Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Saturday, 19th July 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Lammermuirs' wild beauty 'at risk from wind farms'



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 01 March 2008
IT IS one of the last truly wild places in southern Scotland, its low-lying but dramatic hills inspiring the likes of Sir Walter Scott.
But, according to modern-day writer Richard Havers, the beauty of the Lammermuir Hills faces being scarred by numerous wind farms because there is no national strategy to ensure a fair distribution across the country.

While much of the recent focus on wind farms has centred around plans to build 176 turbines on Lewis, in the Western Isles, there are, at the moment, three small wind farms in the Lammermuir area. But five more schemes have been granted planning permission and two more are being considered.

All told, the Lammermuirs – the setting for Scott's The Bride of Lammermoor – could become home to a more than 260 turbines, or about 15 per cent of Scotland's current total.

Mr Havers, a local campaigner who has written books with former Rolling Stone Bill Wyman, said the situation highlighted the lack of an overall plan that would prevent an over-concentration in one area.

Wyman, a friend for many years, agreed while visiting the area and was moved to register his objection online to the largest of two proposals, which would see 48 turbines built at Fallago Rig, currently being considered by a public inquiry.

The Scottish Wild Land Group said the number of wind farms proposed for the Lammermuirs risked losing their character, while the John Muir Trust described the lack of a strategic plan to ensure the farms were located in the most sensible places as "one of the biggest mistakes" of the previous Scottish Executive administration.

Mr Havers, 56, said: "My argument has always been that the Lammermuirs have sort of been taken by stealth. In the Lammermuirs, it's just creeping, creeping, creeping.

"My argument is not that wind farms per se are a bad thing. There's obviously a need for renewable energy, there's no question of that. I'm not a climate change denier, far from it.

"But there's no real strategy for wind farms. Everything is taken on a one-by-one basis and here in the Lammermuirs we have this cumulative process going on.

"There's seems to be a lack of joined-up thinking in all this. It as though people in central government don't want to take responsibility."

He said Wyman had come to the area for a week and they had gone out walking to engage in their hobby of metal detecting.

Wyman was sufficiently angered by the Fallago Rig plan that he made an official objection. "He just did the standard thing online," said Mr Havers.

Alistair Cant, of the Scottish Wild Land Group, said: "We are certainly very concerned about the lack of a proper national strategy, positively directing them (developers] towards places where, environmentally and locationally, it's better, but where there may not be so much wind.

"The Lammermuirs have hidden delights. If we get the whole lot covered by four, five, six wind farms, we are losing the character of these places. One does wonder why they can't site wind farms away from these hills – in forestry land, for example.

"We are totally in favour of renewable energy, but it has to be sited sensibly."

Helen McDade, of the John Muir Trust, which campaigns on landscape issues, believed wind farms were being sited on an "ad hoc" basis.

"It just depends where applications go in. There is no national strategy and it was one of the biggest mistakes of the previous administration," she said.

"The cumulative effect can be taken into account in planning applications, but decisions are made on a decision-by-decision basis. Depending on which one comes up first, the worst one can get put through.

"A strategy for distributing them … it's not something that has been looked at. It is being left to be picked up ad hoc by the planning system."

A spokesman for the Scottish Government said there was "a sound national policy context for onshore wind developments", adding that "cumulative impact is a consideration for any application".


The full article contains 684 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

Haggis, neeps 'n' tatties for me!,

01/03/2008 01:11:07
Annabel Goldie rocks!

She is the most intelligent speaker in Follyrood.

Salmond is a propagandist par excellence but Annabel Goldie actually has a profound grip and thinks clearly through the issues with a genuine desire to deliver quality services for the Scottish people.
2

Mercutio,

FALKIRK 01/03/2008 01:17:50
She certainly seems to be the only party leader who can get the FM to actually answer a question.
3

Rubbersbutnotrulers,

01/03/2008 01:41:35
Ms Goldie is a very articulate and eloquent debater. She makes FMQs worth watching.
4

Mallory,

Edinburgh 01/03/2008 03:36:40
http://www.youtube.com/v/c3FZtmlHwcA
Shows one windmill that went very wrong
5

Fairplayforruralscotland,

01/03/2008 07:15:20
Wind farms are a con
6

Argyll on line,

Argyll 01/03/2008 08:05:46
Fight these monstrosities as we do in Argyll.
7

Richardinho,

01/03/2008 08:14:57
The Lammermuir hills are a vast (relatively speaking) area in the south of Scotland and there's pretty much nothing there. There used to be forests, but they all got chopped down, so the notion that this is an 'unspoilt' area is misguided.

