British Court Rejects Donald Trump's Attempt To Block Wind Farm (nytimes.com) 421
HughPickens.com writes: Sewell Chan reports at the NYT that Britain's highest court has unanimously rejected an attempt by Donald J. Trump to block the construction of a wind farm near his luxury golf resort in northeast Scotland. Trump has vowed to stop further development on the project if the offshore wind farm — 11 turbines, which would be visible from the golf resort 2.2 miles away — goes forward. Trump spokesman George A. Sorial denounced the ruling as "extremely unfortunate for the residents of Aberdeen and anyone who cares about Scotland's economic future" adding that the wind farm will "completely destroy the bucolic Aberdeen Bay and cast a terrible shadow upon the future of tourism for the area. History will judge those involved unfavorably, and the outcome demonstrates the foolish, small-minded and parochial mentality which dominates the current Scottish government's dangerous experiment with wind energy."
Nicola Sturgeon, first minister of Scotland, withdrew Trump's status as a business ambassador to Scotland last week after Trump called for Muslims to be barred from entering the United States. Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen has stripped Mr. Trump of an honorary degree it awarded him in 2010. Trump's mother was born in Scotland and moved to the United States in the 1930s. " I think I do feel Scottish," said Trump at one time.
Nicola Sturgeon, first minister of Scotland, withdrew Trump's status as a business ambassador to Scotland last week after Trump called for Muslims to be barred from entering the United States. Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen has stripped Mr. Trump of an honorary degree it awarded him in 2010. Trump's mother was born in Scotland and moved to the United States in the 1930s. " I think I do feel Scottish," said Trump at one time.
History? Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think if history judges the presence of this wind farm unfavorably, they can, you know, just tear it down. It seems much easier to undo the damage of a wind farm than it does, say, a coal plant.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Very true. Also, it seems much easier to undo the damage of a bumbling ineffective government than it does, say, an idiotic megalomaniac fascist dictator.
Re: (Score:2)
With the SNP ruling the country, there is actually an underspend of government taxes. Though that might be due to the Labour MP's on the FETA council that didn't approve the funding of regular maintenance of the Forth Bridge, causing it to be caused to be closed when a crack was found.
Re: (Score:2)
Tell that to all the rich (liberal) folks who stopped a wind farm in Nantucket...
Re: (Score:2)
Tell that to all the rich (liberal) folks who stopped a wind farm in Nantucket...
Sure, why not? Why would it be different for one certain group of people, unless you are trying to make this a political argument to a simple technical statement.
Re:History? Really? (Score:5, Informative)
Structures built in/on the ocean aren't typically torn down. The metal superstructure would either be dismanntled and sold for scrap, or just dumped into the nearby sea if the scrap value isn't high enough. The concrete foundations would either remain, or if they're judged to be a hazard to shipping they'd be blasted into small pieces and left in the sea. I'm not sure what would happen to the fiberglass blades. They're not typically recyclable, but aren't heavy enough to sink and form an artificial reef. So they'd probably have to be transported back to shore and buried in a landfill.
Yes the damage from the coal ash and exhaust makes it pretty much the worst possible choice for power. However, for an equivalent MWe of generation capacity, the amount of steel and concrete needed [berkeley.edu] to construct wind turbines is about 5x more than for a coal plant, an order of magnitude more than for a nuclear plant, and two orders of magnitude more than needed for a gas plant.
Wind is even worse if you compare based on the actual amount of electricity generated, since wind has about half the capacity factor of coal and gas, and nearly 1/4th that of nuclear. (Capacity factor is what fraction of the plant's generating capacity is actually fulfilled on average over a year of operation. Wind is around 0.25, coal and gas about 0.4-0.6, nuclear around 0.9.)
Note: I don't oppose wind. I actually support it, as its cost has come down enough that it's starting to become cost-competitive with nuclear and coal. I just try to counter the misinformation put out there by the unicorn and rainbows crowd who've convinced the public that wind, solar, and hydro have no drawbacks. Every power source has drawbacks, and picking the right one requires an honest and thorough comparison of all the real advantages and drawbacks.
Re: (Score:3)
You are comparing apples to aardvarks - wind does not fill the base load niche. Unless you have a square wave of demand with huge jumps then you need something other than base load.
