The Scottish Government has turned down an application to build a 181-turbine wind farm on the Isle of Lewis, the BBC reports. The decision confirms a report by the BBC's Gaelic news service Radio nan Gaidheal back in January, which predicted a red light for the £500m project, proposed by Lewis Wind Power (LWP). Although the …
Yes, I know "outwith" is used frequently in scotland. I lived there for a time, I still find it scans strangely though.
I doubt it's come from "scots" though, since scots is rooted in gaelic and seems unlikely that a very obviously germanic word has come from there.
I expect that outwith was probably in fairly broad use at one time but usage just died off in England.
>Perhaps they should just build a wind farm between Glasgow and Edinburgh along the motorway.
Perhaps, they could put them in big sheds so that no-one could see them?
I was actually referring to the substantially higher government expenditure per head, which is ostensibly provided for the benefit of people in remote areas where the cost of infrastructure is substantially higher - such as the western isles.
Given that they don't want any kind of industry near them I don't see why they should benefit from industry elsewhere. Why can't the efforts of Glaswegians go to improving their own town since they can't be bothered paying their own way in the islands?
>any money made would only make up for money lost from tourism
Surely you're taking the piss?
"I doubt it's come from "scots" though, since scots is rooted in gaelic and seems unlikely that a very obviously germanic word has come from there."
Haud yer wheesht.
Gaelic has had an influence on Scots due to contact and migrations, but Scots is still a purer descendant of the Germanic Anglo-Saxon tongues than Modern Standard English is (with its bastardised mix of French, Norman, Latin, Greek, Welsh and Germanic language).
In fact, I once had a Swedish man tell me that when he was lost and told to go down the road and turn right at the house with the plough by a local man just outside of Inverness ("gae doon the rad an turn richt at the hoos wi the ploo") he almost thought he was in Denmark.
> doubt it's come from "scots" though, since scots is rooted in gaelic and seems unlikely that a very obviously germanic word has come from there.
I know it's veering away from the subject but it is generally thought that "Scots" or Doric originates from a Germanic language brought by Anglo-Saxons in or around the seventh century whilst Gaelic originates from the Celtic language brought from Ireland.
@redfish1 & anon
I stand corrected, I now feel justified in correcting it whenever I see it written in something otherwise in English, since it apparently isn't.
I also now wonder why the BBC are pricking about with all that bloody gaelic programming when they could just do english with the odd "hoots mon", "aye" a ludicrous accent and insist that it's "scots".
"I stand corrected, I now feel justified in correcting it whenever I see it written in something otherwise in English, since it apparently isn't."
Would you also "correct" a speaker of American English, Australian English or South African English for similar "mistakes"? So why should Scottish English (SSE) be any different.
"I also now wonder why the BBC are pricking about with all that bloody gaelic programming when they could just do english with the odd "hoots mon", "aye" a ludicrous accent and insist that it's "scots"."
I wonder now why the government are pricking about with all that bloody education nonsense when it continually churns out pig-ignorant racist blowhards like yourself.
Perhaps you should take a deep breath and count to ten, all is meant in jest.
Scots and Gaelic are two different languages completely.
I'm sure it makes you feel important to pick out local terms on internet comments pages...idiot.
I lived on Lewis for a while and the various projects set-up to encourage employment at the Arnish Yard were treated as an opprtunity for theft on an "industrial" scale !
somebody looking for a wallet
Useful free articles on New Scientist website
This article mentions the Lewis development in context of problems of an Irish wind farm situated on a peat bog
By Peter W
I think you mean 175GWh not 175TWh! However the rest of your calc seems to use 175GWh so I think you made errors that cancel out.
