Nemesis
Member
- Messages
- 9,402
- Location
- Planet Earth
Nor, it seems, is limiting our use.
- Thread starter Nemesis
- Start date
worms
Member
- Messages
- 1,992
- Location
- ultima Thule
Coming back to the question of the Barvas Moor development...
It's not just about the birds (although since the development crosses several EU designated sites there are legal restrictions to what the Government can and cannot allow), there is also the question of the amount of CO2 released from the disruption of the hydrology of the peatland.
Nor is it a question of there being no windfarms developed in the Western Isles. There are other developments already in the pipe-line. In the future, the Western Isles will be a net exporter of electricity and probably have a net zero carbon economy - even without this particular development.
Surely it is correct for Government to direct wind farm developments to the most suitable sites and away from those which are more sensitive to damage?
It's not just about the birds (although since the development crosses several EU designated sites there are legal restrictions to what the Government can and cannot allow), there is also the question of the amount of CO2 released from the disruption of the hydrology of the peatland.
Nor is it a question of there being no windfarms developed in the Western Isles. There are other developments already in the pipe-line. In the future, the Western Isles will be a net exporter of electricity and probably have a net zero carbon economy - even without this particular development.
Surely it is correct for Government to direct wind farm developments to the most suitable sites and away from those which are more sensitive to damage?
worms said:
Very well said, Worms. And at last an insightful comment from someone who (am I right?) actually lives and works somewhere in several ways much closer to the Western Isles than many of us here.
I have also repeatedly said in my posts - It's NOT about the birds, it's not so that I and a few other nimbyish, sentimental summer visitors can enjoy a "nice" view over bleak moorland and feel romantic about imagining we're in a real "wilderness" (offensively inappropriate word when applied to the Scottish Highlands and Islands), and it's not because we think the local population should just be picturesque, Sabbath-observing crofting folk. It's because we think that this particular scheme, in it's currently proposed form, is not the way to go about tackling the very real problem of sustainable power generation in Britain (and yes, we DO understand the problem, and the looming crisis).
It's also touches the much deeper philosophical and moral issue of whether we are going to have to desecrate (sorry - emotive word) unique and fragile places, so that people can go on leaving their lights on all night; whether our very real fear of what could happen in the future means that ALL wind-generation schemes are to be uncritically welcomed, and whether anybody who objects to any of them, for whatever reason, is automatically pilloried either for ignorance of the problem or for being sentimental about birds.
Nemesis
Member
- Messages
- 9,402
- Location
- Planet Earth
Yup.
And we could use less, otherwise the more we use the more we will need to produce.
Unpalatable I gather, but true.
(My own view is that the Wild Hills of Wannee and in view of a World Heritage Site which people visit because of remoteness and peace maybe isn't the greatest choice. See the Persona links to the inquiry site. I am not ignorant of the problem either.)
And we could use less, otherwise the more we use the more we will need to produce.
Unpalatable I gather, but true.
(My own view is that the Wild Hills of Wannee and in view of a World Heritage Site which people visit because of remoteness and peace maybe isn't the greatest choice. See the Persona links to the inquiry site. I am not ignorant of the problem either.)
Flyfisher
Member
- Messages
- 10,236
- Location
- Norfolk, UK
I understand all those sentiments, and it would be wonderful if we could, somehow, persuade the world's population to stop breeding quite so prolifically, start using significantly less energy, cut back on continuous economic development with all the attendant benefits it brings and generally lead simpler and more pastoral lifestyles in order to ease the burden on the planet. But, let's be honest, it's not going to happen is it?
I'm sure the Western Isles might well be close to being a net exporter of electricity and have a zero carbon footprint, but that's hardly a big achievement for such a sparsely populated place with such an abundance of wind. If the rest of the UK was as sparsly populated then we could perhaps be a bit more optimistic about things, but the reality is that there's another 55 million people to consider.
As for desecrating the landscape, modern agriculture has already done that. That, and pillaging pretty much every oak tree in the land to build houses (that we're now so keen to preserve) and ships to fuel our global colonial ambition. We might wish things to be different but we must face reality. We are where we are and it's no good trying to solve the problems we face by wishing we were somewhere else.
