Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


The article has been unable to display.
 
1

Hen Mc Stoorie,

Port William 15/04/2008 00:24:00
RING...RING.........RING ...RING.
HELLO GORDON HERE!
HI GORDIE OLD BOY....GEORGE BUSH ...PRESIDENT OF THE UNTIED SLATES OF AMNESIA.
HELLO GEORGE...HOWS THINGS IN THE OLD U.S. of A.
NOT TOO GOOD OLD BOY......RUMOUR HAS IT THAT BRAZIL HAVE WMDs, AND THEY CAN LAUNCH THEM IN 45 MINS................




You know the rest
2

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 15/04/2008 00:29:44
'AH' Soo this what our BW was talking about yesterday!

Now let me get the, .'Spelling' correct!

"GELIGNITE"!!!!

;-))
3

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 15/04/2008 02:00:21
It is time to stop the windfarm madness and ban windfarms completely in Scotland for the simple reason that they don't do what numpty's like Jason Ormiston say.
As for the Lewis proposal - the Scottish Parliament are desperate to pass this one as they are fully paid up members of the wind industry and their puppet masters are pulling their strings as hard as they can behind the scenes.
4

DunCraig,

Brisbane 15/04/2008 03:35:46
#4, sure they're paid up members of the wind industry - they generate most of it themselves, all of it hot!
5

eric,

Lothian 15/04/2008 06:52:33
Stick turbines on top of Scots parliament No one will notice!
6

Sinead,

Tanunda 15/04/2008 07:37:49
Hands off the peat bogs!
7

Jay Kay,

15/04/2008 07:48:23
#6, Eric, Oh I think they would notice, it might actually help to improve the looks and lets face it with the amount o hot air they windbags generate the darned things would be generating electricity all day every day.
8

Tweedmouth,

Coldstream 15/04/2008 07:57:12
Fact: There has been significant rise in global temperatures since 1998.
Fact: The Northern hemisphere has just had the coldest winter for 50 years with plunging temperatures in Russia, China, America and most of India etc.
Fact: the warming that is occurring is related to the output of the sun and has NOTHING to do with carbon dioxide - which is a trace gas present at just 400 parts in every MILLION units of atmosphere.

Fact: all of the above is ignored completely by the eco-fascists who want to cover Britain in useless wind turbines. The companies doing this of course - are guaranteed 100% subsidy from YOUR electricity bills - and guaranteed massive profits.

So, the landscape is being ruined, tourism will be ruined, the ecology will be ruined - all so that wind-companies can guzzle in the tax trough and green- fascists can indulge their fantasies.

Brave New World.
9

Tweedmouth,

Coldstream 15/04/2008 07:57:43
Sorry
There has been NO significant rise in global temperatures since 1998.
10

Haggismaker,

Baltasound 15/04/2008 08:02:03
They're wanting to build an enormous wind farm in Shetland covering large tracts of peat bog, despite vast local discontent at the tactics of Viking Energy - the company set up to build it. The Isles will be reduced to an industrial moonscape. And if the scientists are right and the development will release more carbon than it saves, what's the point? Apart from lining the pockets of the investors.
11

thinking,

Scotland 15/04/2008 08:14:13
The only significant rise in global temperatures has been from politicians and those who can make money out of such a crisis!!!!!!
12

Nell,

The Preservation Hall 15/04/2008 08:14:50
It's a bit like buying an eco friendly car and getting rid of a perfectly good car. The eco friendly car has actually produced more CO2 in its production than would be produced by keeping, and continuing to run, the old car.
13

Unimpressed one,

15/04/2008 08:15:15
The year 2038 headlines, "How the green movement almost ended the world". With the lunacy of converting crops to fuel, and in the process producing a world food crisis and destruction of rain forest, and covering our countryside in gesture winmills, and all to curtail a problem that never was - 'climate change'. Every single time these idiots put their ideology before common sense, much like old style communists. It's about time we pulped the greens and their ideas and sent them back to the lunatic fringes where they belong.
14

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 15/04/2008 08:20:59
The peat bogs may store CO2, but they also emit methane, a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2. Where are the calculations to show the net effect of removing peat?
15

Aquifer,

Belfast 15/04/2008 08:28:44
All it takes to keep the bogs in good condition is to put the roads in with crushed porous brick or stone on top of geotextiles, and to put in regular waterproof membranes to stop excess run-off. But don't let the truth get in the way of a good scare story.

