PlaceBook Scotland: Capture your place in words, pictures, video and music.
Clyde Muirshiel Regional Park
This wonderful 108 square miles Regional Park covers the area between Greenock in the north, Ardrossan in the south, Largs in the west and Lochwinnoch in the east. It is the hills and moorland area geographically known as the Renfrew Heights and preserved for the informal recreation of people and preservation of the wildlife and environment.
It is much loved by millions of people in central Scotland and visitors from home and abroad. It is a particularly important 'green lung' because it is so easily accessed by bus, rail and car.
Readers will be shocked to learn that this magnificent facility is currently under attack by industial windfarm developers and is in danger of having its entire integity destroyed for current and future generations just when increaded importance is being given to encouraging more walking in the country and use of the countryside for educational purposes.
There are currently proposals for windfarms on the hills behind above Inverkip, Wemyss Bay, Largs, Fairlie, Dalry and Kilbirnie which could add up to over 200 giant turbines, miles & miles of access roads over the moors, lots of new quarries, miles of trenches, new overhead cables and many electrical substations.
For this generation of public, planners and polititians to sit back and allow Clyde Muirshiel to be destroyed in this way would be a disgrace and must not be allowed.
It is much loved by millions of people in central Scotland and visitors from home and abroad. It is a particularly important 'green lung' because it is so easily accessed by bus, rail and car.
Readers will be shocked to learn that this magnificent facility is currently under attack by industial windfarm developers and is in danger of having its entire integity destroyed for current and future generations just when increaded importance is being given to encouraging more walking in the country and use of the countryside for educational purposes.
There are currently proposals for windfarms on the hills behind above Inverkip, Wemyss Bay, Largs, Fairlie, Dalry and Kilbirnie which could add up to over 200 giant turbines, miles & miles of access roads over the moors, lots of new quarries, miles of trenches, new overhead cables and many electrical substations.
For this generation of public, planners and polititians to sit back and allow Clyde Muirshiel to be destroyed in this way would be a disgrace and must not be allowed.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Chris H on -
Shall we build a new nuclear power plant in Greenock then?
Or just switch off the lights? For good.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Roemmele on -
I live in Perth, so rather far from the area concerned. However, we do see a small "windfarm" due north of us, on the mid-distance hills near Blairgowrie.
I remain unconvinced by the arguments in favour of this form of electricity, but if "they" are determined to promote and develop it, I say - go off-shore and out-of-sight please!
-
Permalink Reply by erskine on -
I share your concern and Chris H's response is uncalled for (and surprising considering the nature of this site)! As Michael says, there are alternative options but these are often dismissed because of the cost. Tourism is our biggest asset just now, we can't afford to destroy that part of our economy by insensitive planning. Neither can we afford to destroy the wild areas that make Scotland so special.
-
Permalink Reply by Sybil Simpson on -
It is sad that Chris H thinks only in extremes. I am not against wind farms nor am I pro nuclear but if we need either, it is important that we place each in appropriate places. A Park is a Park as well as green belt or........... is it a brown field site destined for industrialisation? In this case Clyde Muirshiel is a designated Park and wind farms should be placed where they do not destroy the rural economy which sustains this whole area. If Clyde Muirshiel is covered in wind farms - eventually we shall see the decline of all of the hotels and tourist businesses around the Park and this will add to the economic mess which we are grappling with at this time.
Save the tourist industry - we need it - so save the Park. There are plenty of places to erect wind turbines - what is required is intelligent decision making at government level.
-
Permalink Reply by Dan Wright on -
Chris H said:Shall we build a new nuclear power plant in Greenock then?
Or just switch off the lights? For good.
