Walk Against the Wind Farm - Rhondda Cynon Taff - 13 Jan 2007
Darren
in Cynon Valley, Rhondda Cynon Taff on January 13th 2007. Starts 10am
from the Dare Valley Country Park Visitor Centre.
The walk aims to raise awareness about the proposed wind farm to be sited
near Cwmdare and running north to Hirwaun.
Those who take part in the walk will be able to see first-hand where some
of the 400ft wind-turbines might be located and discuss their effects
on the local environment.
David James, Chairman of Cynon Valley Ramblers has organised the event.
He advises sturdy boots and estimates that the walk should last around
two and a half hours. Hopefully the weather dries out for the day.
From Rhondda Cynon Taff Green Drinks
http://greendrinks.rhonddacynontaff.org/2006/12/30/walk-against-the-wind-farm/
Geoff Berrow
Darren contained the following:
>Those who take part in the walk will be able to see first-hand where some
> of the 400ft wind-turbines might be located and discuss their effects
>on the local environment.
Yeah, nuclear would be much better...
One of the effects is that they are unsightly of course. Why then are
they painted brilliant white? Wouldn't they be less obtrusive if
painted in more subdued colours, perhaps even camouflage colours?
--
Geoff Berrow (put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs http://www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker/
The Reid
<blth...@ckdog.co.uk> wrote:
> Wouldn't they be less obtrusive if
>painted in more subdued colours, perhaps even camouflage colours?
the sky is often whitish, if viewing from above, birds and planes, its
best they stand out?
--
Mike Reid
UK Walking - photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Spain Walking -food "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk"
Beginners UK flight sim addons "http://www.lawn-mower-man.co.uk"
lerkio
I think they look really elegant!
The Reid
>Can I be the only one ?
>
>I think they look really elegant!
no, they are elegant. Its just that when I'm in the hills or on a wild
coast I dont want to see the works of man, however nice. It seems to
me they are going to spoil a lot of wild landscape for a smallish
contribution to power.
But in 200 years time people will pay to see the NT heritage wind farm
with people dressed up in red socks, jeans* and fleeces, reinacting
walkers navigating with map, compass and walking pole* or maybe the
"toll free hills" riots of 2040.
* there will be mistakes!
lerkio
if any "carbon" is actually saved with these natural power/electricity
producing "things" ***
its the Green brigade who are so good at being pushy and have forced
Government to guarantee purchase electricity from green sources - hence
business is so happy to invest in these wind farms (basically there's no
risk/ downside !)
Sorry I'm not in the least science orientated hence the ramblings :-) - the
reason for little/no savings is because they are unreliable source (sun can
go in/wind stops blowing - I admit tides are pretty reliable ) the normal
power stations have to keep power up to step in at a couple of seconds
notice.
If you check up on this it may help your cause
*** The Greens are very clever they can state only 5% power to the national
grid is for example from green sources yet are happy to forget the 4% for
example is wasted because other power stations are on a "high" standby
cheers
Broadback
those in Scotland. By the time you have transported the electricity
generated to areas that use it all the "gain" has been lost. Also you
have to build carbon emitting generators for when the wind does not
blow. Taxpayers are paying through the nose for "Greens" stupidity.
Hungerdunger
"Darren" <dar...@gwe.cymraeg.org> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.01.11.11.09.01.814891@aberdare-cps-org...
>A Walk Against the Wind Farm is to be held at Dare Valley Country Park
> in Cynon Valley, Rhondda Cynon Taff on January 13th 2007. Starts 10am
> from the Dare Valley Country Park Visitor Centre.
>
nuclear power.
--
Hungerdunger
To reply by email, remove the MARX from my address
Hungerdunger
news:pan.2007.01.11.11.09.01.814891@aberdare-cps-org...
> in Cynon Valley, Rhondda Cynon Taff on January 13th 2007. Starts 10am
> from the Dare Valley Country Park Visitor Centre.
>
Peter
wrote:
>On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 13:27:40 GMT, "lerkio" <ler...@piracy.com> wrote:
>
>>Can I be the only one ?
>>
>>I think they look really elegant!
>
>no, they are elegant. Its just that when I'm in the hills or on a wild
>coast I dont want to see the works of man, however nice. It seems to
>me they are going to spoil a lot of wild landscape for a smallish
>contribution to power.
