The proposed Clachan Wind Farm

[Kathy Bowles]

.
RE. the 'Community Benefit'

As NOS points out this development is not in our parish. Although Seil will be the community most affected the wind farm will be in Kilninver and Kilmelfort, which is very convenient for Mr. Young as it makes it harder for us to object.

It also makes me wonder whether Seil and Easdale will get any of the so-called 'Community Benefit', or if it will all go to Kilninver and Kilmelford. We may get nothing except the eyesore and hassle. Hopefully someone from here will bring this up at the meeting on Saturday.

(And yes, I agree with NOS - the structure and wording of the meeting is devious to say the least).

Re oldgit's comments - this windfarm willl do nothing practical to reduce CO2 emissions as wind electricity has to be backed up by conventional generating capacity. The rush to wind means we need to build more conventional power stations - ironic, eh? Insulation and energy conservation measures would do far more, create more jobs and leave the countryside alone.

[novus ordo seclorum]

[quote="batwing"][color=#FFFFFF].[/color]
RE. the 'Community Benefit'

(And yes, I agree with NOS - the structure and wording of the meeting is devious to say the least).
[/quote]
Just to keep the record straight, NickB, I most certainly did not say that the structure and wording of the meeting is "devious". I said that the sequence of the agenda is very clever.
I've said it before; to purposfully oppose the windfarm we must keep it clean and structure our arguments against the proposal to Planning grounds only.
Antagonising Mr Young will not, in my opinion, have any positive outcome.
Similarly your opening post on the Kilmelfort Meeting thread is hardly reaching out to non-confrontational dialogue viz; "a pretty transparent attempt to soften everyone up...."
reference The Community Benefit; this is totally standard practice in all windfarm projects. Of course it goes to the Parish in which the windfarm is located. To attack it as a "bribe" is rather silly. To get an application through you need to "bribe" (illegal) the Planning Committee.
Whilst I'm here, which is too much over the last week or so, I heard this morning that there was talk in one of our hostelries on Friday night of sabotaging the anemometer (climbing it and putting a sock in it I was told). Now that kind of talk is just plain stupid and destroys the credibility of those of us who wish to argue againmst the project on sensible grounds.
Lets all be sensible, non-confrontational, and put our objections to The Planning Committee on Planning grounds only.....anything else they are obliged to ignore.
On a positive note; well done on your website.

[NickB]

.
RE. the 'Community Benefit'

(And yes, I agree with NOS - the structure and wording of the meeting is devious to say the least).

Just to keep the record straight, NickB, I most certainly did not say that the structure and wording of the meeting is "devious". I said that the sequence of the agenda is very clever.
I've said it before; to purposfully oppose the windfarm we must keep it clean and structure our arguments against the proposal to Planning grounds only.
Antagonising Mr Young will not, in my opinion, have any positive outcome.

On a positive note; well done on your website.

Whether or not people antagonise Mr. Young will make no difference whatsoever to the planning outcome, and in any event shouldn't you be addressing your comments to Batwing rather than to me?

On a more positive note again, planning objection wise, if you look at THIS DOCUMENT you will see that Argyll and Bute have already rejected two windfarm applications on 'landscape grounds' and a third because of 'landscape impact'.

[oldgit]

I disagree with Nick B's view that there is no CO2 saving for wind-generated electricity cf. fossil fuel. There is a very big saving even allowing for back-up generation requirement, which is not a big problem with a large grid (connected to France too) unless wind becomes a very big contributor to total UK production.

http://www.bwea.com/energy/myths.html

But we need big windfarms in windy places where visual impact is not a problem in my view, so I do support your campaign.

[Pentlandpirate]

The views of those on Seil and Easdale should be taken into consideration by the Planning authorities because land access to Seil is utterly and totally dependent on passage through the parish of Kilninver and Kilmelfort, and immediately past the proposed site. Every inhabitant is at risk of being affected by congestion, noise and damaged roads.

[NickB]

I disagree with Nick B's view that there is no CO2 saving for wind-generated electricity cf. fossil fuel. There is a very big saving even allowing for back-up generation requirement, which is not a big problem with a large grid (connected to France too) unless wind becomes a very big contributor to total UK production.

http://www.bwea.com/energy/myths.html

But we need big windfarms in windy places where visual impact is not a problem in my view, so I do support your campaign.

