I did my first vaguely 'activist' thing today. I went to a Public
Meeting, put on by BWFAG <http://www.bwfag.co.uk/> Bleakhouse Wind
Farm Action Group, because I wasn't entirely sure of my "for it"
stance, on the issue of the potential Bleakhouse Wind Farm <http://
ukcoal.hemscott.com/windfarm-details&farm=43617>.

Before I left, I signed to say I'd attended, and was the only person
who tickied the "undecided" box on the page I signed - the only other
box tickied was the "against" box. I wonder if anyone actually "for"
it would bother to go to meetings like that? I mean, many many 'Action
Groups' have failed to stop these things going ahead (I'm not just
talking wind farms now, I mean the whole, BNRR protesters, Newbury
Bypassers), so is it worth even bothering with going to such meetings,
since it's almost guaranteed to get through eventually?

So, your thoughts on wind farms, if you please. And also, your
thoughts 'Action Groups' too, if you will.

--
trin

trin wrote:
> I did my first vaguely 'activist' thing today. I went to a Public
> Meeting, put on by BWFAG <http://www.bwfag.co.uk/> Bleakhouse Wind
> Farm Action Group, because I wasn't entirely sure of my "for it"
> stance, on the issue of the potential Bleakhouse Wind Farm <http://
> ukcoal.hemscott.com/windfarm-details&farm=43617>.
> 
> Before I left, I signed to say I'd attended, and was the only person
> who tickied the "undecided" box on the page I signed - the only other
> box tickied was the "against" box. I wonder if anyone actually "for"
> it would bother to go to meetings like that? I mean, many many 'Action
> Groups' have failed to stop these things going ahead (I'm not just
> talking wind farms now, I mean the whole, BNRR protesters, Newbury
> Bypassers), so is it worth even bothering with going to such meetings,
> since it's almost guaranteed to get through eventually?
> 
> So, your thoughts on wind farms, if you please. And also, your
> thoughts 'Action Groups' too, if you will.
> 
> --
> trin

NIMBY

FFF
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
Remote Viewing classes in London

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
> trin wrote:

> > So, your thoughts on wind farms, if you please. And also, your
> > thoughts 'Action Groups' too, if you will.
> NIMBY

That your answer, a question, or an accusation? <g>

--
trin

trin wrote:
> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>> trin wrote:
> 
>>> So, your thoughts on wind farms, if you please. And also, your
>>> thoughts 'Action Groups' too, if you will.
>> NIMBY
> 
> That your answer, a question, or an accusation? <g>
> 
> --
> trin

A typical attitude when it comes to good ideas.
Good, as long as it's other people who are inconvenienced.

FFF
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
Remote Viewing classes in London

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 01:51:35 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
 blethered:

>trin wrote:
>> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>>> trin wrote:
>> 
>>>> So, your thoughts on wind farms, if you please. And also, your
>>>> thoughts 'Action Groups' too, if you will.
>>> NIMBY
>> 
>> That your answer, a question, or an accusation? <g>
>> 
>> --
>> trin
>
>A typical attitude when it comes to good ideas.
>Good, as long as it's other people who are inconvenienced.

Surely it's whether the idea is 'good' that is the matter for debate
in these meetings?


-- 
Bring on the wonder, we got it all wrong
We pushed you down deep in our souls for too long

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
> trin wrote:

> >>> So, your thoughts on wind farms, if you please. And also, your
> >>> thoughts 'Action Groups' too, if you will.
> >> NIMBY
> > That your answer, a question, or an accusation? <g>
> A typical attitude when it comes to good ideas.
> Good, as long as it's other people who are inconvenienced.

*nods* Like I just said in a thread elsewhere about it:
<quote>
The biggest problem (that I think) we have is that we're only a small
island, and wherever we build such things (be it turbines or power
stations or what have you), we're always gonna encroach on someone's
life. The question then becomes "what is an acceptable level of
encroachment?"
</quote>

--
trin

Halla wrote:
> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax blethered:
> >trin wrote:

> >>> NIMBY
> >> That your answer, a question, or an accusation? <g>
> >A typical attitude when it comes to good ideas.
> >Good, as long as it's other people who are inconvenienced.
> Surely it's whether the idea is 'good' that is the matter for debate
> in these meetings?

Just in case anything said, or any of the links I used might be
helpful, here's the livejournal_uk thread I started:
http://community.livejournal.com/livejournal_uk/7719194.html

--
trin

trin wrote:

> So, your thoughts on wind farms, if you please. And also, your
> thoughts 'Action Groups' too, if you will.

I wouldn't object to having one near me, they can be quite
aesthetically pleasing in some ways:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/22544094@N00/2162592765/sizes/o/

What I would like to see more research into is their impact on local
bird populations (I must do some more reading on this, actually).
Scotland has a lot of wind but it also has golden eagles and migrating
geese and evidence is suggesting that the two don't mix:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5108666.stm


-- 
Caroline
There is no such thing as a snooze button on a cat that wants breakfast.

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 19:14:43 -0700 (PDT), trin
 blethered:

>Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>> trin wrote:
>
>> >>> So, your thoughts on wind farms, if you please. And also, your
>> >>> thoughts 'Action Groups' too, if you will.
>> >> NIMBY
>> > That your answer, a question, or an accusation? <g>
>> A typical attitude when it comes to good ideas.
>> Good, as long as it's other people who are inconvenienced.
>
>*nods* Like I just said in a thread elsewhere about it:
><quote>
>The biggest problem (that I think) we have is that we're only a small
>island, and wherever we build such things (be it turbines or power
>stations or what have you), we're always gonna encroach on someone's
>life. The question then becomes "what is an acceptable level of
>encroachment?"
></quote>

Pylons and telegraph poles and streetlights and other peoples' car
noise encroaches too.


-- 
Bring on the wonder, we got it all wrong
We pushed you down deep in our souls for too long

Halla wrote:
> trin blethered:

> >*nods* Like I just said in a thread elsewhere about it:
> ><quote>
> >The biggest problem (that I think) we have is that we're only a small
> >island, and wherever we build such things (be it turbines or power
> >stations or what have you), we're always gonna encroach on someone's
> >life. The question then becomes "what is an acceptable level of
> >encroachment?"
> ></quote>
> Pylons and telegraph poles and streetlights and other peoples' car
> noise encroaches too.

Yup - though the difference with them is that they don't produce the
extremely obvious shadow flicker like turbines can.

Fwiw though, I happen to like our local pylons, so I'm probably not
the best one to be trying to argue the case. :)

--
trin

Caroline Jones wrote:
> trin wrote:
> 
>> So, your thoughts on wind farms, if you please. And also, your
>> thoughts 'Action Groups' too, if you will.
> 
> I wouldn't object to having one near me, they can be quite
> aesthetically pleasing in some ways:
> 
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/22544094@N00/2162592765/sizes/o/
> 
> What I would like to see more research into is their impact on local
> bird populations (I must do some more reading on this, actually).
> Scotland has a lot of wind but it also has golden eagles and migrating
> geese and evidence is suggesting that the two don't mix:
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5108666.stm

No matter what the impact, it is not going to be comparable to the 
overall worldwide damage of a coal fired station.

FFF
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
Remote Viewing classes in London

Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:

> Caroline Jones wrote:
> > 
> > What I would like to see more research into is their impact on local
> > bird populations (I must do some more reading on this, actually).
> > Scotland has a lot of wind but it also has golden eagles and
> > migrating geese and evidence is suggesting that the two don't mix:
> > 
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5108666.stm
> 
> No matter what the impact, it is not going to be comparable to the
> overall worldwide damage of a coal fired station.

No, but there are persistent rumours flying round up here that once the
clean-up is finished, Dounreay will get a new reactor.  And I'd rather
have that than wind farms.

-- 
Caroline
There is no such thing as a snooze button on a cat that wants breakfast.

On 11 Jul, 13:39, "Caroline Jones" 
wrote:
> Dirk Bruere at NeoPax wrote:
>
> > Caroline Jones wrote:
>
> > > What I would like to see more research into is their impact on local
> > > bird populations (I must do some more reading on this, actually).
> > > Scotland has a lot of wind but it also has golden eagles and
> > > migrating geese and evidence is suggesting that the two don't mix:
>
> > >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5108666.stm
>
> > No matter what the impact, it is not going to be comparable to the
> > overall worldwide damage of a coal fired station.
>
> No, but there are persistent rumours flying round up here that once the
> clean-up is finished, Dounreay will get a new reactor.  And I'd rather
> have that than wind farms.
>

We actually need both.