-
Permalink Reply by Dan Wright on
-
Chris just shows the level of ignorance surrounding the whole so-called green energy issue. Is he aware for example that Scotland already exports over 24% of all the power we generate according to the Scottish Government's own data. Why do we need any more? There are at present only 5 electricity generation methods which produce near-zero CO2 during the generation process - wind, hydro, tidal barrage, tidal current and nuclear. What matters is the whole life CO2 release of these technologies. Measuring from the start of equipment manufacture, through site preparation, build, operation and decommissioning i.e. whole life, a typical wind farm averages about 36grams per kilowatt hour produced. A nuclear station by identical measure is around 28g/kwh and hydro is 6 to 8, a bit better than tidal barrage. Tidal current is not fully quantified yet but could be between wind turbines and nuclear. The economics and stability of wind generation are farcical (as a former resident of Denmark I can confirm). Is our greatest asset, our landscape, to be sacrificed to the figleaf of wind power and the the almost moronic lack of understanding of the key parameters by our politicians? You'll never believe this, but some of them actually think hydrogen power and electric cars will reduce CO2 emmissions!!!!!! Not without large scale use of nuclear to generate the enormous quantities of electricity needed electrolyse the hydrogen and charge the batteries!! I fear for our countryside while we have politicians who are steered by biggotry and pandering to the flat earth brigade. Do you really want our regional and national parks destroyed Chris? For worthless technology and the egos of ignorant politicians? Dan Wright MBE- consulting engineer.
Michael Roemmele said:I live in Perth, so rather far from the area concerned. However, we do see a small "windfarm" due north of us, on the mid-distance hills near Blairgowrie.
I remain unconvinced by the arguments in favour of this form of electricity, but if "they" are determined to promote and develop it, I say - go off-shore and out-of-sight please!
-
Permalink Reply by Chris H on
-
Ignorance can be dangerous, a little knowledge more so (I fall in to the latter category). There are no easy answers in this debate; change is required in either energy consumption or energy production and people don't like change. It's easier to put up another windfarm than to convince a few thousand people to switch off stand-by, or turn the thermostat down a degree or two.
It may be that we currently export power but with closure of our nuclear power stations and some of the coal ones in the near future, this may not last.
There are a lot of arguments for and against wind energy. It's been 3 or 4 years since I last looked at the figures comparing wind and nuclear energy in terms of CO2 emissions, but the figures then were fairly similar BUT the nuclear figures did not include decommisioning and long term storage of waste products - there are still no widely accepted solutions to this problem! The decommissioning costs are astronomical for nuclear and will be met by the tax payer over the next few decades, while wind farm developers are normally required to provide a bond to cover decommissioning at the end of their 25 year life.
Other renewables all have drawbacks:
Hydro - we already have as much large hydro as we would want - the environmental consequences of flooding large areas are unpalatable. This leaves small scale "run of the river" schemes which could benefit local communities but wouldn't scratch the demand of big towns and cities.
Tidal Current - limited development to date and the infrastructure isn't in place to take the power from the best sites to population centres
Tidal Barrage - there is talk of a barrage in the Severn that would generate 5% of UK electricity demand - at a cost of billions and untold environmental damage. I am not aware if any suitable sites in Scotland for this type of development.
Wave Energy - The Pelamis sea snake - Scottish development - is a promising development but again the infrastructure is lacking.
Biofuels - These often use more energy to produce and transport than they could generate.
Solar - Oh if only we had some more sun!!!
And as for the Hydrogen Economy - Dan is spot on - it won't work unless we can produce the hydrogen from renewable energy. With wind turbines, we could generate hydrogen when there is a surplus of wind and use the hydrogen to generate electricity when there is shortage, thus reducing the need for back up generation. Unfortunately this technology is still a few years from commercial implementation.
From my analysis, wind looks like the least bad option for the short to medium term, i.e. until something better comes along. In 20-30 years, when the current generation of windfarms reach the end of their license period, a much greater portion of our housing stock will consist of low energy homes and there may be less need for a new generation of wind farms. Wind can only ever be part of the mix but it is still a step in the right direction. I think we should try to place them in a sensitive manner and should ensure that the visual amenity of national parks are protected to a certain degree, and possibly a bit less for regional parks. I think it is more important to have them near centres of electricity consumption rather than in remote highland locations - that way we avoid the need for the Beauly-Denny Interconnector.
