CLACHAN WINDFARM 'DROP-IN' SESSION

[Pentlandpirate]

Well, I accept that in having my own opinion I may be wrong on some things, but I try to refrain from insulting others on this site and rubbish everything you say.

Most nuclear power stations are built near the sea to have an unlimited source of cooling water (as long as the pumps work). That's one reason Torness would be suitable because it is on the coast. Wind direction is also another important factor in siting nuclear power stations. You'll find that that winds are least likely to approach Torness from the South East. I think you will also find it was a Labour government that produced most of Britain's nuclear weapons, and that the only new warheads made in Thatcher's years were to update the Polaris missiles bought by Labour. Was Torness really positioned there to supply power to England? Do you think that England and Wales haven't got their own nuclear power stations too?

I am saddened that the world has disasters day in day out on different scales. But people have always died one way or another. I accept industrial disasters in the same way that I accept people minding their own business driving on their own side of the road get wiped out by a car coming the opposite way. These things happen and of course we take steps to minimise the risk. But we don't give up cars because 3500 people get killed on Britain's roads every year or ban cigarettes or alcohol, or ladders because people fall off them (some working on wind turbines).

You suggest I don't care about the world yet you are the one who appears to support the Clachan Wind Farm and I am the one fighting to protect the local landscape. I'm sorry I'm not motivated by money. £80,000 is a bribe and nothing else. Mr Young is in this to make money, nothing else. It's sad that a naive person might think he is being generous, but you can be certain he wouldn't be offering it if he thought he could keep it in his own pocket.

[NickB]

Please also remember that Westminster's MRS Thatcher needed weapons grade plutonium to control the Russians,Torness and Heysham 2 were built for this purpose.

It was in fact the old Magnox reactors that were used to produce weapons grade plutonium. The intention was to use Torness to burn some of this as fuel, not to make more of it.

I am most emphatically not in favour of nuclear power and disagree with a lot of what PP says. I do however respect his right to express his views, which he has done using moderate language and without insulting anyone. Val_t, you have been warned privately and have chosen to ignore me. Now take a public warning - play nicely and moderate your language when criticising those whose opinions are not the same as yours. Robust debate is welcome here but personal insults are not.

[Pentlandpirate]

It's important that Val T joins the debate, however she puts it, as the impact of a windfarm should be energetically examined from all angles. She'll find I had what many would consider a good education. The difference is that I grew up in a classroom (32 of them) of sons and daughters of nuclear physicists and engineers so I see things from an opposite perspective to many. It gave me a confidence in nuclear that (unfortunately I feel) not many share. But I also travel widely and have noticed that wherever there are turbines, with their movement and size, they are the first thing you notice in a landscape. They come like a slap on the forehead. You have to be blind not to see them. In their own way they risk devastating vast swathes of our countryside. There are far better and more appropriate sites for windfarms (if you must have them) than at Clachan. The only reason it is being proposed on that one bit of land is for the opportunistic benefit of the land owner who is limited in where and how he can make money out of the land he owns. It's only because he wants to capitalise on the crazy grant and subsidy systems he will get for 'growing' turbines on his farm instead of sheep, cattle and crops. He's admitted that before! GET IT IN YOUR HEADS: It's all about what's best for HIM, not YOU!

Did anyone in the local community (apart from Mr Young) say, "Hey, wouldn't it be great if we had a wind farm at Clachan, eh?" Remember he's the one trying to bribe and coerce the community into accepting his proposals. No one else out there said this is what we want.

[NickB]

It's important that Val T joins the debate . . .

Did anyone in the local community (apart from Mr Young) say, "Hey, wouldn't it be great if we had a wind farm at Clachan, eh?" Remember he's the one trying to bribe and coerce the community into accepting his proposals. No one else out there said this is what we want.

I've no intention of barring anyone from debating on here provided they refrain from personal abuse and insults.

Of course this windfarm will, if constructed, have been built by Rory Young for profit and will not have been a local initiative, but in other circumstances it could have been - look at the community turbines on Gigha and Tiree for examples. PP, there are people in this community who are in favour of the windfarm - Val-t is not the only one. There are also people who were neutral but who have been upset by some of the statements and actions of the 'antis'. Now one of the 'pro' camp has decided to use emotional non-objective language on here to advance their cause. In truth, both sides have some valid arguments - very few issues are stark black and white. Throughout the country windfarms have caused bitter rifts in communities. Opposing sides will grasp at all sorts of unlikely straws to try to advance their argument, and in the process the community can be scarred for years.

