Wind Farms

[frogesque]

I think we should all have our own small wind turbines either in our gardens or on the roofs of our houses.

A couple of examples:

Seems a much better solution to me

I want one

[PersianPaladin]

I think wind turbines are an eyesore on the landscape and if any go up on the scenic areas of the Durham Pennines then I will campaign to have them removed. There are big conflicts between environmental groups about this issue; with one party supporting turbines in the countryside and another party opposing it. I think the only solution (in order to avoid bedlam) is to have them offshore. Or even better, to have a national grid of wind turbines based upon every existing house in the UK possessing their own wind turbines (as MCS has suggested).

Edited September 1, 2006 by PersianPaladin

[Rustynailer]

I think wind turbines are an eyesore on the landscape and if any go up on the scenic areas of the Durham Pennines then I will campaign to have them removed. There are big conflicts between environmental groups about this issue; with one party supporting turbines in the countryside and another party opposing it. I think the only solution (in order to avoid bedlam) is to have them offshore. Or even better, to have a national grid of wind turbines based upon every existing house in the UK possessing their own wind turbines (as MCS has suggested).

National Grid of wind turbines on every home, we could use the existing grid.......Man after my own heart PP

Shurly the least controversial option, is every home has a prop and panels by say 2220. Rather than put the big ones, where people have valid reasons for not having them, like scenic beauty. But where the sceenery has already been spoiled by development put some big WT's there IMO

Edited September 1, 2006 by Rustynailer

[The PIT]

Well theres ways to disguise them. Transparent Blades okay greenies will say dangerous to bird life etc which I suppose is right. Disguise them as Windmills. Now people like those and wouldn't complain. You could stick them along every road and people would say ah ain't that cute.

Paint the blades and poles to blend in with the country side. Less noticable from distance for example depending on the angle.

National Grid of wind turbines on every home, we could use the existing grid.......Man after my own heart PP

Shurly the least controversial option, is every home has a prop and panels by say 2220. Rather than put the big ones, where people have valid reasons for not having them, like scenic beauty. But where the sceenery has already been spoiled by development put some big WT's there IMO

Err yes but can you see Powergen going for that. They wouldn't be needed theres no profit so they're going to lobby the Government to block such ideas.

Nothing wrong with idea but it ain't going to happen I'm afraid.

[Rustynailer]

Well theres ways to disguise them. Transparent Blades okay greenies will say dangerous to bird life etc which I suppose is right. Disguise them as Windmills. Now people like those and wouldn't complain. You could stick them along every road and people would say ah ain't that cute.

Paint the blades and poles to blend in with the country side. Less noticable from distance for example depending on the angle.

Err yes but can you see Powergen going for that. They wouldn't be needed theres no profit so they're going to lobby the Government to block such ideas.

Nothing wrong with idea but it ain't going to happen I'm afraid.

Sad but true

I think the oil lobby will stop home grown methanol replacing petrol, and bio diesel replacing diesel, if they can also

All is not doom and gloom though, as pleanty can tell greed when they see it. There is not enough oil to go around..............

Everybody has the right to guard their livleyhoods, but when oil and other fuels go through the roof maybe, just maybe, people may momentarily think straight and put good before greed, because they will have too if they can't have oil

Then again we are as unpredictable as the wind

Edited September 1, 2006 by Rustynailer

[Hairy Celt]

just a few points from someone who has worked on windfarms. first, the house-mounted ones are a waste of time because wind speeds on nearly all houses are too low: the turbines need to be in windy places. second, the only people who have objected strongly in the planning process (part from rspb usually) are those with fancy houses within line of sight and only a very few miles away. everyone else appreciates the benefits over their own pockets. third, they are much less of a blot on the landscape than pylons, huge hydro schemes, large upland conifer plantations, to mention just a few. fourth, they have a lifespan of 25 years, after which they are dismantled (unless of course, the operator applies for planning to renew them, which seems unlikely at this stage. my opinion is that cities should be ringed with windfarms, and smaller communities should have medium-sized turbines closer by. the current trend for more large upland developments only encourages more pylons.

[Verglas]

I think wind turbines are an eyesore on the landscape and if any go up on the scenic areas of the Durham Pennines then I will campaign to have them removed.