There are large pylons running through the hills and people seem entirely content with them. Truth is you hardly notice them once you're used to them.

Elsewhere on this site is an article questioning whether of not Scotland is 'closed for business'.
It is true that we are very much a 'no' society, where any innovation, any development arouses opposition from people desperate for things to 'remain the same'.
The danger is that we will stay the same and the rest of the world will move on.
8

El Sabio,

Sibbertoft 01/03/2008 08:21:02
Yes but there are very definitive studies on health, energy costs - the wind farms are very capital intensive and the ordinary citizen has to pay
9

Richardinho,

01/03/2008 08:23:50
What does that mean?
10

El Sabio,

Sibbertoft 01/03/2008 08:24:35
Besides the scar on the view:

Turbine noise is a problem. Turbine noise is louder at night. This can result in sleep deprivation for those in the vicinity

Electricity costs will double


11

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 01/03/2008 08:27:34
Wind farms are simply not a viable economic proposition. If they were then they would not require all this public subsidy.

Repeatedly I pass wind farms with machines not working, and yet no one repairs them. I guess that supports the idea that the money is made building them, and that running them hardly matters.
12

Richardinho,

01/03/2008 08:27:52
'Turbine noise is a problem. Turbine noise is louder at night. This can result in sleep deprivation for those in the vicinity'

In the Lammermuir hills?
13

robbee,

Lauder 01/03/2008 09:02:35
The arguments that wind farms are not economically viable and spoil the view seem short sighted. They may not be cheap, but they don't poison the environment. If you look at them and they offend you, then just remember, you will be here only for a very short time. The consequences of you're actions will not. I am sure future generations will be great full that you did not totally @rse the planet just because it spoilt you're view. Now stop behaving like toddlers.

14

Unimpressed one,

01/03/2008 09:12:16
#7, "The danger is that we will stay the same and the rest of the world will move on."

Too right there. The rest of the world will realise the folly of using an 18th century technology for attempting to deliver 21st century energy and slowly but surely, start dismantling the windmills. Meanwhile the global temperatures will continue to drop whilst our CO2 emissions increase. The politicians and the green bams however, carry on with the climate change guff until the next green bogie comes along. (yuk!)
15

Steve,

Bo'ness 01/03/2008 09:13:22
1, Blatant propaganda.
Annabelle Goldie is a good politician, and head and shoulders above Wendy and Nicol. I have a lot of time for her. A smart woman. But she can't touch Salmond. And as a unionist, she will always put the union before Scottish interests. Shame really.
16

TheFife,

Beverly Hills, CA 01/03/2008 09:30:15
This link addresses itself to a very serious and very real problem with these turbines. Whatever is done most certainly must be done with both eyes wide open and acknowledging the consequences of the actions.

Note the impact of bird here:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-01-04-windmills-usat_x.htm
17

Ayegudyin,

01/03/2008 09:38:28
I grew up in the east of the Lammermuirs, and driving to and from edinburgh along the A1, we would pass by the coal plant at Dunbar, then Torness Nuclear power station. Both of these things are EYE SORES. Everytime I pass by a windfarm I am captivated by it. I think they are amazing, and as I child I would want to go and stand beside them to really take in the power of the wind. But the most important thing is that they are a million times better than any fossil fuel plant.

So many of you shout and scream any time a windfarm is mentioned, because it will spoil the beauty of the landscape, but is this a landscape that you take in every day? is this a place where you raise your children?

