Comment posted No Tiree Array on basking sharks, night time visuals and divergent wind subsidy regimes between Scotland and Westminster by HansBlix.
The Scottish Agricultural College, I’m serious!, issued a report advising Aberdeenshire farmers how to make a decent fist out of their (onshore) wind farm. An owner occupier employed 1.47 full-time employee per turbine, an absentee landlord 0.23. The absentee used service companies for most activities whilst the resident landlord found it cheaper and better to train local people.
Whilst suspicious of such reports with accuracies of 2 decimal places, it would appear that Tiree and other offshore projects will not employ many for the skilled jobs which is a great shame.
Recent comments by HansBlix
- Blair still Bliar, still trying to flog his tainted goods
At the start of the Thatcher years, 23% of the UK GDP came from manufacturing, by the start of the Blair years it was 22%. When Brown left office it had sunk to 11%. Thatcher most certainly never destroyed the UK economy, Blair did though. - Principal of St Andrews University suggests paying for higher education brings no consumer rights
Is it not the case that when the Scottish Government’s funding for tuition fees was exhausted, that she and all other Scottish universities gave preference to paying students and therefore she did treat paying and “free” students differently. She welcomed one and showed the door to the other. - SNP boxed in corner over Northern and Western Isles independence move
That’s pathetic; a Scottish budget which required additional funding through a shortfall in the grant would be reasonable but impossible since Salmond let the power lapse. - Overt energy company blackmail strongest argument for state owned utilities
It’s a fine distinction whether blackmail or not but it smells of blackmail.SSE have 4.5GW of both coal and gas capacity. They predominately generate gas powered electricity but this dropped by 72% and coal increased by 50% but from a much lower base. The pain on Marchant’s face (SSE CEO) would be clear to see. He’s got the wrong mix so you need to add d) to your list which is the price of coal generation. That is driving gas out of the market.
What he needs is to be paid for doing nothing eg when wind generation is high, he wants paying, a lot, for having all of that gas capacity on tap and waiting for when the wind drops. The energy bill is all about this and I have a suspicion that the cost of SSE doing nothing is not going to be far off the generation cost. He’s “warming the gov up”, and us.
- SNP boxed in corner over Northern and Western Isles independence move
The Scottish government has had tax raising powers since the start of devolution. None, of any political persuasion, has chosen to exercise those powers which implies an unwillingness to grasp anything likely to upset the easy-ride enjoyed north of the border. Devolution hasn’t brought the discipline to inspire belief that Salmond or anybody else can make this happen post independence.
powered by SEO Super Comments
May I be the first to say – congratulations – as always, a well crafted article from Newsroom
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I confess to scratching my head at this article. While there is evident discord within the Westminster Government over energy policy (or, more exactly, between different elements of the Conservative Party) I don’t see any significant difference in policy direction between DECC and the Scottish Government. I don’t see any evidence of the Scottish Government playing games with the issue either. The SG has responsibility for renewables policy within Scotland but everything so far has pointed to it striving to maintain parity between Scotland and England with regard to the renewables stimulation measures.
Nor do I see much evidence that renewables policy has much to do with the independence agenda. The current strategy was set in place by the previous Lib-Lab SG (and endorsed by all parties). It is true that the current SNP led SG has extended the targets for renewables but I don’t think this has much to do with independence. Scotland has a target of generating 100% of its electricity consumption through renewable technologies because it can. I think the SG’s enthusiasm for renewables has a lot more to do with jobs and investment than it does independence. Should the referendum be lost in 2014, do you seriously expect the SG to pull back on its targets?
Besides, the SG isn’t so green in its targets as it likes to portray itself as. Our overall energy targets are much less bullish than our electricity targets. Coal remains a big part in Scotland’s future energy mix but this requires CCS technology otherwise there is no way we can meet our carbon reduction targets. The First Minister has always been very vocal in his support for the oil industry. He is careful not to kill any of Scotland’s golden energy geese. It’s not that the SG is being hypocritical – it wants Scotland to lead Europe in renewables (particularly marine) but maintaining jobs and the economy means being nice to the fossil fuel sector as well as to renewables.
I think that you are correct that the UK will miss its 15% target – which will make the UK the worst member state in the EU as far as renewables is concerned. The Scottish target is very ambitious but probably easier to achieve than the UK target. It is also a hostage to the weather as reaching it in terms of generation (rather than just installed capacity) requires windy and wet weather (no change there then). Whether or not it is achieved, it has propelled Scotland to the forefront of international attention with. regard to renewable investment which is a good thing
I also don’t understand your comment about cart and horse. There are a whole raft of wind projects that are not progressing because of grid connection issues. There are a lot of wind farms in planning before grid connections are sorted out but I’m unaware of may being built before the grid connections have been secured (that would be silly). If you look at where wind farms are being built as opposed to where people are talking about building them you will see that they are all places where grid connections are assured.
I have less problems with your comments on the Tiree array. Personally, I have difficulties in seeing how this can progress as there are severe environmental difficulties with the site. NTA are right to press for night time visualisations (though there is a big difference between a company who has not produced such visualisations yet and one who is refusing to) but in the end I suspect that economic factors will kill this proposal long before environmental considerations will. I am hopeful that we will see a more sensible proposal being developed and eventually built as Argyll could use the jobs that such a major project would bring.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Good evening from Eden Doctor:
Firstly, you may have noticed I do not get involved and rarely comment on the numerical side of wind, ROC’s, subsidies and the likes…that because my head space is not designed for such things, I understand and comprehend but my persona is better suited in dealing with the wellbeing of people and the environment, both in my professional status and my status within the ranks of the No Tiree Array Campaign…Robert my brother in arms is the man in that respect. So I will address what I choose to address
“Besides, the SG isn’t so green in its targets as it likes to portray itself as. Our overall energy targets are much less bullish than our electricity targets. Coal remains a big part in Scotland’s future energy mix but this requires CCS technology otherwise there is no way we can meet our carbon reduction targets. The First Minister has always been very vocal in his support for the oil industry. He is careful not to kill any of Scotland’s golden energy geese. It’s not that the SG is being hypocritical – it wants Scotland to lead Europe in renewables (particularly marine) but maintaining jobs and the economy means being nice to the fossil fuel sector as well as to renewables.”
KH: Agreed…and a balance between damage to our existing environment and economic return is like walking a tight rope in a gale, wearing herrings on your feet. My personal feeling is that the Scottish Government are bias towards commercial and political interest which in turn takes priority over the aforementioned environmental repercussions. Marine Energy will also have massive problems at a latter date, it is simply that marine has yet to reach levels such as wind (Saturation point)
“I think that you are correct that the UK will miss its 15% target – which will make the UK the worst member state in the EU as far as renewables is concerned. The Scottish target is very ambitious but probably easier to achieve than the UK target. It is also a hostage to the weather as reaching it in terms of generation (rather than just installed capacity) requires windy and wet weather (no change there then). Whether or not it is achieved, it has propelled Scotland to the forefront of international attention with. regard to renewable investment which is a good thing”
KH: Alex Salmond has propelled Scotland into the fore front of renewable investment on the home front only…do not accept that the rest of the world sees us at the forefront of renewables …this is spin, they do not. The investment is because we are in many ways easy prey for the multi-nationals because of poor planning and an emphasize on commercial return rather that environmental preservation and management. Our legislation is way behind our drive for wind…and this for one is a cart befor the horse situation…and this view is supported by Marine Scotland and SNH.