FFF
Dirk

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:59:40 -0700, trin wrote:

> I did my first vaguely 'activist' thing today. I went to a Public
> Meeting, put on by BWFAG <http://www.bwfag.co.uk/> Bleakhouse Wind
> Farm Action Group, because I wasn't entirely sure of my "for it"
> stance, on the issue of the potential Bleakhouse Wind Farm <http://
> ukcoal.hemscott.com/windfarm-details&farm=43617>.
> 
><..>
> Bypassers), so is it worth even bothering with going to such meetings,
> since it's almost guaranteed to get through eventually?

With wind farms there is very little point in protesting - they *will*
happen despite the numerous argumnents put forward by civil airports and
the military on the issues they cause them and despite also the fact that
they are so damn unreliable.  Get a spell of settled high or low and
there's no power generated - hmm <thinks> doesn't winter have just such
spells?  just when its dark and cold??

Wind power is very much the flavour of the month and because they have a
high visibility the turbines show that the government is 'doing
something'.  The fact is that it would be far better to spend money on
nuclear and to explore the opportunities that offers along with barrage
and underwater power generation than it is to spend money on subsidising
companies to erect the turbines.

One thing you may find is that people will talk (as you have mentioned)
about flicker effect and the noise that is made - these are red herrings
to an argument as the modern 3 blade turbines produce neither to any
material effect though I know that people do claim to have experienced
both.
>
> So, your thoughts on wind farms, if you please. 

see above <g>

David P wrote:

> With wind farms there is very little point in protesting - they *will*
> happen despite the numerous argumnents put forward

Thing is, do they ALL happen? Or is there the odd one or two that does
actually get cancelled, or re-sited to a much more suitable position?

> Wind power is very much the flavour of the month

Yup, although according to Save Westwood Country Park Facts, under
Economic Issues: <http://www.swcp-online.co.uk/page17.html>

<quote>
Sweden and The Netherlands have scrapped wind subsidies. Norway didn’t
provide any. Germany realises that wind power is a “bottomless subsidy
pit”. Wind works in Denmark ONLY because it has power lines to
Sweden , Norway and Germany for grid balancing – not so in the UK .
</quote>

Perhaps if we can work hard enough, we might be able to get the G/ment
to head back towards nuke stations instead (only then we'll have loads
complaining about that instead 'cause of it being oh-so unsafe), since
it looks like other places are dropping the idea.

> The fact is that it would be far better to spend money on
> nuclear and to explore the opportunities that offers along with barrage
> and underwater power generation than it is to spend money on subsidising
> companies to erect the turbines.

Didn't know you were gonna say that next, honest. ;) Actually, I *had*
forgot where you'd gone after the bit before 'cause it took me ages to
refind the site I was wanting to quote.

> One thing you may find is that people will talk (as you have mentioned)
> about flicker effect and the noise that is made - these are red herrings
> to an argument as the modern 3 blade turbines produce neither to any
> material effect though I know that people do claim to have experienced
> both.

Noise isn't something I'm convinced on, however, in the case of the
Bleakhouse site at the very least, even Harworth Power (the company
who wants to put the three turbines up) has admitted that at least 150
homes are going to experience significant levels of flicker for at
least one, and maybe two hours a day, for approx. half the year. If
you're not convinced on the issue of flicker, have a nose at the
following couple of vid's and see if it's something you reckon you
could live with

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MD_xGWBRvA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLFzFtXHWAg

Just ignore the cheesy porn music in the second one, and you'll be
fine. ;)

--
trin

Forgot to mention: here's a (rather large) .png of the proposed site -
jus' fer reference, y'understand. :)

http://www.mercianeclectics.dsl.pipex.com/local/bleakhouse/BWFsiteplan.png

--
trin

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 12:23:03 -0700, trin wrote:

> David P wrote:
> 
>> With wind farms there is very little point in protesting - they *will*
>> happen despite the numerous argumnents put forward
> 
> Thing is, do they ALL happen? Or is there the odd one or two that does
> actually get cancelled, or re-sited to a much more suitable position?

ISTR that there was a case of that very thing in Scotland not long ago.
I think it was because of the site being a nesting ground for a rare
species - but you'd need to check & verify rather than ake what I say <g>

> 
> Perhaps if we can work hard enough, we might be able to get the G/ment
> to head back towards nuke stations instead 

I really do hope so!
> (only then we'll have loads
> complaining about that instead 'cause of it being oh-so unsafe), 

But they are being swayed by arguments that are now many decades old and
not transferring modern knowledge of how safe they can be.

> 
>> The fact is that it would be far better to spend money on nuclear and
>> to explore the opportunities that offers along with barrage and
>> underwater power generation than it is to spend money on subsidising
>> companies to erect the turbines.
> 
> Didn't know you were gonna say that next, honest. ;) 

Seeing as its you, I'll believe you <g>
> 
>> One thing you may find is that people will talk (as you have mentioned)
>> about flicker effect and the noise that is made - these are red
>> herrings to an argument as the modern 3 blade turbines produce neither
>> to any material effect though I know that people do claim to have
>> experienced both.
> 
> Noise isn't something I'm convinced on, however, in the case of the
> Bleakhouse site at the very least, even Harworth Power (the company who
> wants to put the three turbines up) has admitted that at least 150 homes
> are going to experience significant levels of flicker for at least one,
> and maybe two hours a day, for approx. half the year. If you're not
> convinced on the issue of flicker, have a nose at the following couple
> of vid's and see if it's something you reckon you could live with

I guess I'd have to come clean and say that there are around 8 of the very
latest turbines less than 1/2 mile from me and I pass them every day.  I
hate the things - but have seen no evidence of any flicker effect.

What is interesting about them is that when the first PR roadshow was put
on it pointed out that the wind was away from the village towards the
turbines so that would alleviiate any noise issues that people may be
concerned about.  The new turbines have the capability to turn to face
the wind wherever it blows from!!  Still, as I say, no noise problem
though.

David P wrote:
> trin wrote:
> > David P wrote:

> >> With wind farms there is very little point in protesting - they *will*
> >> happen despite the numerous argumnents put forward
> > Thing is, do they ALL happen? Or is there the odd one or two that does
> > actually get cancelled, or re-sited to a much more suitable position?
> ISTR that there was a case of that very thing in Scotland not long ago.
> I think it was because of the site being a nesting ground for a rare
> species - but you'd need to check & verify rather than ake what I say <g>

Awww, shucks. And there was me thinking you're a perfect font of
knowledge. :D

[Nuclear power]
> > (only then we'll have loads
> > complaining about that instead 'cause of it being oh-so unsafe),
> But they are being swayed by arguments that are now many decades old and
> not transferring modern knowledge of how safe they can be.

I thought it was less the fact that they're unsafe now (though no
doubt that'll still be a sore point for some) and more on how the feck
do you get rid of the radioactive crap afterwards? That's the only
part that gets me anyway.

> >> One thing you may find is that people will talk (as you have mentioned> >> about flicker effect and the noise that is made - these are red
> >> herrings to an argument as the modern 3 blade turbines produce neither
> >> to any material effect though I know that people do claim to have
> >> experienced both.
> > Noise isn't something I'm convinced on, however, in the case of the
> > Bleakhouse site at the very least, even Harworth Power (the company who
> > wants to put the three turbines up) has admitted that at least 150 homes
> > are going to experience significant levels of flicker for at least one,
> > and maybe two hours a day, for approx. half the year. If you're not
> > convinced on the issue of flicker, have a nose at the following couple
> > of vid's and see if it's something you reckon you could live with
> I guess I'd have to come clean and say that there are around 8 of the very
> latest turbines less than 1/2 mile from me and I pass them every day.  I
> hate the things - but have seen no evidence of any flicker effect.

Aaaah. Any idea how tall yours are? Ours are gonna be 102 metres,
which is summat like ten double decker buses end to end.

I've been trying to find out roughly what height our local pylons are
(we have a lot around here) so I can make some kind of guesstimate,
but with no success. Just from looking upwards (which I know's not
very scientific, nor accurate, at all, but my tape measure's not long
enough to measure one of them :p), I'm guessing that our local
pylons're gonna be around half as tall as the turbines'll be, which
makes them bloody tall. IMO anyway.

> What is interesting about them is that when the first PR roadshow was put
> on it pointed out that the wind was away from the village towards the
> turbines so that would alleviiate any noise issues that people may be
> concerned about.  The new turbines have the capability to turn to face
> the wind wherever it blows from!!  Still, as I say, no noise problem
> though.