Another few years and a lot of these islands may be underwater, so you can have the best of both worlds, building an offshore wind farm at dry land construction costs.
16

Dennis,

North Isles 15/04/2008 08:33:04
Northern peat bogs are thought to be responsible for up to 22% of the world's methane production into the atmosphere. Methane is 23 times more potent than CO2 in terms of its ability to cause global warming, with a residence time of around 16 years in the atmosphere.

As temperatures rise the activity in the bogs rises, thus accelerating the rate of exudation into the atmosphere which can cause further rises in temperature.

Another example of selective science used by the wind turbine haters. Peatlands may store up to 10 times more CO2 than other soils - but with the net production of a substance 23 times more potent... look at the maths!
17

Unimpressed one,

15/04/2008 08:35:53
The windmills should be renamed as 'money-spinners':

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3257728.ece
18

New Town Resident,

15/04/2008 08:40:21
-16 is spot on in my view.

Well meaning greens are being conned by business interests down the track of highly environmentally damaging developments like biofuels and wind farms. Note how EU biofuels directives have stuck up food prices to the third world poor, and now the EU will be running after punping more British taxpayers money into subsidising French farmers to grow more GM crops -talk about shooting yourself in the foot!

The greens also compound the problem by trying to close down the scientific debate on AGW - this raises suspicions in the minds of many people who while not climate experts do have a scientific education and so really feel uncomfortable that the basic tenets of the scientific method of proper challenge and debate seem to be have been thrown out of the window. It doesn't pass the smell test.

Time for the greens to rethink their strategy please. There are plenty of things that can be done that AGW "agnostics" should be more than happy to embrace(please drop the the denier label, most professional scientists are completely open to debate) - for example, insullation, more efficient engines, carbon capture etc., etc.,

But wrecking our precious landscape to little point, and putting up electricity prices for the fuel poor and now plunging the third world into starvation??? It seems a funny place to start and smacks simply of prioritising vested interest business profits.
19

Liberal for life,

Dunblane 15/04/2008 08:44:11
I think they should be given the choice of a new nuclear power station or the wind farm, that should sort the objectors to this safe form of energy generation out once and for all. Lets face it if other improved safe energy generation is discovered in the next40-50 years then its pretty straightforward to dismantle these wind turbines. Try doing that with a nuclear power station?

Get real all you NIMBY's
20

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 15/04/2008 09:03:35
#22 Liberal

You can't compare wind turbines to nuclear generating stations. The first is an intermittent souce of power generation the second is a base load source.

I am against both by the way.
21

faddy,

germany 15/04/2008 09:07:09

Wind farms have spoilt where I live in Germany. What an eyesore.
22

n/,

Perth 15/04/2008 09:14:04
Sorry to have to inform you Dave...........but Dunblane already has a windfarm at the Braes of Doune. However it is smallish so hows about extending the size until it can match even in capacity terms,the output of a conventional power station.Would Liberal for Life like to give us the figures on that one? ie Number of turbines needed and the land mass required.Bet the good people of Dunblane would be fair moaning if that were to happen. Of course there would still be the need for a conventional coal or gas power station to provide for back up as and when the wind didn't blow......but hell lets not get caught up in reality shall we ,lets just stick with Liberal for Life's LA LA LAND!
23

McX,

15/04/2008 09:15:19
Nary enough puff to sway the grass
It smashes the dying sun to smithereens
Lighting up my life, my love, my PS2
Faster than a speedy spinning a thread
that captures a gale off the Atlantic by way of Barvas
Under darkness it knocks stars behind clouds and consigns candles to long visited cupboards.
Whirl on Sancho.

