I suppose what you’re taking a look at is some type or type of procedure that will strategise windfarm development.
This could be impractical to implement in the UK as we have a tendency to adhere to the liberties of this person. Asia would pull off exactly what your saying it is that everything we want, individuals bulldozed down land which they used to fulfill carbon that is national goals? That has been the thing that was happening in Scotland when you look at the fifties with hydro developments, maybe maybe maybe not pretty and yet many antiwind people love hydro as an option to wind.
The decision to make is consequently ours, as residents.
Do we want a decreased carbon economy for Scotland or perhaps 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 whenever we accept that people are an integral part of one thing bigger like Scotland, the united kingdom or even the EU or the bigger people, then we must accept the democracy plus the general public viewpoint top-down that those organizations bring. Alternatively, our company is enabling democracy grassroots-up to call the shots. This is certainly absolutely no way to improve the way in which people effect on the environment plus it certain does not permit effective strategy making that is central.
Final modified by Rheghead; 19-Mar-08 at 23:55 .
I must say I hardly understand why individuals dislike these wind “farms”
“farms”. 3 turbines that are bloody ive seen bigger farms in my own restroom.
anyhow, these things do not cause anybody any issues, additionally the individuals who dislike him are individuals who simply want one thing to complain about.
I must say I hardly understand why people dislike these wind “farms”
“farms”. 3 turbines that are bloody ive seen bigger farms within my restroom.
anyhow, these things do not cause anybody any dilemmas, and also the those who dislike him are individuals who simply want one thing to complain about.
You cannot are windfarm that is following celtic302. The thing is perhaps perhaps not windfarms themselves it really is the figures targetted on Caithness. see quote that is following another thread.
And Nobody Batted An Eyelid! (wind generators) On 23rd February 2008 at 11.01 we listed the main one hundred and forty-seven (147, pure read what he said co-incidence!) commercial size wind generators presently someplace in the look System which is demonstrably noticeable from Watten, or from about Watten, when they’re built.
AND NOBODY BATTED AN EYELID!
Would the Cairns themselves perhaps not create a good base for the turbines? Assisting to conserve making use of tonnes of concrete would undoubtedly reduce the ecological effect. How far better to honour our ancestors?
Why don’t you? There is nothing sacred anymore regarding windfarms and fulfilling the governments targets that are scottish. IMO Caithness has been sacrificed to permit the areas of Scotland to be windfarm free. Tiny populace, very few dissenting voices – they have already got Causeymire, Buolfruich, Flex Hill, Achairn, Forss – landscape’s ruined already so stick the remainder up here and phone it the ‘green’ powerhouse of Scotland.
How long away may be the nearest turbine through the cairns at Camster? And can the spirits regarding the Dead have actually good grounds to grumble about flicker and noise?
1.84 kilometer, and I also am certain that the dead are turning within their graves during the despoilation associated with the land they demonstrably looked after. ywy2
Thank you for the data, a reasonable old distance then? Because far it, the neolithic and mesolithic peoples cared little about their environment, they were the ones that created much of the problems of upland areas through deforestation as I understand. Possibly they’d 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 .
Many thanks for the data, a reasonable distance that is old? Since far as i am aware it, the neolithic and mesolithic individuals cared small about their environment, these were the ones that created a lot of the difficulties of upland areas through deforestation.
I have examined it out Reggy, and it also appears these were our saviours!
“Removal of this woodlands generated reduced transpiration leading to the forming 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 of this woodlands led to reduced transpiration leading to the synthesis of upland peat bogs .”
Which of course lock up CO2.
Many Many Many Thanks ancestors!! ywy2
It could appear that means until we look closer at the carbon sequestration prices of specific forms of vegetation.
The Newtonhill woodland signage had been claiming sequestration rates 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 can appear that real means until we look closer during the carbon sequestration prices of specific forms 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 wish.
I am all for growing more woods, ideally deciduous and pines that are caledonian but do not dismiss the advantages of sequestration by peatlands aswell. 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 kmР†, woodland will sequester 700 tonnes per kmР† but bad Peatland that is old will sequester 70 tonnes ( at best) per kmР†.