Aaah. See for ours, looking at the maps and all the other stuff at the
meeting yesterday (WTF they don't have all this on-line on the web
site I dowknow), the housing estates that're right next to the site is
where the wind'll be (generally) heading.

What I'd really love is to be able to get hold of all the stuff I saw
yesterday so I can check it against other stuff and that, but the guy
who was emailing me with the YouTube URL for the Slagschaduw vid.
hasn't done so yet - and since the message board's been down for
most've the day too, I have almost no way of getting to get in touch
with anyone to ask for such things. I'm hoping - though not assuming -
that there'll be a "contact us" thang on the web site, which I'll be
able to get around to using when I'm not playing catch-up with
everything else.

--
trin

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 03:46:20 -0700 (PDT), trin
 blethered:

>Halla wrote:
>> trin blethered:
>
>> >*nods* Like I just said in a thread elsewhere about it:
>> ><quote>
>> >The biggest problem (that I think) we have is that we're only a small
>> >island, and wherever we build such things (be it turbines or power
>> >stations or what have you), we're always gonna encroach on someone's
>> >life. The question then becomes "what is an acceptable level of
>> >encroachment?"
>> ></quote>
>> Pylons and telegraph poles and streetlights and other peoples' car
>> noise encroaches too.
>
>Yup - though the difference with them is that they don't produce the
>extremely obvious shadow flicker like turbines can.

Ah, it's the movement that upsets people - they can't ignore them and
get used to them as a part of the landscape because they keep moving.
<g>

Our lives encroach on the world. I don't think we can have it both
ways, either we stop using so much electricity or we get used to
having wind turbines wherever feasible.

>
>Fwiw though, I happen to like our local pylons, so I'm probably not
>the best one to be trying to argue the case. :)

I'm not fond of pylons. :-)


-- 
Bring on the wonder, we got it all wrong
We pushed you down deep in our souls for too long

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:44:39 -0500, David P 
blethered:

>On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:59:40 -0700, trin wrote:
>
>> I did my first vaguely 'activist' thing today. I went to a Public
>> Meeting, put on by BWFAG <http://www.bwfag.co.uk/> Bleakhouse Wind
>> Farm Action Group, because I wasn't entirely sure of my "for it"
>> stance, on the issue of the potential Bleakhouse Wind Farm <http://
>> ukcoal.hemscott.com/windfarm-details&farm=43617>.
>> 
>><..>
>> Bypassers), so is it worth even bothering with going to such meetings,
>> since it's almost guaranteed to get through eventually?
>
>With wind farms there is very little point in protesting - they *will*
>happen despite the numerous argumnents put forward by civil airports and
>the military on the issues they cause them and despite also the fact that
>they are so damn unreliable.  Get a spell of settled high or low and
>there's no power generated - hmm <thinks> doesn't winter have just such
>spells?  just when its dark and cold??
>

Then again, too much wind and technical problems lead to:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u14tBwO5QVQ :-)

>Wind power is very much the flavour of the month and because they have a
>high visibility the turbines show that the government is 'doing
>something'.  

Also the biofuels thing, even though people may jump up and down
screaming 'Don't! Don't do *anything*! Figure out what's best
*first*!'

>The fact is that it would be far better to spend money on
>nuclear and to explore the opportunities that offers along with barrage
>and underwater power generation than it is to spend money on subsidising
>companies to erect the turbines.

There has to be a restriction on use too, might be worth spending
money figuring out how to do that. 

>
>One thing you may find is that people will talk (as you have mentioned)
>about flicker effect and the noise that is made - these are red herrings
>to an argument as the modern 3 blade turbines produce neither to any
>material effect though I know that people do claim to have experienced
>both.

I wonder if people objected strenuously to pylons etc. when those
started to be built? Is it simply resistance to change that's making
people moan about it, or d'you think they have an idea that the
turbines maybe aren't the best way forward but haven't the facts to
marshal a decent argument so resort to 'flickering, noise!' as their
objections?


-- 
Bring on the wonder, we got it all wrong
We pushed you down deep in our souls for too long

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 12:23:03 -0700 (PDT), trin
 blethered:

<snip>
>Noise isn't something I'm convinced on, however, in the case of the
>Bleakhouse site at the very least, even Harworth Power (the company
>who wants to put the three turbines up) has admitted that at least 150
>homes are going to experience significant levels of flicker for at
>least one, and maybe two hours a day, for approx. half the year. If
>you're not convinced on the issue of flicker, have a nose at the
>following couple of vid's and see if it's something you reckon you
>could live with
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MD_xGWBRvA
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLFzFtXHWAg
>
>Just ignore the cheesy porn music in the second one, and you'll be
>fine. ;)

Wow that's annoying. Amazing, but annoying.

(The flickering, of course - I switched the sound off. ;-)


-- 
Bring on the wonder, we got it all wrong
We pushed you down deep in our souls for too long

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 15:45:02 -0700 (PDT), trin
 blethered:

>David P wrote:
<snip>
>> I guess I'd have to come clean and say that there are around 8 of the very
>> latest turbines less than 1/2 mile from me and I pass them every day.  I
>> hate the things - but have seen no evidence of any flicker effect.
>
>Aaaah. Any idea how tall yours are? Ours are gonna be 102 metres,
>which is summat like ten double decker buses end to end.

Taller than these beasties?
http://www.cairngormsagainstpylons.org/whycare/whycare.html (about
halfway down the page is a graphic - you can ignore the other stuff if
you want, although it's an interesting issue in itself. :-) At 102m
those are going to be giants. 8-/

>
>I've been trying to find out roughly what height our local pylons are
>(we have a lot around here) so I can make some kind of guesstimate,
>but with no success. Just from looking upwards (which I know's not
>very scientific, nor accurate, at all, but my tape measure's not long
>enough to measure one of them :p), 

Isn't there some sort of maths thing to work that out? ;-) Can't be
more specific than that, mind you, because I can't recall.

>I'm guessing that our local
>pylons're gonna be around half as tall as the turbines'll be, which
>makes them bloody tall. IMO anyway.

Sounds like it. 

<snip>


-- 
Bring on the wonder, we got it all wrong
We pushed you down deep in our souls for too long

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 08:47:44 +0000 (UTC), "Caroline Jones"
 blethered:

>trin wrote:
>
>> So, your thoughts on wind farms, if you please. And also, your
>> thoughts 'Action Groups' too, if you will.
>
>I wouldn't object to having one near me, they can be quite
>aesthetically pleasing in some ways:
>
>http://www.flickr.com/photos/22544094@N00/2162592765/sizes/o/

<looks at photos, adds as contact> 

Wow. :-)

>
>What I would like to see more research into is their impact on local
>bird populations (I must do some more reading on this, actually).
>Scotland has a lot of wind but it also has golden eagles and migrating
>geese and evidence is suggesting that the two don't mix:
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5108666.stm

Not on the same bit of land, apparently. 

As a bit of a sidetrack, this was linked from that page:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7502071.stm The zero-waste town -
interesting article.


-- 
Bring on the wonder, we got it all wrong
We pushed you down deep in our souls for too long

On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 00:53:47 +0100, Halla
 wrote:

>I wonder if people objected strenuously to pylons etc. when those
>started to be built? 

I keep wondering that too.  Especially when it seems to me that
clusters of slowly-revolving wind turbines which I've mainly seen in
Holland and Germany) look stunningly beautiful, whereas a line of
pylons marching across the hills and fields ... don't.  But maybe
people were so aware of the advantages that they simply accepted them.

-- 

Wood Avens

"Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth
should that mean that it is not real?"

spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @

"trin"  wrote in message
news:6b72f33b-12ca-4cb2-b665-fca5e3fad900@w7g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
David P wrote:
> trin wrote:
> > David P wrote:

> >> With wind farms there is very little point in protesting - they *will*
> >> happen despite the numerous argumnents put forward
> > Thing is, do they ALL happen? Or is there the odd one or two that does
> > actually get cancelled, or re-sited to a much more suitable position?
> ISTR that there was a case of that very thing in Scotland not long ago.
> I think it was because of the site being a nesting ground for a rare
> species - but you'd need to check & verify rather than ake what I say <g>

Awww, shucks. And there was me thinking you're a perfect font of
knowledge. :D

[Nuclear power]
> > (only then we'll have loads
> > complaining about that instead 'cause of it being oh-so unsafe),
> But they are being swayed by arguments that are now many decades old and
> not transferring modern knowledge of how safe they can be.