It's too late when they are up, the planning stage is the time to object if you wish to

[Somerset Squall]

just a few points from someone who has worked on windfarms. first, the house-mounted ones are a waste of time because wind speeds on nearly all houses are too low: the turbines need to be in windy places. second, the only people who have objected strongly in the planning process (part from rspb usually) are those with fancy houses within line of sight and only a very few miles away. everyone else appreciates the benefits over their own pockets. third, they are much less of a blot on the landscape than pylons, huge hydro schemes, large upland conifer plantations, to mention just a few. fourth, they have a lifespan of 25 years, after which they are dismantled (unless of course, the operator applies for planning to renew them, which seems unlikely at this stage. my opinion is that cities should be ringed with windfarms, and smaller communities should have medium-sized turbines closer by. the current trend for more large upland developments only encourages more pylons.

I entirely agree with that HC.

[PersianPaladin]

It's too late when they are up, the planning stage is the time to object if you wish to

But if they reject the wishes of the people (like they usually do) then direct action will have to result. Just like when Tony Blair ignored the majority of the people who were against going to war - storm the bastille I say.

[Guest Viking141]

Hmmm. Which would I rather see as I look out of my kitchen window in the morning:

a: Wind turbines or

b: dome of a nuclear power station

I think I know which one I prefer. Shetland is well placed to reap the potential benefits of wind/wave power. We already have small scale wind farms up here and I for one have no objection to more of them unlike more nuclear power stations which I have serious objections to. We could harvest the wind up here and sell it to the national grid. Oil isnt going to last forever and people are always wondering what on earth folk are going to do up here when Sullom Voe closes, particularly as the EU has already destroyed our fishing industry. Well alternatve energy could be a good way of securing future employment in the islands. We already burn our waste and use it to produce hot water in our "waste to energy plant" instead of using landfill and I think wind farms and indeed wave farms would be ideal up here. We could be self sufficient in energy and be a net exporter.

Whilst individual wind mills would be a great idea up here as there is bags of wind and plenty of open space I cant see it working in major cities like London or Birmingham.

[PersianPaladin]

Hmmm. Which would I rather see as I look out of my kitchen window in the morning:

a: Wind turbines or

b: dome of a nuclear power station

I think I know which one I prefer. Shetland is well placed to reap the potential benefits of wind/wave power. We already have small scale wind farms up here and I for one have no objection to more of them unlike more nuclear power stations which I have serious objections to. We could harvest the wind up here and sell it to the national grid. Oil isnt going to last forever and people are always wondering what on earth folk are going to do up here when Sullom Voe closes, particularly as the EU has already destroyed our fishing industry. Well alternatve energy could be a good way of securing future employment in the islands. We already burn our waste and use it to produce hot water in our "waste to energy plant" instead of using landfill and I think wind farms and indeed wave farms would be ideal up here. We could be self sufficient in energy and be a net exporter.

Whilst individual wind mills would be a great idea up here as there is bags of wind and plenty of open space I cant see it working in major cities like London or Birmingham.

Sadly, I think you're right. Especially when it comes to individual houses in Birmingham or London. There is a theory though that if every house in the Uk had a wind turbine combined with solar power as well as combined with a network of wind farms around our coasts then we could all share the power from a unified grid.

Edited September 4, 2006 by PersianPaladin

[Osbourne One-Nil]

Countryside varies in its quality. Only the very very best should be left sacrosanct, but I do think it's important that some areas are. Once it's gone, you can't get it back. Naturally, where I live is one of those areas.

[i luv snow]

I think Windfarms, on land or in sea, are beautiful and wouldnt mind them being anywhere. However as a country we are small and so we cant only rely on this emthod, hwoever I think other countries, like in Eastern Europe and Russa have huge potential to maximise this type of energy.....

[Thundery wintry showers]

I still haven't seen any reasons as to why we have to have them in scenic areas when there is an alternative, namely in putting them offshore. If there are, I'm quite open to their existence; but what are they?

So far all I've seen is the comparison of putting windfarms in scenic areas to worse proposals like having a massive power station in an area of scenic beauty, we would rather have a wind farm than a power station, therefore putting windfarms in scenic areas is a good thing. But you could dismiss complaints about anything using that kind of argument- e.g. I would rather have a ban on computer games than a ban on computers, therefore computer games should be banned. (An extreme extension, but the same line of argument)

Or arguing that scenery is less important than environment and therefore it's worth sacrificing scenery for environment. But while it's better to have a proportion (probably minority) of people inconvenienced by "it spoils the scenery" than to have nothing done about the environment- wouldn't it be even better to have the environment helped to a similar extent, without causing aggravation through "it spoils the scenery"?

