So you think the future of power generation and cutting CO2 emmisions should just be a commercial venture, and only go ahead if some folk can make money from it? The only thing that matters is making money from it, not if it's the best option? If you believe in economics being the deciding factor, then i can see we'll have to agree to disagree. ;)

JH,
Would you choose the view that you have chosen under the initials on your post, if it had a windfarm on it?

"So you think the future of power generation and cutting CO2 emmisions should just be a commercial venture, and only go ahead if some folk can make money from it?" ....... Mike

Mike, we live in a capatalist society and that's how things work. We might be able to have some influence on where turbines get sited, but I don't think you or I are going to change the type of society we live in. Apart from my suggestion of a zoned planning system I'm telling things how they are, not what I want.

Have you got a better idea of how power generation should be financed in the midst of a recession?

For the record I think we got into this CO2 mess because the free market doesn't work as well as it's proponents believe (ditto credit crunch). I'm not really that interested in economics to have a better idea, except to say that I think people should take a more responsible role in their energy and economic footprint. What are readers of this forum doing to take control of their own energy usage?


"JH, Would you choose the view that you have chosen under the initials on your post, if it had a windfarm on it?" ....... Stephen

No. I think the Highlands would be a better place with no windfarms. But once again, I'm not telling you what I want, I telling you how things are, and my opinion on how we might make the best of how things are. If we work towards a zoned planning system that view would be realtively safe, if we just oppose all windfarms on principle it'll be down to luck whether a windfarm is sited there or not.

It's certainly human nature to take sides, and there's also a certain appeal in taking an idealistic view, but the reality is that we've got to make the best of the situation. Obviously all of us reading this love hillwalking, and the wide open spaces are a powerful force in our lives; but that force is miniscule compared to a developed nations desire to have a CO2 free electricity supply. I know it seems terribly unfair, and I think that as a nation we need to fundamentally re-think our values, but right now we need to tackle the windfarm problem in a sensible, realistic way or it'll be to late.

I wonder why you are posting on this thread JH, if you're "not really that interested"?


You keep on mentioning "if we oppose all windfarms on principle", yet no one has done that. You are trying to distort the argument.


All you have done is counter everything with bland, middle-of-the-road statements, and express the opinion that idealism is a waste of time.
I would hate to have such a grey, defeatist outlook on life. Idealism is something i admire.
If it wasn't for folk sticking their heads above the parapet, and willing to take the flak, nothing would ever be achieved.
But then again, you do have an opinion, don't you? You are saying we must compromise with the developers and carpet-baggers, whilst you pretend to take a different view.

"I wonder why you are posting on this thread JH, if you're "not really that interested"?"

Actually I said " I'm not really that interested in economics to have a better idea". This thread isn't about macro economics.


"All you have done is counter everything with bland, middle-of-the-road statements, and express the opinion that idealism is a waste of time."

No, I came up with a plan. What's your plan?


"You are saying we must compromise with the developers and carpet-baggers, whilst you pretend to take a different view."

I didn't understand this sentence at first Mike, but I think it relates to my answer to Stephen. I think you've misunderstood me, there's no pretending. I think that ideally the Highlands would be turbine free, but in the circumstances we should try and reach a compromise. I don't think a turbine free highlands is possible - firstly it's to late, and secondly, the political will for windfarms is to strong.

In a way I admire your unwillingness to compromise, and am keen to hear your plan - mine was just a suggestion for people to improve on and I'm open to ideas.


"If it wasn't for folk sticking their heads above the parapet, and willing to take the flak, nothing would ever be achieved."

Well obviously I am sticking my head above the parapet and you are giving me flak :)

I've already stated my view/plan regarding wind powerstations. If wind powerstations have to be built to fill developers pockets, and massage politicians egos, then build them on existing urban sites. Very simple.

Here here Mike ban them completely from the Scottish Highlands. No compromise full stop. I hate seeing these windfarms when out on the hills and if we let these so called do-gooders get their way our enjoyment of the mountains will be spolit forever.

Just returned from a few days on Skye to read this thread. I also read the statement published by the RSPB and I'm a little confused how that correlates with some of the windfarm projects they have publically supported. Seems to me they don't quite know what their policy is relating to large scale windfarms.