I thought it was less the fact that they're unsafe now (though no
doubt that'll still be a sore point for some) and more on how the feck
do you get rid of the radioactive crap afterwards? That's the only
part that gets me anyway.

{previous poster ends here cos I'm not sure OE is formatting properly}

What bothers me about the nuclear issue is that even though the power
stations are a hell of a lot safer than they used to be if they DO screw up
they screw up very very big time for all life around them. Plus I don't
think the subject of spent waste has ever been satisfactorily dealt with.

I'm personally not in objection to wind power, wave power, hydro, bio-mass,
solar, or any other renewable resource but I'm not naive enough to think
that any single power source is the answer. It is my opinion that an
integrative approach is the best option. Mono-culture didn't work so well
for farming and it doesn't sit right with me for pretty much anything. Eggs
in one basket and all that.

Jo

On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 00:53:47 +0100, Halla wrote:

> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:44:39 -0500, David P 
> blethered:
> 
>>On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:59:40 -0700, trin wrote:
>>

> Then again, too much wind and technical problems lead to:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u14tBwO5QVQ :-)

I'm guessing that is one of the few turbines that lost its blade?  (I
haven't looked - sorry).  Failure rate is pretty low these days but the
most recent one I'm aware of was a cheap import with fibreglass blades
mainly intended for 'domestic' use and not the 100m jobbies that are
erected these days
> 
>>Wind power is very much the flavour of the month and because they have a
>>high visibility the turbines show that the government is 'doing
>>something'.
> 
> Also the biofuels thing, even though people may jump up and down
> screaming 'Don't! Don't do *anything*! Figure out what's best *first*!'

Oh how true.  But then, they have to be seen to be doing something as
doing something is better than doing nothing (ie thinking, planning,
and other such things).
> 
>>The fact is that it would be far better to spend money on nuclear and to
>>explore the opportunities that offers along with barrage and underwater
>>power generation than it is to spend money on subsidising companies to
>>erect the turbines.
> 
> There has to be a restriction on use too, might be worth spending money
> figuring out how to do that.

Agreed
> 
> 
> I wonder if people objected strenuously to pylons etc. when those
> started to be built? 

POssibly so.  Cetainly in North Yorkshire there was an uproar about 5-10
years ago when new super pylons were erected across one of the more
attractive areas.  They wnated them (the lines) put underground but the
cost was said to be prohibitive. 

> Is it simply resistance to change that's making
> people moan about it, or d'you think they have an idea that the turbines
> maybe aren't the best way forward but haven't the facts to marshal a
> decent argument so resort to 'flickering, noise!' as their objections?
> 


I think its that the people who object have looked carefully and
critically at wind power, have researched it and found it is not the best
solution - but become frustrated when their voice isn't heard at public
inquiry.  Its interesting that many of the loacl planning authorities
refuse consent initially only to have their decision over-ruled at inquiry.

I've mentioned elsehwere the concerns that military and airports have
about the masts and their effect on radar - it seems though that, once
again, the effect they claim is not sufficiently important as to stop the
march of the masts. (effects are a fogging at bottom of radar screens)

On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 15:45:02 -0700, trin wrote:

> David P wrote:
>> trin wrote:
>> > David P wrote:
> 
>> >> With wind farms there is very little point in protesting - they *will*
>> >> happen despite the numerous argumnents put forward
>> > Thing is, do they ALL happen? Or is there the odd one or two that does
>> > actually get cancelled, or re-sited to a much more suitable position?
>> ISTR that there was a case of that very thing in Scotland not long ago.
>> I think it was because of the site being a nesting ground for a rare
>> species - but you'd need to check & verify rather than ake what I say <g>
> 
> Awww, shucks. And there was me thinking you're a perfect font of
> knowledge. :D

I am - I just like to make sure you do your homework <weg>
> 
> [Nuclear power]
>> > (only then we'll have loads
>> > complaining about that instead 'cause of it being oh-so unsafe),
>> But they are being swayed by arguments that are now many decades old and
>> not transferring modern knowledge of how safe they can be.
> 
> I thought it was less the fact that they're unsafe now (though no
> doubt that'll still be a sore point for some) 

For many I'd say.

> and more on how the feck
> do you get rid of the radioactive crap afterwards? That's the only
> part that gets me anyway.

There is research being done on this (as well as nuclear fusion rather
than fission; I think I have that the right way round) butit is (has
been?) underfunded.  Perhaps if the decision is to go nuclear like France
then more money will be put into how the 'waste' can be used in other
ways.
>

>> I guess I'd have to come clean and say that there are around 8 of the
>> very latest turbines less than 1/2 mile from me and I pass them every
>> day.  I hate the things - but have seen no evidence of any flicker
>> effect.
> 
> Aaaah. Any idea how tall yours are? Ours are gonna be 102 metres, which
> is summat like ten double decker buses end to end.

Same size effectively - 100m.  They are immensely tall and have enormous
girth at their base.  Add to that the amount of concrete that is poured
into the foundations to secure them and it becomes a joke when the PP is
granted for, what, 25 years?  The concrete will never be removed so
effectively the land becomes sterilised for the future. as well as the
damage it causes to local drainage on the hills/moors.
>
> I've been trying to find out roughly what height our local pylons are
> (we have a lot around here) so I can make some kind of guesstimate, but
> with no success. Just from looking upwards (which I know's not very
> scientific, nor accurate, at all, but my tape measure's not long enough
> to measure one of them :p), I'm guessing that our local pylons're gonna
> be around half as tall as the turbines'll be, which makes them bloody
> tall. IMO anyway.

You have 50m pylons?  they are pretty big then.  AIR you were doing a
surveying course at one point - surely that gave you the idea of measuring
shadows or even triangulating to get heights that couldn't be measured
<innocent smile>
>
>> What is interesting about them is that when the first PR roadshow was
>> put on it pointed out that the wind was away from the village towards
>> the turbines so that would alleviiate any noise issues that people may
>> be concerned about.  The new turbines have the capability to turn to
>> face the wind wherever it blows from!!  Still, as I say, no noise
>> problem though.
> 
> Aaah. See for ours, looking at the maps and all the other stuff at the
> meeting yesterday (WTF they don't have all this on-line on the web site
> I dowknow), the housing estates that're right next to the site is where
> the wind'll be (generally) heading.

What annoyed me was that produced 'wire diagrams' of contours and how the
masts would be hidden.  I asked why they couldn't do the full
photogramatary (sp) with real photos on a fly thorugh model so that the
true effect could be seen.  The subject was quickly changed and they
never responded to any follow up questions by email subsequently.  I
quickly realised that it was not a true information event <g>

On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 15:29:10 -0500, David P 
blethered:

>On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 00:53:47 +0100, Halla wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:44:39 -0500, David P 
>> blethered:
>> 
>>>On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:59:40 -0700, trin wrote:
>>>
>
>> Then again, too much wind and technical problems lead to:
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u14tBwO5QVQ :-)
>
>I'm guessing that is one of the few turbines that lost its blade?  (I
>haven't looked - sorry).  

Its brakes broke, they were trying to fix it but it spun off out of
control and eventually shattered itself - the techs got away. Pretty
spectacular to watch.

>Failure rate is pretty low these days but the
>most recent one I'm aware of was a cheap import with fibreglass blades
>mainly intended for 'domestic' use and not the 100m jobbies that are
>erected these days

I'm confused now, were the blades on a 100m turbine made of 'domestic'
grade wotsit? <:-/ Or was it a household one which went kaput?

>> 
>>>Wind power is very much the flavour of the month and because they have a
>>>high visibility the turbines show that the government is 'doing
>>>something'.
>> 
>> Also the biofuels thing, even though people may jump up and down
>> screaming 'Don't! Don't do *anything*! Figure out what's best *first*!'
>
>Oh how true.  But then, they have to be seen to be doing something as
>doing something is better than doing nothing (ie thinking, planning,
>and other such things).

Irksome things, politicians. They seem to listen half the time but
there must be entire departments who sit and mull these things over
for months and months, yet the rate of progress is generally
sloooooow. Except of course if they are heading for something of which
I disapprove, in which case they always rush headlong into it. ;-)

<snip>
>> I wonder if people objected strenuously to pylons etc. when those
>> started to be built? 
>
>POssibly so.  Cetainly in North Yorkshire there was an uproar about 5-10
>years ago when new super pylons were erected across one of the more
>attractive areas.  They wnated them (the lines) put underground but the
>cost was said to be prohibitive. 

