[Closed] Rannoch windfarm - keep Rannoch wild

So what's the solution? Where will the electricity come from?
Coal/gas? - Too Polluting
Nuclear? - Bloody expensive
Hydro Electric - fine but locations are very limited.
Those dead birds at the bottom of the page was a bit gruesome. Is there actual data that birds die any more than flying into houses and sky scrapers?

Matt's a NiMBY.

Who'd a thunk it.

Jamie

Matt's a NiMBY.

It's Rannoch Moor, it's not in [i]anyone's[/i] back yard. I think that's kind of the point.

The website feels a little bit nutterish but I can't help but agree- is this really the best place?

I like wind farms, they look magnificent, whereas Rannoch Moor is pretty bleak at the best of times....

Looking at map doesn't look like it'll be near rannoch moor. Its north of rannoch loch and east of loch ericht. Which is the middle of nowhere in amoungst some peaks. If they do it right I'd guess it could be fairly hidden.

I like wind farms, they look magnificent

[img] [/img]

Rannoch moor isnt wild

If you have ever been up Ben Alder or any of the nearby hills or ridden the classic Ben Alder loop you would realise that it is a pretty amazing area with little sign of human intrusion, short of the bothy at Ben Alder cottage and the path. It takes a few hours to get there by bike and probably a day by walking if you start from east, west or north. There are no turbines visible anywhere near it just now. It is not a good place for a wind farm. There is also no centre of population nearby to use the power. Why not stick them on the south downs and they can power London without cables the length of the country?

Windfarms are shit. Offshore wind even worse.

I agree, lets build some new thorium reactors.

Will it affect your views OP?

[quote=jamesybob ]If you have ever been up Ben Alder or any of the nearby hills or ridden the classic Ben Alder loop you would realise that it is a pretty amazing area with [b]little sign of human intrusion[/b],
Not true at all.

little sign of human intrusion

So what signs of human intrusion are there then? Once you're over the bealachs heading west past Ben Alder there's basically nothing bar a couple of small forests and you don't really see them much of the time. Was through there at Easter and just looked back through pictures. If you come in from the south there is a bit more granted but it is out of sight from Loch Ericht.

The point is if you keep putting them where there is little development very quickly there is no where left that has been not been developed and it is a lot harder to go back from that. SNH includes this area in it's core wild land map and I fully agree with that.

I thought tidal power was the future? Always on etc etc.

Desolate grazing land. It's not like you could make it uglier.

anagallis_arvensis - Member

Rannoch moor isnt wild

It's bloody wild if you get caught there in bad weather, believe me. 😀

Keep Scotland in its natural state (of being a huge shooting estate)!! 😡

Seriously though - mixed feelings about this one...

I'd build windfarms all around new estates and their lego houses. Would improve the look of the houses no end...

[quote=jamesybob ]Once you're over the bealachs heading west past Ben Alder there's basically nothing bar a couple of small forests
You really don't see the irony in that, do you?

If you come in from the south there is a bit more granted but it is out of sight from Loch Ericht.

jamesybob - Member
Why not stick them on the south downs and they can power London without cables the length of the country?

Someone else's back yard?

To me it is a bit different, yes it would be great if it was all natural forest or whatever was there at whatever random point in history suits you for that argument but currently there is water and plants and mountains, all stuff that is not obviously man made for about as far as you can see. The forests are not always visible but 400 foot turbine would be. So while I understand your point I don't agree with it. You might as well cover all the highlands in turbines and be done with it in that case.

I thought tidal power was the future? Always on etc etc.

Somebody else's back yard yes, where there is obvious development all around and a huge market for the power within eyesight. Why change areas that are a natural as is possible now in the UK when there are plenty that are near the population centres and already covered in roads, houses pylons etc

[quote=iolo ]Those dead birds at the bottom of the page was a bit gruesome. Is there actual data that birds die any more than flying into houses and sky scrapers?
Or are killed by cats?

Estimates of [b]how many creatures are killed by cats each year[/b] vary significantly.
The most recent figures are from the Mammal Society, which estimates that the UK's cats catch up to 275 million prey items a year, of which [b]55 million are birds[/b]. This is the number of prey items that were known to have been caught; we don't know how many more the cats caught, but didn't bring home, or how many escaped but subsequently died.

jamesybob - Member

To me it is a bit different, yes it would be great if it was all natural forest

I thought the current wisdom is that most of the deforestation there is natural? Warming causing the original forests to die off, then the short cold wet spell damaging the land enough to prevent easy return?

Or are killed by cats?

Will these turbines have cat bodyguards?