That was where my father raised his children, and I say build windfarms, and if we can build enough to take away Torness then do it. Those hills can be cold, bleak, lonely places, with wind that does nothing but batter on the door and tear up trees. Why not harness it to provide energy for our children that does not destroy the earth?
18

Yes We Can,

Lauder 01/03/2008 09:40:58
Did I miss something?
What has the is article got to do with Annabel Goldie???
Why are you mentioning her in this context?
19

OscarMacApfel,

Dumfries 01/03/2008 09:43:06
The sheep don't seem to mind them, if they don't complain why should we?
20

11+failed,

the pans 01/03/2008 10:21:52
17 Ayegudyin
Time to change these rose tinted glasses you view the world through. That "coal plant" at Dunbar is a cement works. Where do you think the cement comes from to build these massive concrete bases that your beloved wind mills sit on?
21

AbandonAllHope,

01/03/2008 10:34:48
Mindless vandalism really
22

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 01/03/2008 10:37:16
It is time people realised that no matter how many windmills of mass destruction are splattered across the Scottish landscape, they will never replace any of our other power stations. They are only a very expensive "as well as" and not "instead of"
The only purpose they serve is to make money for the wind companies.
23

drew 33,

duddingston 01/03/2008 10:44:57
22 nabodican,
"The only purpose they serve is to make money for the wind companies."
Wrong, they also serve to increase taxation and increase the average cost of electricity paid by the customer.
24

dido-bendigo,

Argyll 01/03/2008 11:13:12
Thank you Scotsman for letting us know how this lovely part of Scotland is being ruined. We are planning to move to the Borders in the near future. Need I say more!
25

Robbierunciman,

Romney Marsh 01/03/2008 11:28:54
Again the mention of wind starts discussion about a 'con','desecration' of landscapes and complaints about cost.

New technologies, like wind, always require 'subsidy' to establish them in the market place. If they work - subsidy gets removed because the unit cost is at a level the market can fund. Wind will lose its subsidy in the next few years. For example, Nuclear energy failed because it never evolved beyond the subsidy stage, Gas power stations are a success because the market builds them without subsidy

The 'wild landscape' nonsense is just that. Its based on a 19th century idea of the pituresque and that they represent 'natural' beauty. JohnMuir in particular seemed to think that Yosemite was 'natural' when infact it had been created by the Indians. They Lammermuirs are a a manmade landscape just like any town or city.

It would be ruined if it did not evolve and wind farms represent progress and evolution.
26

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 01/03/2008 11:37:45
26.

Absolutely right.
27

Rennie,

Upstate NY 01/03/2008 13:24:36
Wind turbines statistically run something like 30% of the time, they are not sighted in the best locations, along the coast, where you have daily offshore/onshore breezes, but are stuck out in rural areas where they expect the least resistance from people and regulations. They are better than nothing, but if people realized that the cost of the global warming carbon mandate far outweighs the credit crisis, and that climate is controlled by the sunspot cycle, not man, we could better prepare and deal with the changes that are coming, which if you examine weather phenomenon and compare to the recorded sunspot cycles are evident for themselves. I doubt our ancestors built megalithic structures aligned to the sun just because they were bored. Besides, you are surrounded by ocean with plenty of tidal power, not to mention the underdeveloped North Sea oilfields. Taxing developement of those fields so bad they won't be hiring services or buying offshore equipment is harmful to Scotland, it could be booming, especially as Putin is using energy to bring Europe to it's knees.
28

Lastsocialist,

On top of the world 01/03/2008 14:02:44
Wind farms are great, but only if you don't put them in sensitive upland/moorland areas where the infrastructure that they require (access roads etc.) will destroy habitats that are almost unique in the world. The best location for wind farms is in the gardens of the politicians who vote for them.
29

livilion,

livingston 01/03/2008 14:33:35
The guys who propose these wind farms are well aware of the potential outcry about siting them in esthetically sensitive areas and still insist on painting each installation bright right in yer face white.

Is this just in case someone twenty miles away perhaps doesn't notice these technological marvels?


Electricity pylons are painted battleship grey, farmers' equipment is more often a sympathetic dark colour, cell phone masts have been camouflaged to resemble trees(at Dunblane).