As for HC's analysis, it seems somewhat biased. The only people who object "strongly" in the planning process are people who live within a few miles, and everybody else appreciates the benefits- says which analysis/research? Just because people don't object strongly it doesn't mean they're all in favour (I remember the BBC using a similar technique to try and argue that 7 in 10 people thought the new BBC forecast graphics were a big improvement). Some might be in favour, others might be against but not strongly against enough to make a big fuss.

This might seem a bit of a strong post- apologies if it causes offence- but some points seem to be being ignored.

[Hairy Celt]

I still haven't seen any reasons as to why we have to have them in scenic areas when there is an alternative, namely in putting them offshore. If there are, I'm quite open to their existence; but what are they?

So far all I've seen is the comparison of putting windfarms in scenic areas to worse proposals like having a massive power station in an area of scenic beauty, we would rather have a wind farm than a power station, therefore putting windfarms in scenic areas is a good thing. But you could dismiss complaints about anything using that kind of argument- e.g. I would rather have a ban on computer games than a ban on computers, therefore computer games should be banned. (An extreme extension, but the same line of argument)

Or arguing that scenery is less important than environment and therefore it's worth sacrificing scenery for environment. But while it's better to have a proportion (probably minority) of people inconvenienced by "it spoils the scenery" than to have nothing done about the environment- wouldn't it be even better to have the environment helped to a similar extent, without causing aggravation through "it spoils the scenery"?

As for HC's analysis, it seems somewhat biased. The only people who object "strongly" in the planning process are people who live within a few miles, and everybody else appreciates the benefits- says which analysis/research? Just because people don't object strongly it doesn't mean they're all in favour (I remember the BBC using a similar technique to try and argue that 7 in 10 people thought the new BBC forecast graphics were a big improvement). Some might be in favour, others might be against but not strongly against enough to make a big fuss.

This might seem a bit of a strong post- apologies if it causes offence- but some points seem to be being ignored.

the reason off-shore developments are slower to get going is technical - it's more difficult to build a structure in the sea than on land. same reason that hydrocarbon exploitation was first done on-shore. so i guess you could say it's financial when it comes to the crunch. i don't think there are as many environmental or ecological issues off-shore - depending on where you put them of course!

i take your point about bias, but i was trying to answer some other posts that were equally biased. this is what debate's about, eh? no offence... the individual responses to windfarm proposals at the planning stage are usually a mixed bag, with the obvious points about property values, scenery, local employment, etc., put forward. but the individuals (as opposed to responses from ngos, etc.) who take it furthest are those with expensive properties close by. i don't want to give details for obvious reasons.

a further point that i'll repeat as it seems to be consistently ignored is that on-shore windfarms are temporary - 25 years lifespan. can that be said of nuclear power stations? i can only assume (from what professionals have told me, that off-shore developments will by then have superceded them.

[tugmistress]

snippety snip over my head stuff ....

a further point that i'll repeat as it seems to be consistently ignored is that on-shore windfarms are temporary - 25 years lifespan. can that be said of nuclear power stations? i can only assume (from what professionals have told me, that off-shore developments will by then have superceded them.

Yes nuclear power stations have alife span..... a quote about Dounreay follows, the wind farm (all of two turbines) in the north sea off lybster up here are set for a 5 year life span at the moment, not 25 years ....

* Until the 1950s, Dounreay was an area of grazing land on the remote northern coast of Scotland, known only for the presence of a 16th century ruined castle, a farm and a World War Two aerodrome that never became operational.

* In 1954, the UK Government selected it as the location for the national centre for research and development of fast breeder reactors, a new type of atomic energy. Fast reactors were thought to have good potential for electricity generation as they made more efficient use of uranium fuel – effectively breeding more fuel than they consumed. This was important with the scarcity of uranium at the time.

* The site was opened in 1955, and for the next 40 years Dounreay led the world in research and development of fast reactor technology. Two fast reactors were built at the site:

- Dounreay Fast Reactor (DFR), with its famous “dome of discovery”, operated from 1959 to 1977;

- Prototype Fast Reactor (PFR), a larger model, ran from 1974 to 1994.

* A materials test reactor (DMTR) also operated from 1958 to 1969. A variety of laboratories and chemical plants were built to handle reactor fuel, and facilities were developed to treat, store and dispose of wastes from the research programme.