I have a real hatred of wind farms. Not only are they ugly and ineffective but also a scam - cut the subsidies and see how many schemes move forward. We seem to be inudated with them around here s/mid wales - they create no local jobs and our gov't has no say over the larger schemes which are imposed by the Westminster Gov't- I wouldn't mind if say they were built here or serviced and maintained here or I could hold our gov't to account. The Melincourt wind farm (the one now at Afan)is serviced from Germany or Denmark. A few wind farms in the Chilterns, South Downs on the Malvern Hills? HS2 and the world is going to end!

Nuclear[quote=Nipper99 ]cut the subsidies and see how many schemes move forward.

OP, I presume you use electricity. How would you prefer it be produced?

I posted this as I think we need to get fussy about the little wild land we have.

I am aware that the term wild is relative. The whole of that Valley is man affected - forests cleared and Loch Eric is artificially flooded, and the current and ruined roads and buildings. However, it is almost as good as it gets in the UK, and the solitude up there still impacts those of us fortunate enough to visit.
The thought that we could put in such massive structures, that would be visible from all sorts of places (see Muriel Gray's comments about seeing Shiehallion from every other top) is just beyond me.

It is not just wind farms - see the new access roads everywhere, and maintenence of massive sporting estates is also a big issue.
http://www.christownsendoutdoors.com/2014/05/the-devastation-of-eastern-highlands.html?m=1

For those asking about my power use and preference for generation - I live in the shadow of the braes of Doune wind farm. I think it is great - on the edge of a town, near a main road, next to grid tie etc.
What iI want is us all to use less, much less, and throw money at house insulation and efficiencies.

Or are killed by cats?

[img] [/img]

*continues drinking*

Top work Jamie

Jamie - Freeloader! But we still like him
Or are killed by cats?

*continues drinking*

I can hear Bill Oddie crying.

Are you going to stop driving because of potential road kill.

PS. Don't let facts get in the way of a good bit of hyperbole, the farm site isn't on the Rannoch moor neither.

have a real hatred of wind farms. Not only are they ugly and ineffective but also a scam - cut the subsidies and see how many schemes move forward

If you cut all the subsidies everyone would just build gas fired power generators. All very good and cheap in the short term, but does nothing long term for sustainability or CO2 levels.....

Where do I sign to support it?

More nuclear.

Why? Because it's reliable, managable (from a grid perspective) can be produced where it's needed, isn't an eyesore on otherwise "unspoilt" land and creates jobs, lots of jobs, oh so many jobs. It's also not as expensive as it's made out to be (special tariffs are more geared to getting investors quicker returns much like wind farms) and is on a rough par with hydro IIRC for investment costs and return times.

It's OK once the great Kingdom of greater Scotland is formed they won't need electric.

There isn't enough Uranium for everyone to go Nuclear, most of the current mines have extracted all the easy stuff. A lot of power stations use decommissioned weapons stuff, which won't last.

squirrelking - Member
More nuclear.
Why? Because it's reliable, managable (from a grid perspective) can be produced where it's needed, isn't an eyesore on otherwise "unspoilt" land and creates jobs, lots of jobs, oh so many jobs. It's also not as expensive as it's made out to be (special tariffs are more geared to getting investors quicker returns much like wind farms) and is on a rough par with hydro IIRC for investment costs and return times.
POSTED 4 HOURS AGO # REPORT-POST

Cheaper? Over its working life or the 250years afterwards when we are still managing the waste at great expense whilst building something else to take its place?!

Neuclear is a terrible idea.

Cheaper? Over its working life or the 250years afterwards when we are still managing the waste at great expense whilst building something else to take its place?!

Neuclear is a terrible idea.

Complete rubbish. There are tens of thousands of years worth of nuclear fuels on earth, and brilliantly, probably even more on the moon.

We don't have a nuclear waste issue even now - we have a massive nuclear fuel surplus, most of that "waste" has about 95% of the original energy in it. (Ignoring the huge amount of overalls, boots, and gloves that the ill informed insist must be treated as nuclear waste because it was once worn inside a nuclear site.) Want rid of that (real) nuclear waste? Build modern reactors. You can call it recycling if you like.

Nuclear isn't a "terrible" idea. Uranium based power just has some significant disadvantages.

Liquid Flouride Thorium reactors are theoretically more efficient, produce less waste materials and are inherently safe due to the properties of the fuel. Whilst there is research going on in the field, the general misinformation and paranoia in society regarding "nuclear" reactors, I think puts governments off pushing forwards with investing.

As for wind farms, there are fewer and fewer unspoilt (in modern times terms at least) parts of this country, and sticking up a job lot of windmills that aren't up to the level of efficiency that are claimed, interestingly by the companies that have a vested interest in their construction, isn't the way to go.