Re:History? Really? (Score:4, Interesting)
I wonder what it looks like when you have to add the steel, concrete and other materials to mine the coal, transport the coal, dispose of the ash, fuel to move the coal to the "resource price" of the coal-fired power station comparison? The thing about wind is the fuel delivers itself.
Re: (Score:2)
How's that?
My age is showing, but I was witness to the dismantling and removal of a research reactor which had operated for decades on the campus of the college I attended. They hauled it off in pieces and then built a lecture hall in it's place.
There is nothing to prevent you from returning a nuclear plant site to it's original form, if you really wanted too.
Re:History? Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
They hauled it off in pieces and then built a lecture hall in it's place.
When they haul it off in pieces, they don't just disappear. They have to be securely stored somewhere. And even if they can return the site to a useful state, the original claim was that it was easier to do this for a wind farm, not that it was impossible to do it for a nuclear power plant.
Re: (Score:3)
You have unstated the difficulty in dismantling a nuclear plant. If was as easy as you claim, why would it cost about $100 million and take 5 years [nytimes.com]? There is no way that a wind farm would be that hard.
Wind turbines have the ultimate recyclability: reuse. You could easily relocate the entire wind farm to another site with less vocal neighbors.
Re: (Score:3)
Both Windmills and power plants can (and are) disassembled and removed... Which is all I'm saying
And nobody ever said otherwise, only that it is far easier to dismantle one than the other.
Re: (Score:3)
The short story is lots of neutrons zipping around make everything they hit in large numbers radioactive, so there is a hell of a lot more to worry about than the fuel rods. In a lot of ways the fuel rods are easier to deal with than very large volumes of medium and low grade waste.
Re:History? Really? (Score:5, Interesting)
You can - and people do - decommission nuclear reactors safely. That's not the point. The point is how much it costs to do so. Nuclear reactors are really expensive to safely decommission.
Although to be fair if you include the cost of damage to the environment that coal produces, then there's no comparison, coal is far far more expensive than any other form of power.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, using that logic, we should be able to build just about anything anywhere, as long as it can be torn down.
You forgot the part about it not damaging the environment while it is in use like a coal plant does. Any alleged damage (specifically to the tourist trade) caused by a wind farm is completely reversible.
Re: (Score:3)
And I suppose that you are the authority that decides what is valid science.
About 90% of the population of the U.S. believes in a religion of some sort, and all of the religions of which I'm aware deny science in some manner. You are proposing to prevent 90% of the U.S. population from holding public office.
Re: (Score:3)
Lots of religions don't deny science, but rather have doctrines that cover questions that can't be answered by science. There is no scientific proof that there is no God, or that we don't have immortal souls, or anything like that. There's no scientific evidence for them, and some of them (the immortal soul, for example) are implausible by any scientific standard, but not disproven.
If a religion disagrees with science on any topic that science can cover, it's almost certainly wrong, but not all religio
Re:History? Really? (Score:4, Interesting)
Cancel the wind farm .. (Score:5, Funny)
.. or there will be hell toupee.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what's on his head if it's not a Toupee.... If it's his real hair, some stylist needs to stop dying different parts of it different colors because it looks horrible this way...
Re: (Score:2)
Of course he doesn't. [kozaranimame.com]
you have to question... (Score:5, Insightful)
Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen has stripped Mr. Trump of an honorary degree it awarded him in 2010
You kind of have to question why they awarded it in the first place.
Re:you have to question... (Score:5, Insightful)
So, Trump failed where the Kennedys succeeded? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wind Farm? Not Off My Back Porch [go.com]
But another obstacle is a political heavyweight with a famous name, a local Cape Cod address and hardline opposition to the project.
U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy's primary residence is in Hyannisport, Mass., on the Kennedy family compound. It's one of the closest landfalls -- about 6 miles -- from the proposed site of the 440-feet turbines, which would be visible from his house as well as other surrounding coastlines.
In all fairness, Kennedy's aides were probably afraid he'd try to drive over to the windmills out at sea.
Re: (Score:2)
Wind Farm? Not Off My Back Porch [go.com]
But another obstacle is a political heavyweight with a famous name, a local Cape Cod address and hardline opposition to the project.
