Sunday, November 24, 2013

Stop the Cairnduhie windfarm campaigners take to the social networks

They are now on Twitter and Facebook. 


Anonymous said...

And the alternative is more nuclear?

moanranger said...

Nuclear can be safe, I often work in Thurso and can vouch for the fact that many folk up there would be more than happy for a new generation nuclear plant to be built. The proliferation of these industrial turbines in our unspoilt landscapes is having a major impact of tourism in the Highlands... but we are not allowed to talk about that are we?

Spurtle said...

And the alternative is more nuclear?

Well if you want to actually keep the lights on, the answer is most likely yes....

Unless you have discovered a way to guarantee energy production from wind farms all day, everyday.

Industrial scale wind turbines and nuclear plants are a part of a portfolio of generation systems that can 'keep the lights on'... what is unacceptable is the overwhelming urge that the companies involved have to ruin beautiful and unspoilt areas of Scotland, when they possess the technology to put even bigger turbines out at sea.

Offshore turbines are more efficient but the simple reason why there is still a mass of applications for onshore installations is that there is more money to be made by blighting mountainsides.

Don't for one second think that any company involved in the production of energy from renewable sources gives a toss about anything other than profit and the present incumbents at Holyrood seem to be perfectly happy to sacrifice great swathes of this beautiful land in helping them maximise those profits by subsidising their operations, and getting us to pay for it.

The devil you unfortunately know said...

Folk in Fukushima used to think nuclear was safe as well, not many tourists there now

Nuclear equals jobs in Thurso, there's little else by the way of work. There's also the infamous mineshaft at Dounreay but we'd better not talk about that had we?

High and mighty said...

We're all a bunch of energy greedy b********

Anonymous said...

I'd rather leave a few rusty windmills for one generation of folk to clear up than spent nuclear fuel which will last thousands of years

Money to be made form industry, there's a surprise

Jim said...

Some simple figures mentioned at (Westminster) PMQs on TV today (Wed).

You will be aware of the ongoing row there, where rising energy prices make things especially difficult for older folk to keep warm in winter. Labour state that 31,600 people died last winter due to the cold weather. (It was pointed out by the Coalition that that figure is actually DOWN on the figure for some years earlier of 36,000. Still too many).

Labour plan to freeze energy bills for a period. Again, there is some doubt if this is possible, since wholesale gas prices are not under the control of Westminster.

Now here's the point. Taking the cost of electricity generated by nuclear, coal, gas or oil as a group, Onshore wind generated power cost was quoted as DOUBLE that of non-renewable generation, and offshore wind generated power as TREBLE the cost.

Now can anyone here explain how using wind generated renewable energy at double the price or more is supposed to help those who can't afford to switch on their heating because the present consumer bills are too high?

As the PM was asked 'How many more will die this winter?' (You can see his answers on catch-up TV)

Bluntly, if renewables are so much more expensive, they should be held up until the technology improves.

Don't mention EU policy here - what the heck do they know about life for elderly pensioners? If the EU policy makers were only elected, we could vote them out.