Braes of Doune Windfarm (visible from the A9 to the north of Stirling) is a poor example of what wind farms should be. The turbines can be placed to minimise visual intrusion to some extent. Windfarms can actually take large steps to improve natural habitats and improve access to the countryside. A visitor centre is being built near Eaglesham for the Whitelee Wind farm and this will give access to the moors for walking and cycling. On other windfarms, habitats are being developed for rare and endangered species such as merlin and red squirrels. There is more to our landscape and environment than broad untainted vistas, if ever there was such a thing. Most of Scotland's landscape has been shaped by man over the centuries and it will continue to be moulded to our needs.
-
Permalink Reply by Nigel Willis on -
Chris H said:Ignorance can be dangerous, a little knowledge more so (I fall in to the latter category). There are no easy answers in this debate; change is required in either energy consumption or energy production and people don't like change. It's easier to put up another windfarm than to convince a few thousand people to switch off stand-by, or turn the thermostat down a degree or two.
It may be that we currently export power but with closure of our nuclear power stations and some of the coal ones in the near future, this may not last.
There are a lot of arguments for and against wind energy. It's been 3 or 4 years since I last looked at the figures comparing wind and nuclear energy in terms of CO2 emissions, but the figures then were fairly similar BUT the nuclear figures did not include decommisioning and long term storage of waste products - there are still no widely accepted solutions to this problem! The decommissioning costs are astronomical for nuclear and will be met by the tax payer over the next few decades, while wind farm developers are normally required to provide a bond to cover decommissioning at the end of their 25 year life.
Other renewables all have drawbacks:
Hydro - we already have as much large hydro as we would want - the environmental consequences of flooding large areas are unpalatable. This leaves small scale "run of the river" schemes which could benefit local communities but wouldn't scratch the demand of big towns and cities.
Tidal Current - limited development to date and the infrastructure isn't in place to take the power from the best sites to population centres
Tidal Barrage - there is talk of a barrage in the Severn that would generate 5% of UK electricity demand - at a cost of billions and untold environmental damage. I am not aware if any suitable sites in Scotland for this type of development.
Wave Energy - The Pelamis sea snake - Scottish development - is a promising development but again the infrastructure is lacking.
Biofuels - These often use more energy to produce and transport than they could generate.
Solar - Oh if only we had some more sun!!!
And as for the Hydrogen Economy - Dan is spot on - it won't work unless we can produce the hydrogen from renewable energy. With wind turbines, we could generate hydrogen when there is a surplus of wind and use the hydrogen to generate electricity when there is shortage, thus reducing the need for back up generation. Unfortunately this technology is still a few years from commercial implementation.
From my analysis, wind looks like the least bad option for the short to medium term, i.e. until something better comes along. In 20-30 years, when the current generation of windfarms reach the end of their license period, a much greater portion of our housing stock will consist of low energy homes and there may be less need for a new generation of wind farms. Wind can only ever be part of the mix but it is still a step in the right direction. I think we should try to place them in a sensitive manner and should ensure that the visual amenity of national parks are protected to a certain degree, and possibly a bit less for regional parks. I think it is more important to have them near centres of electricity consumption rather than in remote highland locations - that way we avoid the need for the Beauly-Denny Interconnector.
Braes of Doune Windfarm (visible from the A9 to the north of Stirling) is a poor example of what wind farms should be. The turbines can be placed to minimise visual intrusion to some extent. Windfarms can actually take large steps to improve natural habitats and improve access to the countryside. A visitor centre is being built near Eaglesham for the Whitelee Wind farm and this will give access to the moors for walking and cycling. On other windfarms, habitats are being developed for rare and endangered species such as merlin and red squirrels. There is more to our landscape and environment than broad untainted vistas, if ever there was such a thing. Most of Scotland's landscape has been shaped by man over the centuries and it will continue to be moulded to our needs.
-
Permalink Reply by Nigel Willis on
-
Nigel Willis said:Chris H said:Ignorance can be dangerous, a little knowledge more so (I fall in to the latter category). There are no easy answers in this debate; change is required in either energy consumption or energy production and people don't like change. It's easier to put up another windfarm than to convince a few thousand people to switch off stand-by, or turn the thermostat down a degree or two.