That's the tack taken about the ones in the Cairngorms, it has been
pointed out that London can manage to bury cables for this blasted
Olympic thing so why can't they do it elsewhere? (I suspect the answer
is that they'll have spent all the money burying the cables in London
and won't have any left over...)

>
>> Is it simply resistance to change that's making
>> people moan about it, or d'you think they have an idea that the turbines
>> maybe aren't the best way forward but haven't the facts to marshal a
>> decent argument so resort to 'flickering, noise!' as their objections?
>
>I think its that the people who object have looked carefully and
>critically at wind power, have researched it and found it is not the best
>solution - but become frustrated when their voice isn't heard at public
>inquiry.  Its interesting that many of the loacl planning authorities
>refuse consent initially only to have their decision over-ruled at inquiry.

Now this bit of planning I know nowt about - who over-rules them?

>
>I've mentioned elsehwere the concerns that military and airports have
>about the masts and their effect on radar - it seems though that, once
>again, the effect they claim is not sufficiently important as to stop the
>march of the masts. (effects are a fogging at bottom of radar screens)

I can see a windfarm from the beach here. I can also just about see
Prestwick airport (OK, so I can see the planes rising and falling ;-),
which has some sort of military facility beside it too. So, er, not a
lot of concern about radar. <:-/


-- 
Bring on the wonder, we got it all wrong
We pushed you down deep in our souls for too long

Halla wrote:
> trin blethered:

> >Any idea how tall yours are? Ours are gonna be 102 metres,
> >which is summat like ten double decker buses end to end.
> Taller than these beasties?
> http://www.cairngormsagainstpylons.org/whycare/whycare.html (about
> halfway down the page is a graphic - you can ignore the other stuff if
> you want, although it's an interesting issue in itself. :-)

It is, and another one on which I have no clue which way I wanna go.
No, tell a lie, I know which way I *wanna* go, I just don't think
destroying everything man-made, and refusing to put up any more mad-
made stuff, is at all practical - at least not for those of us humans
still alive. ;)

> At 102m those are going to be giants. 8-/

Yersh. :( That said, looking at http://www.mercianeclectics.dsl.pipex.com/local/bleakhouse/turbinesize.jpg
(which was a poster on the wall at the meeting that I grabbed a shot
of with my fone 'cause I thought it could be useful), it looks like
the 102m thang is a bit of a con tbh, what with the 102m part being to
the tip of the blades.

Either way, I tripped over
<http://www.multimap.com/maps/?title=Chasewater
%20&t=l&map=52.6647,-1.9471|14|4&loc=GB:
52.6647:-1.9471:14&dp=841#map=52.66933,-1.95921|19|256&be=5349426|
North&loc=GB:52.6647:-1.9471:14>
(or <http://tinyurl.com/67blbq> for the hard of linking) earlier
today, which gives a pretty good shot of how tall one of our local
pylons looks, and I reckon that if it was lay on its side (to the
right), it'd come to just over the first path, by the little clump of
bushes. Then I opened Google Earth and zoomed to the same spot;
measuring 102m in the same direction (from roughly in the middle of
the pylon) leaves you sat over on the dirt road next to the water:
<http://www.mercianeclectics.dsl.pipex.com/local/102m.jpg>

They're still gonna be big buggers. :s

--
trin

Wood Avens wrote:
> Halla wrote:

> >I wonder if people objected strenuously to pylons etc. when those
> >started to be built?
> I keep wondering that too.  Especially when it seems to me that
> clusters of slowly-revolving wind turbines which I've mainly seen in
> Holland and Germany) look stunningly beautiful, whereas a line of
> pylons marching across the hills and fields ... don't.  But maybe
> people were so aware of the advantages that they simply accepted them.

Personally, I think I'd love to have the turbines where they're
planning to put them - like you, I think they look gorgeous. However,
aside from the ~150 homes that even Harworth Power've said'll be
affected by shadow flicker (which I don't think should be allowed),
and aside from the potential for TV/radio signal interference (they
screw around with the waves summat chronic, so I gather from my
research), the main things that're bugging me about 'em are:

1) That there's a potential for the local deer to get killed more
often again, since the tunnel that the deer now use to get under the
A5190 (national speed limit applies) is gonna again become trundled
24/7 by trucks doing the building works. See <http://maps.google.com/?
ie=UTF8&ll=52.686438,-1.972475&spn=0.005242,0.013089&t=h&z=16> (or
<http://tinyurl.com/5c2d8a>) to see where I mean.

2) We're likely to end up with a heck of a lot of birds being killed
by the blades, since it's right next to some local SSSIs and an AONB.
<http://www.mercianeclectics.dsl.pipex.com/local/bleakhouse/
BWFSSSImap.gif>

3) My biggest gripe of all is that when the council let whoever it was
open up Bleakhouse Open Cast Mine, part of the deal for letting it go
through was that the site would be recovered and left to recover for
20 years before anything else was allowed to be built on it. Now I
understand that the council can't see into the future, but they
shouldn't be making deals like this one if they're not gonna stick to
them, and so regardless of how beautiful I reckon the turbines'd look,
I don't think they should be allowed to be put there until the 20
years are up (IIRC, there's about 16 years to go :s). The +sides of
this one are that (a) turbine technology'll've advanced somewhat by
the time they can go up, and so we're likely to get an even better
deal out of them, and (b)in the meantime, all us protesters can get
our collective arses into gear and do things like build new crossing
points for the deer  -not that I expect that'll happen. *sigh*

--
trin

Jo B wrote:

> What bothers me about the nuclear issue is that even though the power
> stations are a hell of a lot safer than they used to be if they DO screw up
> they screw up very very big time for all life around them. Plus I don't
> think the subject of spent waste has ever been satisfactorily dealt with.
>
> I'm personally not in objection to wind power, wave power, hydro, bio-mass,
> solar, or any other renewable resource but I'm not naive enough to think
> that any single power source is the answer. It is my opinion that an
> integrative approach is the best option. Mono-culture didn't work so well
> for farming and it doesn't sit right with me for pretty much anything. Eggs
> in one basket and all that.

That pretty much sums up my opinions on the issues tbh.

--
trin

Halla wrote:

> 
> I wonder if people objected strenuously to pylons etc. when those
> started to be built? Is it simply resistance to change that's making
> people moan about it, or d'you think they have an idea that the
> turbines maybe aren't the best way forward but haven't the facts to
> marshal a decent argument so resort to 'flickering, noise!' as their
> objections?

Coal and gas - bad for the environment - ban them.
Hydro - can't flood pretty valleys - no more.
Wind - ugly and harm birds - ban them.
Nuclear - radiation, bombs, waste - ban them.
Solar - requires vast areas of land - uneconomical and would displace 
food crops - ban them.
Solar - rooftop - OK as long as the neighbours don't object. Go to bed 
when it gets dark.
Wave energy - harms fish and might cause changes in coastal erosion - 
ban them
Tidal power - damages vital (for birds) wetlands - ban them.

That about sums up the Green arguments for future energy.

FFF
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
Remote Viewing classes in London

"Dirk Bruere at NeoPax"  wrote in message 
news:6dut23F4g422U1@mid.individual.net...
> Halla wrote:
>
>>
>> I wonder if people objected strenuously to pylons etc. when those
>> started to be built? Is it simply resistance to change that's making
>> people moan about it, or d'you think they have an idea that the
>> turbines maybe aren't the best way forward but haven't the facts to
>> marshal a decent argument so resort to 'flickering, noise!' as their
>> objections?
>
> Coal and gas - bad for the environment - ban them.
> Hydro - can't flood pretty valleys - no more.
> Wind - ugly and harm birds - ban them.
> Nuclear - radiation, bombs, waste - ban them.
> Solar - requires vast areas of land - uneconomical and would displace food 
> crops - ban them.
> Solar - rooftop - OK as long as the neighbours don't object. Go to bed 
> when it gets dark.
> Wave energy - harms fish and might cause changes in coastal erosion - ban 
> them
> Tidal power - damages vital (for birds) wetlands - ban them.
>
> That about sums up the Green arguments for future energy.
>
> FFF
> Dirk

 We are DOOMED!!
Wail!
Or, we could cut down a lot and use what we have. Oh yeh, and keep the 
poulation of Britain down. And waste less food, etc, etc
<Thinks >
Doomed!