I don't recall saying there was no CO2 saving oldgit, but it is much smaller than generally claimed. I do however stick by my assertion that other measures - energy use reduction, insulation, reduction in food miles etc - would be far more effective both absolutely and cost-wise in reducing emissions.

I agree that if we are to increase our wind capacity it should not be at the expense of our natural heritage, though this is difficult to achieve and so-called 'offshore' wind is not necessarily the answer . . . the Machrahanish and Tiree arrays are already meeting stiff opposition from local people whose accustomed horizon will be changed so radically.

Re. the BWEA - its members all have a strong commercial interest in the wind industry, and there is a very real danger that the commercial interests of the BWEA and its members over-ride those of members of the public and in so doing misrepresent the real deficiencies of wind farms. Perhaps you should read these footnotes to the BWEA 'myths' document linked to above.

And one last point - it is not 'my' campaign, my interest is only in providing a medium (this site and/or another website) together with some relevant facts that may help people arrive at a point of view and/or act on it. If we end up with two or more windfarms in the immediate vicinity I am hoping it will be because people have decided they want that, not because they had no information or felt powerless to stop it.

Wind power has been foisted on us with little public debate. We are apparently supposed to accept it uncritically, and if we don't then we are accused of being climate change deniers, NIMBYs, luddites or some equally pejorative term. It's surely up to everyone to arrive at a balanced decision based on facts and then hopefully act to make the will of the majority a reality. I won't be at the meeting on Saturday, but perhaps some of you will be there to make your views known, whatever those views may be.

[novus ordo seclorum]

[quote="NickB"]

my interest is only in providing a medium (this site and/or another website) together with some relevant facts that may help people arrive at a point of view and/or act on it. If we end up with two or more windfarms in the immediate vicinity I am hoping it will be because people have decided they want that, not because they had no information or felt powerless to stop it.

I won't be at the meeting on Saturday, but perhaps some of you will be there to make [b]your[/b] views known, whatever those views may be.[/quote]

Oh come on ! And this after you had the temerity to accuse Mr Young of being patronising !
I'm sure that the good people of Seil are perfectly capable, all by themselves, of gathering "some relevant facts" and arriving at "a point of view and/or act on it" without the help of a googlefiend.

[oldgit]

A recent EU ruling (see this week's Scottish Farmer) may have implications for the proposed wind farm. Basically, it seems developers will not be able to claim both an SRDP grant to build the farm and also the FIT (Feed in Tariff) payments which are very generous and guaranteed for 20 years. Also, many pundits think that the FIT scheme is far too generous and unlikely to survive long term - hence the unseemly rush to get schemes approved. I think this ruling was unexpected so might change the economics of the proposed scheme.

[Beetlejuice]

I'd be interested to read that article, OG. Can you provide an on-line link, or do I have to go out in the rain and buy the paper??

[oldgit]

Hi Beetlejuice
Probably worth braving the rain and buying Scottish farmer – it has a 16 page special pull-out section on farm-scale renewables and discusses the grant issue in depth.

These links give some of the background.

http://scottish-schools.gov.uk/Resource ... 101993.pdf

http://www.scotlibdems.org.uk/news/2010 ... iff-ruling

Scottish Government Update
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/farmi ... newableEne

contains this paragraph:
“You should note that it is very likely that installations commissioned before 15 July 09 will not have to repay their grant. However, it is also very likely that installations commissioned after 15 July 2009 will be required to repay their grant before getting a FIT and that any future grants will be restricted to those who do not intend to apply for a FIT”

[val t]

I read with amazement the ill informed tripe that some people are posting about the wind farm proposal.There seems to be a few people who are posting less than sensible comments,i would hope these people would take the time to try and look at the +s and -s fully rather than use a forum to air their extreme lack of ability to understand a proposal.
Like it or not we are going into a period of extreme hardship and rural communities will bear the brunt of cuts from local and national government this will mean school closures,hall closures,grant cuts etc etc.It is imperative that communities look at all opportunities and make a balanced judgement on the upside and the downside.
Although a wind farm may not appeal to all it would be a shame if the ill informed rantings of a few spoiled the communities chance to see the whole picture.One person stating that they favoured NUCLEAR power,do they really think that nuclear waste is a better alternative for the worlds future than to try and use natural resource.I would assume from the comments they would be pleased if the waste was sighted at their house for the benefit of their future generations!!!!!!!
People who migrate to rural communities should give full consideration to the +s and - s for the benefit of the locals and the communities and not their short term agenda's,whatever they may be !!

