As the national is incentivising specific landowners to develop windfarms.

As the national is incentivising specific landowners to develop windfarms.

As the national is incentivising specific landowners to develop windfarms.

I suppose what you’re taking a look at is some type or style of procedure that will strategise windfarm development.

This could be impossible to implement in the united kingdom as we have a tendency to comply with the legal rights associated with individual. Asia would pull off exactly what your saying it is that that which we want, individuals bulldozed down land which they used to meet nationwide carbon emissions objectives? That was the thing that was happening in Scotland when you look at the fifties with hydro developments, maybe maybe not pretty and yet many antiwind people love hydro as an option to wind.

The option to make is therefore ours, as residents.

Do we require a decreased carbon economy for Scotland or otherwise not? Then there is no hope of any other country doing it if we can’t do it here with the best wind, wave and tidal resources.

And then we should accept the democracy and the public opinion top-down that those institutions bring if we accept that we are a part of something larger like Scotland, the UK or the EU or the larger human race. Rather, we’re enabling democracy grassroots-up to call the shots. That is no chance to improve the way in which people effect on the environmental surroundings plus it certain does not enable effective central strategy creating.

Final modified by Rheghead; 19-Mar-08 at 23:55 .

I must say I hardly understand why individuals dislike these wind “farms”

eharmony too expensive

“farms”. 3 turbines that are bloody ive seen bigger farms during my bathroom.

Anyway, these plain things do not cause anybody any problems, as well as the those who dislike him are individuals who simply want one thing to complain about.

I truly hardly understand why individuals dislike these wind “farms”

“farms”. 3 bloody turbines, ive seen bigger farms during my restroom.

anyhow, these things dont cause anybody any issues, therefore the those who dislike him are individuals who simply want one thing to complain about.

You cannot have now been windfarm that is following celtic302. The issue is perhaps perhaps perhaps not windfarms on their own it really is the figures targetted on Caithness. see after estimate from another thread.

And Nobody Batted An Eyelid! (wind generators) On 23rd February 2008 at 11.01 we listed the only hundred and forty-seven (147, pure co-incidence!) commercial size wind generators presently someplace in the look System that will be plainly noticeable from Watten, or from around Watten, when they’re built.

AND NOBODY BATTED AN EYELID!

Would the Cairns themselves perhaps maybe not make a good base for the turbines? Assisting to save yourself the employment of tonnes of concrete would certainly reduce the impact that is environmental. How more straightforward to honour our ancestors?

Why not? There is nothing sacred anymore in terms of windfarms and fulfilling the Scottish Governments targets. IMO Caithness has been sacrificed to permit the areas of Scotland to be windfarm free. Tiny populace, very few voices that are dissenting they have currently got Causeymire, Buolfruich, Flex Hill, Achairn, Forss – landscape’s ruined already therefore stick the others up there and call it the ‘green’ powerhouse of Scotland.

What lengths away could be the nearest turbine through the cairns at Camster? And certainly will the spirits associated with the Dead have good grounds to whine about flicker and noise?

1.84 kilometer, and I also am certain that the dead are turning inside their graves during the despoilation associated with land they clearly looked after. ywy2

Many thanks for the data, a good distance that is old? Since far as i am aware it, the neolithic and mesolithic individuals cared small about their environment, these were those that created most of the issues of upland areas through deforestation. Maybe they might have authorized the turbines for a little bit of power to help keep them hot?

Final edited by Rheghead; 21-Mar-08 at 00:00 .

Thank you for the data, a reasonable old distance then? Because far as i realize it, the neolithic and mesolithic individuals cared small about their environment, these people were those who created a lot of the difficulties of upland areas through deforestation.

I have examined it out Reggy, also it appears these people were our saviours!

“Removal of this forests generated reduced transpiration leading to the synthesis of upland peat bogs .”

Which of course lock up CO2.

I have examined it out Reggy, also it appears they certainly were our saviours!

“Removal for the forests generated reduced transpiration causing the synthesis of upland peat bogs .”

Which of course lock up CO2.

Many Thanks ancestors!! ywy2

It can appear that method until we look closer during the carbon sequestration prices of specific kinds of vegetation.

The Newtonhill woodland signage had been sequestration that is claiming of 7tC/Ha per 12 months, whereas peatland sequests merely a 0.4-0.7tC/Ha each year.

More guide if you therefore want.

It might appear that method until we look closer during the carbon sequestration prices of particular forms of vegetation.

The Newtonhill woodland signage had been claiming sequestration prices of 7tC/Ha per 12 months, whereas peatland sequests merely a 0.4-0.7tC/Ha each year.

More guide if you therefore want.

I am all for growing more woods, ideally deciduous and pines that are caledonian but try not to dismiss the advantages of sequestration by peatlands too. Damaging our valuable Caithness and Sutherland Peatlands SACs and SPAs with windfarms/access roads/cable connections is way to avoid it of line.

Therefore yearly, a windfarm composed of 2.5MW turbines will mitigate 26,900 tonnes of CO2 per kmІ, woodland will sequester 700 tonnes per kmІ but bad old Peatland will simply sequester 70 tonnes ( at the best) per kmІ.