“I also don’t understand your comment about cart and horse. There are a whole raft of wind projects that are not progressing because of grid connection issues. There are a lot of wind farms in planning before grid connections are sorted out but I’m unaware of may being built before the grid connections have been secured (that would be silly). If you look at where wind farms are being built as opposed to where people are talking about building them you will see that they are all places where grid connections are assured.”
KH: Granting of permissions is both coming before grid connection is available or before solid environmental guidelines are in place…more cart before horse.
“I have less problems with your comments on the Tiree array. Personally, I have difficulties in seeing how this can progress as there are severe environmental difficulties with the site. NTA are right to press for night time visualisations (though there is a big difference between a company who has not produced such visualisations yet and one who is refusing to) but in the end I suspect that economic factors will kill this proposal long before environmental considerations will. I am hopeful that we will see a more sensible proposal being developed and eventually built as Argyll could use the jobs that such a major project would bring.”
KH Few points: Daytime Visualizations were promised but only delivered after NTA presented their own visualizations (which even according to SPR’s own consultant were accurate given the available information). Kintyre visualizations came first and caused a stir, and subsequently assisted in rejection of that project. Once the Kintyre Visualisations were on the scene, the Tiree Array visualizations were on a number of occasions “…inadvertently left in the office…” prior and during to consultation days on the islands of Tiree & Coll.
Night time visualizations were promised in a similar fashion but have yet to materialize…an issue we will address…given that SPR have produced daytime visualisations and that the CAA/MCA etc already have guidelines for lighting, surely it cannot be that difficult to produce night time visuals from the daytime visuals. Fact is the SPR daytime visuals in general and when shown to island visitors or any islanders that have not seen them simply drive folk into our camp.
Your comments on jobs in Argyll…fall out of any relationship to the information presented by the developer SPR…jobs would be few, and lossess could be high (on Tiree)…Should a developer decide to place a similar array in the Firth of Lorne or nearer to Oban, it would be fair to assume jobs may be created…so far few if any operational and sustainable jobs of any quantity have been generated outside of the office space of the SG or the commercial energy company officeswithin Scotland…please correct me if you have any figures.
Karl
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Karl: I have no idea about the accuracy of the estimate but HIE suggest one full time equivalent job per two turbines for offshore wind:
http://www.hi-energy.org.uk/HI-energy-Explore/argyll-energy-hub.htm
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“The planned energy hub is centred on the adjoining communities of Campbeltown and Machrihanish, on the Kintyre peninsula.”
This page/link is utter rubbish doctor…dated and inaccurate. I continually come across these types of webpages…outdated and containing misinformation…they are nothing but advertisments for a pipe dream…
“With offshore windfarm operations and maintenance estimated to require around one job equivalent for every two turbines, the Kintyre and Islay sites could generate steady work for 120 people. A fully developed Argyll Array, serviced from Campbeltown/Machrihanish, could significantly increase this total” like I say outdated !!! or are they planning to resurrect the Kintyre windfarm
The fact is solid figures for wind based employment do not exist from anybody other than commercial wind farm developers…if they do, please point me in the right direction…I am happy to correct my current stance.
karl
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This link was to Highlands and islands Enterprise who, as you should know, are the Government agency with responsibility for economic development in H&I and Argyll. I suggest you take things up with them!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
HIE are another quango..doesn’t suprise me at all that their web site harks back to the dark ages… as with all the government bodies, they cannot keep pace with the march of the turbines…and do not have the resources/funds to improve their snail like pace.
We have taken up the isue on a number of occasions…their answer renders down to “ask the developer” and we all know the answer from Iberdrola: “Estimado gracias Scotland todos los trabajos que están prestando en España … disculparnos pero ¿dónde está Tiree? ¿tiene usted alguna habitación o un wind parque eólico.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The Scottish Agricultural College, I’m serious!, issued a report advising Aberdeenshire farmers how to make a decent fist out of their (onshore) wind farm. An owner occupier employed 1.47 full-time employee per turbine, an absentee landlord 0.23. The absentee used service companies for most activities whilst the resident landlord found it cheaper and better to train local people.
Whilst suspicious of such reports with accuracies of 2 decimal places, it would appear that Tiree and other offshore projects will not employ many for the skilled jobs which is a great shame.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Re “ I don’t see any evidence of the Scottish Governments playing games with the issue”.The evidence can be gained by studying the reports of SG’s ECONOMY, ENERGY AND TOURISM COMMITTEE. Also in the w/end prior to the DECC policy announcement SG leaked a press release stating SG’s requirements.
Re jobs /investment;-Developers predicate any commitment by requiring SG to consent development. This is published as a Memorandum of Understanding. SG then misleadingly project such MOU’s as confirmed job creation and investment, when no such job creation and /or invest has occurred. The saga with Gamesa and Dundee confirms SG’s blatent spin on these issues.
The reports of the ECONOMY, ENERGY AND TOURISM COMMITTEE show that some the members of the committee did not understand this distinction and a specific correction had to be made to the Committee’s reports.
Re ‘ independence issue and investment’;- I refer you to the submission by SSE to the ECONOMY, ENERGY AND TOURISM COMMITTEE, and offer specific extracts ;-
Submission to the Scotland Office, the Scottish Government and the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee of the Scottish Parliament 24 Feb 2012.
The forthcoming referendum, however, increases the risk of regulatory change ..
New arrangements would have to be established in the event of Scotland deciding it would no longer be part of the United Kingdom and becoming independent….moreover, there does not appear to be a consensus on how Scotland’s position with regard to the European Union,….
The practical application of this policy means that when making final decisions with regard to possible new investments in Scotland, which will have to be adequately remunerated if they are to be made, SSE will have to decide whether the additional risk of regulatory and legislative change with regard to Scotland means it should apply a risk premium to the investment proposal. If it concludes that a risk premium should be applied….. it will have to assess the impact of that premium on whether or not to proceed with the investment proposal.
++
SPR has made no such comparable statement. SPR, being Spanish owned may have deemed it commercially unwise to offer a comparable such comment,particularly as leading Spanish politicians have made unequivocal statements re an independent Scotland and its relationship with the EU which run counter to SNP’s perception.
Attempts by SG to discredit the Nov 2011 CITIBANK Report, which made critical reference to the independence issue and investment, only resulted in it proving prescient.SPR/Iberdrola has subsequently delayed its investment decision (assuming consent)not only till after the Referendum, but now till after the 2016 Scottish Government Elections. All investment decisions for Scottish off shore wind farm investment will now not take place till after the Referendum .