McX®



24

jdships,

15/04/2008 09:44:19
16 , 20 & 21

Agree totally with your posts plus a good report by the Scotsman !!
Seems to me that an awful lot of so called experts who chunter on about "global warming" stand to make an awful lot of money if the plans go ahead !!
25

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 15/04/2008 10:10:04
#19 Dennis

So are you really arguing that peat bogs, which occur naturally, are another culprit in this Global Warming disaster scenario and should be removed wherever possible.

I recall recently, some poor, young, brain-washed school girl on TV stating that she "didn't want all of the carbon dioxide polluting the environment".

The environmental fascists have really lost the plot when they try to eradicate a naturally occurring gas such as methane or carbon dioxide!
26

Nellie,

Liverpool 15/04/2008 10:14:41
#11 Tweedmouth

Facts? You are wrong: These are the facts!

FACT: The notion that the Sun is responsible for global warming (the "cosmic ray theory"), and not humans is NOT A FACT but an opinion, a theory, a mere hypothesis put forward by Dr Henrik Svensmark at the Danish National Space Center (DNSC) He stands virtually alone in a sea of opinion amongst his peers who take the view that global warming predominantly caused by human action (and inaction.)

FACT: A team of research scientists from the University of Lancaster, led by Professor Terry Sloane concluded THIS year that THERE IS NO CORRELATION (let alone evidence of a causal link!) BETWEEN THE ACTIVITIES OF THE SUN AND GLOBAL WARMING.

To quote Prof. Sloane, "We tried to corroborate Svensmark's hypothesis, but we could not; as far as we can see, he has no reason to challenge the IPCC - the IPCC has got it right. So we had better carry on trying to cut carbon emissions."
27

Nellie,

Liverpool 15/04/2008 10:16:19
Link to an article about the Lancaster uni' research: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7327393.stm

28

Guga II,

Rockall 15/04/2008 10:22:20
With regard to the proposed turbines in the Isle of Lewis, they want to have around 180 turbines, each 487 feet high, spread out over the island, and totally ruining the environment. These turbines will be able to be seen from most parts of the island.

It will also involve the construction of 80 miles of roads, none of which will be going where they are needed. We have been after six miles of road from Skigersta to Tolsta for nearly 100 years, but there is no chance that will be built.

In addition, all this power will not be available to the islanders. It is for transmission to England, and all the money made from it will go to an English company. The islanders will not benefit in any way from this proposed development. We will still have to put up with the regular power cuts we suffer. Nor will the islanders benefit from any reduction in power prices.

They talk about jobs, but most of the construction jobs will go to mainland companies, and mainland workers; and, if it is anything like the large turbine set-up in Wales, it will only involve three jobs to look after them. In the case in Wales, two of these jobs were given to Englishmen, and one to a Welshman.

We are not a wilderness, nor are we a backwater for the production of power for the English. Scotland already produces an excess of power. If the English need power, then they should build these massive turbines in England. I would suggest they spread them across London; though all the Nimbys there would complain bitterly.

29

Saoghal Beag,

15/04/2008 10:23:57
24 Liberal, but we can compare their outputs. hunterston achieved around 13% of its potential output last year. That makes it the most unreliable enrgy source. Of course the remaining 70% has to be covered by alternative generation, thanksfully our coal stations are more reliable.
30

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 15/04/2008 10:37:06
'Methane from peat bogs may worsen global warming'

- 'Methane gas released by peat bogs in the northern-most third of the globe probably helped fuel the last major round of global warming, which drew the ice age to a close between 11,000 and 12,000 years ago, UCLA and Russian Academy of Sciences scientists have concluded.'

31

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 15/04/2008 10:44:33
'The world's peatlands are thought to contain 180 to 455 petagrams of sequestered carbon, and they release into the atmosphere 20 to 45 teragrams of methane annually. The peatlands' contribution to long-term fluctuations in these atmospheric gases has been a matter of considerable debate.'