Why can't wind turbines be painted so as to blend in with their environment?
30

Geomac 1,

Kinross 01/03/2008 14:43:36
This is nothing short of vandalism of our countryside - and for what? A few MWh of electricity and often when we don't need it and not available when we do! The footprint of these things (windmills) is massive and not appreciated until close up. At the moment wind is claimed to produce around 3% of electricity needs - can you imagine the damage to the countryside when this is increased to the 50% target?
Re #26 Robbie - I doubt very much if the subsidy for wind will ever be dropped until governments realise the futility of them. Power companies make almost twice as much per kWh from subsidy as they do for the actual sale of the electricity produced by windmills - the selling price for the electricity is so low because of the unreliability of the supply. At least nuclear is reliable - and I don't accept for one minute that "nuclear failed because they never evolved beyond the subsidy stage". Only the early pioneering nuclear units were subsidised - Hunterston and Torness ARE NOT subsidised. They went out of fashion because of the dumb, biased and ill informed anti nuclear campaigning by so called Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, who stirred up irrational sentiments amongst the public.
Before anyone tries to cite the safety problems with nuclear let's be clear that there have been NO major safety issues with commercial nuclear power stations in the UK - and they've been running since the end of the 1950s. I am aware of the problem at Windscale but remember that that was at a test reactor NOT a commercial one.
31

Il Penseroso,

Inverurie 01/03/2008 15:33:16
I've never heard such tripe emanating from the pro windmill advocates! Scotland doesn't need those monstrosities! There are plenty other means of generating clean energy. With careful development of these resources we can get rid of the nukes, windfarms and afford to bury the obscene pylons that blight our landscape. The rush for immediate energy comes from south of the border. Scotland is in surplus of energy; our cousins down south are running out of it. Who will get the priority? Answers on a bus ticket!
32

Kate (the tart?),

USA 01/03/2008 15:33:29
Beauty is in the eye of the boldholder. I think the wind turbines are like artful pieces of sculpture that grace the landscape.
33

The Ghost of Sir William Arrol,

The Forthy Bridge 01/03/2008 16:35:34
Only complain about wind farms and other forms of renewable energy if you want to end your days sitting in the cold and the dark and walking everywhere.

Oil, gas and coal reserves are finite with demand now beginning to exceed supply, hence rising energy and food costs. High grade uranium is also finite (about 30 years) and low grade uranium, though plentiful, requires large amounts of oil to extract and refine. No cheap oil - no cheap uranium.

Crisis? What crisis?
34

Unimpressed one,

01/03/2008 17:31:53
#26, "New technologies, like wind."

Which blood*y century are you living in mate?
35

Martha,

01/03/2008 17:47:31
#26: " JohnMuir in particular seemed to think that Yosemite was 'natural' when infact it had been created by the Indians."

ROTFLMAO. Please, please inform us just how "the Indians" (you mean Native Americans? First People?) created El Capitan? I'm dying to know. Did they also create Niagara Falls? The Grand Canyon? The Sierra Nevada? The Great Salt Lake? The Mississippi River? The Great Lakes? The Everglades? The Okeefenokee? Oh yeah, and they must have painted the Painted Desert. Clever, those First People.
36

fritigern,

Inverness 01/03/2008 19:11:07
Surely the wind farm which will be seen over the largest area is the one proposed for the Hill of Nigg in Easter Ross. This will be visible from 30- 40 miles of the Moray Firth coast. The electricity it will produced could easily be saved by scrapping the change over to digital television. This consumes several times as much electricity as analogue, never mind the energy used in producing new television sets.

If you own a tourist business in Scotland then sell up now. In a few years there will be no visitors. Last year I drove around western Austria and did not see a single wind turbine. But then the Austrians have some pride in their country and its environment compared with the cringing Scots who would sell themselves to absolutley anyone for a few bawbees.
37

Ed's everywhere,

Everywhere 01/03/2008 19:57:01
Moving air molecules producing vast quantities of electricity. Now, every scientist since James Watt is astounded. This is real progress. The Lammermuirs only improve and become more stunning in their natural beauty with the beginning of wind turbine installation. The local residents, Borders Regional Council and even the hoity-toity landowners are all earning from the electricity they sell on to Scottish Power, Iberdrola.

A decent step forward for the Borders, one of the most economically stagnant regions of Scotland. Are we stick-in-the-mud no-future people? Or as always, innovative, forward-moving people. Watt, Bell, Kelvin, Baird, etc With a scientific heritage like ours we should be more proud than ever to be producing more clean energy, supplying this electricised modern society.

Even when we are economising our residential consumption because of so many appliances we are using more electricity as we progress. Industrial production systems, offices powered by computing systems. We need more so we must produce more. Every thing should be considered, analysed, discussed and decided on.