[Pentlandpirate]

Well, I'm amazed to read that having a wind farm will prevent school closures, hall closures and grant cuts. Indeed it would be a shame if the biassed views of a few spoiled the communities chance to see the real picture and that a wind farm has nothing to do about benefitting a comunity and everything to do with benefitting one land owner, a couple of outside contractors and an 'invisible' energy company.

I'm happy to say I would prefer nuclear energy. I've lived with it on my door step for a chunk of my life and saw how that really could benefit a community in large numbers of highly skilled jobs, especially for the young, investment in housing, roads and infrastructure. And one nuclear plant produced the equivalent energy of thousands and thousands of wind turbines. The footprint on the earth of a nuclear power station is minute compared to the hundreds of square miles required to generate the same power from wind turbines.

Nuclear waste? where is it? It's being dealt with, safely and effectively, to the point it just dosn't make the news any more. Wind farms? That's another matter, and the whole thing about the rape of our landscape is starting to leave a bad taste in the mouth.

On shore wind turbines are a wasteful stop gap, hastily thrown together, and supported by grants, to fill an energy gap until the new nuclear power stations can take over. The strategy for wind power in its present form is not a sustainable and is a con.

[val t]

It is indeed sad that some people are incapable of looking at a BALANCED debate on the +ves and -ves are of a wind farm and the possibilities this can bring to a community.Please do the readers of this forum the courtesy to research your ill educated rantings before posting them and i suggest you ask the opinions of people who have community interests in such projects, what the advantages and of coarse the disadvantages are this is infact how you create a BALANCED VIEW and can make the right decision for the local community.
Let us have a quick browse over some nuclear facts.Currently most storage facilities are temporary as the industry now generations old have still not solved the problem.Rod contaminated waste lasts a number of THOUSANDS OF YEARS TO BECOME STABLE ie non radioactive. FACT What a magnificent legacy to leave for future generations,OPINION.The uk government announced on the 9/11/09 that it was looking at investing some £18 BILLION into a deep storage facility for NUCLEAR waste,the latest estimate is already £27 BILLION .FACT
Torness and Heysham B end up costing around about 3X original estimate ,FACT
Both of these power stations did in fact create a lot of employment and do create in world terms a very short term benefit .FACT
Both these power stations were rushed through as the COLD WAR was an issue and are ALSO FACTORIES to assist in the creation of WEAPONS GRADE PLUTONIUM .FACT
If it were a choice between natural resource energy and Nuclear is it a realistic debate and i think most people in the "sane" world would prefer a stop gap natural resource energy supply while other better ways of energy production are investigated we MUST make the right decisions for the future generations,OPINION

[Pentlandpirate]

Well go on then Val T. So far you haven't mentioned one benefit of a wind farm to the community of Seil and Easdale..............or Kilninver and Kilmelford.

Windfarms are wholesale rape of our landscapes for the small contribution of very expensive energy on a windy day. Wind farms are proven to be very inefficient, providing a fraction of the energy they should even when there is sufficient wind, and having to be backed up by fossil fuelled power stations when there isn't sufficient wind. They have to be stopped if the wind is too strong. and they have to be stopped, even when it is windy, if there isn't demand for the energy at that time, the suppliers being financially subsidised for the loss of production! It's utterly ridiculous and the people in our nation who, without debate, absolutely most definitely do not benefit from a wind farm are in the neighbouring communities. Be bribed by a 'free' turbine if you wish, but I think you are being bought very, very cheap, with the wool most definitely pulled over your eyes.

[val t]

I am sorry currently i cannot give you the benefits of the proposed clachan wind farm as i do not know what the entire proposal is.
There are however many communities already benefitting from similar schemes,Westmill ,Tiree,Fintry,Gigha,Machynlleth,Sky.
I am currently neither for nor against but i feel for my families future and other future generations we must listen and evaluate the full proposal before making judgement.
I have however researched the efficiencies of the latest turbines in production and it would appear that they are more cost effective than nuclear by on average for onshore production wind 4 p per unit,Nuclear 4 p per unit +disposal cost +potential for future disaster,Clean burn carbon capture coal 2.5 to 4.5 ppu
The latest technology appears to be able to operate up to 32m/s or around 70 mph
I think as far as grid supply is concerned ,if a coal or other generator is told to shut down i am fairly sure they are also subsidised.
There is also work in progress to use excess energy production for storage through water ie pump schemes such as Cruachan.This is being done in Germany currently with a mixture AD digestion,wind,hydro.They have managed to create a 100% flat supply of energy.The wind turbine manufacturer on this German project was a company called Enercon which is i think the same company as proposed in the Clachan Proposal .I have looked them up and it would appear they are one of th world leaders in this technology.
I cannot understand why investigating this proposal fully is causing you such difficulty as the communities listed above and their surrounding areas have benefitted financially .But there is with out doubt a visual impact which must be considered.Does it out way the gain for the future . I think it only fair the community has the facts and not the rantings and will hopefully make a balanced decision.
I fully intend being at the meeting on Saturday to listen to what is being proposed and then i will be hopefully be better placed to make a judgement.
I hope you are also going to attend but for the benefit of the local community .