It may be that we currently export power but with closure of our nuclear power stations and some of the coal ones in the near future, this may not last.
There are a lot of arguments for and against wind energy. It's been 3 or 4 years since I last looked at the figures comparing wind and nuclear energy in terms of CO2 emissions, but the figures then were fairly similar BUT the nuclear figures did not include decommisioning and long term storage of waste products - there are still no widely accepted solutions to this problem! The decommissioning costs are astronomical for nuclear and will be met by the tax payer over the next few decades, while wind farm developers are normally required to provide a bond to cover decommissioning at the end of their 25 year life.
Other renewables all have drawbacks:
Hydro - we already have as much large hydro as we would want - the environmental consequences of flooding large areas are unpalatable. This leaves small scale "run of the river" schemes which could benefit local communities but wouldn't scratch the demand of big towns and cities.
Tidal Current - limited development to date and the infrastructure isn't in place to take the power from the best sites to population centres
Tidal Barrage - there is talk of a barrage in the Severn that would generate 5% of UK electricity demand - at a cost of billions and untold environmental damage. I am not aware if any suitable sites in Scotland for this type of development.
Wave Energy - The Pelamis sea snake - Scottish development - is a promising development but again the infrastructure is lacking.
Biofuels - These often use more energy to produce and transport than they could generate.
Solar - Oh if only we had some more sun!!!
And as for the Hydrogen Economy - Dan is spot on - it won't work unless we can produce the hydrogen from renewable energy. With wind turbines, we could generate hydrogen when there is a surplus of wind and use the hydrogen to generate electricity when there is shortage, thus reducing the need for back up generation. Unfortunately this technology is still a few years from commercial implementation.
From my analysis, wind looks like the least bad option for the short to medium term, i.e. until something better comes along. In 20-30 years, when the current generation of windfarms reach the end of their license period, a much greater portion of our housing stock will consist of low energy homes and there may be less need for a new generation of wind farms. Wind can only ever be part of the mix but it is still a step in the right direction. I think we should try to place them in a sensitive manner and should ensure that the visual amenity of national parks are protected to a certain degree, and possibly a bit less for regional parks. I think it is more important to have them near centres of electricity consumption rather than in remote highland locations - that way we avoid the need for the Beauly-Denny Interconnector.
Braes of Doune Windfarm (visible from the A9 to the north of Stirling) is a poor example of what wind farms should be. The turbines can be placed to minimise visual intrusion to some extent. Windfarms can actually take large steps to improve natural habitats and improve access to the countryside. A visitor centre is being built near Eaglesham for the Whitelee Wind farm and this will give access to the moors for walking and cycling. On other windfarms, habitats are being developed for rare and endangered species such as merlin and red squirrels. There is more to our landscape and environment than broad untainted vistas, if ever there was such a thing. Most of Scotland's landscape has been shaped by man over the centuries and it will continue to be moulded to our needs.
-
Permalink Reply by Cahoona on -
There are many pros and cons to each and every form of energy that we use - you never get something for nothing. As mentioned elsewhere there are several alternatives to Nuclear, Coal and Oil Power Stations, all of which are in their infancy but we need to keep investing and working on the alternatives. One thing people forget is that Nuclear power is a 'finite' resource and is sourced from some pretty unstable regions of the world.
Always thought about PV Cells (which work on daylight not sunlight) good in summer not so good in winter in our northern location. One thing that put me off is the 'break even' period financially of about 30 years when the system would have to be replaced probably after about 20 years.
In some of the pence per kWhr calculations showingthat Nuclear was pretty cost effective have you added in the design, commissioning, maintenance, decommisioning and storage of the waste materials (for about 100,000 years) of said system?
Regards
Cahoona (CEng)
-
Permalink Reply by gary l. brodt on -
Chris H said:Shall we build a new nuclear power plant in Greenock then?
Or just switch off the lights? For good. - Attachments:
-
-
In the next 50 years.doc, 32 KB
-
© 2010 Created by Placebook Scotland