Biff gave a good summary of the uncertainties we face and, faced with such uncertainties, surely the prudent approach is to build ourselves some options. Perhaps we don't need such massive wind farm developments in the Western Isles and perhaps climate change won't trigger one of Biff's tipping points (well, not his personally!), causing the gulf stream to shutdown and cutting off the UK's temperate climate (which would have a far more serious effect on the Western Isles than a bunch of windmills). Or perhaps we shouldn't take that chance.
Faced with such a potential catastrophe, isn't it better to risk making the mistake of building a massive windfarm that might not be needed than making the mistake of not building one that is? At least it would be reversible.
Alternatively, instead of just objecting to a particular proposal - undoubtedly with all sorts of good reasons - wouldn't it be more constructive to propose an alternative scheme that would match the power output of the Western Isles proposal? As someone once said, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
I'm sure the Western Isles might well be close to being a net exporter of electricity and have a zero carbon footprint, but that's hardly a big achievement for such a sparsely populated place with such an abundance of wind. If the rest of the UK was as sparsly populated then we could perhaps be a bit more optimistic about things, but the reality is that there's another 55 million people to consider.
As for desecrating the landscape, modern agriculture has already done that. That, and pillaging pretty much every oak tree in the land to build houses (that we're now so keen to preserve) and ships to fuel our global colonial ambition. We might wish things to be different but we must face reality. We are where we are and it's no good trying to solve the problems we face by wishing we were somewhere else.
Biff gave a good summary of the uncertainties we face and, faced with such uncertainties, surely the prudent approach is to build ourselves some options. Perhaps we don't need such massive wind farm developments in the Western Isles and perhaps climate change won't trigger one of Biff's tipping points (well, not his personally!), causing the gulf stream to shutdown and cutting off the UK's temperate climate (which would have a far more serious effect on the Western Isles than a bunch of windmills). Or perhaps we shouldn't take that chance.
Faced with such a potential catastrophe, isn't it better to risk making the mistake of building a massive windfarm that might not be needed than making the mistake of not building one that is? At least it would be reversible.
Alternatively, instead of just objecting to a particular proposal - undoubtedly with all sorts of good reasons - wouldn't it be more constructive to propose an alternative scheme that would match the power output of the Western Isles proposal? As someone once said, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
Nemesis
Member
- Messages
- 9,402
- Location
- Planet Earth
That depends on your view of reversible.
Flyfisher
Member
- Messages
- 10,236
- Location
- Norfolk, UK
More easily reversible than one of Biff's climate tipping points?
Nemesis
Member
- Messages
- 9,402
- Location
- Planet Earth
The comparison is a spurious one.
Define reversible in the context of a huge windfarm.
Define reversible in the context of a huge windfarm.
skier-hughes
Member
- Messages
- 3,414
- Location
- Staffs, UK
Once built can be taken down, nature would then, as it always does, recover the area for it's needs in the way that is suitable at the time.
Nemesis
Member
- Messages
- 9,402
- Location
- Planet Earth
That's not really 'reversible' though.
skier-hughes
Member
- Messages
- 3,414
- Location
- Staffs, UK
In which cae what do you define reversible as?
biffvernon
Member
- Messages
- 4,607
- Location
- Lincolnshire
Just a few cubic metres of concrete at the base of each tower, but I can't seem them being taken away for a very long time, unless you know something about cold fusion and zeropoint energy that the rest of us don't.
Nemesis
Member
- Messages
- 9,402
- Location
- Planet Earth
Remind me never to stand near anything you have built.
skier-hughes
Member
- Messages
- 3,414
- Location
- Staffs, UK
But if you wanted it reversed the concrete could be broken up and removed, couldn't it?
The hole filled with soil again?
Ok, you have where does the concrete go, but it could go somewhere it was required surely? Hard core for new houses in brownfield sites?
The hole filled with soil again?
Ok, you have where does the concrete go, but it could go somewhere it was required surely? Hard core for new houses in brownfield sites?
Nemesis
Member
- Messages
- 9,402
- Location
- Planet Earth
I just don't know where to start.
So I won't.
So I won't.
skier-hughes
Member
- Messages
- 3,414
- Location
- Staffs, UK
Please do, as I see it as reversible, just wanted to know why isn't.
What is wrong with my assumptions?
What is wrong with my assumptions?
biffvernon
Member
- Messages
- 4,607
- Location
- Lincolnshire
Nemesis
Member
- Messages
- 9,402
- Location
- Planet Earth
And how high are they?
biffvernon
Member
- Messages
- 4,607
- Location
- Lincolnshire