[Pentlandpirate]

I think I am right in saying all the sites you name are either community owned or co-operatives. That makes it very different to a site owned by an individual such as Rory Young. Whilst I have nothing against the guy it would be wrong for him or his backers to suggest his proposed windfarm is for the benefit of the local community. He's in it to give himself, and no one else, as he put it a 'sustainable income'. He needs to persuade the community it will benefit them to get his plans approved......for his benefit.

To those in the local community who don't want a wind farm they are accused of NIMBYism. Well, be proud to be a NIMBY, because this is your land, your life and you have a right to resist those with the backing of large corporations and a priviledged few to take advantage of your tolerant attitude of laissez faire. Defend what you want from life. You are certainly no more selfish to be a NIMBY than the individual who, if his plans are accepted by the Council, would build a windfarm on your door step whether or not you wanted it.

And the minute he gets his plan approved he won't give one toss about the community.


If Mr Young offers to give one turbine to be shared between the three local community councils (Kilninver & Kilmelford, Seil & Easdale, Luing) to curry favour, is that a bribe? I have looked at the definition of ‘bribe’, the Free Dictionary stating it is,

Something, such as money or a favor, offered or given to a person in a position of trust to influence that person's views or conduct

If the community councils are those in trust to the communities they represent, then giving them something of value to influence a decision seems to fit very well with being described as a ‘bribe’. It's pretty cheap isn't it?

[val t]

Well Mr Pirate you it would appear are very balanced with equal sized' chips' on each shoulder.
I certainly do not see you coming forward with an alternative proposal for community benefits,perhaps you could educate us with some of your ways of helping the local communities, as so far there has not been one constructive offering.Perhaps if you structured a sensible proposal you could single handedly kill the turbines off .A position i am sure you would relish.
I hope all the communities fully attend tomorrows meeting and lets see if there is meat on the bones of Mr Youngs proposal .
I trust Mr Pirate you will lay anchor and give the meeting the benefit of you wisdom

[Pentlandpirate]

I'm quite happy with my chips on my shoulders if they are balanced. I accept that there is potential for the community to benefit from the wind farm proposal but only in the form of a bribe to try to sweeten opinion and as minimal pay-off for what will otherwise harm the community.

Will the community benefit from having their beautiful surroundings scarred by these monstrosities? Will the community benefit from their one access route being chewed up, muddied and blocked? Will the community benefit from the noise and disruption during construction? Will the community benefit by way of jobs, better schools, better lifestyle and more affordable housing? Well maybe! You just might find the value of your property is marked down, as has been the case for properties located near to windfarms: instant more affordable housing, just because someone stuck a wind farm near you! Could having a windfarm cause bitterness amongst the community, those who opposed it feeling embittered towards those who approved the plan, allowing their lifestyle to be spoiled against their will?

The community may get a small financial benefit from the windfarm but you can be sure it will be the smallest possible benefit given by Mr Young which will still allow him to get his windfarm approved. This will never be a proposal with the community in mind. Prepare to be 'bought' now and prepare to feel you've been had in the future.

[Beetlejuice]

Referring back to oldgit's post about the article in the Scottish Farmer (which I trotted out in the rain to get, but couldn't!), this Dept of Energy & Climate Change circular confirms what he (she?) said:
http://www.decc.gov.uk:80/en/content/cm ... grant.aspx

So it does look as though Mr. Young (and others) will not benefit as much as they thought they would.

[Pentlandpirate]

In todays news, UK Energy Research Centre (a Government funded academic think tank) admits it costs nearly twice as much to generate electricity from an offshore wind farm as it does from a conventional power station in a scientific report it has produced.

Click on the link:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -coal.html

The readers' comments at the bottom give a good flavour of wider opinion on wind energy in general.