Wikipedia
32

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 15/04/2008 10:47:09
#34 What you are comparing is not really output, its really availability. As you well know, the reason Hunterston achieved such low availability was because of technical problems with what is now quite an old station. Normally a nuclear plant would achieve far higher availability. As I said, I am against nuclear and would support the development of clean coal technology. Wind turbines really are not the solution given their inabilioty to operate outside a certain band of wind velocities.
33

DanB,

15/04/2008 10:49:56
Dear no.19

Perhaps you should look at the maths. If you destroy a peat bog where does the methane it contains go? Does it magically vanish?! No - it is released into the atmosphere in one big farty rush, rather than the slow emission over centuries that you might expect from a healthy peat bog. I suppose this is preferable in your view? Talk of methane is a non-starter for the pro wind environ-mentalists.
34

Margaret L,

Edinburgh 15/04/2008 10:55:16
#34

Yes because of the neglect of our nuclear power stations (in turn caused by the green agenda) CO2 emissions from Scotland's electricity generation rose by nearly 40% between 2005 and 2006 (the last year for which figures are available). This in turn meant that CO2 emissions as a whole in Scotland rose by 14% - the highest rise in the developed world.

It is not by any means the first time the green agenda has produced a deleterious effect. Recently Guardian readers voted Rachel Carson as the person of the 20th century. Millions die each year (mostly children) because of her.
35

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 15/04/2008 11:15:22
39 says:

'If you destroy a peat bog where does the methane it contains go? Does it magically vanish?! No - it is released into the atmosphere in one big farty rush..'

Surely that would only happen if you set fire to it?
36

Saoghal Beag,

15/04/2008 12:17:23
38 Connaught, i am not necessarily in favour of massive turbine fields, i do think that embedded generation in the built environment is more approproiate along with marine generation options.

It is true that hunterston had so much off line time due to unplanned outages. but that the argument used by the pro-nuclear lobby criticise the wind industry. The truth is that nuclear was the most unreliable generation option in scotland last year.

Margaret. how do millions die because of rachael carson?

Your argument stands a=only as far as you believe that nuclear is carbon neutral when in reality it is in massive carbon deficit when you consider the whole life cycle. Nuclear is a fantastic engineering solution to boiling a kettle, but remains environmentally unsound on many levels and financially insane.
37

Aber-Scot,

On the Bog: 15/04/2008 12:28:28
Can all these activists please come up with workable solutions rather than simply disagreeing with any proposal put forweard!!!

If you had your way we'd be back to the stone ages with no home-grown energy at all, a real possibility if Scotland don't do something soon!!!

Don't get me started on your lot objecting to golf courses either!!!!
38

tomislav,

Serbian loyal RSC 15/04/2008 12:29:28
Build them at celtic park, can you imagine the fans circling their heads endlessly in unison as they watch them trying to figure out what they are
39

Gramma Kitty,

Portage lakes, OH USA 15/04/2008 12:36:03
Somebody tell me why we're not runnin on hemp oil? Oh yeah, GREED and STUPIDITY!
40

Tom Begg,

Lochwinnoch 15/04/2008 12:43:43
Wind farms look good on the back of an envelope or in a pub discussion - nowhere else. No one can predict when they will supply power. They need a power station ticking over in the background at 70% in case the wind drops and they can't supply.

Take away the ROC subsidy, which should but doesn't appear on your energy bill, and they are uneconomic. They are adding to fuel cost inflation.

Sadly some politicians look on them with pride because they think they are a sound solution without regard to the whole picture. Recently a petition went to the Scottish Parliament to ask that they protect our National and Regional Parks from such developments. If they took heed of this petition they would be going along way to protecting the peat bogs.

