Just another case of not in my backyard?
We need to realise they have to go somewhere, when it comes to protecting our natural environment they are no where near as damaging as an oil spill! and the effects are non permanent, as soon as SSM come up with a better solution we can take them down!
|
 |
 Just as a follow up. The situation with tomorrow's planning committee meeting is, according to SMM, that if the application is endorsed by the committee, the project most likely goes ahead, though the decision may still be appealed. If the project is rejected, the application goes to public inquiry by the Scottish Government, if they approve the plan, it goes ahead.
Ethically I think it's a really interesting situation. On the one had, sustainable power has to be a good thing, on the other, a lot of people find turbines intrusive in the extreme and don't want to see them in areas of natural beauty, which unfortunately tends to be where they work best - hills...
My personal opinion is that you need to judge each application on its merits and try to take all sides into account. That's what democracy is about no? And of course, it's always easy to cry NIMBY when the backyard is someone else's, but of course, the whole point of National Parks, in a sense, is that they are intended to be everyone's back yard.
|
|
I see lots of wind turbines when I fly into Amsterdam. In the abscence of hills in the Netherlands the turbines are sited in the docks, industrial areas, along motorways and seem to work ok. This also gives easy access for construction and maintainence. These locations argue against the UK's reasons for placing turbines on hills, not only being an eyesore but access roads must be built and cables laid or pylons built to the further detriment of the countryside.
|
|
sorry but wind turbines are an eyesore, kills birds and bats, and do not provide the power modern society requires. If you think they are "sustainable" do some research on the rare metals that are needed to build each one, and the massive pollution the mining process causes in China. By the way none of the wind turbines are turning in Holland today - the "sustainable" wind decided not to turn up. Thank God for coal and gas power. I'd hate to be in a hospital waiting for an op if the power depended on the wind.
|
|
 Kill birds? Evidence please as the rspb seem to differ in opinion. They can only kill some bats if sited near bats or is it otherwise magic.
Pollution differentials between windmills and other means of generation. What are the differences?
So what is/are the other real world options?
Turbines are only placed on hills to annoy people. Lets not get confused by the laws of physics as you've made up your mind. Confusion is such a bind.
Nice report jon.
|
|
.JPG) I'm confused Parky, are you for or against?
|
|
 Niether he just wants proof to statements people like to throw into these debates I think?
|
|
 He's The Devils' Advocate  tl;dr If we must build these things, stick them in the towns and cities. That's where the consumers are. Our "local" turbine continues to cause much wailing and gnashing of teeth, mainly because of its' visual impact. (It's fuckin' huge) Wee Ecks' vision > Tourism
|
|
I'm against stupid reasons people like to throw into these debates. Unsubstantiated codswallop sways nobody's opinion. Facts are grabbed from the air and reformed into imaginative evidence and proof that windmills could make my cat run up the curtains, turn nearby wildlife into zombies and increase the price of tomato soup.
As i said, nice report jon.
|
|
Only reason required : they don't even nearly do what they're supposed and claimed to do by the generation companies.
|
|
Kill birds? Evidence please as the rspb seem to differ in opinion.
Just one of the many links from asking about bird kills on a search engine:-
On 12 January 2012, at the First Scientific Congress on Wind Energy and Wildlife Conservation in Jerez de la Frontera, Spain, the Spanish Society of Ornithology (SEO/Birdlife) made public its estimate that, yearly, Spain’s 18,000 wind turbines may be killing 6 to 18 million birds and bats (1). The average per turbine comes down to 333 – 1,000 deaths annually, which is a far cry from the 2 – 4 birds claimed by the American wind industry, or the 400,000 birds a year estimated by the American Bird Conservancy for the whole United States, which has about twice as many turbines as Spain.
|
| Edited: 17/01/12 12:39 |
"Only reason required : they don't even nearly do what they're supposed and claimed to do by the generation companies." there is a body of expert opinion that would disagree with that statement backed up by rather a lot of proper numbers and engineering. as does government energy policy. as does scottish enerygy policy to further the target aims of the energy policy. spain's 18,000 turbines MAY be making my cat run up the curtains which is just as valid a statement as that made. does that mean that scotland's turbines, not situate on any migration path or near bat colonies, MAY each kill 333-1,000 birds annually. if so i would have thought at least someone WOULD have noticed that number of carcasses strewn about the ground. now split the bird deaths out by year of turbine installation. any change on the figures? windmills are an evolving technology which is changing rapidly as lessoons are learned from experience. birds are killed by turbines just as birds are killed by overhead powerlines and sheets of glass. it seems to be rather unlucky being a bat but i don't think they install turbines near to bat colonies anymore. or do they?
|
| Edited: 17/01/12 13:43 |
I don't think they look nice. Is that a good enough reason?? Is for me. 
|
|
whether windmills work, are economic, are the wrong colour or whatever other prejudices and grasp at the ice floe for support you may wish to encompass the pure simple and only FACT of the situation is that planning committees approve windmills. actual FACT. no supposition or wild-eyed claims. central government policy wants windmills - as does local government. the committees/enquiries can not go against government policy so no point wasting your breath or blood pressure over it. to change that aspect you must change government policy. you can object to windmills on "spoils the view"** or environmental factors (pollution, noise, wildlife damage etc). that's about it. i think. i'd be pleased to be proved wrong on that. **a very loose definition which boils down to spoils the view but is in fact much more. some argumanets against i think actually favour their siting. e.g. kills birds and bats? put them up there on those hills where there aren't so many of them. affect's nesting birds - huzzah as the rest of the environment loves not having birds wandering around eating them and pulling things apart. those who do the unglamorous boring constant repetition of rational and sensible discussion with ears that are attached to influence are the ones who will get, hopefully, things changed. the anti-zealots merely do their best to undermine the efforts of those who actually understand the problemby tarring opposition with a loony tag.
|
| Edited: 17/01/12 13:42 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the big windmill on the M4 at Reading Junction 11 looks rather good.
I live need the Didcot towers of power and I'd much rather see rows of windmills across the Ridgeway above my house than a new nuclear power station next door.
In terms of bird strikes, looking at the bloodshed on my daily commute, I think the cars on our roads would appear to be a bigger threat to the bird population.
|
|