>But in 200 years time people will pay to see the NT heritage wind farm
>with people dressed up in red socks, jeans* and fleeces, reinacting
>walkers navigating with map, compass and walking pole* or maybe the
>"toll free hills" riots of 2040.
I hold no views on wind generation one way or the other, likewise I
think we would be wise to adopt a little cyynicism about global
warming - it may be happening, it may not be happening, but I have to
ask the question
You don't seem to want either land based or offshore based windfarms.
I suspect these locations may be where they work best (or at all). so
how would you propose to generate carbon free electricity should the
warnings on global warming prove to be true?
--
Cheers
Peter
Please remove the invalid to reply
The Reid
<usenet...@nidum.plus.com> wrote:
>You don't seem to want either land based or offshore based windfarms.
>I suspect these locations may be where they work best (or at all). so
>how would you propose to generate carbon free electricity should the
>warnings on global warming prove to be true?
If windfarms are essential that doesnt mean they look nice or dont
ruin the "wild" environment.
I'm reluctantly moving towards seeing nuclear as the answer, backed up
by using less power in the first place and hopefully one day some
better science.
Nick Wagg
news:ht7dq2l775elmbt27...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 18:08:13 -0000, MË› T.. <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>Birds would stand no chance if they couldn't see them. Apparently the
>>sails frequently clout large birds.
>>
>
> Source?
> Statistics?
> Links?
Googling for "wind turbine blades birds" brings up a wealth of articles.
Bill Grey
<usenet...@nidum.plus.com> writes
>You don't seem to want either land based or offshore based windfarms.
>I suspect these locations may be where they work best (or at all). so
>how would you propose to generate carbon free electricity should the
>warnings on global warming prove to be true?
>--
Well, how many polluting fossil fuel power stations are left in South
Wales?
--
Bill Grey
lerkio
>>
> And the following week we're off to Chernobyl to learn about the
> benefits of nuclear power.
By plane ?
A plane crashed once so i think all planes should be banned, actually come
to think of it same goes for ferries,buses and cars!
i heard someone died walking -
The Reid
>> And the following week we're off to Chernobyl to learn about the
>> benefits of nuclear power.
>
>By plane ?
>
>A plane crashed once so i think all planes should be banned, actually come
>to think of it same goes for ferries,buses and cars!
I wonder how many deaths can be totted up against coal? Mine
disasters, miners lung, smog. Tripping over a piece of nutty slack.
Paul Saunders
> The walk aims to raise awareness about the proposed wind farm to be
> sited near Cwmdare and running north to Hirwaun.
Not up on Hirwaun Common and Cefn y Llethr Hir I hope?
http://www.streetmap.co.uk/streetmap.dll?G2M?X=294500&Y=203500&Z=3
If it weren't for all the coal mines and foresty in that area, it wouldn't
look that different to the Brecon Beacons. The geology and topography is
quite similar. Imagine Craig y Llyn without all the trees and nearby slag
heaps:
http://www.streetmap.co.uk/streetmap.dll?G2M?X=291500&Y=203500&A=Y&Z=3
It's a shame that one area is protected as a national park, yet a few miles
away there's a very similar area that, due to an accident of history, is
treated as a massive garbage dump. They've spent years cleaning up the
valleys, now they're trying to ruin all the hilltops!
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
Paul Saunders
> Yeah, nuclear would be much better...
Yep. All the badness concentrated in one tiny spot. Infinitely more
efficient and doesn't ruin vast tracts of unspoilt land.
Britain is a small island with a large population. We don't have much
unspoilt land left. Do we really have to cover every square inch of it with
bloody windfarms? No doubt it's a popular solution for the non-walking
townies who think they look pretty from a distance, but soon there won't be
anywhere quiet and remote left to walk.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
Paul Saunders
> Can I be the only one ?
>
> I think they look really elegant!
Put them in cities then, in the parks. Then all the townies who love them so
much can come to admire them up close.
If you really must build the damn things, put them offshore. Let's save what
little natural land we have left. But then I suppose the sailors might
complain...
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
David Blewitt
> >
> >I think they look really elegant!
>
> no, they are elegant. Its just that when I'm in the hills or on a wild
> coast I dont want to see the works of man, however nice.
>
the clear landscape we see now is down to the works of man. Could be wrong
though.