There is however another view, over Easter as a tour guide I took a dozen Indians to Skye and back, and they said ‘if global warming is the price of a modern world so be it, why should developing countries be held back from your standard of living. Why not spend the money fighting the effects of global warming and learn to live with it. We are after all, still coming out of an Ice Age and there may be other factors contributing that are yet to be discovered.’
41

Saoghal Beag,

15/04/2008 12:44:55
46 Gramma, climate, geography and available land though i think galactic cannibal does maintain his intake of hemp oil.
42

bumpkin,

15/04/2008 12:50:45
Anyone who has visited the callinish stones on lewis will know that the peat has only been there about 3000 yrs. If the peat is removed, perhaps cereal growing could return to lewis, as practised when the stones were erected, according to the archaeologists.
All the dried out peat could be used for heating fuel on the few still days when the turbines are stopped.
43

Nellie,

Liverpool 15/04/2008 13:05:00
#41 I'm not an expert but my understanding is that the methane is is trapped in the water within the peat. If you disturb the peat, like if you shove a sick into a muddy pond, methane can be released and will bubble up to the surface. Thus, if you cut out the peat, the methane would be released. As evidence of this, I have read that a problem with global warming is that peat bogs are drying out, removing the water which, with the fibres of the peat, trap the methane. So, as the globe warms up because of any man-made pollution, the process of warming is accelerated by natural process which the warming has triggered.
44

Saoghal Beag,

15/04/2008 13:17:04
50 nellie, the methane is a product of anaerobic bacterias meatbolism. It is a breakdown product of carbohydrates. Therefore the peat is not full of methane but full of potential methane molecules formed into more complex hydrocarbons.
45

P Gardner,

Glasgow 15/04/2008 13:30:41
#47 Tom Begg is wrong. You can (and people do) predict fairly accurately what wind farms will produce: accurately enough to allow electricity traders to do their stuff with acceptable financial risk.

Also, you don't need a conventional power station at 70% to back up wind (when was 70% a definition of 'ticking over' anyway?). You need backup for the whole power system: inaccuracies in wind and demand forecasts, and for coping with the sudden and unforecastable loss of 2000MW from a large conventional plant or the interconnector to France. Adding wind to the system does increase the amount of reserve you need, but it's a 'root of sum of squares' kind of addition to the other uncertainties, and therefore wind doesn't add much to reserve requirements until wind penetration gets very high. Plenty academic studies have shown that the additional costs are small, of the order of 10% of the energy price.

There are plenty of possible objections to wind power, but in a modern power system, additional reserve isn't one of them.

46

Culandun,

Wells Maine 15/04/2008 13:44:25
Put wind turbines on top of Parliament? Here, that's not as daft an idea as you might think, in fact, how about a whole lot of mini-wind turbines each generating a few Kilowatts, mounted on top of large buildings everywhere? The space is already taken as far as the environment is concerned so why not extend it's use?
47

Culandun,

Wells Maine 15/04/2008 13:52:48
Oh the Rachel Carson comment is about DDT. But DDT is still used as an insecticide in most countries that have a malaria problem. It's cheap, effective, relatively easily produced and yes, it's persistent in the food chain, but that doesn't deter it's use in needy countries.
48

Culandun,

Wells Maine. 15/04/2008 13:58:20
Here's another thought, and shoot me down if you will, but it occurs to me that here in the Northeastern States it's a bit like Scotland - there are lots of rivers and in the past they've been used as a source of power for mills and the like. Why not have a system of small water powered generators, not the massive Hydro Electric schemes like Clunie Dam etc. but small community generators sufficient to supply a village and capable of producing a surplus for sale to the national grid?
49

cgrant,

Tyler, TX USA 15/04/2008 14:06:35
54;
DDT was and is the best thing to happen in terms of insecticide. It does not bring on extinction of birds as claimed and is also less likely to cause cancer, unlike all the modern insecticides. If the farse, (much like global warming), had not been put upon us millions of children in third world countries would have lived. The false claims were disclosed a couple of years after the ban was in place, but no politician would touch it after the fiasco.

