|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » Lewis and Harris » Sleeping Beauty |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Jan 01, 2005, 23:33
|
||
|
"The comparison between Thornborough gravel and Lewis wind power doesn't stand up. They're nothing like each other." I guess it depends on the angle we look at them from. Society wants or needs to use much of the land in this country but there should be agreed exempted areas where other priorities can be chosen - birds, ancient sites or whatever. Thornborough and Callanish have very strong claims for inclusion in those under the "ancient sites" classification. As things stand the "view" at Callanish isn't something that falls within the protection system. HA has argued that under the new protection system there should be provision for inclusion of "setting" and, exceptionally, viewscape as part of the area that could be scheduled.
|
|||
|
smallblueplanet 472 posts |
Jan 01, 2005, 23:44
|
||
|
If you follow some of the links - many from local people's websites you will see that the "green" energy promotion of wind farms is a scam.... http://www.mwtlewis.org.uk/links.htm There are some very interesting links, with some interesting reports, on the (heavily subsidised) scam that is wind power - put aside your dislike of me and read some of them, I think you might be surprised. Here's one from Dorset - www.dartdorset.org
|
|||
|
smallblueplanet 472 posts |
Jan 01, 2005, 23:51
|
||
|
Here's a link showing what happened to a beautiful site in Wales..... http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~hills/cc/gallery/index.htm Interesting to wonder if the gravel for the new the roads might have come from Thornborough? A summary from Dorset Against Rural Turbines (maybe even including a proposal for a farm at Hod Hill?).... "In summary then: Wind turbines will not stop global warming; Are more expensive than all other mainstream power sources; Do not produce significant amounts of power; Do disturb nearby residents with noise - causing physical and psychological illness; Do harm wildlife; Require the destruction of large tracts of the environment we are allegedly saving; Require massive funding from the taxpayer; THAT'S FUNDED BY YOU." http://www.dartdorset.org/html/reality.html
|
|||
pixie1948 171 posts |
Jan 02, 2005, 00:01
|
||
|
Having read the links about this site there seem to be many reasons why this application should be denied. Not just the safety of the birds but also the land itself. There seems to be evidence of peat being affected by building turbines. Whilst I am in favour of alternative energy solutions, I do think these should be found in a responsible way bearing in mind the wishes of the local people as well as the importance of preserving landscapes such as this. There are rules governing the siting of wind farms and if these are followed this application must be denied. However, once again, this application involves business and the god money with the usual promises of jobs for the locals etc which never seem to come about Sorry to go on about it but it makes me so cross that business seems to think it should be the first consideration when there are guidelines showing that what they want should not even be considered Elaine
|
|||
|
pixie1948 171 posts |
Jan 02, 2005, 00:05
|
||
|
We seem to be in agreement on this for a change Elaine
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Jan 02, 2005, 00:08
|
||
|
"Wind energy is not as clean as its proponents would have us believe" Agreed. "the (heavily subsidised) scam that is wind power" Not agreed. Methinks the protestor doth protest too much. It still comes down to this, however many environmental faults that those who are opposed to it come up with, they can't actually say there's a better alternative. As I said before, as someone who is apt to protest I know that protesting is the easy bit. The hard bit is suggesting a better way. Incidentally, the fact that it has to be subsidised by me the taxpayer causes me no concern. That's the whole point about green energy, it's more expensive and we'd better pay now rather than later. I wish Bush, who said he'd never sign any environmental treaty that damaged the American economy, would grasp that basic fact.
|
|||
|
smallblueplanet 472 posts |
Jan 02, 2005, 00:16
|
||
|
Read through the case against wind farms and then tell me you still think they're a good thing.....just because they're sustainable doesn't mean they're environmentally sound. http://www.countryguardian.net/case.htm Wind Turbines vs. Energy Saving - a case study There are 1,628,000 houses in the UK with pitched roof and no roof insulation* 3780 kWh of energy are lost by each such house each year.* Insulation to 1990 Building Regulations standard would save 3375 kWh p.a.* The annual output of a 750 kW turbine is 1.64 m units. Insulating 485 houses would save that amount of energy each year. New funding arrangements will give wind energy a subsidy of 2p per unit. The annual subsidy of the turbine will be £32,850. The cost of insulation is a one-off £122 per house, say £60,000 for 485 houses. Over the 100 year life of the houses, the energy saving cost averages £600 pa Saving pollution by insulation is 55 times more cost-effective than saving it by wind turbines! *Source: Pilkington Insulation, UK Mineral Wool Association
|
|||
|
pixie1948 171 posts |
Jan 02, 2005, 00:30
|
||
|
You still haven't made any alternative suggestions though. What about wave power or solar power. I know solar power works up here in Yorkshire, I had solar panels on my roof to provide hot water. Granted you need other energy to supplement this in winter but I understand there are ways of making this work with lower light levels. I had water in summer at 70C which is very hot and even in January had water temperature of 17C. We have to persuade people and governments that there are environmentally friendly ways of providing energy without destroying the very things which make living in this country so great. Elaine
|
|||
follow that cow 277 posts |
Jan 02, 2005, 02:28
|
||
|
How the wheel turns …..who'd have thought, back in the late stoned age, that 30 years down the line, alternative types like you guys would be arguing against wind power. Without becoming too political it would seem that those who object most come from the rich south and would prefer those in the poor north to know their place and don't spoil their image of Grannies Heilin' Hame, tartan shortbread tins, hairy knees in kilts ….. and mother goddess's……grouse shooting …fly fishing etc' the far north is in danger of becoming nothing more than a play ground for 'white settlers', crazies and property rich southerners who think that they can run hotels/restaurants/pubs/ancient monuments just because they can afford to eat out twice a week and basically because they come from the obviously superior south. Lewis, although amazingly rich in ancient monuments, is a REAL place where REAL people live, now/in the present/today, and these people have a right to any benefits that their environment can provide. At present the vast majority of energy production is harmful to the environment so those who truly believe in the welfare of our planet should avoid using as much electrical power as possible. So switch of that PC now and return to eco friendly communication. How about pigeon post? Certainly, the Kites and Peregrines would approve!! Surely we can all agree that there is no absolute right or absolute wrong to this argument . However, wind power is the much, much lesser of the two evils. I would hope that there is no-one out there who disagrees with this or who would argue that wind power, compared to most types of energy generation, is basically harmless in a global sense. I'm sure that a very few years (in archaeological terms) with some wind mills on her belly wont disturb the sleep of the cailleach. If you want to see something scary, visit Dounreay on the northern coast of Scotland, even with decommissioning, a truly scary, scary place, and not just for our raptor friends. As they say, 'you can't eat scenery'.
|
|||
FourWinds 10943 posts |
Jan 02, 2005, 08:48
|
||
|
I would agree with your sentiments in the case of a TV aerial or radio mast or a quarry, but when it comes to clean power I throw out all considerations. The planet and the environment come first. Plain and simple. If the evidence of damage to the peat (itself only 3000 years old and a recent invader to these parts) was being damaged by turbines was strong enough then I would be against them, because the environmental damage caused <i>might</i> just outway the good they will do.
|
| Pages: 14 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