Anyway, for what it's worth let me repeat my own feeling about windfarms. I don't object to every windfarm development as has been suggested. For a start I don't have the time in the day to oppose every proposal, but I do support small scale developments that are designed for community use. If my village, pop about 1100, proposed a couple of small turbines to power the village then I'd support it. Likewise a small hydro-scheme.

Perhaps I am an idealist but I've preached the gospel of wind land too long now to see the benifits of such places threatened by the latest green craze. I happen to believe passionately that such places are vitally important to civilisation - a counter to civilisation - and that we must defend these places as much as possible, particularly from those politicians who spend their lives in a metropolitan bubble.

The statement made earlier that we shouldn't oppose something because there is a political will for it is utter nonsense. There wasn't a political will for a freedom to roam in Scotland a few years ago, indeed the first Government draft was a licence for landowners to shut down the land completely from the public. We opposed it and ended up up with some superb legislation. I know there are enough politicians in Holyrood and Westminster who oppose gross windfarm development, enough to make it worthwhile fighting those developments that would have a negative effect in the proportionately small areas of land we have left that we can call wild. I don't think I'd be doing my job as editor of a hillwalking magazine if I didn't oppose those things that threatened the integrity of the areas and landscapes we hold precious.

There seems to be a lot of selective quoting going on on this thread. I didn't say "we shouldn't oppose something because there is a political will for it", I said "the political will for windfarms is to strong".


"There wasn't a political will for a freedom to roam in Scotland a few years ago,........ We opposed it and ended up up with some superb legislation."

But the legislation you won is in the majorities interest. I'm afraid wild land isn't - the majority want electricity.

".... to make it worthwhile fighting those developments that would have a negative effect in the proportionately small areas of land we have left that we can call wild."

Well, it's come to this has it? Agreement :-)

Yes, I agree very strongly with this. But this is the first time I've seen you talk about defending "proportionately small areas of land we have left that we can call wild" (although to be fair I don't see TGO much - they don't sell it round here). Even in one of the opening comments of this thread you said "any organisation that suggests large corporate companies can build windfarms anywhere but on their reserves deserves to be knocked". Ambiguous granted, but you can't afford to be ambiguous. In the past you've been against windfarms wherever they were built.

John

Yes. John, from the, admittedly, limited knowledge I have and from what I've read by an increasing number of scientists, there appears to be big question marks over the efficiency of windfarms, and indeed, renewables in general. Here's Sir David King, a quote from the FT:

"Sir David said that big increases in the amount of energy from wind were problematic because of its inherent intermittency - the wind is unpredictable and cannot be guaranteed to blow at the times electricity is needed.

"He said: 'If you oversupply renewable energy you run the risk that at high demand periods there may be no wind. If you're overdependent on wind you create a problem with security of supply.'

"Sir David believes the best way to generate lowcarbon energy is to improve energy efficiency and to increase the proportion of electricity generated from nuclear power.

'With nuclear I think it's wise to go to 40 per cent of maximum demand," he said. That would require up to 20 new or replacement nuclear power stations by 2025.'

I've been reading an increasing number of statements like that so there is already doubt about the value of large scale windfarm developments, in the numbers the Government is suggesting, within the scientific community. I'd be the first to admit that the politicians are more likely to listen to scientists than the likes of me but that growing doubt within the scientific community gives me the encouragement to fight these developments from a different angle, the wild land preservation angle, and that's something I do know a little about. Incidentally, there are a number of ministers within the Scottish Government who are not convinced about over reliance on renewables. From what I can gather that's the reason the decision on the Beauly-Denny powerline has been delayed yet again.

I'm also pragmatic enough to realise that large scale, ugly, environmentally-damaging windfarms will be built on wild land areas, but that doesn't mean I should stop campaigning against large scale windfarms in general.

Incidentally, on a slightly different note, I'm saddened that Davie Black, the Ramblers 'expert' on windfarm development, has been one of the victims of the Ramblers cuts. I asked the chair of the board and the CEO Tom Franklin what the Ramblers policy on windfarms was now and they couldn't, or wouldn't tell me. I guess they don't want to rock the New Labour boat...

Finally, now that people are beginning to realise that renewables are likely to send their energy bills sky-high then there will be growing lobby campaigning against them. In the near future the question is likely not to be "do we have enough energy capability?" but, "can we afford to pay for the energy we use...?"