As for the wind farms.
When are people going to realize that the Global Warming people are all about raising MONEY and not saving the Earth? They even gave themselves almost 50 years to show results! Yet they want to spend your entire countries financial resources on this sham. Hasn't anyone read the story about the chicken who claimed the sky was falling! Build the wind turbines if you like, but don't be so willing to destroy the environment to generate more electricity.
We can be more eco-friendly, but lets go about it with caution and thoughtfulness.
50

boybilly,

Buckie 15/04/2008 14:18:16
I thought Scotland was self-sufficient in power? What's going on?
51

B Maguire,

Glasgow 15/04/2008 14:27:45
For those who might be interested SNH has produced a paper on wind farms and carbon savings, especially in respect of blanket bogs http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/polstat/caf.pdf
Despite what Struan Stevenson suggests, development of a wind farm on a bog would have an insignificant impact in terms of the future carbon savings by that bog and it is only if the impact of the development was to destro all or a substantial part of the bog that the carbon savings from the operation of the wind farm would not offset the carbon released by the loss of the bog. The evidence points to this not being the case.
52

George.,

15/04/2008 14:35:25
32.nellie
This is from your article ""For example; sometimes the Sun 'burps' - it throws out a huge burst of charged particles," he explained to BBC News.

So we looked to see whether cloud cover increased after one of these bursts of rays from the Sun; we saw nothing.""
Well you would not see an increase of cloud cover due to theory.
It is not important whether or not the activity of the sun is going up or down but the level of the activity.

53

Nellie,

Liverpool 15/04/2008 14:57:02
#51 Thanks for the clarification - y'larn somthin' new evry day! But the principle is the same regarding the release of methane, isn't it? Disturb the water, the methane comes to the surface?

#59 But the conclusion of the Terry Sloane is the same, that there is no correlation (let alone a causal link) between the Sun and global warming, that he "...tried to corroborate Svensmark's hypothesis, but we could not; as far as we can see, he has no reason to challenge the IPCC - the IPCC has got it right. So we had better carry on trying to cut carbon emissions."

Point is, I suppose, may be there is no conclusive evidence hat carbon emissions cause global warming but there is sufficient evidence to suggest it is the probably cause, and more probable that solar activity. Short of more information, we will feel a whole lot better trying to do something than sitting back and watch the planet roast.
54

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 15/04/2008 15:07:06
#60 Nellie.

Rest assured, the planet will not roast. It has been significantly warmer in the past with no deleterious effects.

By the way, the IPCC is the biggest propaganda organisation ever to walk this earth. If you don't believe me, just have a read of the Summary for Policy Makers and then compare some of the claims contained therein with what was actually said in the main body of the report. Generally, the claims are either exaggerated or certainty is implied where none is claimed to exist.
55

P Gardner,

glasgow 15/04/2008 15:44:26
#61 is just silly: 'it has been significantly warmer in the past with no deleterious effects'. Oh really? It is entirely possible that we will end up with a planet with a different but nice and stable climate, but even if this happens, getting from here to there will involve major winners (Northern Europe) and losers (coastal and island states, semi-desert regions). Presumably dealing with the resulting starvation, wars and major influx of refugees to the lucky countries is not a 'deleterious effect'?
56

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 15/04/2008 15:54:18
'Jason Ormiston, the chief executive of Scottish Renewables, the green- energy trade body, said: "Struan Stevenson pitches a theory that has at its heart a fatally flawed premise and chooses to ignore experience of existing wind-farm development on areas of peat, where not only have the projects proved significant cutters of carbon emissions but have involved habitat restoration with a net gain of peatland in and around the site.'

Precisely.
57

Wolfman,

15/04/2008 15:59:45
Unimpressed one and co you are spot on. Our country is being raped by these eyesore moneyspinners. Would anyone get permission to build anything else on a AGLV or peat bog? Not a chance. There are alternative methods of power generation. We cannot regenerate the peat lands destroyed by the turbines and associated infrastructure. If you have ever travelled south, how many turbines do you see south of about Liverpool? None is the answer. The Dales, Lake district, South Downs, Cotswolds would all do just as well but Nooooo lets trash Scotland cos who cares anyway! Alex stand up for your country and stop any further building of turbines
58

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 15/04/2008 16:07:12
Peat is a fossil fuel:

'Peat fuel is an economical, and more environmentally friendly, substitute for coal. The environmental benefits of burning peat as a fuel are considerable. Peat has a sulphur content which is less than most coals and minimal mercury. Efforts to reduce acid rain by decreasing sulphur emissions makes peat fuel attractive to a wide range of industries and electrical utilities.'