I came up with a figure of ~55,000 tons of CO2 (1MW generated at 60% efficiency combined cycle burning methane - 50MJ/kg for 20 years). This doesn't allow for well to power station losses so is an underestimate. However the power station output is more useful as it can be varied on demand. I've no idea how to figure this in though - maybe a factor of two in favour of the power station? Using these figures you'd still have to try hard to destroy enough bog to offset the benefit of the wind turbine, but its not implausible (it would at least make the economic case for wind turbines harder). To destroy the bog you might not have to physically move it - draining it will probably do. Using your 400m diameter circle of devestation I reckon 2m over 20 years of bog destruction would make it carbon neutral (in a bad way), not even trying to allow for the less useful nature of wind power (ie useful power generated might be a lot less than the 1MW average).
Here's another NS artcle on why it should be necessary to be careful when dealing with peat bogs - this one discusses the impact of draining peat bogs to provide land to produce palm oil.
PS I am a fully paid up member of the Climate Change is Happening and We Did It religious sect which I realise puts me at odds with the cultists who inhabit these regions. Also I am not an expert on these issues, so am therefore fully qualified to post on a website readers comments section. I shall withdraw forthwith however to the more comfortable Readers Wives section of an equally esteemed publication.
>Scots and Gaelic are two different languages completely.
As I said, I stand corrected.
>I'm sure it makes you feel important to pick out local terms on internet comments pages...idiot.
My main point was how the sponging islanders whine about any kind of economic activity on the islands whilst happily sponging on everyone elses efforts. That is, to say, they're a bunch of sponging whiners.
Jon - Screw you! What do you really know about my island and it's people, government or distribution of resources?
Do you really think your council tax covers all the expense of providing the public services you enjoy? Well it doesn't, you sponging whiner, they are largely paid for by other peoples efforts - so get a grip on your offensive self.
Many of the people of Lewis, like me, travel the world to work and those on the island work hard for little money due to the type of work available. Unemployment is very low, many people have two jobs or keep a croft for additional income - do you have any real idea how much work there is in rearing sheep?
We are enthusiastic supporters of renewable energy schemes that are environmentally and economically beneficial, we are way ahead of the curve in recycling organic waste to produce power in the form of stored hydrogen (see here - http://www.fuelcellsworks.com/Supppage5464.html), wave power (see here - http://www.natwindpower.co.uk/siadar/index.asp) and have a number of community wind installations in place and in planning.
This particular scheme was just plain wrong. We were lied to about the potential benefits and the risks were underplayed. The headline figure for the output of the system (650MW) is wildly optimistic, LWP themselves reckoned a capacity factor of 0.35 (so an output of 200MW'ish) but even that is optimistic.
The Road Equivalent Tariff is about to be introduced, which will make the islands more accessible and create far more local economic stimulation than this scheme would have. Contrariwise this huge scheme may even have dissuaded people from coming to the island.
There would have been no quicker way to clear Lewis than build this wind farm. Higland clearences all over again. Remember we are an island it's not like we can drive down the road and get away from the bloody things (especially considering the other two proposals at Pairc and Eishken). Life here is hard but we put up with it because we love our cluture our island and it's people. Detsroy our island and there is not much point in us living here.
As for saving co2 this was perhaps one of the most un green renewable projects ever. Designed to export electricity to S England a significant proportion of the generated elec would have been llost in transmission. Add to that loss of Co2 through drying and draining of peat and co2 emitted during construction you begin to ask yourself which idiot thought of this in the first place.
Out of interest I heard recently that the water table is so deep in some places foundations would have had to have been between 14ft-20ft deep. So calculate the 400m circle loss of co2 using those figures and there would be a net loss of co2 if the project had gone ahead. As Jim Mather said ' some renewable projects are put forward for the wrong places' I would add to that 'and for the wrong reasons'. It doesn't mean we can't have them but some places are better than others see RSPB map of places to avoid and put them somewhere else.
- Product round-up Too 4K-ing expensive? Five full HD laptops for work and play
- Review We have a winner! Fresh Linux Mint 17.1 – hands down the best
- Vid Antarctic ice THICKER than first feared – penguin-bot boffins
- 'Regin': The 'New Stuxnet' spook-grade SOFTWARE WEAPON described
- You stupid BRICK! PCs running Avast AV can't handle Windows fixes