U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy's primary residence is in Hyannisport, Mass., on the Kennedy family compound. It's one of the closest landfalls -- about 6 miles -- from the proposed site of the 440-feet turbines, which would be visible from his house as well as other surrounding coastlines.
In all fairness, Kennedy's aides were probably afraid he'd try to drive over to the windmills out at sea.
So you're saying that Ed Kennedy was even more of a winner than Trump?
Re: (Score:2)
They'll use up all the wind!
Wind farms can kill birds if they are built in migratory paths, but I am sure they are not concerned about that...
Let that be a warning (Score:2)
Listen all you Scots, Trump's mouthpiece says that experimenting with wind energy is not only dangerous but foolish, small-minded and parochial. Just say no.
Re: (Score:2)
That's funny. The hairpiece has a mouthpiece?
Hmmm... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
A blow hard is trying to stop a wind farm?
Of course, it's a conflict of interest..
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. Just like al gore and edward kennedy. Plenty of blowhards to go around.
In other words. . . (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
he was trumped. . .
Yea, but somehow I gather this isn't the last trick...
Re: (Score:2)
His candidacy appears to have exploded the denominator in that ratio, so I am really interested see to what extent that impacts his ability to "get his way."
Re: (Score:3)
Where I don't disagree with your analysis of Trump, I was trying to further the original poster's card playing joke...
Trump's running for the nomination is more about dissatisfaction with the status quo in Washington DC where the two parties have literally fought over the controls of a car that is careening along a mountain road towards a cliff. One party has the gas peddle covered and the other is yanking the wheel while the passengers in the back are yelling "Do something you fools!" Trump is seen as th
Donny Fartparts (Score:2)
You'd have thought someone with his name [britishslang.co.uk] would like all things wind-related.
No one goes to Palm Springs (Score:5, Informative)
Aberdeenshire and Grampian attracted
1.62 million visitors in 2011.
Palm Springs attracts around 1.5 million visitors, and it is adjacent to the San Gorgonio Pass Wind Farm, with over 3000 wind turbines!
Re: (Score:2)
Can't...decide... (Score:2)
Haven't these people seen Macross Plus? (Score:5, Insightful)
Giant windmills constantly turning just makes scenery more awesome.
How is that last paragraph relevlant? (Score:2)
So some university takes exception to something Trump says on the campaign trail and withdraws an honorary degree... How's that relevant to Trump loosing in his effort to block the construction of some windmills?
Oh yea, it's bash the Republican front runner time... So he gets two demerits, for saying something un PC about some specific religion they don't like AND for being on the wrong side of the "green" movement.
I think Trump is a joke, but come on people, stop feeding him by reacting to is stupid infl
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Sometimes I wonder if the media doesn't really know this and are just trying to drive the republican nomination to him. He's Hillary's only hope.
Think about this. Why did he run as a republican? I think it was because he knew what we all know that Hillary is going to be the democratic nominee, there is no chance anybody else makes it, even Trump. He also knew that a third party run would get him into the general election but he would surely loose and again Hillary would likely win. His *only* path to th
Hmmm testing out his upcoming foreign policy eh ? (Score:2)
Not the first time (Score:5, Informative)
In a local TV interview [kesq.com] he expanded on the tweet."The turbines are made in China for the most part and certainly outside the United States, but mostly in China. They are a bird killing machines, they kill birds,"
Current estimates are that windmill are the cause of 3 out of every 100,000 human-related bird deaths and are way, way below #1, windows (think "Trump Tower") and #2, domestic cats. As to the place of manufacture, at least those windmills are imported from the USA. Yes, Made in America. But the Donald has never been one to let facts interfere with a good sound byte.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's because he's a lunatic with a dead cat on his head who stands a dangerously high chance of being the Republican candidate for president. But least he doesn't think the pyramids were grain storages and can spell "poverbs" [sic] correctly.
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Funny)
My theory is that it is the "thing" on his head is making the decisions....
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Insightful)
"free" stuff
You say it like it's cigarettes and beer. It's fucking health care and financial assistance programs for people (you know, humans like you and I), and the transition of some of our tax burden to the mega corporations that currently pay jack shit. Disagree with the programs if you want, but don't be the disingenuous prick who reduces the whole thing to your idiot fiction of a black Friday mob of welfare mothers.