So folk who live around could make money by digging up the peat and burning it in a biomass power station.
59

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 15/04/2008 16:08:42
delete fossil!
60

steve52,

Kinfauns 15/04/2008 16:10:10
Money talks so it will go ahead.

The power generated, which wont be much, will be sent down south so why not put the turbines up down there and save money?

Why ruin their countryside, just dump it on the Scots. ....First it was sheep now its wind turbines and the idiot Scots just sit back and accept it.
61

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 15/04/2008 16:10:15
#62 A list of completely unsubstantiated negatives and as usual no positives. Are you saying that increased temperatures have NO beneficial effects?
62

Donnie Murdo,,

15/04/2008 16:49:51
#63 - Would Jason Ormiston care to explain how peatland, which takes hundreds if not thousands of years to form naturally, has magically appeared and spread as a result of building some turbines somewhere or other? Moving excavated peat somewhere else on site is not the same thing as creation of natural peatland, quite the opposite. Talking of displaced peat, I'm sure his words would ring pretty hollow with the people of Derrybrien in Co Galway.

Oh, and again at #65, I hear wood burns quite well too, lets chop down what's left of that pesky Ancient Caledonian Pine forest and burn that while we're at it. I hardly think burning peat is environmentally beneficial. It is just "less bad" than burning coal.
63

NellieF,

Edinburgh 15/04/2008 16:59:27
Trashing the environment because people have neither the wit or wisdom to reduce their use of carbon fuels is the tragedy of our age. Even if you do not believe we are contributing to climate change whatever happened to thrift and good sense? We could probably utilise fossil fuels for centuries if we concentrated on use reduction, fuel efficiency and emission cuts. We need to think carefully about alternative/sustainable fuels - it was the lack of forethought and research into the effects of using fossil fuels that got us into this mess. NB. Even if you are a climate change denier you must be aware that the emissions from burning carbon fuels have a negative impact on human health.
64

Unimpressed one,

15/04/2008 17:07:41
"I'm not an expert" - enough said Nellie.
65

rancid brown,

Corrupt EU 15/04/2008 17:31:38
Central Plank Of Global Warming Alarmism Discredited

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Monday, April 14, 2008

One of the central philosophies of climate change alarmism and an image that adorned the cover of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth - the contention that global warming causes deadly hurricanes - has been completely discredited by the expert who first proposed it.

66

Drummer1,

Troon 15/04/2008 17:55:44
Its a pity there is a profound ignorance about the science and evidence of global climate change.

In short, the rate of climate change is not natural or consistent with previous cycles of the last 100,000 years (prior to industrial age). This is accepted fact by most climate scientists.

As for blanket bog and windfarms - again the ignorance is incredible. Developers avoid siting on deep sensitive areas of peat and mitigate with tracks that 'float' over the surface thus avoiding damage to the hydrology-ecology. These are the real and proven facts!
67

westview,

Birlin' roon an roon. 15/04/2008 18:20:30
Use the surplus electricity from wind farms to manufacture hydrogen. Then use the hydrogen to generate power when the wind drops. Stop manufacturing petrol vehicls and start using electric/ hydrogen power sources instead.
68

Nellie,

Liverpool 15/04/2008 18:29:45
#61 Well, yeah - the planet will survive, of that there is no doubt. It's us wot's living on it that won't if it roasts!!! And it won't be a very nice extinction for many people, either.

#71 Unimpressed. LOL! I'M unimpressed by Unimpressed - is that the best you can do? LOL!
69

Displaced Scot,

UK 15/04/2008 19:02:53
Where has this story come from saying that Bio-Fuels are ruining the planet come from. As far as the UK is concerned, if we use cereals and Oil Seed Rape and Sugar beet, we are doing no more harm to the environment than we are doing already. Farmers grow commodity crops which should be allowed to be sold onto the market. If that market is for Bio-Fuels then so be it. There will be biproducts which will end up as animal feed. The RSPB is jumping up and down, but forget to mention tha no forrest is being cleared to grow Bio-Fuels in the UK. Now if the fuel companys decide to buy their Ethanol from Brazil or Bio Diesal made from Palm Oil, that is a different story. British Agriculture has had a hard time since 1997, dont knock it back down now prices are better.
70