Re SG isn’t so green is apposite. I would not suggest that SG is being hypocritical, but would suggest it is openly pimping Scotland’ natural resources.
Re’ Forefront of international attention with regard to renewable investment”.For how long? Weren’t the same statements made re Scotland’s Silicon Glen. Where is it now?
Re Visualisations The picayune difference suggested here is significant. It is the failure by the developer to meet minimal public information standards. Tiree Array was adopted by SG to the accompanying fanfare of SG launching of what was was to be called the Tiree Master Plan. The proposed Tiree Array was perceived by SG to being so potentially ‘transformational’ upon the impacted community that it merited this initiative. The delay in presenting night time visualisations is a continuum of the 30 month delay in producing any visualizations of the proposed Array. If SG and Marine Scotland, the Licencing and Consenting regime,were so concerned as to the tranformational nature of the Tiree Array, then it would be reasonable to expect SG and Marine Scotland (MS) to intervene to ensure such information is offered, well in advance.
During SG’s 2010-11 Consultation Process SG and MS were told in no uncertain terms, by the Tiree Community, that the proposed legislation lacked meaningfull consideration of the impacted community. Is the legislation now proving unfit for purpose ?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I too add my congratulations on such an informative and concise article. It is without bias and balanced…thank you sincerely from all who support the claim that the Argyll aka Tiree is a step to far…for presenting facts…and leaving folk to make rational conclusions as to the worth and the smoke and mirrors behined such an inappropriate proposal.
Of note is the fact that Tiree is in joint talks with Coll over Dark Sky status…
Glasgow University astronomer Professor Martin Hendry visited the island in march to give a lecture and inspire star watching amongst the people and visitors of Tiree…it was a fantastic success: following his comments and his position as a Dark Skies accreditation consultant, he commented of Tiree “…it was the best viewing conditions he had witnessed in all of Europe…” following on from this I contacted the local youth worker who, with the support of Tiree Community Development Trust,are also fully supporting this venture in co-operation with the people of Coll.
Much is going on behined the scenes in regards to our other items of environmental/ socio economic and cultural concern…all of which are at such a stage that I cannot release full details, but I am more that confident that items relating to : The Basking Sharks, Great Northern Divers, Seabird Colony at Ceann a Mhara, local micro climate change and affects to crofting and onshore SSSI’s,light polution, affects to our CAA radar, sea bed damage caused by leveling via the use of explosives, MPA status, SPA status…etc, etc, etc plus items we wish to keep out of the governments and developers reach (for now) will be heading Tsunami like via The Scottish Governments departments, such as Marine Scotland, Historic Scotland, SNH et al to the Glasgow Offices of Iberdrola (Scottish Power Renewables)to Spain… as and when WE ( NTA and our legion of on, off and international supporters )see fit.
NTA are not anti-renewables, not anti-wind, we are NIMBYS through justifiable and supportable rationale.
Please be aware, given the size and nature of the Argyll aka Tiree Array (Strategic development)our mode of operating and research overlaps into, by shared common ground…the wider commercial wind debate.
Thanks
Karl
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Can I suggest that the Doc is positioning himself for a fall . This post modified as it was ‘ off topic’
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Malcolm I have voted SNP in the past…not last time around…I would assume the doctor thinks you are short because of your terrier like attributes…lets lay the rhetoric to one side..after all size isn’t everything is it (?)
Karl
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I have no idea what you are on about “positioning myself for a fall”. I think you are (optimistically) reading something into my post that isn’t there. I expect the Yes vote to win in 2014 and I very much hope Scotland achieves all its energy targets in 2020. I’ll certainly be doing my bit on all these scores.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’d like to suggest a slightly broader consideration that both the Scottish Government and the wider Scottish population ought to at least consider. Scottish Power Renewables (SPR) is a fantastically effective name/brand/spin for what is in fact Iberdrola, a major Spanish company that in effect is under the protection of the Spanish state by virtue of legislation running through the Spanish Parliament that prevents any non-Spanish involvement in the company. If you hadn’t noticed, Spain is broke and they need our subsidies, better it goes there than on our schools and health surely?
So not to put too fine a point on it, we’re basically allowing the Spanish Government to wrap a set of decaying industrial relics around one of the most pristine parts of Scotland in exchange for what exactly? Technology forecasts already show high potential for technology to be deployed 50Km off shore in a semi-submersable configuration and we choose to drill some old iron into the seabed 5km off-shore? Is this the horizon that the Scottish Government extends its sights too? Why don’t you ask for some genuine scientific and engineering input, you only have one environment and once you’ve destroyed it with some post 10 year rusting heap of garbage in the sea, you’ve destroyed it, maybe that’s your epitaph.
Given that SPR isn’t SPR, it’s an agent of a bankrupt state, don’t you think that you (SG) should just think a little bit more laterally and consider the agenda, you don’t have to be a conspiracy theorist to know what’s happening.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
NTA asked SG(Fergus Ewing)to clarify SG’s position.
SG either intentionally or unintentionally miss-understood NTA’s enquiry. NTA has re-submitted its enquiry .
For those who are unaware of what this refers to,it is legislation to specifically protect Iberdrola and Repsol from possible takeover.
Both companies are developers of proposed Scottish offshore wind projects.
This change in Spanish Company Law if passed will offer these companies some protection from a takeover eg from Scottish financial institutions.
Ironically when Iberdrola took over Scottish Power , Alex S was very vocal in seeking protection of Scottish Assets.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ooops sorry forgot to mention, anyone who is interested ought to look at SPR on Companies House, it’s quite funny actually if it weren’t so tragic. The notion that the Balance Sheet of SPR could even begin to pay for the construction and operation of the Tiree Array, it would get 3 months into it and run out of cash as far as I can see. So, who pays and who benefits is the question and actually it’s very hard to see that Iberdrola could do that given that they’ve committed to pare down their debt, so what’s the plan? a half built infrastructure and then some blackmail to the UK taxpayer or Scottish taxpayer post 2014 surely not!!!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“The divergence between the two governments in energy policy is the major commitment to gas contained in the DECC statement of 25th July 2012, a policy which is not properly consistent with the environmental demands of moving away from reliance on fossil fuels.”
In some ways it is in fact quite consistent. Much of the needed investment in gas generation is to replace old coal-fired plant which has to be retired due to emissions reduction commitments under the Large Combustion Plant Directive. This relates primarily to acid gas emissions, but a side effect of replacing coal with gas is a substantial reduction in CO2 emissions also (gas has a lower per-unit-energy carbon content, and gas CCGT plant is more efficient than conventional thermal plant).
A useful side-effect of this is that gas plant is generally much more flexible in operation than coal plants which have long ‘warm up’ cycles, thus making gas a better partner for renewables.
The push for gas therefore reduces CO2 emissions directly and allows for greater penetration of renewables at the same time, so is in that sense consistent with the UK government’s environmental objectives.
As a side comment, the fact that the UK is among the worst-performing EU countries on renewables is pretty shocking considering the wealth of wind, wave etc. resources we have – a testament to bad policy making in the past.