Re: (Score:2)
At least with Reagan, we enjoyed decades of economic growth and foreign policy achievements which where positive. The whole world was better off with Reagan in office, even if your history text book says otherwise. I know, I was a young adult working for a living at the time.
Re:Wow... (Score:4, Informative)
At least with Reagan, we enjoyed decades of economic growth and foreign policy achievements which where positive.
Sure, if you were a multinational corporation or one of the 1%. For everyone else, the Reagan years brought about stagnant household income when adjusted for inflation. It was also under Reagan's regime of nearly 2 trillion in deficit spending that we switched from being the world's largest creditor to the world's largest debtor.
The whole world was better off with Reagan in office, even if your history text book says otherwise. I know, I was a young adult working for a living at the time.
This is prime trolling. +5. Would laugh again.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump is just running interference for Hillary, and having a good time trolling the GOP base at the same time. Why doesn't anyone understand that? Any one of us would do the same, in his position.
I'm about 90% sure this is what's going on. It's the most logical explanation, having been a supporter of Hillary historically.
I take offense at your suggestion I'd do the same in his position - I do have principles.
Re: (Score:2)
"Slashdot sure seems to have one hell of an axe to grind with Trump."
You're not saying it right, he's Scottish, so he's Trrrrrrump.
Re:Wow... (Score:5, Funny)
You're not saying it right, he's Scottish, so he's Trrrrrrump.
Trump is NOT a true Scottsman. He's at best a wannabe.
Re: (Score:3)
You're not saying it right, he's Scottish, so he's Trrrrrrump.
Trump is NOT a true Scottsman. He's at best a wannabe.
Nobody wants to be Scottish, the Scottish only accept it to piss off the English.
No rational arguments (Score:3, Insightful)
Slashdot sure seems to have one hell of an axe to grind with Trump.
Trump's supporters are all low-class, uneducated, white males who drive rusty pickups(*) and want to take their country back.
<MorganFreeman>Didn't you get the memo?</MorganFreeman>
This seems to be the attack narrative passed around the news sites right now: if you're a trump supporter, you're low class.
(Subtext: "You wouldn't want to be considered low class now... would you?")
Slashdot readers are highly-educated, well paid, with liberal and progressive viewpoints. Of *course* we bash Trump.
The e
Re: (Score:3)
Then your close mindedness is the limitation not reality. There are already nearly 3 million Muslims in America, anything that makes them feel more discriminated against or ramps up the Muslims are dangerous rhetoric (which banning all Muslim immigrants clearly would) is very likely more dangerous than the risk that immigration poses.
But then you're clear
Re: (Score:3)
Back to the topic, I find it very strange that Trump and tollbooth guy are still in the running - it's as they decided Romney was nowhere near toxic enough for the voters so it's time to put up someone that makes even Hillary look good in comparison.
It goes well with the clown act.
Re:No rational arguments (Score:5, Insightful)
Banning all Muslims is not a common sense solution because your chances of getting killed by a Muslim in the US is virtually nil. It's not like people aren't getting killed on a daily basis, but the causes are much more mundane than terrorism.
The idea of banning all Muslims is a reaction to an irrational fear.
Re: (Score:3)
Trump did not suggest banning Muslims from entering the country.
BS he exactly stated that he would ban all Muslims in the middle east from entering the country. His campaign manager then verified it. After being attacked he then slid on it, a lot but not completely.
What he did say is that there is a tendency for criminals from outside the country to come from Islamic theocracies, therefore we need to bar people from immigrating from these nations until we can be sure these immigrants won't just kill us once they get here.
reinvisionist nonsense. That is not in any way what he stated, but even that is a very problematic statement. Criminals from outside the country cannot get a visa to enter the country, so that statement is idiotic
He did not suggest that any Muslim that wished to immigrate here should be prevented from doing so. How would that even be done?
Yes he did not say any muslim, he said any muslim in the middle east. That qualifier does not ma
Re:No rational arguments (Score:5, Insightful)
One thing I *haven't* seen is a rational explanation of why a temporary ban on Muslim immigration isn't a common-sense response to an immediate problem. It's not unconstitutional, it's no less against "American Principles" than going to war on false premises, ordering the death of a citizen, or secret lists and laws. It's also fairly easy to implement - think it through a few minutes and you'll see that detection is relatively straightforward(**).