Nellie,

Liverpool 15/04/2008 19:32:32
#76 If you ask a farmer they've not just had a hard time since 1997, it's been since .... oh, before great grandpa built the old stone barn ... Seriously though, I do understand that SOME farmers have been having a hard time, but it's hard to believe then all given they've been crying wolf for years! Back in the late 1970's farmers used to come into the furniture store where I worked, complain about how hard things w ere for them and then buy £2k worth of stuff in cash!
71

Seoras67,

Edinburgh 15/04/2008 20:32:19
Even more evidence, as if more were required, that wind farms do more damage than good. If there was no ROC subsidy there would be no wind farms.
72

bumpkin,

15/04/2008 20:47:24
There are loads of untruths in this article, first one scotland has 17% of the worlds blanket peat. Canada has enough peat to cover scotland several times over.
Next one is that windfarms destroy peat lands. One turbine takes up about 1/4 acre of land, and is surrounded by 25 acres of untouched land. The ratio is therefore 1/100 th or 1 % of the land is actually disturbed.
All you anti s expect to rise in the morning, flick on the lights, boil the kettle, have a hot shower and have warm house.
Where is the power to come from once the nuclear stations are closed? from hamsters on a treadmill.?
Personally i think windfarms are a good thing, and will provide power at a reasonable price. Not cheap power, but then cheap power is consigned to history.
73

Saoghal Beag,

15/04/2008 20:48:35
Culandun, the problem of siting small scale turbines (less than 5kW) on a building like holyrood is the air flows. That and small scale turbines are really not that efficient. 5kW and upwards is reasonable but they do not lend themselves to be retrofitted to roofs. again urban wind flows have to understood before siting them. so embedding wind generation in the urban environment has to be well thought out and not dependent on opportunisitc site developments.

small scale hydro is a possibility and is being used.

solar water heating, though not generating electricity, displaces the need for that power and is highly effective in scotland. all new build should have a N/S orientation. meanwhile we need to develop marine technologies which will not be crippled by nimbism and use predicatable tidal flows.

78 if the government hadn't bailed out BE who would be operating torness? all power is subsidised one way or another.

74

McX,

15/04/2008 20:56:00
I note that Torness nuclear power station has been shut down indefinitely for emergency repairs at the same time as both reactors at Hunterston are currently closed for planned maintenance. I suppose this proves that nuclear power is rather unreliable and not delivering Scotland's energy needs...
75

Aquifer,

Belfast 15/04/2008 22:35:36
Just heard today that the Norwegians are refusing to sell their gas once it goes below top price. Fair play, its their gas, we wasted ours. They also have a huge global pension fund for each of their citizens paid for by selling their fossil fuels.

Scotland has a huge wind electricity resource and it seems that people would rather mortgage their grandchildren to pay for Nuclear than use it.
76

indune1,

Canada 16/04/2008 00:13:22

70 & 77 - Nellie - please keep posting at least that reduces the risk of any hot-air emissions from you.
However, I'm sure there is enough methane around you to equal a good-sized herd of cattle. :)
77

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 16/04/2008 16:12:23
#80 bumpkin. I disagree with you. apart from the wind turbine "footprint" on the land, there are many trenches required for cabling etc so the land is quite seriously disturbed contrary to what you say.
78

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 16/04/2008 16:15:36
#84 Rodger

Although I am against new nuclear power stations, your comments about the visual appearance of Torness are simply wrong. No cooling towers, no stack, no overhead power lines. Just a small box on the horizon. You have chosen the least visible power station in the UK to criticise.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 

More Scotland

More Scotland >>

More Alternative energy sources

More Alternative energy sources >>

Features

Free financial brochures & guides Dionami
Paperboy Paperboy Customised news
Scottish Business Briefing Scottish Business Briefing ...Sign up today

Featured Advertising



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.