Lewis wind farm

[piper]

Tidal and Wave, Off-shore wind, Decentralised, local generation. Many land based wind schemes are fine. Many smaller wind developments, even in the Outer Hebrides are totally supported by the local population and do not desecrate the landscape. Biff's beautiful turbines seem fine. Many smaller scale wind-farms near us are - I'd even agree with Biff that they are beautiful. The problem with Lewis was the scale of it, the concrete infrastructure, the industrialisation of an entire unique landscape, AND the fact that in spite of the perceived "wilderness" quality of the Lewis moorland, it's not wilderness. North-West Lewis, along the coast, is actually quite populated. Partly because of Nature Conservation issues, the proposed windfarm would have been quite close to the villages. Maybe a huge windfarm could be built instead on the moorland behind Cape Wrath - that's not populated, in fact much of it is MOD land, but of course they need it to practice dropping bombs.
My issue with all this, is that for some people "if it's green it's good" whatever the consequences, and whatever the cost. Some people suggest (I exaggerate perhaps) - it's either accept Lewis Windfarms as a wonderful thing OR reveal yourself as a heartless, blind fool who wants to look at a "pretty view" and protect the birds, while allowing the population of Bangladesh to drown, and hasten the extinction of nearly all life on earth except the insects.

 

[biffvernon]

Well, Piper, if it was just me I wouldn't care. I don't think climate change will destroy the species during my lifetime. But I have a kind of interest in the future beyond my life. It's called altruism.

Building wind turbines, even in places with pretty views doesn't destroy more than a few square metres of grass that they stand on. And if one day we find we got it all wrong then we can take them down and put the turf back. We are not destroying anything with wind power.

The 'certainty' issue is interesting. Analogy time. You're taking a plane trip. The engineers have detected metal fatigue in all the available planes but it is not certain that the wing is going to fall off on the next flight, they just think it likely. You really really want to go on holiday. Do you say, "Unless you can be absolutely certain that this plane is going to crash, I want to fly".

 

[piper]

Yes Biff, I'm with you on the altruism really - but it doesn't alter my earlier questions. Granted that the building of the Lewis Wind Farm, and other massively destructive schemes (to quality of a place, not the actual turf) was seen by many as an "evil" - is that a lesser evil, which is justified in order to prevent the greater evil of catastrophic climate change?
If it were the only option, yes it would be. But is it the only option?

I would still like to put the hypothetical question to this Forum, frequented as it is by lovers of beautiful things, particularly architecture - and also by altruistic people who are concerned with climate change issues;

Would you approve the building of several hundred huge wind turbines closely around Lincoln Cathedral, or any other unique and beautiful building, such that they destroy not a few metres of pavement which can easily be repaired, but the "view", the "spirit of place" or whetever other quality you value about it?

 

[skier-hughes]

If the option are

To build the turbines around it, which meant it stayed in one piece to be viewed with turbines in place, or
The sea came in and washed it away and nobody ever saw it again ever ever,

What would be your choice?

Mine is to go with the turbines.

 

[Flyfisher]

A wind farm on Lewis (or anywhere else) is reversible, having the sea wash away most of Lincolnshire (for example) probably isn't. Yes, there are lots of uncertainties regarding climate change and energy resource depletion so wouldn't some 'insurance' be a good idea?

Think of windfarms as insurance and the 'loss of view' as the premium. If the climate threat goes turns out to be false then remove the windfarms and stop paying the 'premiums'. As Biff points out, wind turbines only 'destroy' a few square metres of moor so restoration would be easy.

On a more philosphical note, if the view across Lewis is impaired but no-one ever sees it, is it really impaired at all? Yes, there will be a few thousand people who have to live with a 'ruined' view but it might help to prevent global climate change that will affect 9 billion people (by 2050), most of whom won't even know where Lewis is let alone be affected by the spoilt view.

 

[Nemesis]

Once spoiled- spoiled. No, you can't reverse it. It's only then reclaimed land.

But who cares?

Bit like Stansted. Heavens - cheap flights good...