I did wonder how Malcolm formed his impression of the Doc’s vertical statistics, but didn’t want to ask – it seemed such a rude comment in the first place. However, Malcolm, since you have brought it up (again), do please enlighten us -and perhaps you would like to speculate on my height also, or maybe my shoe size?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Part of the environmental cost of gas is in its extraction.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I was going to drop it Tim but he has just been insulting again so – think Captain Mainwaring – Dad’s Army
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Pingback: » Sharks’ safety puts wind farm at risk – Scotland on Sunday » Energized Energized
A couple of shark related items:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/9479019/Protecting-porpoises-hearing-adds-millions-to-wind-farm-projects.html
NTA have 3 qualified MMO’s (Marine Mammal Observers) in their ranks. In line with marine oil and gas exploration and any maritime construction involving acoustic disturbance…MMO’s are deployed on construction and exploration vessels or structures to monitor local marine mammal activities. If a marine mammal is spotted within the area of operations or indeed approaching an area of operation…operations involving generation of loud acoustics are suspended. SPR intend to carry out a seismic survey to ascertain sub sea geomorphology in regards to suitable foundation types…the energy source for such aquisition is high pressure air guns ( of explosive proportions) that generate acoustic shock waves. This is a first stage and will obviously take place prior to decision on foundation type. SPR Iberdrola are aware that NTA has MMO’s and these MMO’s have asked the developer for work (local employment) no reply has been forth coming from SPR.
There are several foundation options open to Iberdrola (SPR) should permission to industrialise go ahead…most likely of the numerous current engineering solutions for sea bed foundations is: leveling of the sea bed (remember we are talking about lewisian Gneiss, Gabbro, Granite and other highly resistant igneous rocks)…leveling on the scale of the Tiree Array proposal could only take place using explosives, on a massive scale…the seabed and the eco system on the sea bed and all that it supports would be destroyed…permenently. Once leveled large gravity bases of concrete would be floated in and sunk on the leveled area…coffer dam, and pouring of foundations would not be an option giving the expense of drilling the coffer dam piling.
Anyhow…we are well aware that SPR visit this newsworth web location and ask them again to contact the available and acredited MMO’s based on Tiree.
http://www.scotsman.com/scotland-on-sunday/scotland/sharks-safety-puts-wind-farm-at-risk-1-2476497
The Scotsman are known for inaccuracies…a few of which are available here (reference the Gunna Sound been the primary hotspot for sharks in the uk based on old data)…we are pleased that they highlight SNH efforts and concerns…It is beyond my humble comprehension that Iberdrola should decide to carry out their own studies into the Basking Sharks of Tiree while SNH and Exeter University are doing a parallel study, my only thought is that Iberdrola have money (whos money ?) to burn.
One would hope that given the obvious building environmental case against industrialisation of Tiree’s shoreline and inshore waters (3 miles)…that either SPR or the SG have the balls to withdraw permission to investegate before any more money is wasted and the seismic survey is initiated with it’s own associated detremental impacts on the local eco system.
we move on……
Similar artical in the Guardian (thanks SR): reads:Germany’s plan to wean itself off nuclear power has suffered a submarine setback. Utility companies have had to delay construction of a 25,000 megawatt windfarm off the coast because of fears the noise may kill thousands of porpoises.
E.ON and RWE are spending millions on developing technology to reduce the noise caused by driving turbines into the seabed after environmental groups warned of the threat to porpoises’ hearing. “A porpoise is doomed to die if its hearing is shattered,” Kim Detloff, a marine expert at German nature conservation group NABU, told Bloomberg.
Berlin is planning to build the windfarm – which would cover an area eight times greater than New York city – by 2030.
The installation of noise-reduction technology accounts for 0.5% of the total budget, according to industry specialist Hydrotechnik Lübeck. German utility EWE plans to reduce the noise by creating a stream of bubbles around the drilling area to absorb the sound.
There are about 230,000 porpoises in the North and Baltic seas. Noise is a particular threat to porpoises and dolphins because they use sound to navigate, locate prey and find partners.
Concern for the porpoises’ welfare is one of the factors that make it much more expensive to a build a windfarm in Germany than the UK. It is expected to cost €4.2-€4.4m per MW to develop the German windfarm, compared to €3.7-€4m in the UK.
Karl
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
In the 1950′s Hunting for Basking Sharks was legal ( the 1000 kg plus liver was in high demand for the oil from it – I have just read and highly recommend the book “Hebridean Sharker, by Tex Geddes )
But…..
We have moved on from here All whales and Basking Sharks are protected species. The proposed contruction of the Argyll Array will , with out doubt, have a negative effect on the Basking Shark population.
As an engineer in the offshore oil industry ( and Tiree resident) I can see the obvious appeal to Iberdrola of placing the turbines close to Tiree- Pure Profit – Tiree would be a cheap stepping stone almost like having a free offshore platform that can take fixed wing aircraft and then right next door to this relatively shallow water and consistent wind plus a government with money to give away to wind developers.
If even one person proposed that they should have a Basking Shark hunting licence there would be a public outcry – If you went out and shot one you would go to jail- yet Iberdrola SPR are proposing this along with the industrialization of Tiree.
Iberdrola snd SPR continue to hide behind half truths, lies and deception in their continued hunt for profit at the expense of the environment.
SPR continue with there propaganda machine in local Tiree newspaper as in an earlier article they talked about lights with only a limited distance that you could see them from- yet if you are on Tiree on a clear night you can see the one red light on top of ” Tilley ” Tiree community owned one turbine from any spot on the island this is acceptable but 300 or 500 at nearly twice the hight is not.
Dont forget the DC/AC power converter staion as well- if you build it offshore it will glow at night- and cost alot of money to build. If you build it on Tiree you continue to industrialize the island- the issue of jobs ( security staff and heliport check in for example) on the island is a bribe that SPR continue to wave.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I total concur with Tim.
There was talk about using IR (Infra red) anti-colision lighting to help the RAF dodge the barrier presented by the array….what about civil aviation ?
Karl
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It is with much amusement that I consider what would have happened if the leaked info about subsidies being reduced by 10% had been changed at the last minute to 25% without first letting Mr Salmond know, and him already having publicly stated that he would guarantee the 10%. Scottish utility bills higher than the rest of the UK – that would have been a vote winner !!!!
Something much more serious for all of us is the situation that would arise if Scotland became independent tomorrow. As I have already shown the annual subsidy debt approved by the SNP at this time for supporting wind farms is about £400 million per annum and that figure, by the SNP’s own announcements, is set to quadruple. There are 2.37 million households in Scotland to share this bill between them plus of course a certain amount from commerce and industry. So not only would your own utility bill go sky high but the businesses faced with the same problem would have to increase their prices to cover their extra costs. Then of course taxes go up because certain industries will require even greater subsidies to survive in the world market, more unemployment, etc. It’s a doomsday scenario.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I see you are unabashed at spouting nonsense Malcolm.
Had the Scottish ROCS been set at 0.9 MWh per ROC and the English ROC at 0.75 several things would have happened but none of them would have resulted in higher bills for Scottish consumers.