Regards, Blew
Paul Saunders
> I hold no views on wind generation one way or the other, likewise I
> think we would be wise to adopt a little cyynicism about global
> warming - it may be happening, it may not be happening, but I have to
> ask the question
Well there seems little doubt that it *is* happening, but how much of it is
our fault is another matter, as is our ability to effect real change. We
don't even understand it all completely yet. How many people have heard of
"global dimming"?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_trans.shtml
> You don't seem to want either land based or offshore based windfarms.
> I suspect these locations may be where they work best (or at all). so
> how would you propose to generate carbon free electricity should the
> warnings on global warming prove to be true?
What makes people think that building a few thousand windfarms will make any
real difference? Most of the damage has already been done and windfarms are
nothing more than a token gesture to create the impression that something is
being done about it.
Cutting carbon emissions by a few percent is neither here nor there. If
humans really wanted to do something about it they'd close down all the
power stations, scrap all the cars and go back to living in the Middle Ages.
But of course that isn't going to happen is it? Humans are hypocritical,
they like to be seen to be taking action, but they don't want their
comfortable modern lifestyles to be affected. Result? Nothing really
changes.
You can build 350,000 windfarms and ruin every scrap of wild land left in
the UK, and global warming will still continue. Must we really wait another
10 or 20 years before coming to the conclusion "Oops, that didn't work, what
now?".
Build some nuclear power stations, small footprint, high efficiency, clean.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
The Reid
wrote:
>> no, they are elegant. Its just that when I'm in the hills or on a wild
>> coast I dont want to see the works of man, however nice.
>>
>I think i read once that all of england was covered in forrest at one point,
>the clear landscape we see now is down to the works of man. Could be wrong
>though.
No, I think that's largely right, our landscape is man influenced, but
its still landscape.
I don't see it as a case for *man* *made* objects in our remaining
beautiful and wild places though. A sort of we messed with it a bit
so we might as well ruin it completely argument.
The Reid
<pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>You can build 350,000 windfarms and ruin every scrap of wild land left in
>the UK, and global warming will still continue.
especially with china and US doing FA. Projected aviation expansion
will probably swamp all the wind farm efforts anyway.
Ultimately the worlds economic model doesn't fit this situation. If
everybody stopped rushing about creating stuff we don't really need we
could slow down, have three times the free time and travel by ship and
train instead of plane and car, but the economy would then collapse.
We are locked into cycles of ever increasing activity which in the end
probably has to stop.
Paul Saunders
> I think i read once that all of england was covered in forrest at one
> point, the clear landscape we see now is down to the works of man.
> Could be wrong though.
Partly wrong. The rockier uplands were never covered in trees, the soil was
too thin to support tree roots, so they won't have changed much.
Besides, even if most of the scenery in the UK has been modified by the
intervention of man in the past, that hasn't prevented it from subsequently
"returning to the wild". People are very pedantic about the notion of
"wilderness", as if only pristine, untouched wilderness is important. The
claim that there's virtually no true wilderness left in the UK because it's
all been modified by man in the past implies that it's somehow not important
to preserve it.
It may be true that we have precious little "1st generation wilderness"
left, but we have quite a bit of "2nd generation wilderness", which I define
as land which has returned to the wild, i.e. is not actively managed by man.
Even though much upland land is arguably "farmland" in the sense that sheep
roam over it, the effect is not really much different to any wild animals
roaming and grazing over a wild area.
So although our wilderness may be mostly "2nd class", it's all we've got, so
we might as well make the most of it. Just because some humans cut down a
forest two thousand years ago, or mined it two hundred years ago, is not a
good reason to trash these places with windfarms now.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
Simon Challands
The Reid <don...@fellwalk.co.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 14:37:14 -0000, "David Blewitt" <f...@ki.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> no, they are elegant. Its just that when I'm in the hills or on a wild
>>> coast I dont want to see the works of man, however nice.
>>>
>>I think i read once that all of england was covered in forrest at one point,
>>the clear landscape we see now is down to the works of man. Could be wrong
>>though.
>
> No, I think that's largely right, our landscape is man influenced, but
> its still landscape.
> I don't see it as a case for *man* *made* objects in our remaining
> beautiful and wild places though. A sort of we messed with it a bit
> so we might as well ruin it completely argument.
Completely agree with that. I just don't understand how even people
who think they are elegant can propose siting them in areas where
they'll utterly dominate and be at a complete contrast with their
surroundings. I think that London gherkin is elegant, but I sure as
hell wouldn't want to see it in a Highland village or Welsh valley.