It would be nice to think that we could avoid that on Seil. Ultimately we have limited options - to discuss, to seek to persuade, then at the planning application stage to object, support, try to extract mximum 'benefit' or do nothing. Beyond that there is little that can be done, and whatever the outcome we all (except Mr. Young) have to carry on living here afterwards.

[val t]

Well i most certainly am not in favour of/nor against the wind farm and currently all i would like to do is ascertain the facts.I get extremely disappointed in a forum that is supposed to carry a balanced argument /discussion and quite patently is being hi jacked by a negative ill judged and quite plainly biased anti lobby.
I wanted to find out about some of the elements regarding the photo montages which i looked up online and then asked Mr Young some questions which he gave me answers to.I have his answers in black and white and should i find out he has lied to me i have his answers in print and i would not hesitate in posting them along with my opinions on him.
What appears to be happening on this forum is certain people can say fairly unpleasant things about Mr Young from a position of ignorance/agenda/ego,could i suggest to these people if they have any questions to try sending them to Mr Young and they like me will have his answers in black and white and if he is being dishonest they/we have all the ammunition you would need but if he is telling the truth and is being genuine do you think insulting him and de ridding his offers is a good thing for our future/for the community because we all must be aware that as a developer he actually does not need to offer anything !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and the planning process does not require him to !!!!!!.Sometimes the devil you know can be better than the devil you think you know !!!!!!
I have been given a row by the site administrator who has allowed such outrageous statements as "i suppose i have been a naughty boy and deserve a spanking " posted by another member,has allowed PP to post outrageous inaccurate and insulting comments to other human beings from around the world and constantly attacks the integrity of Mr Young and his offer,i would suggest the administrator needs a dose of impartiality so he can create an impartial sanctioning process that will then bring some credibility to this site.
regards
Val
PS I worked at Torness for 3 years in the construction and commissioning and know exactly why it was built and its purpose .

[NickB]

Westminster's MRS Thatcher needed weapons grade plutonium to control the Russians,Torness and Heysham 2 were built for this purpose.

I too know a little about Torness, having been a member of SCRAM (Scottish Campaign to Resist the Atomic Menace). I took part in the occupation of the site in May 1979. For a short while in recent years I also took the Pirate's view that another generation of nuclear stations were an unavoidable necessity to keep the lights on and cut CO2 emissions, but since Fukushima I have returned to my anti-nuclear roots. Nuclear power is the most dangerous way to boil water yet invented. It is not economical unless the waste storage and decomissioning costs are subsidised by the state, and the increased safety requirements that will undoubtedly stem from Fukushima will only add to the cost and impracticality. The new European EPR reactors at Olkiluoto in Finland and Flamanvilel in France are both already massively over budget and over schedule. Fukushima - no matter what the eventual death toll, which may be relatively small - has displaced and terrified hundreds of thousands of people who do not work in the industy - they are just innocent consumers of electricity who found themselves in the way of another unforseen nuclear accident.

So Val, I hold no brief for the nuclear industy myself, but I do like a certain amount of reality to permeate the argument. Consent was given by Labour ministers on 24 May 1978 for construction of the AGR station at Torness. Mrs Thatcher did not come to power until the following year, which makes your theory as to the 'true purpose of Torness' fatally flawed.

Regarding your argument that we should all be nice to Mr Young in case he removes his offer of community benefit - well, frankly, that is the sort of forelock-tugging that I thought was long gone. Mr. Young is a businessman with a potentially profitable enterprise in mind. He wants as smooth a ride through the planning and construction process as possible, and getting the community 'on side' by offering a community benefit is simple business common sense and common industry practice. The Pirate can cynically call it a bribe if he wants - it is certainly no more ridiculous than the suggestion that it is an act of unprompted generosity.

Now perhaps we could have some sensible debate on the merits or otherwise of this particular proposal, leaving out irrelevancies such as the nuclear industry or whether we are hurting Rory Young's feelings.

[Herby Dice]

Right, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Internet. Please note that I have been recruited as an independent moderator, to ensure that people abide by the rules of this forum. I have no vested interest in the forum, and no commercial connection with it or its owner, everything I say here is personal opinion.