ROCS are traded throughout the UK and used to offset what are effectively charges to the utility companies if they don’t present sufficient ROCS at the end of the year. Depending who you are this would work different ways:
1: Wind farm developer: the higher Scottish ROC would encourage the developer to favour Scottish sites over English sites as they will receive more money for the same amount of generation than they would at an English site. Scotland is already attractive as its sites generally have better wind resources than English sites but they suffer from the Transmission Network Use of System charges that discriminate against Scottish renewables.
2: For electricity suppliers an English ROC becomes cheaper than a Scottish ROC as you get 1.33 MWh of electricity as opposed to only 1.1 MWh for your Scottish ROC. English ROCS are thus cheaper and would be bought first but ROCS are in short supply at present so all will be bought. This would of course change when ROCS actually exceed the obligation in which case Scottish ROCS would become uncompetitive.
3: For the consumers the difference between a Scottish ROC and an English ROC is invisible as they buy their electricity from companies who operate throughout the UK and so the cost of the system is smoothed throughout the consumer base. Nor would that change with independence.
Of course some suppliers are also developers so there would be some interesting calculations going on in their offices regarding wind developments.
Basic point is that your premise that Scottish consumers would be paying more is rubbish.
I want to get on with my life so I’ll just point out that the second bit of your post regarding the cost of renewables in an independent Scotland is just fantasy figures as Tim and myself pointed out on the other thread.
There comes a point when you stop being merely misguided and become a liar if you keep putting out statements that others have shown to be untrue.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Sorry – where did you or anyone else prove my figures wrong. I have already asked on the previous forum and got no answer. Can anyone reading this tell me where my subsidy calculations were wrong. Please – I would love to know.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I just have but if you go back and look at the other thread and actually READ people’s contributions you will see other detailed analyses (as well as a lot of incredulity).
However, I’ll indulge you one last time:
DECC figures show that ROCS in 2012 are worth about £2Billion.
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/meeting_energy/renewable_ener/renew_obs/renew_obs.aspx
This is for the whole UK and all renewable generation. Wind forms about 40% of ROCS so ~£800M for the whole UK.
Where the electricity is generated is pretty much irrelevant as the cost of the ROCS is shared throughout the UK. Domestic use of electricity is about one third of the total use
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/statistics/publications/ecuk/ecuk.aspx
so households will bear the cost of one third of the ROCS : that is about £264M for wind for the whole of the UK.
The UK has 26.3M households
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/family-demography/families-and-households/2011/stb-families-households.html
so the average cost per household for wind ROCS (offshore and onshore) is about £10 per annum. Given that wind is 40% of the costs this would give a total cost per household for ROCS of £25.
DECC’s own figures give the total cost for all ROCS per household as 3.4% of their budgets or £20 per household so the two figures pretty much balance up. As a further check we can take 3.4% of the average household electricity bill (£500) which gives us £17. So all these different calculations give us figures that are in the same ball park (£17-£25) and remember that these are for total cost of ROCS. FITS and other levies add a bit more in but these are small beer compared with ROCS.
Scotland’s domestic consumers will pay about £47.4M per annum for all ROCS of which about £19M is for wind, working out at around £7 per household per annum or back to that 2p per day. (In fact they will presumably pay the same as everyone else in the UK so between £8 and £10 for wind per annum – maybe 3-4p per day).
Good enough for you Malcolm?
Are you man enough to admit that your figures are alarmist tosh?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Anyone spot the Doc’s body swerve again ? In fact 2
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Malcolm. Please read the following. “The DEADLY facts about water; FACT!- Water can be synthesized by burning rocket fuel!, FACT! – Over consumption can cause excessive sweating, urination and even death! – FACT! – 100% of all serial killers, drug dealers and rapists have admitted to drinking water! – FACT! – Water is one of the primary ingredients in herbicides and pesticides! – FACT! – Water is the leading cause of drowning! – FACT! – 100% of all people who ingest water will die!” And to think the government promotes the drinking of water and continues to tout the health benefits… Truly shocking. As an exercise in misrepresented information perhaps you could show how any of the above statements are wrong and then have a think about how this may apply to you and your posts.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Why don’t you two exchange phone numbers and take this personal battle else where ?
Karl
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It’s nothing personal Karl. Just high lighting the fact that Malcolm speaks the truth out of context time and time again and refuses to see or accept the informed answers to his questions. For the absence of doubt, I do not support the Tiree Array being built. I think it’s the wrong development in the wrong place and is one of the proposed projects that gives wind generation a bad name. But I do think it’s important to separate out those who object to this particular development from those who object to every development.
I am new to posting my views on a public forum being one who would normally reserve my opinion for friends and family over a meal. I do enjoy keeping abreast of current affairs and hearing what the public opinion is. Confrontation is not something I enjoy… I felt compelled to weigh in after reading one of Malcolm’s posts which struck me as inaccurate and biased. I could stop posting at any time and certainly I have better ways to spend my time. But this forum is not regulated. The ForArgyll team do not check the accuracy of the posts (rightly so) and I doubt the average reader checks whether the information provided is true or not. Therefore if nobody were to contradict Malcolm, his posts could well be taken as gospel. And I do not believe that is right. Maybe I get a little petty at times, but never in my life have I dealt with someone who asks for an explanation and then refuses to accept or address any of the answers raised or simple deletes or edits his original post or statement.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Malcolm: Your original post was chortling about the dire consequences to the Scottish consumer if England (and Wales – mustn’t forget the Welsh) had cut ROCS by 25% rather than 10% and the SG had kept it at 10%. As I demonstrated in my first post, your scenario was based on a misunderstanding of how ROCS works and the actual answer was that it wouldn’t have caused any problems to the Scottish consumer.
You then go on about a £400M wind liability to the Scottish consumer. As I and several others have pointed out this figure is something you seem to have made up and was debunked in my second post.
No body swerves there.
Now, there is a more and valid “what if” question and that is “what happens to the ROCS system if Scotland becomes independent?”
I don’t think there is a definitive answer to this as it depends on a number of other “what ifs” that haven’t been addressed yet.
However, the consensus seems to be that existing ROCS arrangements would be honoured by the Scottish and rUK Governments, so the existing subsidies would be paid as they are now and no additional burden would fall on Scottish consumers (this is certainly the view of the John Muir Trust and they aren’t exactly friends of wind). Given the rate at which new renewables are being deployed at present in Scotland, it looks as if the developers are happy that this will be the case and their investment is not threatened by independence.
The question would be over the remaining period of ROCS post independence. Presuming a favourable vote in the referendum I think we would be looking at Independence early 2016. ROCS is due to end in 2017 so there may be a need to either maintain the scheme with the rUK Government agreeing to this; close the scheme early or modify it. That doesn’t look too onerous to sort out
There is a bigger question to ask about future investment in Scottish renewable energy post independence- post ROCS and especially into unproven technologies such as tidal and wave which are not likely to have been deployed under ROCS before independence. Incentivising developers to produce the capital for these developments post independence cannot rely on a Scottish-only ROCS system as the Scottish consumer base (domestic and industrial) could not afford to do this. The alternatives are to use a tax credit scheme (which may also encourage more energy companies to base themselves in Scotland) or to develop a market where Scottish renewable electricity finds an export market that is prepared to pay a premium for “green” electricity. My money would be on the former method but it will be interesting to see what the SG come up with to address the problem of capital investment into Scotland’s power infrastructure post independence.