Wind farms are more damaging to the landscape than all but the largest
scale mines. Other man-made objects in such places tend to be off the
skyline, much smaller in scale, and made out of whatever materials are
at hand (or at least aren't too dissimilar), so there isn't such a
glaring contrast. Even the M6 passing by Shap has far less of a
damaging impact than the wind farm proposed for that area would, and
is much more useful.
As for nuclear and Chernobyl, that was a badly designed and badly run
old-fashioned design. People DO learn from mistakes, and modern
reactor designs are far safer (look up pebble bed reactor, for
example).
--
Simon Challands
Dave Fawthrop
wrote:
|On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 14:37:14 -0000, "David Blewitt" <f...@ki.com>
|wrote:
|
|>> no, they are elegant. Its just that when I'm in the hills or on a wild
|>> coast I dont want to see the works of man, however nice.
|>>
|>I think i read once that all of england was covered in forrest at one point,
|>the clear landscape we see now is down to the works of man. Could be wrong
|>though.
|
|No, I think that's largely right, our landscape is man influenced, but
|its still landscape.
|I don't see it as a case for *man* *made* objects in our remaining
|beautiful and wild places though. A sort of we messed with it a bit
|so we might as well ruin it completely argument.
But there is *no* part of the UK landscape which is *not* man made That has
been more or less true since the Neolithic Clearances C 6000 years ago.
They cut the Wild Wood down with flint axes, so they could grow *Food*.
--
Dave Fawthrop <dave hyphenologist co uk> Google Groups is IME the *worst*
method of accessing usenet. GG subscribers would be well advised get a
newsreader, say Agent, and a newsserver, say news.individual.net. These
will allow them: to see only *new* posts, a killfile, and other goodies.
Darren
>> The walk aims to raise awareness about the proposed wind farm to be
>> sited near Cwmdare and running north to Hirwaun.
>
> Not up on Hirwaun Common and Cefn y Llethr Hir I hope?
> http://www.streetmap.co.uk/streetmap.dll?G2M?X=294500&Y=203500&Z=3
I think they propose establishing Turbines *above* the Common... but
don't quote me on that.
> It's a shame that one area is protected as a national park, yet a few
> miles away there's a very similar area that, due to an accident of
> history, is treated as a massive garbage dump. They've spent years
> cleaning up the valleys, now they're trying to ruin all the hilltops!
Totally agree with you Paul.
Hirwaun is a very (politically) tense place at the moment because there is
simply much too much building development... perhaps "over-development" is
a better description. It's mostly inappropriate.
The historically important site of the Gloucester Wagon Works in Hirwaun
and the Hirwaun Iron Works site (the first heavy industry that came to
Cynon Valley... which created demand for coal etc) is currently subject to a
planning application for housing.
I attended a public meeting in October 2006 in a Valleys Chapel in Hirwaun
concerning over-development in the area. It was a rare delight to see that
old Chapel come alive with so many local people.
There are a considerable amount of pissed-off people in the Valleys at
the moment, who are being radicalized by the so-called renewable energy
strategy of the current (Labour) Welsh Assembly Government.
And in reply to some other posts...
It's silly of some people to suggest that people protesting against
this particular development are pro-nuclear - by default - or suffer
from some form of nimbyism if they oppose the ridiculous developments
being forced upon them by corporations and their allies in the Welsh
Assembly...
As a community we exist because of energy. It's our history. This
Valley was a rural backwater until they discovered iron ore and coal here.
The last deep mine in Wales is on our doorstep.
I originally set the follow-up to "poster" and I've re-set it. Please
reduce the Newsgroups: line if replying.
Cheers
Darren
Jim Ford
> Wind farms are more damaging to the landscape than all but the largest
> scale mines. Other man-made objects in such places tend to be off the
> skyline, much smaller in scale, and made out of whatever materials are
> at hand (or at least aren't too dissimilar), so there isn't such a
> glaring contrast. Even the M6 passing by Shap has far less of a
> damaging impact than the wind farm proposed for that area would, and
> is much more useful.
I visited the open day of the company with the wind turbine adjacent to
the M25 at Kings Langley (REN - something like that). One point that was
mentioned by a guide, was that at the end of the turbine's life - about
25 years IIRC, the turbine can be cleared away such that after a month
you wouldn't know it had ever been there. I feel this is an important
point that hasn't been mentioned in this discussion so far.