Because it is
A) impossible to implement
B) Alienates good Muslims
C) drives moderate to borderline Muslims to the other side.
D) And most importantly UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
YES it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. It violates both the 1st and the 14th amendment, you know discriminating against someone based on their religion and making laws favoring one religion over the other...
But you are not really looking for a rational aurgiment against it so much as just trying to attack perople.
Re: (Score:3)
Muslim immigrants do not present much of a problem. They're pretty thoroughly vetted, and will trickle into the country slowly. Refusing them does not do anything immediately. In any event, discriminating on the basis of religion violates the First Amendment.
American principles? "Give me your tired, your poor/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free - unless they're Muslim". Does that belong on the Statue of Liberty?
Re: (Score:3)
Yes. Slashdot also has an "axe to grind" with genocide, pedophilia, and cancer. Some things are universally on our shit list for a very good reason. Trump is no exception. I'm not going Godwin on this one, but it is certainly fair to say that anyone who has educated himself on the man, his history, his viewpoints, and his epic failures at the expense of hundreds if not thousands of families, is going to not really be a big fan of the b
Re:Wow... (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah, that left wing, it's all to blame, nobody could just be calling Trump the pompous ass he is without being a member of the Secret Left Wing Cabal.
Re: (Score:2)
So, the media that "keep the advertisers happy and avoid ticking off the huge corporation that owns you, your product and pays you expenses" is that same one that keeps telling the left wing narrative around? I suppose it makes sense... somewhere in some alternate dimension.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, it does make sense in this dimension...
I know there are people who think the media is just in the tank for the left, that they choose sides knowingly, the Cabal mentality. I don't think it's true. I think the people in the "media" are really acting in their own best interest and within their personal beliefs. However, this tends to align them with the views of the people in power more than they and an outside observer might imagine.
Look at the choices of people working for Fox over those wor
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
These days, be prepared to be called a racist, even if you aren't. All it takes is opposing some political position which is tangentially related to race, or can be argued to be related. It's called "playing the race card" and it's been done a LOT by the current administration and the media supporting it.
Don't think so? What's all this hype about voter-ID laws? If I support imposing a voter ID rule, where you must show a picture ID to vote, in some circles that's considered a racist view. Or, one of my
Re: (Score:3)
Yea, but how is suggesting a law that has no racial component immediately draw the charge of racism? Racism.the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
I submit that there are a LOT of people who think voter ID laws are a good idea because they would prevent voter fraud, people voting for others or dead people. How's that motivation racist, it has nothing what so ev
Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Look I'll grant you that every media outlet has a narrative whether they are trying to or not (hint though: the left's isn't the only one).
But seriously, with Trump, what is there to filter? Where is the missing narrative of the time he proposed a policy that made any goddamn sense whatsoever (another hint: yelling at somebody you don't like is not a policy)? I mean, there are people with whom I strongly disagree on how implement solutions (i.e. Cheney: I hate you but you are a clever sumbitch), and then there are complete lunatics brimming with extreme personality disorders proposing things that make a bridge to the moon sound sane.
Please tell me, what did I miss? I would honestly like to know what actual action Trump has proposed that you (or anybody) thought was appropriate, feasible and constitutional?
Re: (Score:3)
The constitution covers all people. It is a grant of power to the government. It tells the government what it can do, not what it cannot do. Saying that the constitution does not protect non-citizens is being intentionally ignorant to the founding fathers and the creation of the constitution.
Re: (Score:3)
It would be absolutely insane to claim that the Constitution would protect non-citizens
This is one reason the US constitution is worthless. Might as well say "only applies to women", "only applies to small boys in China" or "only applies to budgerigars".
Either it enumerates basic rights or it's worthless. There are too many constraints on where it applies. It's fucking worthless.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah right.
More like Donald Trump has always been a big orange jerk that puts his name on everything and who is synonymous with gaudy, gold-plated tackiness....
The fact that he is running for POTUS doesn't change anything.
Re: (Score:3)
Well of course. he dares to challenge the left wing narrative around here. Of course, I don't agree with everything he says, but with the left, it's all or nothing. Violate one position, and the media burns you alive for it. Like the media, the editors having a left wing slant on the stories they choose to let through the filter.