Right, this is my last post for a couple of weeks (and not just for you Karl). And not even going to be reading FA during that time so Malcolm can go on as much as he likes about my height (5’7”) or state of inebriation as much as he wants to.
Bye.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Norma…none of what the Doctor and Malcolm discuss readly bothers me…both find it dificult to move on, let go…I appreciate your views on the Tiree array and sincerely this is the view of most folk. I never thought for a moment that your comments were directed at me…thats just how the comments read.
There are other areas where windfarms are simply out of context with their surroundings…out of sight out of mind (eg:mountains and moors) also alarms me.
I am a supporter of all community driven renewables…but totally against large commercial ventures. It breaks my heart what we have already initiated on our planet and breaks my heart again that we are been carpet bagged by the very same people who got us into this mess.
You should visit Tiree…it’s a functioning, sustainable and forward thinking place…Scotland would do well to heed our alarm.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Q: if the power industry (wind) is such a good earner and does not rip off the british public why not nationalize it ? Why? because the commercial returns are to highand we live in a country now driven by commercial greed, immoral bankers and self seeking polywags.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The push for wind power by the SNP is more about image and ego than anything. No real economic or socio political policy for the benefit of Scotland and its people could support these Arrays and therefore this is all about Alex Salmond and wanting to be right and leave a legacy in the same way the our previous egotistical PM did ( Tony Blair) . Fortuneatly in the past, we have been saved from Alex’s naive thinking by external circumstances but who knows what might be comming our way after the big vote. The Arrays are theorhetically worth significant bottom line profit to the following – the international energy companies ( not scottish) the wind turbine manufacturers ( not scottish or even british in the main) the crown estate ( her royal highness and her immediate family) the large accountancy firms , and some lawyers. There will be few jobs for real people. So it will be ironic that our small nation may be saved from the corporate greed of the above and the naive arrogance of a massive ego by a few basking sharks. Here is hoping. By the way let us be clear about the intentions of SPR when it comes to not releasing information. As an ex corporate lawyer….lack of transparancy is always chosen and not simply an oversight!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The Crown Estate is actually the Treasury by another name, but – as you’ve demonstrated – at first sight it can conveniently camouflage itself as a personal fiefdom of the Royal Family.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It delivers income to the Treasury.
We are first and foremost a commercial organisation. We have a mandate under the Crown Estate Act 1961 to deliver a return on our assets – in other words to make a profit. And all our profit goes to the Treasury for the benefit of the nation.
All the land owned by the crown estate is actually still held essentially by the crown
The Crown Estate is though owned by the Monarch.
This means that the Queen owns it by virtue of holding the position of reigning Monarch, for as long as she is on the throne, as will her successor. Responsibility for managing The Crown Estate is trusted to us, under the Crown Estate Act, and the Queen is not involved in management decisions.
please also note that the board is ‘Board members are appointed by the Monarch on the advice of the Prime Minister’
those that are interested should take a good look at the various interests represented by the Board..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
escheat to the crown or the Duchy of Lancaster or Duke of Cornwall or to a mesne lord for want of heirs”, as referred to in the Administration of Estates Act 1925. stands as a lawful claim and whereas the UK is an insolvency, an estate where everything is owned by God and currently held in trust under the crown until a competent heir (s) appears and lays a lawful claim of jurisdiction.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Outwith my association with NTA.When push comes to shove and all else fails…and given that many of Tiree’s onshore and offshore eco locations/fauna and flora are of INTERNATIONAL as well as European/British and Scottish importance.
If sense and respect for our environmental does not prevail, and this aboration goes ahead (Argyll Array)…I will personally (and with the assistance of many) drag the first dead basking shark that washes onto our shores up the steps of Hollyrood with my landrover…the concequences for myself will be limited to a single action, fine or a few days in limbo…the outcome for the Scottish Parliment will I assure all, be international condemnation for the bigots who put profit yet again before environmental protection.
Karl
Karl
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
One of the most interesting things in the whole NTA campaign to date has been the persistent refusal of SPR to get involved or to answer any of Karl and Rob’s perfectly valid questions. Good strategy or playing into NTA’s hands?
A question for Karl and other NTA members – will you leave Tiree or stay if the Array goes ahead?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi,
Firstly, its not just Karl and Robert…most of our questions are filtered through us from members, and supporters.
To be straight:
I honestly wonder why you ask ? so I ask you why you ask ? and in return I offer:
Why leave ? if the likes of Tiree are not safe from mega industrialisation where is ?
I am commited to Tiree, and all that entails it is my home.
My wifes history dates back generations on Tiree, MacDonald of Clanranald. Both of my children were born on Tiree, in the bedroom where they now sleep, in a village that up until then had not seen a home birth for over 35 years, a house that had forgot the last birth…speak the local tongue…my final plot is paid for.
I will not leave…I would never be quiet…but I would not leave…
I am in this until they bugger off ! (is that straight enough an answer). When they do go the job will not be over, the legacy will be continued and assured protection and commerce through all we now relise could be lost. Good time to remember BIG YELLOW TAXI.
“Doesn’t it always seem the same that we don’t know what we had until it’s gone…Iberdrola buried paradise and put up a power station”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Doesn’t it always seem the same that we don’t know what we had until it’s gone…Iberdrola buried paradise and put up a power station”
Nice one – but Joni’s version scans better!
I’m pleased you will stay whatever, and that if the array does go ahead you will be around to hopefully keep Iberdrola’s worst excesses in check and call them to account on the community’s behalf.
I asked partly because the founders and chief activists in our local anti-windfarm campaign have now sold up (before the planning decision has been made) and are moving to England – something I have been told planned to do all along!
As you know I am a cynical sort, not convinced yet that basking sharks would be significantly harmed by the Array, either as a species or individually – but I have to congratulate you on the basking shark piece in today’s Scotland on Sunday – a bit of a coup for the cause.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Surely you realise that The Basking Shark Issue is but one of the many nails in the coffin. A seasonal event we will highlight every year…and an event we will continually sell on behalf of the islands economy (sustainable eco tourism development) many visitors this year came simply to see the sharks. we now have the Minke/Orca and other cetacian visitors arriving and will highlight these too. (Avian visitors too)
All of this is part of a bigger self evolving plan for the island …if the array is dropped we have an obligation to fill any percieved gaps in what some folk from their perspective may as an ” missed commercial opertunity”…The Dark Skies initiative is simply a timely cause and again sustainable eco based tourism extending our seasonal visitor migrations. we cannot as a community put things on hold until SPR bugger off.
