No, indeed it's not 4W. But funnily enough, it might be worse than if it was (probly not tho) as they could ruin the views of Sleeping Beauty more than if they were actually ON her!
You see, my first thought when I started reading the thread was that if the wind turbines were actually 'on' Sleeping Beauty it wouldn't be too bad. Sleeping Beauty is really only visible from miles away - and is at a guess about 10 miles away from 'the Callanish monuments'. From that kind of distance the turbines'd hardly be visible, if at all....
Personally I tend to think, as windfarms seem to be about the most viable form of vaguely (albeit apparently flawed) ecologically friendly power production we have, it'd seem logical to have 'em. WITH of course the proviso that they haveta be in the most effective place & VERY preferably if the power is needed & used locally. (And add me to the list that actually find em kinda aesthetically pleasing, tho mebbe not in such huge numbers.)
And yes, it sounds like a lot of work needs to be done on solving any ill-effects on people and birds etc. But I agree with 4W that we hardly seem able to wait 'til that research has been done before using 'em. The argument that they don't actually produce proportionately 'much' power is a bit weird - they certainly won't if we don't have 'em....
As a matter of interest I always thought 'Sleeping Beauty' was formed from 2 or 3 separate hills/mountains that 'overlap' when viewed from the north - hence the fact that for example, from some points she 'looks pregnant' and others she seems to heve noticeable breasts. So the turbines may ony be on parts of her & only partially visible (tho I haven't got time to work it out from the maps).
love
Moth
Reply | with quote | Posted by Moth 3rd January 2005ce 18:46 |
Sleeping Beauty (pixie1948, Jan 01, 2005, 17:08)- Re: Sleeping Beauty - This Might Help (treaclechops, Jan 01, 2005, 17:52)
- Re: Sleeping Beauty (FourWinds, Jan 01, 2005, 19:53)
- Re: Sleeping Beauty (suave harv, Jan 01, 2005, 20:01)
- Re: Sleeping Beauty (nigelswift, Jan 01, 2005, 20:14)
- Re: Sleeping Beauty (smallblueplanet, Jan 01, 2005, 20:28)
- Re: Sleeping Beauty (nigelswift, Jan 01, 2005, 20:36)
- Re: Sleeping Beauty (smallblueplanet, Jan 01, 2005, 20:50)
- Re: Sleeping Beauty (nigelswift, Jan 01, 2005, 21:04)
- Re: Sleeping Beauty (smallblueplanet, Jan 01, 2005, 21:09)
- Re: Sleeping Beauty (FourWinds, Jan 01, 2005, 21:58)
- Re: Sleeping Beauty (smallblueplanet, Jan 01, 2005, 22:07)
- Re: Sleeping Beauty (smallblueplanet, Jan 01, 2005, 22:16)
- Re: Sleeping Beauty (FourWinds, Jan 01, 2005, 22:33)
- Re: Sleeping Beauty (Moth, Jan 03, 2005, 18:46)
- Re: Sleeping Beauty (norriethedead, Mar 06, 2005, 15:44)
- Re: Sleeping Beauty (BrigantesNation, Jan 02, 2005, 11:10)
- Re: Sleeping Beauty (smallblueplanet, Jan 01, 2005, 22:41)
- Re: Sleeping Beauty (BrigantesNation, Jan 02, 2005, 11:13)
- Re: Devastation in pictures (smallblueplanet, Jan 01, 2005, 23:51)
- Re: Sleeping Beauty (Littlestone, Jan 05, 2005, 20:54)
- Re: Sleeping Beauty (FourWinds, Jun 16, 2006, 10:37)
- Re: Sleeping Beauty (geniet, Jun 21, 2006, 17:15)
|
|