In this thread some people have expressed their opinions forcefully, and perhaps with a small amount of venom. This is, however, the internet and such is the nature of online forums, particularly forums which allow anonymous users (inasmuch as real names are not required). People frequently are more forceful in such circumstances than they would be face to face. The debate can get quite heated. This thread demonstrates this. I must say, however, that in my opinion it has not descended to the level of personal insult (otherwise I would have been bound to act). Some pretty insulting things have been said about some opinions expressed, but that is the nature of online debate. Describing someone's opinons as ridiculous or repugnant is not the same thing as applying these terms to the poster. Some very nice people can have some pretty unpleasant opinions.

Finally, as far as I am aware this forum is not intended to give a balanced argument or discussion. The degree of balance is always going to depend on the spectrum of ontributors expressing their opinion. The purpose of the forum is to give posters the chance to express their opinions. It is not within the remit of the administrator to ensure that opposing opinions are evenly balanced or that all sides of an argument are represented. This is the internet, not the BBC. Get used to it.

[NickB]

. . . could i suggest to these people if they have any questions to try sending them to Mr Young and they like me will have his answers in black and white and if he is being dishonest they/we have all the ammunition you would need

There really is no need for us to all enter no need for us to all enter into individual correspondence with Mr. Young and then divulge the contents of that privatge correspondence. He has specifically created a blog on his website, where he invites us all to:

Please feel free to use this blog as some where you can discuss any issues or ask questions relating to Clachan wind farm.

I am amazed that so few people have asked questions on Mr. Young's blog, a forum provided for that very purpose. Answers are published publicly, which is a much more 'accountable' result than a private e-mail. So far Mr. Young has been very good at answering questions posed in an informative, courteous and wholly non-evasive manner.

Once again, the blog address is: http://www.westcoastrenewables.co.uk/hello-world/

I posted the following questions on Saturday; you will not be able to see it yet because the comment is awaiting moderation, but once Mr. Young has time I am sure that the comment will be approved and he will reply as he has done in the past.

Nick Bowles ~ May 7, 2011 at 4:08 pm (awaiting moderation)

Mr Young,

I wonder if you could help with a couple of questions:

1: What will the arrangements be for decomissioning the windfarm at the end of its life?

2: If you sell or otherwise dispose of the asset after (say) ten years, will there be any provision in the sale or transfer for the community benefit to be ongoing?

[MonaLott]

I tend to agree with PP re the advantages of nuclear energy. One aspect of wind power that we need to think carefully about is the high accident and fatality rates. See http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk/accidents.pdf. These are generally higher than for other energy sources and result most commonly from blade failure (bits of blade can travel well over 1km), fire, structural failure, ice throw etc. Unless turbines are restricted to more than 2km from the nearest occupied buildings, there is a real danger of injury. Add this to the killing of raptors and other birds (1 site alone has killed 2400 golden eagles in 20 years) and to the facts that the windfarm will destroy our scenery and, in energy output terms, will be pretty useless anyway and the only conclusion a sane person can have is that this proposal should be vigorously opposed and ditched.

[Pentlandpirate]

Regarding your argument that we should all be nice to Mr Young in case he removes his offer of community benefit - well, frankly, that is the sort of forelock-tugging that I thought was long gone. Mr. Young is a businessman with a potentially profitable enterprise in mind. He wants as smooth a ride through the planning and construction process as possible, and getting the community 'on side' by offering a community benefit is simple business common sense and common industry practice. The Pirate can cynically call it a bribe if he wants - it is certainly no more ridiculous than the suggestion that it is an act of unprompted generosity.

Val T, I have been careful to avoid insulting Mr Young. I've no reason to suggest he is anything other than a decent chap but to be successful in business you often have to be ruthless. It sounds that the offer of a payment to the community might be of interest to you, but have you considered that if the windfarm had been proposed without that offer the community might well have rejected it out of hand? So I suggest the sweetener, incentive, bribe will have been inserted from the outset as a calculated tactic to get approval at the lowest possible price. It can be a divisive tactic used to split opinion: those who stick to their strong views and those who don't. Divide and conquer as they say. In the scheme of things £ 80,000 a year is a paltry sum. The profits from such a site will dwarf that and Mr Young could significantly up that 'bribe' if he really felt like being generous. You can say he doesn't have to offer it. But if it's something that interests you, then it is proof he does have to.

