built in the 1890s, how did the Navy get all this cut-down timber from Rannoch Moor, which is a famed desolate and hard to reach spot nowadays, yet alone centuries before?
Note: I am not suggesting that no timber was cut down; just that there would not have been much of it, and the majority of the landscape would have been as it is now.
(1): http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3038192?uid=3738032&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21104034281863
They are making attempts at restoring it, but it will be a long time before it heals into it's (in this case) naturally mostly treeless state.
Bringing this back to where we started, they want to build a wind farm in a part of the Flow Country. Would you be in favour?
http://www.rspb.org.uk/news/details.aspx?id=356301
And you are never that far from the sea in Scotland.
The pollen samples only show a change occurred, not particularly how. As for the railway, it actually floats on a raft of timber (due mainly to being driven through the lower elevations which were true bog"
" Pylons are a good example: they are hideously ugly & there would be a good case - perhaps in true Keynesian style - for burying the wires instead "
To expensive,,,,power cables and railway lines are only buried when the alternative is losing too many votes
To create a depth that would bother the railway navvies would have taken many, many centuries, and quite probably thousands of years. Far too long for the wood to have been cut down on mass for any heavy industry, yet alone the Navy.
Spurs didn't concede in the first 3 minutes. Everything else is a blur after that miracle.
I'm tempted.
Especially when a profitable market was available.
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?arnumber=05177532
Maintenance costs of buried cables are also much larger.
Lab 30 UKIP 27 Con 22 LD 8 large differences between these figures and the recent ICM/ Guardian Lab -6 Con -3 UKIP +7 LD +2
I also backed Sunderland to win today
twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/457607087560736768
Obviously my opinion would be different if they planned to frack the lovely Dore.
Largest solar farm in the UK.
I know the area around Wymeswold very well, having been born and raised in the area. We used to hide out in the old air field buildings with air rifles, pretending to be snipers, trying to hit the hares that infested the site. I paid a visit to friends still in Burton on the Wolds not long ago, and had a walk up to the place. It looks impressive, but is actually very discreet. The locals love it. It doesn't make any noise, masks the noise from the motorsport track that's still there, and more importantly, it put paid to the 6000 home new village that had been threatened for years on the aerodrome!
You can bet on that!
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/19/labour-national-insurance-nhs?commentpage=1
Freck off, cup.
LAB 30
UKIP 27
CON 22
LD 8
Unlike ICM Guardian poll this was carried out online
Dr. Spyn, I'm very glad I got to see Downfall before the spoofs (many of which are rather good).
Also, didn't Farscape use... freck, was it? That show was quite mental. It also made it weird for me to watch the latter two seasons of Stargate SG-1.
http://www.pylons.org/exhibition/
(And no, I'm not a member, although they have used one of my photos)
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/iainmartin1/100268279/tories-are-braced-for-a-kick-in-the-euros-from-ukip/
(1): http://www.baywa-re.co.uk/projects/cotton-farm-wind-farm/
(2): http://www.millsofeastanglia.org.uk/TEAMS/Bourn.html
(3): http://www.skylarkmeadow.co.uk/
The problem with the forestation of the 1970s and 1980s was that everyone planted those ghastly Norwegian fir trees because they grow quickly. I actually thought Caithness (the county of my ancestors) looked better covered in trees than just miles of bleak peat bogs but I would have preferred the forests to be Scots pine and Silver birch. Incidentally the tax relief under Schedule A was abolished by Margaret Thatcher and that was what brought the entire mass planting to a halt. Now most of those forests are being felled and as with those round my little place, replaced with broadleaf native species.
One of the Aberdeenshire land owners had a a similar plan. Unfortunately for him, the maturation of his trees co-incided with the rise of iron hulled ships.
The legacy of the trees is truly spectacular though, so perhaps it wasn't in vain.