As for folks moving away…well on Tiree as much as on the mainland populations are transient…folk have already left because of the array (but still support NTA), unlike the power developer we do not intend to dictate terms to folk on Tiree…but we have always dictated terms to SPR.
Karl
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
SPR’s persistent refusal suggests the legislation, and its lack of any meaning sanctions, may not be fit for purpose.
SPR’s consistent lack of response,in the past, provoked NTA into a substantive presentation, in Feb this year to both SG and MS re SPR’s possible breach of its public information obligations to the process.
That submission resulted in an immediate volte-face by SPR. The Array information page on SPR’s website was updated for the first time in 9 months. It included presentation of SPR’s day-time visualisations which had last been seen 9 months earlier, on a” now you see ‘em..now you dont” basis.
Let NTA worry about its strategy,but thanks for your concern.
As for leaving or staying in Tiree if the Array goes ahead, I cant speak for Karl, but after my last medical MOT, on an actuarial basis,there is a grave danger(no pun intended)I wont be around if it was to go ahead.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I remain bemused at the fact that Tiree islanders want more onshore wind turbines. Is this simply greed for more money from subsidies (they do already have Tilly) or do they really believe that turbines are environmentally sound?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The cash is, errr, how do I say…available ?
Karl
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I rest my case. It seems that the Tiree folk want wind turbines when they see large sume of money coming their way but not when they can’t.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To Scots Renewables
From an NTA member
The answer is YES- And I am lucky because I can and thats three more children out of the Tiree school.
IF you ” Scots Renewables ” came to Tiree in the winter or spring when its quiet you might appreciate what a unique environment Tiree is.
Inhabited wilderness
SPR are trying to get the local population on their side with half truths and “grants” ( bribes ? ) of £10 000 here or there and are not coming clean with how much industrialization this project would involve.
SPR talk about putting the Converter Station Offshore but then comeback with statements such as” Putting the converter station onshore will offer more employment opportunities to Tiree locals” BUT they dont admit that putting the Converter Station offshore will cost them many, many times more to build and operate- Or that unless you happen to be a High Voltage Electrical Engineer living on Tiree the jobs will be for catering staff, security guards, and a few admin jobs if you are lucky.
A question for ” Scots Renewables” – will you put name on your posts ?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Harpoon at a venture: Gavin (not Robert) Maxwell. great read too.
Karl
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well here is a link to another island -Seil- where they as yet dont have any wind turbines on the horizon
I wonder what the webcraft ” scots renewables” view point would be here -Please answer Mr Nick Bowles
http://www.nickbowles.co.uk/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Sorry, but you are misinformed. We do indeed have a windfarm currently under consideration by the planners and it wil be very much ‘on the horizon’ as I will be able to see all 9 turbines from my house at a distance of around 2.5 miles.
I have tried to remain neutral on the question of the proposed windfarm at Clachan, but I have become increasingly dismayed by the tactics and hypocrisy of some of the anti-windfarm campaigners.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Come on SR…you cannot support a windfarm because the a NIMBY group such as our own exist…you have to make a decision on how it affects you and what contribution it makes to your community and world wide CO2 emmissions….
anti-windfarm campaigners are funded by the activists within their ranks…The pro-wind lobby has massive cash and marketing companies at their disposal.. Iberdrola employ 33,000 folk world wide for pity sake…if the hypocrisy and tactics are hurting these behmoths of industry an commerce then there is something wrong…not with the NIMBYS (ME) but with the ethics and morals behind the industry…the fact is they are in it for the money. if there was cash to be made out of turning the Barrier Reef into road aggregate…similar entities would be doing that saying it will provide jobs !
There is so much to be said to support the anti globalisation folk…commercial wind is just another money maker a symptom of the greed this planet is diseased with…they have hijacked a nobel cause…they are selling “plastic Jesus’s”, snake oil and hope.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Karl,
I was not talking about anti windfarm campaigners in general in this instance, I was referring to Seil in particular.
The couple who started the campaign here have since sold their house and moved to England. The ‘No to Clachan Windfarm’ sign on their house came down the same day the ‘For Sale’ sign went up. It turns out that they always intended to move to England, windfarm or no.
That was what was at the back of my mind when I asked if you were committed to Tiree whatever the outcome.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
We are all aware of the few turbines you will have near Clachan and Balvicar…question is, do you support the development in full ?
Remember my MIMBY statement….
So the folks went south ce la vie…
I’m here to stay LOL…. not sure who will be please and who will not…I seem to have made many new friends through the Tiree Array spat…even some on the other side of the fence…You are not likely to hear of me packing my bags or indeed hanging from a tree if the array goes ahead (especially on Tiree as there are no Trees) life will go on…it will not be the same and I will be well P—ed O–. that the SG didn’t relise the error of there ways from a small fish in a big pond…
I would still share a dram with all on this thread your good self included…lordy, lordy we are all just folks trying to do the best with the time we have…(well most of us)
But if somebody finds me floating face down near Skerryvore light…please do not treat it as a conspiracy theory…”it was them gov who did it…the spaniards” OK !
Karl
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
In fairness to (the secret is out!!) Nicks views…he sees the fault in the 10,000 quid and rationally sees the Tiree array as currently.. ” most likely” a windfarm to far, a conclusion that I welcome without having to ask for his one quid subscription LOL
karl
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It would seem that this Scottish Government is not only hell-bent on the destruction of our on shore landscapes but also the annihilation of our seascapes and the wonderful species within our marine environment. These policies will not win votes for this ridiculous independence referendum. The vagueness with which the SNP is conducting itself on that particular subject is matched only by the persistent evasion of SPR with regard to their intentions. SPR refuses to show night visualisations because they know they will shock not only the folk who live on Tiree, but also thousands who care about the Scottish environment. The light from these huge turbines at night will also be seen from the island of Coll, which has just been designated an important ‘ dark sky area’. How does that square?
Will little Tiree have to give over not only its glorious seascapes to monster turbines, but will it have to hand SPR large areas of the island for massive converter stations, office blocks and giant machines? This is a tiny island, remember! -We do not know what will happen her. No-one tells us!!!
Not content with destroying valuable species in sea, on the land and in the air, will this gang, SNP and SPR, be happy also to industrialise one of the most beautiful and unique island areas in the world?
It appears from the timetable now favoured by Scottish Power that the construction of this obscenity adjacent to and on the island of Tiree is not essential to the capture of all Scotland’s energy by renewables by 2010. In that case it is a purely a commercial enterprise to fill the coffers of a distant Spanish company who couldn’t care less about Scotland’s islands and their unique environment.
Are we to allow this horror to be forced upon our island so that Iberdrola and its subsidiary make zillions or should we fight to retain our Scottish natural heritage? This is a no-brainer. Let’s fight!
Alidoc
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It’s a windfarm, not the War Of The Worlds
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“it’s a windfarm, not the war of the worlds” LOL
No son it is a war and it’s a war between private individuals wanting to keep their way of life against corporate nutters wanting to profit and impose their will on the little people.