Bwaaahhaaa. To quote the well-known 'left-wing narrative' media person known as Lindsay Graham: “Donald Trump is a complete idiot.". (here [breitbart.com]). And “Donald Trump has done the one single thing you cannot do — declare war on Islam itself To all of our Muslim friends throughout the world, like the King of Jordan and the President of Egypt, I am sorry. He does not represent us.” here [nypost.com]
I'm not a fan of most politicians, but at least they are not helping the enemy like Trump is
Re: (Score:2)
Wind farms: imposing the ugliness of the city on rural areas to provide power for the people of the city.
In what way is that unlike any other power source? Besides, I equate windmills with rural areas. I have yet to see any turbines in city areas.
Re: (Score:3)
Did you say "fascist"? (Re:Hypocrisy) (Score:3, Informative)
Could you cite the particular examples of fascist statements made by Donald Trump — and explain, why you feel so about them?
Be sure to offer full verifiable quotes, rather than paraphrases, however... Thank you!
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you can start with Trump running to the courts to have the government force other people to stop what they're doing on their property.
Re:Did you say "fascist"? (Re:Hypocrisy) (Score:5, Informative)
OK, let's start with the most recent.
The verification of that quote is in this video:
http://money.cnn.com/2015/12/0... [cnn.com]
And here is the definition of Fasicism, from history Professor Emeritus Robert O. Paxton of Columbia University:
My explanation as to why I "feel" this statement is Fascism is not required. My feelings on the subject don't matter because this (and many other) statements from Donald Trump and the behavior of his followers perfectly fit the definition.
Why even bother? (Score:2)
We already know from the summary that Trump is not a real Scotsman.
We don't need more arguing along those lines from Trumpgnostics with a hardon for anything that feels anti-Obama to them.
Regardless how retarded it may be.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, his followers seem to have gotten the message anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.thewrap.com/donald-... [thewrap.com]
http://www.salon.com/2015/12/1... [salon.com]
http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/22/... [cnn.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Where do you differ with the professor's more thorough definition of "fascism"?
Please support your statement that Trump is an "Individualist" with some evidence. "Be sure to offer full verifiable quotes, rather than paraphrases, however... Thank you!"
Re: (Score:2)
On the subject of hypocrisy, I think that the locals are rather of the opinion that Trump's golf course has already "destroy[ed] the bucolic Aberdeen Bay".
Re: (Score:2)
My first impression of the windswept bucolic views of Scotland is,
"Why aren't there any fucking trees?"
Was Alba always barren of flora or did cutting down the forests in ancient times for firewood change the landscape forever into eroded coastal dunes where nothing will grow?
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:5, Informative)
My first impression of the windswept bucolic views of Scotland is,
"Why aren't there any fucking trees?"
Was Alba always barren of flora or did cutting down the forests in ancient times for firewood change the landscape forever into eroded coastal dunes where nothing will grow?
Actually, it's a long, complex story. 1000 or so years ago, Scotland was mostly forested. At the other end, the Highland Clearances in the 1700s and 1800s didn't just force most of the people out; the major intent was to clear the land for sheep farming, which had become a good income source for the landowners with the development of modern cloth-production techniques. This led to the conversion of most of the countryside to grazing land, eliminating most of the remaining trees.
But that was merely the last blow. Before that, the forests had been heavily mined for wood for shipbuilding, and for producing charcoal to power the growing factories.
It didn't help that Scotland (and Ireland) was on the edge of the tree-supporting area, with the tree line roughly along the northwestern coasts. This meant that the forests were naturally rather slow-growing, and the tree species weren't the largest. So it was easy to over-harvest them if there was any sort of profit from the wood or a more profitable use of a tree-free land area.
Do a bit of googling; you can find lots of info on the history scattered around the internet. Similar things also happened in Scandiavia, so you might look for histories of forestry there as well. But the people there were mostly along the coastlines, and the center had much taller mountains, so the forests survived a lot better than in the British Isles.
The summary is that the treeless scenery of much of Scotland isn't at all natural; it's directly attributed to human "management" of the land. There's plenty of evidence that it would have been mostly forest without its human population, at least for the past 5000 or more years as the last Ice Age slowly faded out..