 

[Flyfisher]

Of course you can remove wind turbines and restore the tiny footprint affected; calling it reclaimed land is romantic nonsense.

But that's the problem with single-issue politics; a blinkered approach to a single issue makes it (seem) so much easier to resolve. The real challenge is to resolve ALL the world's issues simultaneously. Unfortunately, this seems to be an impossible task so people look for something simple to tackle instead and, in the process, something odd seems to happen to our priorities.

 

[Nemesis]

No, it's reclaimed land - it's not unspolit. Under those turbines are tons of concrete.

It's like mining. Once it's gone, it's called - reclaimed land.

But you know that.

8)

And Stansted? That' still OK? As flying is so much better that the train?

(I have a bottle of wine and a lot of correspondence to do, I need some amusement...)

 

[Flyfisher]

Any reason why the concrete under the wind turbines can't be completely removed if it's so important?

As for plane vs train, again the blinkered single-issue approach misses the wider issue; it's not 'green' to travel at all really. That Edinburgh energy-saving conference you were plugging is a case in point - hundreds of people travelling many thousands of cumulative miles (some no doubt flying in because of the distance) to hear a bunch of speakers talk about saving genergy in period properties, when all they had to do was post the papers on a website to disseminate the information (and to a wider audience).

Stansted? Well, if people will insist on travelling all over the world then flying would seem to be rather more practical than the train. When was the last time you took the train to America, or China, or Africa, or the Middle East, or the Far East or Australia . . . . ?

Cheers (hic!)

 

[Nemesis]

It's hardly unspoilt then is it?

It's - em - reclaimed.

Actually, I suspect most folks at the conference are travelling not at all far. On theor bikes even. And foot.

Certainly I doubt it's global

But anyone who want the papers sent I am sure it can be arranged.

Why would I want to go to those places? Full of forriners. Ways different from our own.

 

[Flyfisher]

Unspoilt, reclaimed . . . . semantics. If nobody could discern the difference between a 'reclaimed' bit of land and an adjacent 'unspoilt' bit of land then there is no physical difference. It's all in the mind.

Distance to the conference is not the point; why hold it at all when the results can be so easily disseminated without it?

You may not wish to travel abroad, millions of others do. What's your suggestion - ban international travel?

Again, blinkered simplistic thinking; we can all imagine a world governed by all our personal preferences - it's called fantasy. Meanwhile, in the real world the decisions are rather more difficult, which is why successive governments can never get things 'right'.

(more wine? :wink: )

 

[Nemesis]

Time for bed I think - bored now.

I could write the script for you.

Night.

 

[Flyfisher]

Yes, thinking about the wider issues can be very tiring, although I wouldn't call it boring.

Night.

 

[Nemesis]

No it's been a long day complaining to the local and regional press, the CE of the local authority, the PCC etc etc.

It's boring reading the same old stuff from you though. Predictable. Bet you are a wow in the pub.

 

[Flyfisher]

Predictable.

Indeed. Embark on a bit of self confessed trolling ("I need some amusement..."), then fail to engage in any meaningful discussion, finally claim to be too busy doing more important things.

 

[Nemesis]

Yawn. You failed to amuse.

 

[skier-hughes]

But anyone who want the papers sent I am sure it can be arranged.

No, I asked for info as I said it seemed to far for me to travel to make it worthwhile on an ecoligical point of view. I was told if I organised a meeting down here they'd all come down and give it.

 

[Nemesis]

I am sure that after the conference any printed information can be made available to you.


http://www.changeworks.org.uk/content.php?linkid=374

I think it's basically aimed at those in and around Edinburgh, although of course I understand anyone who wishes to get on their bikes is more than welcome.

Surprised you couldn't get another cheap flight though...

 

[biffvernon]

My experience of Scottish Islands suggests that the tourists like the views and the locals clutter them with wrecked cars, fridges and other junk that is too expensive to dispose of sensibly. But what if the choice was between putting the turbines on Lewis or in a neat row all the way down the Stanstead runway? That would be killing two birds with one stone

 

[Lime]

That would be killing two birds with one stone

Oh! I think a few more birds than that.