[Closed] 'Wild places' for wind farms

Was it here that someone asked us to sign the petition to protect the bmnatural landscape of rannoch moor?

😆

Is there a map of wind farms across scotland? Curious to the extent of the problem, or whether it's just nimby-ism. I quite like the ek one! 😆

Good place to take my bro and his new leccy bike to get him used to it! 😀 I went round it in my slicks it's that smooth mind you! 😆

[img] [/img]

Is there not already a huge artificial loch and Dam there? Am I thinking of the right location??
I think we have enough wind power now - we need a mix of sources and I would rather future investment went into small scale hydro and tidal flow

There are maps but i've only stared at a paper copy of one.

I used to design windfarms... there are a few...

Was it here that someone asked us to sign the petition to protect the bmnatural landscape of rannoch moor?

If there a map of wind farms across scotland? Curious to the extent of the problem, or whether it's just nimby-ism. I quite like the ek one

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/9645593/Interactive-map-every-wind-farm-site-in-the-UK.html

this is wind farm visibility apprently, 60%. Not actual wind farms.

[img] [/img]

http://renewables-map.co.uk/

@seosamh77 - 😯

That re-enforces my 'we must protect what we have' starting point on all this...

cheers matt. any maps that are of actual area, ie OS map style. pin pointing kinda obscures things I bit I'd imagine.

incidentally, anyone ever stood under the blades and watched them spinning towards you, very un-nerving the first time! 😆 they're bloody massive, whoooooshhh!

why do people think that an onshore wind farm is an eyesore when we have transmission wires and pylons all over the country. Have we all become so habituated to them that we just don't see them anymore?

The concrete bases are pretty permanent and the contracts in place to deal with reinstatement to previous condition don't seem to be worth very much. (According to little sis the lawyer who deals with these things, Her skeptometer is at 7)

The blades and towers have a design life and are easily removeable and probably recyclable to some extent.

I reckon you protect the famous tourist views and national parks and fling up turbines and cable cars where we can (Within reason) to improve access and the economy.

Matt

Protecting wild places are fine but my point about rannoch is the dirty great reservoir in it

curto80 - Member
why do people think that an onshore wind farm is an eyesore when we have transmission wires and pylons all over the country. Have we all become so habituated to them that we just don't see them anymore?

tbh the unlimited miles of managed forest annoys me more.

I also think a rather large percentage of lochs in scotland are hydro dams are they not?

this is wind farm visibility apprently, 60%. Not actual wind farms

The key word in zone of theoretical visibility is [b]theoretical[/b], it is taken as the literal tip if the blade (strangely that map doesn't differentiate between tip or hub), at 30km distance, with no account of screening by vegetation/buildings, haze, cloud etc. I'm fairly sure that map must be tip and not hub, which would give a significantly smaller theoretical visibility. I've done hundreds of them....

windfarm lifetime is 30yearsish, they're not there forever. Might be a gateway for other development, perhaps. But as a lower carbon stop gap measure onshore wind has a lot in its favour

Pretty much so curto. I think turbines rather elegant.

as for that map - I think it nonsense. Maybe with binos from the top of hills you can see windfarms that much

I live in a top floor flat in Edinburgh with 360 degree views - I can only see one wind farm about 25 miles away and only then with binos and when the seeing is good. According to that map windfarms are in view.

Wind Turbine life is 30 perhaps.

But you can bolt a new one on the base.

bigjim - Member
this is wind farm visibility apprently, 60%. Not actual wind farms
The key word in zone of theoretical visibility is theoretical, it is taken as the literal tip if the blade (strangely that map doesn't differentiate between tip or hub), at 30km distance, with no account of screening by vegetation/buildings, haze, cloud etc. I'm fairly sure that map must be tip and not hub, which would give a significantly smaller theoretical visibility. I've done hundreds of them....

agreed, i think it is a bit spurious.

True but in 30-60 years will onshore wind be economically viable?

Hopefully we'll have a better solution by then

Protecting wild places are fine but my point about rannoch is the dirty great reservoir in it

I am balancing my inner re-wilding and nature pro first response (and selfishness of enjoying being away in 'nature') with a pragmatic, income and job generating, land to be managed to balance competing aims outlook that I feel I should have more of...

@seosamh77 -

That re-enforces my 'we must protect what we have' starting point on all this...

Given that it's based on a 30km viewing distance, I'd say it's not that bad as you'd have to be fairly elevated to see that sort of distance. The distance to the horizon is less than 5km away.

Legally, the wild land areas thing doesn't mean a thing. Sadly, more energy is needed, so something has to give. At the moment birds and peat enjoy EU protection, and this one is just far enough from Forsinard for RSPB not to kick off about it.

My view is that this is a good result for the local community. Hopefully their opinion and wishes were a factor in this decision.

And I still think we need to protect many wild places

does this actually exist in mainland UK? not trying to be contentious, genuinely curious as most "wild" places turn out to be managed to within an inch of their moss, mostly.

Fair point, that needs to be applied to 99% of Scotland's land and 100% of the rest of the UK. None of our environment is 'natural' and 'wild', without effect of man all over it.