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, very interesting.
My advice to Donald would be that if he doesn't like the off-shore turbines he could plant a forest to block out the view. If his golf business suffers then he could then convert it into a game reserve!
Re:It's all fun a games until someone.... (Score:5, Informative)
Truth is no one in Scotland (including me) wanted his dam golf course. He abused legislation and land laws to force out well established and productive farms to build the thing. And despite the PR it brings almost nothing to the local economy and very little to the Scottish economy (come on its only a single golf course and luxury hotel.. we have 100s of them - all with more history, a few even older than the USA). The only reason he got to build it was because the locals couldn't afford the lawyers to fight and he bribed a few politicians. Its sweat justice that they are now going to 'spoil his view'
Re:It's all fun a games until someone.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Meh, I lived near a bombing range for over half of my life. I'm pretty sure a wind farm a mile from my house won't make more noise than constant B-2s and F-16s flying overhead. As for bird kills, birds die. *shrugs*
Re:Trump (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems like you are under the illusion that Trump is something other than a catchphrase spouting blowhard racist 1%er who doesn't give a shit about anyone or anything but Trump. Renewable energy is important, Trumps view from his golf course isn't.
Re:Trump (Score:5, Informative)
Wind power production has MORE than lived up to the hype. It's the single fastest growing power source by a WIDE margin precisely because it's been so phenomenally successful and the turbines trump is opposed to are some of the most productive in the world (coastal turbines in Scotland and the north sea are under wind damn near 100% of the time). Turbines are so cost effective up there (even with the cost of sinking foundation into deep water) because the wind never stops blowing and it blows with enough force that the turbines are almost always at maximum spin efficiency.
Coastal wind power is so effective that Denmark gets nearly 60% of their power from it and Scotland could EASILY be an exporter of power to the rest of the UK if they fully built out their wind resources.
Re:Trump (Score:5, Informative)
Wind power production has MORE than lived up to the hype. It's the single fastest growing power source by a WIDE margin precisely because it's been so phenomenally successful and the turbines trump is opposed to are some of the most productive in the world (coastal turbines in Scotland and the north sea are under wind damn near 100% of the time). Turbines are so cost effective up there (even with the cost of sinking foundation into deep water) because the wind never stops blowing and it blows with enough force that the turbines are almost always at maximum spin efficiency.
Coastal wind power is so effective that Denmark gets nearly 60% of their power from it and Scotland could EASILY be an exporter of power to the rest of the UK if they fully built out their wind resources.
More in fact:
Wind power generates 140% of Denmark's electricity demand
http://www.theguardian.com/env... [theguardian.com]
Re:Trump (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, exactly like those studies that show that a special pixie dust from a naturopath cures cancer and sometimes even done by the same people!
From looking at what the "victims" all have in common it looks like redneck corrupt crony politics is the major cause of windmill syndrome. The instant cure is being able to make money from a windmill.
There's a good reason for that with the stupid charging at windmills using invented anecdotes, which is what the "studies" that show a problem all turned out to be. There are a large number of professionally run investigations into the matter that didn't turn up any problem, but those are conveniently ignored by either real or pretended ignorance.
Re: (Score:3)
You forgot to inform us that wind power will slow down the rotation of the earth if we switch to it big time.
Re:Trump (Score:5, Insightful)
The news in my country did a segment on wind farms and revealed they were extremely loud, which can't be healthy.
You're right, watching non-credible news stories is extremely unhealthy.
If you ever see a wind farm, go in for a closer look and listen, they are less noisy than your average car and we seem to accept those every-fucking-where on earth...
Re: (Score:3)
True. The racism is just the cherry on top.
Re: (Score:2)
That wasn't approved until Kennedy was dead. So they didn't anything to him.
Re: (Score:2)
I feel that way about nuclear. But windmills have been around hundreds of years, and have been generating power for decades. They are a blight on the landscape. The Columbia River Gorge used to be beautiful, now it all looks like this: https://carrgroup.files.wordpr... [wordpress.com]
You can hardly find an unspoiled view anymore. At night the landscape for a hundred miles looks like a giant blinking Christmas Tree, the lame kind where all the lights flash on and off in unison.