Jackdaw


>
> http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
> Remote Viewing classes in London

On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 18:41:27 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
 blethered:

>Halla wrote:
>
>> 
>> I wonder if people objected strenuously to pylons etc. when those
>> started to be built? Is it simply resistance to change that's making
>> people moan about it, or d'you think they have an idea that the
>> turbines maybe aren't the best way forward but haven't the facts to
>> marshal a decent argument so resort to 'flickering, noise!' as their
>> objections?
>
>Coal and gas - bad for the environment - ban them.
>Hydro - can't flood pretty valleys - no more.
>Wind - ugly and harm birds - ban them.
>Nuclear - radiation, bombs, waste - ban them.
>Solar - requires vast areas of land - uneconomical and would displace 
>food crops - ban them.
>Solar - rooftop - OK as long as the neighbours don't object. Go to bed 
>when it gets dark.
>Wave energy - harms fish and might cause changes in coastal erosion - 
>ban them
>Tidal power - damages vital (for birds) wetlands - ban them.
>
>That about sums up the Green arguments for future energy.

I'd like to disagree but you're bob on. 

Actually, the changes in coastal erosion thing - could there be
something in that? I'm thinking of that bit of the English coast
that's merrily washing away because it's made of mud and sand,
basically. Could they build something that would generate electricity
and stop homes from sliding off the beach at the same time?
 

-- 
Bring on the wonder, we got it all wrong
We pushed you down deep in our souls for too long

On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 02:58:06 +0100, Halla wrote:

> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 15:29:10 -0500, David P 
> blethered:
> 
>>On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 00:53:47 +0100, Halla wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:44:39 -0500, David P 
>>> blethered:
>>> 
>>>>On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:59:40 -0700, trin wrote:
>>>>
>>
>
> 
>>Failure rate is pretty low these days but the
>>most recent one I'm aware of was a cheap import with fibreglass blades
>>mainly intended for 'domestic' use and not the 100m jobbies that are
>>erected these days
> 
> I'm confused now, were the blades on a 100m turbine made of 'domestic'
> grade wotsit? <:-/ 

One of the early commercial ones lost its blade in a big way but the
youtube one I'm thinking of was a domestic installation

> 
>>>>Wind power is very much the flavour of the month and because they have
>>>>a high visibility the turbines show that the government is 'doing
>>>>something'.
>>> 
>>> Also the biofuels thing, even though people may jump up and down
>>> screaming 'Don't! Don't do *anything*! Figure out what's best
>>> *first*!'
>>

> 
> <snip>
>>> I wonder if people objected strenuously to pylons etc. when those
>>> started to be built?
>>
>>POssibly so.  Cetainly in North Yorkshire there was an uproar about 5-10
>>years ago when new super pylons were erected across one of the more
>>attractive areas.  They wnated them (the lines) put underground but the
>>cost was said to be prohibitive.
> 
> That's the tack taken about the ones in the Cairngorms, it has been
> pointed out that London can manage to bury cables for this blasted
> Olympic thing so why can't they do it elsewhere? (I suspect the answer
> is that they'll have spent all the money burying the cables in London
> and won't have any left over...)
> 
> 
>>> Is it simply resistance to change that's making people moan about it,
>>> or d'you think they have an idea that the turbines maybe aren't the
>>> best way forward but haven't the facts to marshal a decent argument so
>>> resort to 'flickering, noise!' as their objections?
>>
>>I think its that the people who object have looked carefully and
>>critically at wind power, have researched it and found it is not the
>>best solution - but become frustrated when their voice isn't heard at
>>public inquiry.  Its interesting that many of the loacl planning
>>authorities refuse consent initially only to have their decision
>>over-ruled at inquiry.
> 
> Now this bit of planning I know nowt about - who over-rules them?
What - the public inquiry?  I'm not sure but think it could be a court
case but that is only if there has been negligence on the part of the
inspector - I'm very uncertain about that though.
> 
> 
>>I've mentioned elsehwere the concerns that military and airports have
>>about the masts and their effect on radar - it seems though that, once
>>again, the effect they claim is not sufficiently important as to stop
>>the march of the masts. (effects are a fogging at bottom of radar
>>screens)
> 
> I can see a windfarm from the beach here. I can also just about see
> Prestwick airport (OK, so I can see the planes rising and falling ;-),
> which has some sort of military facility beside it too. So, er, not a
> lot of concern about radar. <:-/
> 
You (someone) has alos mentioned tv/radio reception - I can confirm it
b*ggers up both analogue and freeview tv reception but radio is ok.  We
had curlews up to the time the masts were commissioned - none now though. 
During construction period they had to stop for the curlews nesting period
- they were the last ones we had.

Dicon wrote:
> 
> "Dirk Bruere at NeoPax"  wrote in message 
> news:6dut23F4g422U1@mid.individual.net...
>> Halla wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I wonder if people objected strenuously to pylons etc. when those
>>> started to be built? Is it simply resistance to change that's making
>>> people moan about it, or d'you think they have an idea that the
>>> turbines maybe aren't the best way forward but haven't the facts to
>>> marshal a decent argument so resort to 'flickering, noise!' as their
>>> objections?
>>
>> Coal and gas - bad for the environment - ban them.
>> Hydro - can't flood pretty valleys - no more.
>> Wind - ugly and harm birds - ban them.
>> Nuclear - radiation, bombs, waste - ban them.
>> Solar - requires vast areas of land - uneconomical and would displace 
>> food crops - ban them.
>> Solar - rooftop - OK as long as the neighbours don't object. Go to bed 
>> when it gets dark.
>> Wave energy - harms fish and might cause changes in coastal erosion - 
>> ban them
>> Tidal power - damages vital (for birds) wetlands - ban them.
>>
>> That about sums up the Green arguments for future energy.
>>
>> FFF
>> Dirk
> 
> We are DOOMED!!
> Wail!
> Or, we could cut down a lot and use what we have. Oh yeh, and keep the 
> poulation of Britain down. And waste less food, etc, etc
> <Thinks >
> Doomed!

We only need more and more because the population of Britain is 
expanding, which is entirely due to immigration. Any suggestions that it 
be 'cut down' leads to kneejerk accusations of racism.

FFF
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
Remote Viewing classes in London

Halla wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 18:41:27 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
>  blethered:
> 
>> Halla wrote:
>>
>>> I wonder if people objected strenuously to pylons etc. when those
>>> started to be built? Is it simply resistance to change that's making
>>> people moan about it, or d'you think they have an idea that the
>>> turbines maybe aren't the best way forward but haven't the facts to
>>> marshal a decent argument so resort to 'flickering, noise!' as their
>>> objections?
>> Coal and gas - bad for the environment - ban them.
>> Hydro - can't flood pretty valleys - no more.
>> Wind - ugly and harm birds - ban them.
>> Nuclear - radiation, bombs, waste - ban them.
>> Solar - requires vast areas of land - uneconomical and would displace 
>> food crops - ban them.
>> Solar - rooftop - OK as long as the neighbours don't object. Go to bed 
>> when it gets dark.
>> Wave energy - harms fish and might cause changes in coastal erosion - 
>> ban them
>> Tidal power - damages vital (for birds) wetlands - ban them.
>>
>> That about sums up the Green arguments for future energy.
> 
> I'd like to disagree but you're bob on. 
> 
> Actually, the changes in coastal erosion thing - could there be
> something in that? I'm thinking of that bit of the English coast
> that's merrily washing away because it's made of mud and sand,
> basically. Could they build something that would generate electricity
> and stop homes from sliding off the beach at the same time?

You mean Interfering With Nature?
Yes, it could probably be done, but someone will object.
No doubt some striped horned duckbill snail requires the eroded soil for 
its vital habitat.

FFF
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
Remote Viewing classes in London

On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 05:25:53 -0700 (PDT), trin
 blethered:

>Halla wrote:
>> trin blethered:
>
>> >Any idea how tall yours are? Ours are gonna be 102 metres,
>> >which is summat like ten double decker buses end to end.
>> Taller than these beasties?
>> http://www.cairngormsagainstpylons.org/whycare/whycare.html (about
>> halfway down the page is a graphic - you can ignore the other stuff if
>> you want, although it's an interesting issue in itself. :-)
>
>It is, and another one on which I have no clue which way I wanna go.
>No, tell a lie, I know which way I *wanna* go, I just don't think
>destroying everything man-made, and refusing to put up any more mad-
>made stuff, is at all practical - at least not for those of us humans
>still alive. ;)
>

Yes well it's all very well for those who like to look at a place but
not so practical for those who live there, perhaps. 