* Employing 2,400 people at its peak, the site transformed the local economy, trebling the size of Thurso, the nearest town.

* Dounreay proved that fast reactors could work. It also demonstrated that plutonium could be recycled by reprocessing efficiently and economically. But by the late 1980s uranium was no longer in short supply, and the UK Government decided that fast reactors would not be needed for commercial electricity generation. Funding for the Dounreay research programme ceased and the last reactor shut down in 1994.

* Reprocessing of PFR fuel continued until 1996, and spare capacity in fuel plants allowed commercial work including manufacture of fuel elements and recovery of enriched uranium. In the late 1990s UKAEA stopped new commercial work to concentrate on decommissioning the site.

* Despite fears about the economic impact of decommissioning, it has brought a new lease of life to the area and increased employment levels at the site. Dounreay is now a pioneer once again, this time in environmental restoration.

* In 2000, UKAEA published the Dounreay Site Restoration Plan, which was one of the world’s first blueprints for the restoration of a major nuclear site.

[PersianPaladin]

Yes nuclear power stations have alife span..... a quote about Dounreay follows, the wind farm (all of two turbines) in the north sea off lybster up here are set for a 5 year life span at the moment, not 25 years ....

* Until the 1950s, Dounreay was an area of grazing land on the remote northern coast of Scotland, known only for the presence of a 16th century ruined castle, a farm and a World War Two aerodrome that never became operational.

* In 1954, the UK Government selected it as the location for the national centre for research and development of fast breeder reactors, a new type of atomic energy. Fast reactors were thought to have good potential for electricity generation as they made more efficient use of uranium fuel – effectively breeding more fuel than they consumed. This was important with the scarcity of uranium at the time.

* The site was opened in 1955, and for the next 40 years Dounreay led the world in research and development of fast reactor technology. Two fast reactors were built at the site:

- Dounreay Fast Reactor (DFR), with its famous “dome of discovery”, operated from 1959 to 1977;

- Prototype Fast Reactor (PFR), a larger model, ran from 1974 to 1994.

* A materials test reactor (DMTR) also operated from 1958 to 1969. A variety of laboratories and chemical plants were built to handle reactor fuel, and facilities were developed to treat, store and dispose of wastes from the research programme.

* Employing 2,400 people at its peak, the site transformed the local economy, trebling the size of Thurso, the nearest town.

* Dounreay proved that fast reactors could work. It also demonstrated that plutonium could be recycled by reprocessing efficiently and economically. But by the late 1980s uranium was no longer in short supply, and the UK Government decided that fast reactors would not be needed for commercial electricity generation. Funding for the Dounreay research programme ceased and the last reactor shut down in 1994.

* Reprocessing of PFR fuel continued until 1996, and spare capacity in fuel plants allowed commercial work including manufacture of fuel elements and recovery of enriched uranium. In the late 1990s UKAEA stopped new commercial work to concentrate on decommissioning the site.

* Despite fears about the economic impact of decommissioning, it has brought a new lease of life to the area and increased employment levels at the site. Dounreay is now a pioneer once again, this time in environmental restoration.

* In 2000, UKAEA published the Dounreay Site Restoration Plan, which was one of the world’s first blueprints for the restoration of a major nuclear site.

There have also been several radioactive particles from the plant found on the beaches around the area and even several miles away.

I think the only argument that will win is to have them offshore. There just isn't enough land, heck, we need space for houses and industry\services too as well as walking. I'm not having the north pennines spoilt with wind farms - after all, it is an area of 'outstanding national beauty' and has a unique wild setting. Thank God, though. that at least the Lake District has got national park status. At least the jewel in England's natural beauty crown is protected.

Edited September 5, 2006 by PersianPaladin

[M'Lady]

We went for a walk on Crosby beach yesterday and could see what we think are the beginnings of the off shore wind farm... and very nice it looked too. Better than the oil rigs and container ships anyway.

[Hairy Celt]

what i was implying about nuclear power stations is that their contaminated waste lasts more than 25 years - lots longer. people will be cursing 20th century governments in the 30th and 40th centuries. by contrast, windfarms will leave concrete bases and gravel roads.

[Just Before Dawn]

As someone who is presently working on a number of off-shore windfarm projects from an environmental point-of-view, it's complete fallacy to suggest that it's less environmentally damaging to place them off-shore.