Wind, like wave and solar is forever and there are next to no costs. We should maximise these first.
38

yoric,

01/03/2008 20:09:25
We have just had two of these Windfarm developments "Authorised" by the Westminster Government, not far from where we live in England.
The Government is letting them go up "anywhere" despite local objections.
Wind Turbines will NEVER produce the required amounts of Electricity despite the lies of supporters and developers.
The future, 20 years time, Britain chronically short of Electricity.
Windfarms falling short of promised production, rotared power cuts across ALL of Britain, and Nuclear produced Electricity imported from France to make up the shortfall.
Britain covered in graffiti covered Turbines, broken down, poisened water courses,virgin countryside ruined for ever,along with the skyline.
39

bogmon,

01/03/2008 20:27:00
26 - You stupid, myopic, aesthetically blind idiot.

It is lobotomised dunces like you who will wreck the amazing landscapes of these small islands.

Wind farms should be out at sea where winds are more stable and constant. It is a distorted travesty of EVERY notion of 'saving the planet' to have them on land. The damage wreaked on those things that most people hold dear will be comprehensive and absolute.

For Gods sake just wise up a bit will you!!!
40

El Sabio,

Sibbertoft 01/03/2008 22:16:31
They should but off shore windfarms are very expensive - more than on shore farms.

The poor tax payer will pay for these and the financiers will become even richer including the hedge fund managers!
41

Robbierunciman,

Romney Marsh 01/03/2008 23:56:12
#40 you are just rude mate and I am sorry that is how you feel. I hope to use your own words, you do wise up, some of us actually know wha we are talking about and are not just NIMBYs, NOTEs or BANANAs.

The history of landsacpe and conservation is very interesting and you should study it.

#31 if you followed the industry you would know that the big subsidy is moving from wind to other renewables and that the Government is coming round to the idea of a feed in tarrif. The nuclear plants you mentioned are subsidized - who built them, who picks up the bill for the waste? Incidently, these plants only (at best) worked at 70% of their design efficiency, they should have worked at 86%, a small drop but signifiicant in terms of the capital cost and the interest of the City. If you recall british Energy went bust 3 years ago and we taxpayers bailed it out. The above does not include under the table subsidy so - again do some research!

#35 I live in the 21st century, it's not 1958 anymore. If we are being pedantic, nuclear energy is much older and predates wind by several millenia - in fact it helps to power the planet alongside sunlight. What changes is man's technical ability to efficiently harness forms of energy - as I said, nuclear power had its go, it failed, time to move on to somethings sustainable with less unknown unknowns (ie no waste legacy)

#36 I was talking about not landsacpe not Geology or geomorpholgy. The craving for the wild landscapes was set off as a response to industrialism and was seen as an aesthetic value in which poor folks had walk on bucolic parts for the benefit of landowners and the educated elite who imagined a rural idyll before all that urban nastieness. Specifically, they excluded the urban poor and middle classes from this vision (Ruskin was a particular snob). In the US I understand that you have renamed 'indians' as 'first peoples' - sorry it was short hand but landscape is so much more than rocks and erosion its people, p
42

McHoot,

Australia 02/03/2008 00:30:09
Abolish all windfarms! Let's get back to good old fossil fuels! Screw the planet!
43

Weatherman,

Borders 02/03/2008 00:32:01
Simple question for all the hysterical pro-wind merchants:
There are now quite a few countries (or states, in the USA) with very large installed wind capacity. Can you please supply some concrete examples from the real world of countries where a very large installed wind capacity has contributed significantly to saving emissions by substituting for thermal generating capacity?
44

jerrymanders,

Milling around. 02/03/2008 01:30:43
The great thing about wind farms is that you can just dismantle them if we decide that we don't need them.

BTW Annabelle Goldie is a man.
45

Weatherman,

Borders 02/03/2008 09:39:43
#45 Never heard of developers accepting a condition to remove the 1000 plus tonnes of reinforced concrete that form the foundations for turbine towers. Or all the cabling and hardcore for 'landing pads' and service roads.
#42 Ofgem, the Carbon Trust and the Audit Commission have all stated that onshore wind turbines are being hugely over-subsidised and that the electricity customer is being over-charged as a result (see submissions to last year's Energy Review).
We might accept being robbed by the wind industry if WTG's had any great contribution to make to saving carbon emissions. They don't and won't as is evidenced by their large scale use in other countries.
I doubt Government is that concerned when the peasantry are paying for it without even realising that they are doing so. This is the perfect scam, where everybody is coining it at the expense of the electricity consumer. Even Government is making money - they are hoovering money from renewables funds:
"So far, the Treasury has taken pounds 210m from the so-called NFFO Fund, while only pounds 60m has been spent on renewable energy.
"By 2010, the fund is expected to have raised as much as pounds 1bn, which is likely to be taken by the Treasury for general spending. The process is based on the fund being a 'hereditary revenue of the Crown' along with income arising from the Crown's traditional rights to treasure trove, swans and sturgeons."
(Independent, 10 Dec. 2005).
46