A friend who used to live in Boat of Garten told me about the
grumblings of the tourists when Tesco came to Aviemore - they reckoned
it'd ruin the town, it'd change it too much, it was letting the big
corporations spread too much etc. All of which may be true, right
enough, but it's also true that my friend used to get tins of beans at
the Tesco in Stirling and take them home with her to her mum's because
it was about 60p a tin locally what with there being no cheap
supermarkets around... <:-) 

I want them to bury the cable. It may cause some damage when
construction is ongoing but it'll certainly look nicer and it will
wipe out the problem of storm damage to overhead lines. Perhaps cold
will manage to crack underground cables, I don't know, but it will
stop people being cut off for days when it snows/blows a lot. Actually
I'd like all towns to look at local microgeneration, as it was before
the days of the national grid etc., but that's not going to happen
easily. I don't think there are any large-scale solutions for this
power problem and I think we're all going to have to sort it out for
ourselves in the end.

>> At 102m those are going to be giants. 8-/
>
>Yersh. :( That said, looking at http://www.mercianeclectics.dsl.pipex.com/local/bleakhouse/turbinesize.jpg
>(which was a poster on the wall at the meeting that I grabbed a shot
>of with my fone 'cause I thought it could be useful), it looks like
>the 102m thang is a bit of a con tbh, what with the 102m part being to
>the tip of the blades.
>

I'm oddly reassured to know that Big Ben's tower, ugly as it is, is
taller than the Statue of Liberty, but I don't know why. <g> 

So the tower basically keeps the blades ~20m off the ground? 

We passed a few big turbines today on the way back from Fairlie, there
was low cloud and it was only possible to see the blade tips of one as
they left the cloud briefly. Quite an eerie sight actually. 

>Either way, I tripped over
><http://www.multimap.com/maps/?title=Chasewater
>%20&t=l&map=52.6647,-1.9471|14|4&loc=GB:
>52.6647:-1.9471:14&dp=841#map=52.66933,-1.95921|19|256&be=5349426|
>North&loc=GB:52.6647:-1.9471:14>
>(or <http://tinyurl.com/67blbq> for the hard of linking) earlier
>today, which gives a pretty good shot of how tall one of our local
>pylons looks, and I reckon that if it was lay on its side (to the
>right), it'd come to just over the first path, by the little clump of
>bushes. Then I opened Google Earth and zoomed to the same spot;
>measuring 102m in the same direction (from roughly in the middle of
>the pylon) leaves you sat over on the dirt road next to the water:
><http://www.mercianeclectics.dsl.pipex.com/local/102m.jpg>
>
>They're still gonna be big buggers. :s

Yep. :-/ 


-- 
Bring on the wonder, we got it all wrong
We pushed you down deep in our souls for too long

On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 14:41:13 +0100, Wood Avens
 blethered:

>On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 00:53:47 +0100, Halla
> wrote:
>
>>I wonder if people objected strenuously to pylons etc. when those
>>started to be built? 
>
>I keep wondering that too.  Especially when it seems to me that
>clusters of slowly-revolving wind turbines which I've mainly seen in
>Holland and Germany) look stunningly beautiful, 

I think that too, most times, but I suppose it's a question of
individual taste. 

>whereas a line of
>pylons marching across the hills and fields ... don't.  

Yes. <:-|

>But maybe
>people were so aware of the advantages that they simply accepted them.

Maybe they grumbled and weren't listened to, or didn't know who to
grumble to, or were told it was 'the march of progress!' or perhaps
they were happy to be connected to the national grid. <g> I suppose
we'd have to figure out when the pylons went up than go and ask
someone who watched it happen.


-- 
Bring on the wonder, we got it all wrong
We pushed you down deep in our souls for too long

On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:07:10 -0500, David P 
blethered:

>On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 02:58:06 +0100, Halla wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 15:29:10 -0500, David P 
>> blethered:
>> 
>>>On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 00:53:47 +0100, Halla wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:44:39 -0500, David P 
>>>> blethered:
>>>> 
>>>>>On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:59:40 -0700, trin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>> 
>>>Failure rate is pretty low these days but the
>>>most recent one I'm aware of was a cheap import with fibreglass blades
>>>mainly intended for 'domestic' use and not the 100m jobbies that are
>>>erected these days
>> 
>> I'm confused now, were the blades on a 100m turbine made of 'domestic'
>> grade wotsit? <:-/ 
>
>One of the early commercial ones lost its blade in a big way but the
>youtube one I'm thinking of was a domestic installation

Ah, I see. The one I linked to was pretty dramatic. :-) I was watching
it and thinking 'There it goes... wheeeee!' until they panned down and
I saw a transit-sized van next to it and I realised what size the
blade had been before it exploded. <g>

<snip>
[objecting]
>>>I think its that the people who object have looked carefully and
>>>critically at wind power, have researched it and found it is not the
>>>best solution - but become frustrated when their voice isn't heard at
>>>public inquiry.  Its interesting that many of the loacl planning
>>>authorities refuse consent initially only to have their decision
>>>over-ruled at inquiry.
>> 
>> Now this bit of planning I know nowt about - who over-rules them?
>What - the public inquiry?  I'm not sure but think it could be a court
>case but that is only if there has been negligence on the part of the
>inspector - I'm very uncertain about that though.

I'm trying to remember, a friend of ours appealed a planning decision
but it was the community council who had blocked it to start with - in
a very organised manner, I might add - and I think they had to take it
to ra Parly to appeal. I'd have to look it up though. 

>> 
>> 
>>>I've mentioned elsehwere the concerns that military and airports have
>>>about the masts and their effect on radar - it seems though that, once
>>>again, the effect they claim is not sufficiently important as to stop
>>>the march of the masts. (effects are a fogging at bottom of radar
>>>screens)
>> 
>> I can see a windfarm from the beach here. I can also just about see
>> Prestwick airport (OK, so I can see the planes rising and falling ;-),
>> which has some sort of military facility beside it too. So, er, not a
>> lot of concern about radar. <:-/
>> 
>You (someone) has alos mentioned tv/radio reception - I can confirm it
>b*ggers up both analogue and freeview tv reception but radio is ok.  

I can only imagine this is something to do with wavelength and the
effect of waving a large blade through said wave? (To badly paraphrase
a popular Sky programme, I can't do science, me, which is sad.)

>We
>had curlews up to the time the masts were commissioned - none now though. 

:-/ 

>During construction period they had to stop for the curlews nesting period
>- they were the last ones we had.

Not an ideal outcome, that.


-- 
Bring on the wonder, we got it all wrong
We pushed you down deep in our souls for too long

Halla wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 14:41:13 +0100, Wood Avens
>  blethered:
> 
>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 00:53:47 +0100, Halla
>>  wrote:
>>
>>> I wonder if people objected strenuously to pylons etc. when those
>>> started to be built? 
>> I keep wondering that too.  Especially when it seems to me that
>> clusters of slowly-revolving wind turbines which I've mainly seen in
>> Holland and Germany) look stunningly beautiful, 
> 
> I think that too, most times, but I suppose it's a question of
> individual taste. 
> 
>> whereas a line of
>> pylons marching across the hills and fields ... don't.  
> 
> Yes. <:-|
> 
>> But maybe
>> people were so aware of the advantages that they simply accepted them.
> 
> Maybe they grumbled and weren't listened to, or didn't know who to
> grumble to, or were told it was 'the march of progress!' or perhaps
> they were happy to be connected to the national grid. <g> I suppose
> we'd have to figure out when the pylons went up than go and ask
> someone who watched it happen.

Grumbling and then doing nothing is the British (or maybe just English) 
way.
The biggest demonstrations in British history against a war in Iraq, 
then we have a war in Iraq. Blair re-elected. The sheep deserve to be 
sheared.

FFF
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
Remote Viewing classes in London

On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 02:37:42 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
 blethered:

>Halla wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 14:41:13 +0100, Wood Avens
>>  blethered:
>> 
>>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 00:53:47 +0100, Halla
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> I wonder if people objected strenuously to pylons etc. when those
>>>> started to be built? 
>>> I keep wondering that too.  Especially when it seems to me that
>>> clusters of slowly-revolving wind turbines which I've mainly seen in
>>> Holland and Germany) look stunningly beautiful, 
>> 
>> I think that too, most times, but I suppose it's a question of
>> individual taste. 
>> 
>>> whereas a line of
>>> pylons marching across the hills and fields ... don't.  
>> 
>> Yes. <:-|
>> 
>>> But maybe
>>> people were so aware of the advantages that they simply accepted them.
>> 
>> Maybe they grumbled and weren't listened to, or didn't know who to
>> grumble to, or were told it was 'the march of progress!' or perhaps
>> they were happy to be connected to the national grid. <g> I suppose
>> we'd have to figure out when the pylons went up than go and ask
>> someone who watched it happen.
>
>Grumbling and then doing nothing is the British (or maybe just English) 
>way.