So instead of destrying the countryside through windmills we are going to dig it all up instead? Smashing.

Extraction of resources that will become ever more expensive as the easy stuff dries up, long term issues including dealing with ever more expensive buildings as they become older and outdated until eventually the need decommissioned all of which is hugely expensive. My point was claiming its cheap is total nonsense and due to the time its operational we have no way of knowing its true cost.

I personally think we should draw a line. Say this is it, this is all you are getting start being less wasteful and use what we have wisely. Because no matter what we do neuclear, wind, hamsterwheels... Thats where we will end up.

I think puts governments off pushing forwards with investing.

More like the massive investment, very long return period and hence having to commit to subsidies / guaranteed min pricing for decades. One huge great bet basically.....

mikewsmith - Member

It's OK once the great Kingdom of greater Scotland is formed they won't need electric.

LOL, Scotland has an energy surplus- we export 20% of our electricity to England (as does Wales). Not to mention producing over a third of it from renewables.

Wind currently providing 0.41% of UK demand, Nuclear 17%, Gas 50%, Coal 20%

http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

France 91% Nuclear

http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/france/

Right now, their entire countries electricity needs are being met form hydrocarbon free, non carbon emitting sources - thats a shining example to the rest of the developed world!

the OP's website is indeed a bit nutterish, if protestors made the effort to make rational well made websites they would be much more successful.

The pictures of vultures was my favourite part. Protect the vultures of Rannoch moor! I might start a a change.org petition to save them...

We already have a large stockpile of plutonium at Sellafield. If we burnt it in [url= http://gehitachiprism.com/what-is-prism/benefits-of-prism/ ]Prism reactors[/url] we'd have all the electricity we need for 100 years. No mining required. Waste returns to the radioactivity of the original ore in about 500 years.

Prism is just one of the possible approaches. Personally, I prefer the liquid salt reactors such as [url= http://transatomicpower.com/products.php ]Transatomic[/url] but Prism is a better funded, closer to deployable solution. [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor ]Candu[/url] is yet another mature technology.

I would be happy to live next to any of the above. I've got family who live next to the Candu in Pickering, Ontario and apart from growing extra heads they're fine.

Keep wild spaces wild.

Is the Angry Corrie still going?

I used to buy it occasionally when I was up that way, quite a good read.

What kills more raptors...wind turbines or shooting estates?

What kills more raptors...wind turbines or shooting estates?

Have you ever seen a living raptor on a shooting estate?

France 91% Nuclear

No it isn't. France is heavily reliant on imports and exports with its neighbouring countries (including the UK) in order to balance supply and demand.

Erm, Ransos, go and look at the link - France is [u]currently[/u] - ie right now as I type this, producing 47GW from Nuclear power, and their domestic demand is sitting at 53.19GW - plus they are producing a shedload of hydro power (10GW) that means they're currently exporting electricity to UK, Swizerland, Italy and Belgium.

Have you ever seen a living raptor on a shooting estate?

http://www.darlingtonandstocktontimes.co.uk/farming/11111390.Study_finds_that_merlin_thrives_on_grouse_land/

Erm, Ransos, go and look at the link - France is currently - ie right now as I type this, producing 47GW from Nuclear power, and their domestic demand is sitting at 53.19GW - plus they are producing a shedload of hydro power (10GW) that means they're currently exporting electricity to UK, Swizerland, Italy and Belgium.

Nothing in the link contradicts what I said: because France's nuclear can't easily be turned up or down, they are heavily reliant on imports and exports. To claim they are producing a particular amount on a snapshot basis is daft.

some one invent fission.
I like wind farms aesthetically
There will always be objectors. need to look at the bigger picture sometime because if its not one scheme its another scheme that nimby attitudes get in the way of.

for me we need to keep the lights on. there are lots of open spaces that frankly are enhanced by windfarms and others that are not.

they dont kill scores of birds ive not seen a one yet on the moors above rochdale they dont scare the sheep ducks hens cows either( unless the rochdale sheep ducks hens caow asre very good at hiding it) the same miserable grass grows and the sun still rises in the east no sign of the apocalypse..

on bleak industrial moor/ waste ground like we have here.. break a leg build all they want on virgin moorland ..lets leave something for other generations..

scotroutes - Member
Or are killed by cats?

Josh, until you can spell whatever your uninformed ramblings are on about I'll just be skimming them. FWIW I never mentioned the word 'cheap' anywhere, I said 'cheaper'. Big difference.

Joe, you're about 80 years too late. 😉