Having seen how windfarms are destroying our landscape all over the country I oppose this development strongly. This website hasn't been hijacked by 'anti's', but perhaps the small sample of opinions you get here is representative of the wider silent majority. Look further and you will find there are many, many websites devoted to 'anti's' as they either fight developments or continue the fight against greater expansion of existing sites. They are people living with the windfarms on their doorsteps. As highlighted by MonaLott there is an excellent (in my opinion) website http://www.caithnesswindfarms.co.uk which contains alot of information. You tend to find the vast majority of websites favouring windfarms are controlled by the moneymakers, the developers and landowners. The turbine owning communities on Gigha and Tiree are in the minority on this side of the argument.

I make a noise about this development because I am scared stiff a well backed businessman could easily get his way in a quiet backwater community like Seil because people in this area are not the type to make a fuss. Nothing would make Mr Young happier than to get his plans passed without a wimper of dissent from the locals. As NickB says, why is no one asking questions of Mr Young on his website? He should be held accountable NOW, not after the windfarm has been approved. Once it is there it is probably there for the rest of your life. It's no good deciding afterwards that you don't like it. That will be too late.

Time and again reports are issued that conclude wind power is a costly mistake (yet another today), propped up by vast EU subsidies and grants in some ghastly race to meet theoretical and meaningless targets. And we as taxpayers are all paying for this waste. The money is being thrown at the problem and Mr Young is in a position to pick it up. I have no problem with Mr Young making money. But I care about this little part of Scotland and will fight to make sure it is not ruined in my lifetime.

Now for some balanced viewing (one 'pro', one 'anti') here are some movies:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD9x6LkGZ00

http://www.youtube.com/user/windpowerro ... S5wL6Rxu8k

[Pentlandpirate]

I just found this gem about Rory's other business growing Christmas trees at his 'home' farm in Dumfriesshire. The website lovingly describes where HE lives,

We are fortunate to live in one of the most beautiful areas of Scotland – Dumfries and Galloway which is a hidden gem where many people come to live and holiday to get away from the rat race and to enjoy the peace and quiet of the country side, experience fresh locally produced food, the scenery, and a wealth of wild life.

So what about Seil? Isn't that a hidden gem? Doesn't he realise everything he has lovingly said about where he lives is absolutely true for Seil? Doesn't it sound like he values the peace and quiet of the countryside, the scenery, etc, around HIS home? Could it be he cares more about HIS home than YOUR home on Seil? How would he feel the same if someone built a windfarm in sight of Glaisters? Gag on your breakfast as you read; http://www.scottishchristmastrees.co.uk/the-family.html

Sorry, if this seems a little bit hard nosed against a perfectly decent young man, but business is business.

[NickB]

.
Mr. Young has now answered both of the questions I posed on his blog. I have to say that whatever one might think about the development Mr. Young's attitude has been very open and straightforward.

[Pentlandpirate]

Natuarlly the 'seller' always has to be nice, friendly, helpful and apparently open and accommodating (anything else and you can wave goodbye to a deal). The drop in session is to 'sell' the windfarm to the community.

What the community needs to ask itself is whether it wants to BUY this development or whether allows itself to be SOLD it. There is a subtle difference.

[MonaLott]

Just to expand a little on the very important, yet not much discussed, issue of turbine blade failure; it is reported that there have been 203 instances of accidents of this kind. Whole blades or pieces of blade are hurtled long distances at high velocity and this phenomenon is apparently the most common type of accident causing injury and or death. To quote the previously-referenced Caithness Windfarm Information Forum (CWIF), "Pieces of blade are documented as travelling up to 1300 meters. In Germany, blade pieces have gone through the roofs and walls of nearby buildings. This is why CWIF believe that there should be a minimum distance of at least 2km between turbines and occupied housing, in order to adequately address public safety and other issues including noise and shadow flicker."
It is my view that the current Clachan proposal, which involves turbines well within blade failure striking range of the main road, the touristic Atlantic Bridge and inhabited dwellings should be rejected for this reason alone.

[NickB]

.
The Caithness data isn't really that alarming if you look at the full report.

Since the 1970s there have been 78 fatalities worldwide. Of these 55 were wind industry and direct support workers (maintenance/engineers, etc), or small turbine owner /operators. Pretty much all of them were due to human error. They include transport accidents, falls and electrocution, the sort of accidents that happen on any industrial site. 23 have been dubbed 'public fatalities including workers not directly dependent on the wind industry' (e.g. transport workers). This includes crane operators erecting turbines, lorry drivers delivering turbines and even aircraft flying into turbines in fog. One report is of a boat operator decapitated by a small turbine (unconfirmed). Fatalities to completely non-involved members of the public are limited as far as I can see to reports of car accidents in germany caused by drivers allegedly 'distracted' by turbines.