Now I'm earwormed. Pink Floyd ahoy!

>The biggest demonstrations in British history against a war in Iraq, 
>then we have a war in Iraq. 

So that was grumbling?

>Blair re-elected. 

This one I'm not sure about. Someone must have liked him, to vote for
him.

>The sheep deserve to be 
>sheared.

What would you suggest we (or you English, depending) do instead?


-- 
Bring on the wonder, we got it all wrong
We pushed you down deep in our souls for too long

Halla wrote:

> I suppose we'd have to figure out when the pylons went up than
> go and ask someone who watched it happen.

IF I remember, I'll ask my nan about such things when I see her again
- possibly Aunty Ei too, since AFAIK, she's lived closer to pylons
than my nan for yonks.

--
trin

Halla wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 02:37:42 +0100, Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
>  blethered:
> 
>> Halla wrote:
>>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 14:41:13 +0100, Wood Avens
>>>  blethered:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 00:53:47 +0100, Halla
>>>>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I wonder if people objected strenuously to pylons etc. when those
>>>>> started to be built? 
>>>> I keep wondering that too.  Especially when it seems to me that
>>>> clusters of slowly-revolving wind turbines which I've mainly seen in
>>>> Holland and Germany) look stunningly beautiful, 
>>> I think that too, most times, but I suppose it's a question of
>>> individual taste. 
>>>
>>>> whereas a line of
>>>> pylons marching across the hills and fields ... don't.  
>>> Yes. <:-|
>>>
>>>> But maybe
>>>> people were so aware of the advantages that they simply accepted them.
>>> Maybe they grumbled and weren't listened to, or didn't know who to
>>> grumble to, or were told it was 'the march of progress!' or perhaps
>>> they were happy to be connected to the national grid. <g> I suppose
>>> we'd have to figure out when the pylons went up than go and ask
>>> someone who watched it happen.
>> Grumbling and then doing nothing is the British (or maybe just English) 
>> way.
> 
> Now I'm earwormed. Pink Floyd ahoy!
> 
>> The biggest demonstrations in British history against a war in Iraq, 
>> then we have a war in Iraq. 
> 
> So that was grumbling?
> 
>> Blair re-elected. 
> 
> This one I'm not sure about. Someone must have liked him, to vote for
> him.
> 
>> The sheep deserve to be 
>> sheared.
> 
> What would you suggest we (or you English, depending) do instead?

Something a bit more French.
That fuel blockade worked a few years back.
The Poll Tax riots worked.

FFF
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
Remote Viewing classes in London

On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 01:34:16 +0100, Halla wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:07:10 -0500, David P 
> blethered:
> 
>>On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 02:58:06 +0100, Halla wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 15:29:10 -0500, David P 
>>> blethered:
>>> 
>>>>On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 00:53:47 +0100, Halla wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 11:44:39 -0500, David P 
>>>>> blethered:
>>>>> 
>>>>>>On Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:59:40 -0700, trin wrote:
>>>>>>
> 
> <snip>
> [objecting]
>>>>I think its that the people who object have looked carefully and
>>>>critically at wind power, have researched it and found it is not the
>>>>best solution - but become frustrated when their voice isn't heard at
>>>>public inquiry.  Its interesting that many of the loacl planning
>>>>authorities refuse consent initially only to have their decision
>>>>over-ruled at inquiry.
>>> 
>>> Now this bit of planning I know nowt about - who over-rules them?
>>What - the public inquiry?  I'm not sure but think it could be a court
>>case but that is only if there has been negligence on the part of the
>>inspector - I'm very uncertain about that though.
> 
> I'm trying to remember, a friend of ours appealed a planning decision
> but it was the community council who had blocked it to start with - in
> a very organised manner, I might add - and I think they had to take it
> to ra Parly to appeal. I'd have to look it up though. 

PLanning appeals from the Council PLanning Authority decision are to Dept
of Communities & Local Gov.  They then appoint a planning inspector to
consider the appeal.  Simple cases are dealt with by an informal hearing
- effectively a simple tribunal where both sides present their case
themselves.  Complex cases eg windfrms <g> are dealt with by Public
Inquiry.  These are very expensive with planning consultants and
barristers rolled out by everyone.

In both instances the inspector visits the site of the application before
giving a decision.  That bit I'm sure about - its if you want to appeal a
planning inspector that I'm not sure of.  I *think* it can only be done
through the Court on the basis that the decision was wrong in law (ie
Inspector made a bad interpretation of the law or incorrectly followed
procedures)  I've never got that far though!
>
> 
>> 
>>You (someone) has alos mentioned tv/radio reception - I can confirm it
>>b*ggers up both analogue and freeview tv reception but radio is ok.
> 
> I can only imagine this is something to do with wavelength and the
> effect of waving a large blade through said wave? (To badly paraphrase a
> popular Sky programme, I can't do science, me, which is sad.)

Sounds reasonable to me!  I may approach the owners and see if they will
stump up the cost of a freesat installation & box for me - lets test to
see how good their PR is then <VBG>
>

David P wrote:
> Halla wrote:
> > David P blethered:

> >>You (someone) has alos mentioned tv/radio reception - I can confirm it
> >>b*ggers up both analogue and freeview tv reception but radio is ok.
> > I can only imagine this is something to do with wavelength and the
> > effect of waving a large blade through said wave? (To badly paraphrase a
> > popular Sky programme, I can't do science, me, which is sad.)
> Sounds reasonable to me!  I may approach the owners and see if they will
> stump up the cost of a freesat installation & box for me - lets test to
> see how good their PR is then <VBG>

They've tried that one with Harworth Power around here, but while HP
pretty much guarantee many households will get interference to their
signals, they've not offered to pay for the Sky/Cable installations
that they recommend to get around the problem.

Actually, I wonder if it'd affect Sky as well anyway, or does the
satellite signal coming in more vertically avert the problem?
<ponders>

--
trin

On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 13:02:08 -0700, trin wrote:

> David P wrote:
>> Halla wrote:
>> > David P blethered:
> 
>> >>You (someone) has alos mentioned tv/radio reception - I can confirm it
>> >>b*ggers up both analogue and freeview tv reception but radio is ok.
>> > I can only imagine this is something to do with wavelength and the
>> > effect of waving a large blade through said wave? (To badly paraphrase a
>> > popular Sky programme, I can't do science, me, which is sad.)
>> Sounds reasonable to me!  I may approach the owners and see if they will
>> stump up the cost of a freesat installation & box for me - lets test to
>> see how good their PR is then <VBG>
> 
> They've tried that one with Harworth Power around here, but while HP
> pretty much guarantee many households will get interference to their
> signals, they've not offered to pay for the Sky/Cable installations
> that they recommend to get around the problem.

Oh well - it wa just a thought.  Looks as if I'll have to fork out the 150
sqids myself then
>
> Actually, I wonder if it'd affect Sky as well anyway, or does the
> satellite signal coming in more vertically avert the problem? <ponders>

We are out of line of sight of the turbines so a sat dish shouldn't get
any interference.  We already had a poorish signal due to being in a dip
but the masts have made it far worse.
>

On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 13:02:08 -0700 (PDT), trin
 blethered:

>David P wrote:
>> Halla wrote:
>> > David P blethered:
>
>> >>You (someone) has alos mentioned tv/radio reception - I can confirm it
>> >>b*ggers up both analogue and freeview tv reception but radio is ok.
>> > I can only imagine this is something to do with wavelength and the
>> > effect of waving a large blade through said wave? (To badly paraphrase a
>> > popular Sky programme, I can't do science, me, which is sad.)
>> Sounds reasonable to me!  I may approach the owners and see if they will
>> stump up the cost of a freesat installation & box for me - lets test to
>> see how good their PR is then <VBG>
>
>They've tried that one with Harworth Power around here, but while HP
>pretty much guarantee many households will get interference to their
>signals, they've not offered to pay for the Sky/Cable installations
>that they recommend to get around the problem.
>
>Actually, I wonder if it'd affect Sky as well anyway, or does the
>satellite signal coming in more vertically avert the problem?
><ponders>

I know my sister-in-law has terrible Sky reception courtesy of some
tallish pines over the fence, so verticality obviously only counts for
so much. 


-- 
Bring on the wonder, we got it all wrong
We pushed you down deep in our souls for too long