As HC and a few others have said - costs of Offshore sites in terms of construction and operation are hugely greater than terrestrial sites, therefore an economy of scale comes into play - it only becomes economically viable to have turbines in blocks of 40 or 50 at a time (I'm dealing with one case with over 100 turbines of a scale twice as large as on-shore turbines). The costs of protected on-shore cabling is great too so developers like to place these blocks close together. This has implications for effectiveness. The environment is more hostile and the lifespan of the turbines shorter, therefore they require more maintenance and earlier replacement andding to cost and environmental damage. There are noise impacts on cetaceans and seals, they can significantly affect bird migration and can impact upon bird mortality and are often placed in or adjacent to internationally important bird wintering sites. They are usually located in fairly shallow water, these often support important benthic habitats, including commercial fishing grounds.

There is certainly an element of out-of-sight, out-of-mind about shoving them in the sea, but it isn't an environmentally friendly option, unless the only realistic concern about the environment is what it looks like.

I'm not having the north pennines spoilt with wind farms - after all, it is an area of 'outstanding national beauty' and has a unique wild setting.

So does the Solway Firth and The Wash, but no-one seems to have a problem in trashing them.

Edited September 5, 2006 by Just Before Dawn

[The Penguin]

just a few points from someone who has worked on windfarms. first, the house-mounted ones are a waste of time because wind speeds on nearly all houses are too low: the turbines need to be in windy places. second, the only people who have objected strongly in the planning process (part from rspb usually) are those with fancy houses within line of sight and only a very few miles away. everyone else appreciates the benefits over their own pockets. third, they are much less of a blot on the landscape than pylons, huge hydro schemes, large upland conifer plantations, to mention just a few. fourth, they have a lifespan of 25 years, after which they are dismantled (unless of course, the operator applies for planning to renew them, which seems unlikely at this stage. my opinion is that cities should be ringed with windfarms, and smaller communities should have medium-sized turbines closer by. the current trend for more large upland developments only encourages more pylons.

Yes, but wind turbines are still ugly, inefficient, (a 200 ft high wind turbine of 500 kW capacity will on average produce 125 kW - enough to boil 50 electric kettles,)

expensive to build and expensive to maintain, and all of these except ugly gets far worse when relocated out to sea.

Even on land, they make no sense as primary power generators and worst of all take far too much in land area to be at all commercial. In comparison with other generating types the land take is hopeless.

Carno wind "farm", said to be the largest in Europe, sprawls over 1500 acres and produces an average output of 10 MW.

The Baglan Combined Cycle Gas Turbine generator will cover 15 acres and produce 500 MW of reliable power.

The Hunterston B Nuclear Power Station covers roughly 30 acres and produces an average of 8300 MW of reliable power.

And the concept of ringing cities with wind farms is ludicrous. By my rough reckoning the calculation would be something like:-

It takes one third of the Hunterston B capacity to power Glasgow. For this to be accomplished with wind farms an area close to 500 sq. km. or 125,000 acres would be required, which is nearly three times the area of the city.

[Hairy Celt]

As someone who is presently working on a number of off-shore windfarm projects from an environmental point-of-view, it's complete fallacy to suggest that it's less environmentally damaging to place them off-shore.

As HC and a few others have said - costs of Offshore sites in terms of construction and operation are hugely greater than terrestrial sites, therefore an economy of scale comes into play - it only becomes economically viable to have turbines in blocks of 40 or 50 at a time (I'm dealing with one case with over 100 turbines of a scale twice as large as on-shore turbines). The costs of protected on-shore cabling is great too so developers like to place these blocks close together. This has implications for effectiveness. The environment is more hostile and the lifespan of the turbines shorter, therefore they require more maintenance and earlier replacement andding to cost and environmental damage. There are noise impacts on cetaceans and seals, they can significantly affect bird migration and can impact upon bird mortality and are often placed in or adjacent to internationally important bird wintering sites. They are usually located in fairly shallow water, these often support important benthic habitats, including commercial fishing grounds.

There is certainly an element of out-of-sight, out-of-mind about shoving them in the sea, but it isn't an environmentally friendly option, unless the only realistic concern about the environment is what it looks like.

So does the Solway Firth and The Wash, but no-one seems to have a problem in trashing them.

ok, thought i was sticking my neck out a bit. thanks for correcting me!