Of the 5 injuries in 30 years that were allegedly caused to 'members of the UK public' I can only find three. One was to a camaraman filiming a turbine being dismantled, one was to a paraglider who crashed in a windfarm (but didn't hit any turbines), and one was to a skipper of a boat that happened to be carrying a wind turbine.

If you take the time to read through the full list you will see that it is just a long list of very typical industrial accidents. The vast majority of them had nothing to do with the fact that there were wind turbines nearby and could have happened on any industrial site. Like so much anti-wind propaganda this is trotted out again and again and in my view will cut little ice with planners.

However . . . the quite sensible demand for a 2km limit from habitation however is definitely reinforced by the examples of blade throw and ice throw. In actual fact there is a recommendation in the Scotland Planning Act (Scottish Executive, Scottish Planning Policy, 2010, paragraph 190) of a minimum separation of 2km . If you can't be bothered looking it up, the relevant paragraph says:

A separation distance of up to 2km between areas of search and the edge of cities, towns and villages is recommended to guide developments to the most appropriate sites and to reduce visual impact, but decisions on individual developments should take into account specific local circumstances and geography. Development plans should recognise that the existence of these constraints on wind farm development does not impose a blanket restriction on development, and should be clear on the extent of constraints and the factors that should be satisfactorily addressed to enable development to take place. Planning authorities should not impose additional zones of protection around areas designated for their landscape or natural heritage value.

If people are going to object to the planning application then, as has been said many times before, it is necessary to stick to planning issues to have any hope of success. The paragraph quoted above recommending a 2km limit - while only a recommendation - seems to me to be a reasonable card for objectors to play, whereas a long list of irrelevant industrial accidents in other countries is not.

[Pentlandpirate]

I just wonder what the owners of homes in Clachan Seil think, particularly Cnoc Crom behind the TnT? Will Mr Young supply a photo montage for their benefit? How can someone build a windfarm so much 'in their face' and not consider offering compensation for loss of amenity directly to all those homeowners more directly affected by this potential development? Surely everyone recognises their house value (are they still trying to sell it? could be seriously affected.............even the threat of it, I imagine, is bad enough to affect the value?

[NickB]

I just wonder what the owners of homes in Clachan Seil think, particularly Cnoc Crom behind the TnT? Will Mr Young supply a photo montage for their benefit? How can someone build a windfarm so much 'in their face' and not consider offering compensation for loss of amenity directly to all those homeowners more directly affected by this potential development? Surely everyone recognises their house value (are they still trying to sell it? could be seriously affected.............even the threat of it, I imagine, is bad enough to affect the value?

PP, several locals I know who might have joined in opposition to this proposal were alienated by some of the arguments made by PACT - particularly the mention of effect on property prices. I do not think this is a good card for people to play if you want to drum up broad support. The fact that this proposal breaks the Scottish Planning Policy recommendation of a 2km limit is likely to be a far better area to concentrate on IMO.

[MonaLott]

"By far the biggest number of incidents found was due to blade failure" - so says the CWIF report.

Incidentally, I did take the trouble to read the full report and I consider the prospect of blade shrapnel to be one well worth considering, given that it has been recorded hundreds of times at a rate of around 20 times per year.

N.B. There's really no need to be so patronising, Nick B, when you are countering.

[Pentlandpirate]

The property value card is of limited validity, I accept. But for those people who live around Clachan (rather than further away) it should be an issue that cannot be ignored. Cnoc Crom would be staring the windfarm in the face. A windfarm will put off many buyers, and reduced demand must affect the price sellers can expect. Some properties could become 'blighted'.

This whole proposal puts things on the community they never asked for. Mr Young has to accept responsibilty for causing stress where it was not before. He must know that such a plan would never be the choice of the majority but nonetheless he will insist on driving this forward over the objections and strife it causes in the hope he gets his way.

[Peter Connelly]

On the other hand, there are people whom we might call windfarm fanciers (as demonstrated, perhaps, in the windpowerrocks clip linked by PP above) who find wind turbines to be aesthetically pleasing, and for whom a house might become more desirable if it did overlook a windfarm. It could go one way or the other. Beauty is, as they say, in the eye of the beholder:

http://observatory.designobserver.com/e ... entry=4337