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 02/03/2008 09:43:43
14. Unimpressed:

'The rest of the world will realise the folly of using an 18th century technology for attempting to deliver 21st century energy and slowly but surely, start dismantling the windmills.'

What a ridiculous comment.

The dynamo was not invented until the middle of the 19th century by Michael Faraday.

Modern wind turbines are very high tech multi-megawatt machines with computer control systems and carbon fibre rotors
47

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 02/03/2008 09:50:17
46.

The foundations can simply be grassed over after removal of the turbine towers. However, I doubt this will be necessary until fusion power is made to work.

The subsidies should be gradually phased out once the required amount of wind power is built.
48

bogmon,

02/03/2008 09:53:50
42 - If you, in your own self-aggrandised way "actually know what you are talking about", does your industrialised vision of progress take any heed of the tourist industry, which depends almost entirely on aesthetics and history within a landscape?

Does it take any heed of the mindless destruction of peat substrates (which cannot be replaced), the effect on wildlife, the march of endless pylons, millions of cubic metres of concrete, thousands of miles of infrastructure, the burning of fossil fuels to manufacture the raw materials of these monsters, the burning of thousands of gallons of diesel for transport? You know what you are talking about, do you?

What about the social disruption and the divisiveness within communities between those who stand to gain from wind factories, and those who do not??

If you are so well informed as you seem to think you are, some convincing answers to these questions will no doubt change some minds.

We await your wisdom, O wise one...
49

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 02/03/2008 10:39:43
49.

The carbon footprint of wind power is no worse than that of other electricity generation technologies.
50

bogmon,

02/03/2008 11:42:55
The whole idea of sustainable electricity generation should be more considered and holistic. It should be an amalgam of several technologies - not just wind - and be sensitive enough to account for regional, topographical, and social differences. It should also never be so ill-conceived as to bulldoze their way through other older established industries in remote areas.

Wind power is viable, only if it is in the form of smaller local schemes providing electricity for local communities. NOT huge schemes powering cities hundreds of miles away!

The industrialised, picushion landscape proposed here is an anathema to most people who have been, or will be forced to live with them (except of course, if they gain financially). You may denigrate these people as nimbies, but if so may of them are against it, then surely they have a point? Is this not a democracy?

What about offshore wind farms? Agreed they cost more, but if the raison d'etre is part of a holistic vision of sustainable electricity generation, causing the least amount of damage, then surely this is the way to go?

What about wave, tide and small-scale hydro?

It will be cheaper to make houses more thermally efficient than to over-subsidise these madcap mass wind factory schemes as they are at present. Modern eco houses can now be made to be net reducers of carbon. Natural insulation and sealing, Passive solar, Photovoltaic solar, carefully sited glazing, ground source heat pumps, rainwater harvesting, biomass boilers, reed beds, grey water recycling, composting, natural air conditioning coupled to heat exchangers etc etc is the way to go to reduce our impact.

I apologise for blowing off earlier, but the idea of unbridled mass onshore wind farms makes my blood boil uncontrollably. It is just SO wrong!!!


51

Robbierunciman,

Romney Marsh 02/03/2008 12:19:52
#46, i think i had a look at the review you mentioned. this was the one that based its assessment of the economic efficiency of nuclear power on the 'projected'costs of the new plant being built in Finland. Had they based it on the real costs - a different conclusion would have emerged. On spending you are right, BERR are so keen to promote a nuclear solution they are stifling the development of the renewable sector - and british jobs.

#42 like I said the money will move away to tidal and other renewables as the technology becomes established. Congratulations you now have now seen how government works. Based on what happened in my area, opponents of windfarms are usually Right wing figures - experts at causing social disruption in any community.