[Thundery wintry showers]

As someone who is presently working on a number of off-shore windfarm projects from an environmental point-of-view, it's complete fallacy to suggest that it's less environmentally damaging to place them off-shore.

As HC and a few others have said - costs of Offshore sites in terms of construction and operation are hugely greater than terrestrial sites, therefore an economy of scale comes into play - it only becomes economically viable to have turbines in blocks of 40 or 50 at a time (I'm dealing with one case with over 100 turbines of a scale twice as large as on-shore turbines). The costs of protected on-shore cabling is great too so developers like to place these blocks close together. This has implications for effectiveness. The environment is more hostile and the lifespan of the turbines shorter, therefore they require more maintenance and earlier replacement andding to cost and environmental damage. There are noise impacts on cetaceans and seals, they can significantly affect bird migration and can impact upon bird mortality and are often placed in or adjacent to internationally important bird wintering sites. They are usually located in fairly shallow water, these often support important benthic habitats, including commercial fishing grounds.

There is certainly an element of out-of-sight, out-of-mind about shoving them in the sea, but it isn't an environmentally friendly option, unless the only realistic concern about the environment is what it looks like.

That's the kind of information I was looking for- up until the last few posts, the impression I got was that people were ignoring the idea of putting windfarms offshore because putting them onshore had no objections other than "they spoil the sscenery", which was an unimportant objection and therefore didn't count.

Here we have sound reasons to suggest that offshore developments are also problematic- a more useful and rounded discussion is more likely now that we have both sides of the argument.

[Just Before Dawn]

Thanks fellas. Re-reading my first post, it comes across rather stridently, for which I apologise. There's likely to be an environmental cost to energy generation however it's generated and wherever the generation facilities are located.

There may be some locations off-shore where environmental considerations are less pressing and therefore there could potentially be some capacity, similarly some on-shore sites are as sensitive as off-shore one, so the only realistic option is a balance of on-and off-shore sites. That said - if you take an environmentally precautionary approach to siting, off-shore turbines will cost more to build, need more maintenance which will be more expensive to carry out on a job-by-job basis, will require replacement more often. They're viable only because they're proposed on a scale which would never be considered acceptable on land.

I guess it's a trade off to which (the argumentative sod said disappointingly ) there probably isn't a straightforward answer.

[Hairy Celt]

Thanks fellas. Re-reading my first post, it comes across rather stridently, for which I apologise. There's likely to be an environmental cost to energy generation however it's generated and wherever the generation facilities are located.

There may be some locations off-shore where environmental considerations are less pressing and therefore there could potentially be some capacity, similarly some on-shore sites are as sensitive as off-shore one, so the only realistic option is a balance of on-and off-shore sites. That said - if you take an environmentally precautionary approach to siting, off-shore turbines will cost more to build, need more maintenance which will be more expensive to carry out on a job-by-job basis, will require replacement more often. They're viable only because they're proposed on a scale which would never be considered acceptable on land.

I guess it's a trade off to which (the argumentative sod said disappointingly ) there probably isn't a straightforward answer.

one of the key words there is 'if', as in 'if you take an environmentally precautionary approach to siting [...]'. I have no off-shore experience, but developers of on-shore windfarms are a very, very mixed bunch, some of whom take their responsibilities very seriously, others, well, just don't. so it's always going to be difficult to compare like for like if you look at data from the industries.

there's also the problem that different planning laws apply to on-shore and off-shore, just as there are differences between scotland and england/wales.

as for the scale: how many turbines are there in the larger off-shore windfarms? we're looking at around 200 for the proposed lewis on-shore, which probably won't get through planning anyway.

That's the kind of information I was looking for- up until the last few posts, the impression I got was that people were ignoring the idea of putting windfarms offshore because putting them onshore had no objections other than "they spoil the sscenery", which was an unimportant objection and therefore didn't count.

Here we have sound reasons to suggest that offshore developments are also problematic- a more useful and rounded discussion is more likely now that we have both sides of the argument.

there are many valid environmental and ecological reasons for being very careful about on-shore windfarm placement, construction, maintenance and decommissioning. unfortunately most scottish planners are rather ignorant, and their political masters corrupt. in my opinion, the landscape issues pale into insignificance when compared to factors such as loss of scarce upland habitats, impacts on breeding birds, habitat degradation by estate managers using new roads to access remote parts, risks of peat slides, pollution of upland watercourses....

Edited September 5, 2006 by Hairy Celt