Jim Ford
Paul Saunders
>> I don't see it as a case for *man* *made* objects in our remaining
>> beautiful and wild places though. A sort of we messed with it a bit
>> so we might as well ruin it completely argument.
>
> Completely agree with that. I just don't understand how even people
> who think they are elegant can propose siting them in areas where
> they'll utterly dominate and be at a complete contrast with their
> surroundings. I think that London gherkin is elegant, but I sure as
> hell wouldn't want to see it in a Highland village or Welsh valley.
Indeed. What's hypocritical is that the whole concept of being green is to
save nature, isn't it? How does wrecking what few wild places we've got left
achieve that? Oh, people talk about saving the whales and protecting
Antarctica, but couldn't care less about our local hills.
What's the point in protecting Antarctica anyway? I know there is a point,
but most people are never going to visit the place during their lifetimes.
Why not protect the local wild places that people do visit? Just having a
dozen or so national parks isn't enough.
As for the national parks themselves, why surround them with eyesores? This
proposed windfarm at Hirwaun will be clearly visible from most of the
Beacons. They could hardly put it in a more prominent place.
They've done some mock-ups of what it would like from various viewpoints.
http://www.pennantwalters.co.uk/hirwf.htm
Typical that all these viewpoints are quite distant, the kind of distance
where townies will comment on how pretty they look. How about a close up to
show how the hilltop will be ruined for walkers?
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
Paul Saunders
> But there is *no* part of the UK landscape which is *not* man made
Utter codswallop! Did man make the limestone, the granite, the sandstone?
Did man shape the hills and valleys? Did man make the rivers and the lakes?
Did man make the grass and the plants? You've got a very strange idea what
"man-made" means.
> That has been more or less true since the Neolithic Clearances C 6000
> years ago. They cut the Wild Wood down with flint axes, so they could
> grow *Food*.
So we cut down a few trees 6000 years ago, how does that constitute "making"
the landscape? I can peel the skin off an apple, but that doesn't mean that
I made the apple, it's still perfectly natural underneath.
We've modified a few surface features, that's all. A long time ago. 99% of
it is still natural. All the moorland grass and other plants that have
colonised the modified landscape since we chopped the trees down are
nature's doing too, man had very little to do with it. You give human beings
far too much credit.
Buildings are man made, as are roads and windfarms, but moorland, cliffs and
rivers are not.
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
Paul Saunders
> I visited the open day of the company with the wind turbine adjacent
> to the M25 at Kings Langley (REN - something like that). One point
> that was mentioned by a guide, was that at the end of the turbine's
> life - about 25 years IIRC, the turbine can be cleared away such that
> after a month you wouldn't know it had ever been there. I feel this
> is an important point that hasn't been mentioned in this discussion
> so far.
So they'll be there for most of the rest of my life! What good does that do
people who have to put up with them for the next 25 years?
Paul
--
http://www.wilderness-wales.co.uk
Chris Fishwick
"Paul Saunders" <pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eo94qg$lia$1...@news.freedom2surf.net...
Plus the replacements when their life-span has expired! Another 25+ years?
CRF
Jim Ford
What it also means is that as newer technologies - wave/tidal power,
solar, or fusion ('40 years away, and it always will be!') come along,
wind turbines can be quickly and cleanly removed.
Mind you, it's all pretty irrelevant. With the World's climate only 1
degree away from the 'tipping point' and consequent catastrophic thermal
runaway, it hardly seems worth bothering!
Jim Ford
Sharky
When the new sources are built, they can connect them to the windmills
and cool the world down!
The Reid
<pv...@wildwales.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
> What's hypocritical is that the whole concept of being green is to
>save nature, isn't it?
you would think so, do you think Blairs a nature man? Or just wants
clean power?
The Reid
><long rant>
>
>Let's all commit mass suicide, then.
too many people is indeed the core problem.
The Reid
<simon_...@helvellyn.plus.com> wrote:
> I think that London gherkin is elegant, but I sure as
>hell wouldn't want to see it in a Highland village or Welsh valley.
yes and i would be happy with turbines here in London.
The Reid
>When the new sources are built, they can connect them to the windmills
>and cool the world down!
or make it spin faster!