#49 'self aggrandized' as opposed to being just plain wrong! Peat is a living substrate made up of plants and will regenerate if left for sufficient time - provided the ground conditions are right. Callanish for goodness sake was excavated out of a mound of the stuff!

#51 I agree, most of the new build in the UK is lamentable and the Government is not forcing up standards up suffiently toughly. They even tried undermining the 'Merton rules' in a PPE - hastiy rewritten I believe. Bok Lok housing has just made it to the UK, I have seen a development of it in Malmo, which the Swedes thought 'a good start' and Brit councils thought impossible to build for the same price in the UK. UK construction has too much political power, look at the quality of the build for Thames Gateway - quality here means that the house has a fancy gable end and is near a lake, it does not seem to be related to noise insulation, thermal efficiency or micro generation. I note from Kevin McClouds TV programme, when people wnat high quality eco-efficient builds, they import German builders.

More micro-generation means less factories, unfortunately the UK gov is wedded to big energy who thing that 15 mega sites is more secure than 50,000 micro
52

Pilrig.,

Livingston 02/03/2008 13:55:01
The setting for the Bride of Lammermuir was Fast Castle on the coast.
53

Pilrig.,

Livingston 02/03/2008 13:57:16
7 - hope ye didnae have any problem with yer white cane and guide dug that last tome you were up the Lammermuirs
54

Pilrig.,

Livingston 02/03/2008 14:04:28
34 - exactly, what crisis ?
55

bogmon,

02/03/2008 14:10:03
Too true - The quality of German and Swedish manufacture and workmanship is in another (far more enlightened) world. I do wonder about the architectural merit of Ikea's Boklok though - identikit housing everywhere, potentially. The likes of Scandia Hus and Baufritz (the one on 'Grand Designs') do actually produce a range of zero carbon houses that would fit in well with British vernacular, and are customisable to a degree.

As ever, it is a slow process trying to convince our ponderous, unenlightened government to change direction and to respond to people needs rather than the monetary desires of big business and shareholders. The forthcoming and inevitable post 'Peak Oil' period will no doubt shake the buggers awake into a more enlightened period of economic growth based much less on exploitation and squandering of natural resources.
56

Christina, Aberdeen,

03/03/2008 10:01:31
I'm a big fan of Bride of Lammermoor/Lucia di Lammermoor and know the Lammermoor hills very well, having walked there often as a youngster. I think the wind farms are far less ugly than the electricity pylons that scar the landscape just about everywhere in Scotland. I've asked the locals about the farms and have yet to hear anybody speak against them. Hardly a scientific survey, but as usual, I think we need to beware of listening to a small group of extremely opinionated people.
Personally, I'd far rather have wind and wave power than nuclear. We were walking along the esplanade by Torness power station last summer when an evacuation was announced by loudspeaker. That was really very frightening as we imagined another chernobyl. Luckily it didn't seem to be a major incident, but there are just far too many problems - most of them covered up - for nuclear to be a safe option.
57

Christina, Aberdeen,

03/03/2008 10:04:24
BTW, Pilrig 53. According to Scott himself:

"The imaginary castle of Wolf's Crag has been identified by some lover of locality with that of Fast Castle. The Author is not competent to judge of the resemblance betwixt the real and imaginary scenes, having never seen Fast Castle except from the sea. But fortalices of this description are found occupying, like ospreys' nests, projecting rocks, or promontories, in many parts of the eastern coast of Scotland, and the position of Fast Castle seems certainly to resemble that of Wolf's Crag as much as any other, while its vicinity to the mountain ridge of Lammermoor renders the assimilation a probable one."
58

Scotland the NO.,

Canada 03/03/2008 16:28:18
Try getting answers regards to how much you ALL pay towards the white elephant nuclear power industry, through taxation.....The invisible subsidy generator.
BILLIONS !!
59

theluckyman,

Glasgow 05/03/2008 00:31:17
Dear Goodness!

My mum - now safely in a warm, warm flat - still tells me about the winters when she was young, when she had to take the sledge out with my grandfather and pick pieces of coal out of the bings around the hills above Crossford. Some of you think Lanarkshire HASN'T been an industrial landscape for the last 300 years! I'd laugh if it wasn't for the fact none of you are getting up off your backsides and investing in these schemes. Stop complaining and make some money if you can why don't you? Or are you environmentalist?

Awww bless, George

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.