Precisely. The argument is actually about familiarity.

I like the look of windfarms, and while I don't mind them I can appreciate that others do. I am all for protecting wild* areas where we can, and there is an argument there about the presence of windfarms affecting tourism. To be honest the biggest complaint I hear from tourists here (mainly from Europe) is the amount of litter in our wild* places, only rarely has windfarms came up in conversation.

*I think we really mean scenic here as opposed to true wild.

does this actually exist in mainland UK?

For a given definition of 'wild' - Yes.

The definition I prefer is no obvious encroachment from development/man made structures etc.

Personally though I can forgive the sight of a distant windfarm from a Cairngorm summit. Where I think 'wild' land should be protected is when we get to the point where you can't walk or camp anywhere without being within spitting distance of a turbine/dam/access road/etc. etc.

Thankfully I think we are a long way from that point yet and despite my inner NIMBY kicking up a fuss I try to be pragmatic about wind farms.

(although having said that, I do worry that windfarms are being developed where they suit private landowners best, not where they would actually serve the population best, surely we should be developing the Campsies and the Ochils before remotest Sutherland?)

nickc - lots of land in Scotland with little management other than controlling the number of grazing animals wild and domestic. But almost no "natural" land as it would be covered in mixed forest if it was untouched.

I got into a online argument with nimbys about this ( surprise surprise) as they were claiming a windfarm on the monadliath would spoil an "unspoilt wilderness". The monadliath is a mix of grouse and deer shooting land with some plantation forestry. ie completely managed and an artificial environment

I'd like to see a similar map to the above with "can see/hear a road" indicated instead.

Hopefully we'll have a better solution by then

thanks tj, understood.

thestabiliser - Member

True but in 30-60 years will onshore wind be economically viable?

Hopefully we'll have a better solution by then

There's a reasonable chance that absolutely none of our current power generation methods and infrastructure are economically viable in 60 years. Doesn't mean we should stop.

This government is very pleased at telling Europe to go **** itself.
Building loads of renewable and being able to tell the Russians and Saudis to go **** themselves would be a lot more satisfying.

I got into a online argument with nimbys about this ( surprise surprise) as they were claiming a windfarm on the monadliath would spoil an "unspoilt wilderness". The monadliath is a mix of grouse and deer shooting land with some plantation forestry. ie completely managed and an artificial environment

Indeed 5th. It was the description of it as an "unspoilt wilderness" I disagreed with. Its a giant deer and grouse farm

thestabiliser - Member
True but in 30-60 years will onshore wind be economically viable?

Hopefully we'll have a better solution by then

Well one thing is for sure wind isn't going to run out nor is the price of it likely to increase in 30-60 years .

Northwind - Member
thestabiliser - Member
True but in 30-60 years will onshore wind be economically viable?

the hinkley c power plant will only have a 60 year lifespan.

Onshore wind is the cheapest viable form of power generation. Turbines are becoming cheaper and more efficient. It makes no sense not to utilise it where environmentally appropriate. What the government have done to the planning regime, especially compared to what they've done for fracking, is scandalous.

Wind turbine = triggers broom

Your thoughts - I am torn and while my first response is 'protect wild places', I also get the local communities pragmatic response that they need income and jobs (although the money will not go far...)

The b&b's will do well putting up the contractors, that's about it

seosamh77 - Member

the hinkley c power plant will only have a 60 year lifespan.

We're talking 30-60 years here, so hinkley c might actually be operational by then

NW, wasn't referring to lifespan as a negative. Just that they're no necessarily permanent.

Re the wind not running out, if we can lower the cost of offshore wind then we're laughing.

Given that it's based on a 30km viewing distance, I'd say it's not that bad as you'd have to be fairly elevated to see that sort of distance. The distance to the horizon is less than 5km away.

It is 30km visibility radius from each wind farm and the observer height should be around 2m above the ground level of the terrain model being used. For some offshore windfarms I seem to recall using 35km buffer of wind farm given the sea being flat, horizon distance is not 5km. I'd imagine the data used in that map will be fairly coarse at 50m resolution or larger and thus visibility will be a bit over represented as a result..

Fill your boots on the topic here http://www.snh.gov.uk/planning-and-development/renewable-energy/visual-representation/

And here's an interpretation of wild land

http://www.snh.gov.uk/protecting-scotlands-nature/looking-after-landscapes/landscape-policy-and-guidance/wild-land/mapping/

It is a bit off though.

From personal experience. Whitelees wind hill farm, you can see that from the north side of glasgow, ie up the top of the high street and stuff on a good clear day, it's 20km away but it hardly spoils the view.

From the southside, ruggie and the like, only turbine you can see is the one up at cathkin braes mtb course, aye you can see it, but it's there so you do see it, it's a sort of monument to wind turbines. I like it for the fact it's a lone turbine. And it's an area i'm very local too.

That map is coloured as if you can see turbines from all of glasgow, you can't. Even less so if you exclude the braes turbine.

So, it's a bit alarmist the map I posted tbh. why I was curious if there was an actual map with correctly draw in their relative sized areas rather than dots. guess you would need a bit of patience to got through all the OS maps to get that.