And drips like you believe the corporate/government crap and help to try and shaft your fellow man to satisfy you warped sense of saving the planet
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Are you incapable of having a civilised discussion without resorting to personal abuse?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Yeah I’ am normally civilised but sometimes you have to give some people a shake LOL sorry if I offended you, but I think you are on a dangerous path which will hurt the majority of the people for the benefit of the few.
What do you think of this idea lets close down Scotland move all the people to engerland and Wales turn Scotland into a massive wind farm this idea will save the world if we can get people to buy into it will you move? Will you give up your way of life? Will you give up your land?
Just think of the money that our corporate government could make
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
RS:It is a war of attrition, with similarities to the clearances.
Scots selling Scots, foreign companies buying up the hill and sea to graze their windmills upon.
The affected parties are rural communities…we are simply to supply conurbations with what ? more energy to waste…the additional sick joke is that this time we, the rural communities are also expected to pay for it, out of our own pockets…we the rural communities that have the lowest carbon footprint…much as islands in the pacific are suffering from rising sea levels caused by big business and urban demand…we are suffering from rising industrialisation.
And we have deployment of subsurface marine turbines to contend with too at a later date…mincing machines for every animal that swims beneath the surface of our oceans..
watch this space.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Karl – the obvious scenario of subsurface marine turbines ‘mincing’ fish has been raised elsewhere, with the response that they’re not ships’ propellors, they rotate really quite slowly and fish can swim around them.
Just how slowly the blades will rotate, and just how fast a basking shark (to take the slowest fish?) can dodge them, in a fast current, remains to be clarified.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi Robert…
I await facts…but do not windmills turn at the speed of the wind…yet are quite capable of mincing geese. (ok/all to do with gearing. pitch etc )
I will not mention the mincing abilities of sub sea turbines again until we know better.
God forbid I have to get involved in a later date in marine turbines…I was kinda hoping the idea is a winner for Scotland.
Karl
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Wind turbines don’t turn at the speed of the wind. They look like they are rotating quite slowly, but what you have to consider is how fast the tip of the blade is moving to go round a circle of that diameter – the answer is damn fast.
I am not aware of a lot of birds getting killed. I visited a windfarm in France once. The locals took people to it as part of a nature walk. These folks had eyes like hawks. There were large birds flying in the area. They told me they had never found any birds killed by the turbines but they had found them electrocuted by the overhead lines (big birds).
For me sub-sea tidal turbines is the way to go, predictable energy. Not sure about the fish though.
Noise from pile driving is not something I had thought about, it does sound like a potential problem.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Keith when did you decide you had a big enough pair as to call pesons unknown “son” and a “drip”.I thought you might have put your toys back in the pram and learned your lesson after our last little cyber intercourse on your imaginary drivel on my spat with Berry. What’s all this LOL tosh (lots of love?) you got delusions of gender? Are you the long lost son (troll in waiting) of that other banker R.W. rewind your neck!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
LOL (laugh out loud) its Sokay or should I say Mr anonymous, toys out of the pram don’t this! so What s your latest crap “delusions of gender” or big enough set?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I believe it was me Keith referred to as his son and as a drip . . . and to be fair he did make a half-hearted apology when I pulled him up about it.
Let’s try and keep it civilised.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
5 years ago there were reports of the 68 turbine Smola wind farm in Norway having been responsible for the deaths of 13 sea eagles in the 2 years it had been operating.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Aye…
And the only reason the SNP are in is because the conservatives collapsed.
Karl
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
A question for ” Scots Renewables” – will you put name on your posts ?
I’ve been named on here on more than one occasion and a quick bit of Googling should satisfy your curiosity Tim. Otherwise ask Karl or Rob.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
But ” Possibly the end of the world as we know it “
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I intend to stay on Tiree …. and fight!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I bet the 16-17 year olds, wherever they live, are already sold on both wind farms and independence. Good for jobs, good for the environment and good for the country. All good chest beating stuff! With this in mind, along with the fact that SPR will not be submitting the Tiree application until the latter half of 2014, I fear that objections to this proposal are already lost.
(P.S. Comment made with reference to latest news that Cameron is to allow SNP to include above age group in referendum)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Its great what a government/coporation can do when they control education
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You bet. What does this remind you of….? Circa the 1930′s?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Agenda 21 friend, if you check out the EU plan and compare it to Mr Hitlers plan of 1930 we see who really won the war
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“LOL (laugh out loud) its Sokay or should I say Mr anonymous, toys out of the pram don’t this! so What s your latest crap “delusions of gender” or big enough set?”
Keich, could you please translate that into English son i.e. “toys out of pram don’t this!”???? “big enough set”???:)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi,
You have lost the bet…do not think your average Tirisdeach youth is niave…
The Tiree Dark Skies campaign is been run by the Youth Group !
Chatting with my 11 years old sons friends:
All of the junior school kids, most of the seniors in Tiree School…signed a petition asking SPR for a small scateboard park…”SPR would rather offer money to the adults…not us” Son emphasised that the kids want to see something now, not in 10 years.
Discussion at loch with Tiree Windsurfing club Junior members “…we don’t want our sea destroyed…”
Discussion at Tiree Music Festival with several teenagers…”…this is what Tiree is about not bloody windfarms…” (toned this down a little.
Over the fence of my house just before I came out here to 7 kids from the Pier View houses, I have a huge banner on my house that can be seen from the plane and all who use the ferry “…karl we love the basking sharks say no banner…(gave them some bumper stickers of same)…thanks, my dad said you have balls putting that on your house (banner)we all think the windfarm is stupid…”
I am involved at grass roots with kids on Tiree…your statement lowry could not be further from the truth.
“Tiree application until the latter half of 2014, I fear that objections to this proposal are already lost.” = well do something about it then !
Karl
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I have been campaigning against wind turbines for years, Karl. However,ulike you, I am against them anywhere. I am aghast to learn that the young people of Tiree asked for a play park. If they get it does that make the array alright?
Communities really do need to think seriously about what they are agreeing to, especially when they want their own turbines (to make large sums of money) for the same reasons as very large energy companies (to make large sums of money). Each group is adding to the problem of fuel poverty.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Lowry – equating the motivation of communities with that of power companies is too simplistic to be sensible. I don’t like the way companies dangle ‘sweeteners’ in front of the noses of local communities, but the money is put to community use, which is rather different from where the company’s profits wind up.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Is this a wind up ?”If they get it does that make the array alright?” of course it does not…they are seeing the stress folks/their parents are going through in regards to the bloody Argyll Array…seeing a problem through innocent eyes, showing initative. The Pier View homes are where the majority of younger kids live, they don\’t care where the cash comes from they want a playpark because they want to “PLAY”
In regards to Tilley the community saw a low impact community venture where the profits are fed back into the community !!!!! Tilley does not add to fuel poverty…have you seen the ventures it is funding…the initatives.
Face it you have problem with the community venture, maybe even the community itself ?,…and are totally anti-wind
If you have a problem with crofters putting up small scale wind/small turbines on Tiree then object to them via TCDT or via A & B council…the Tiree Array is a totally seperate issue. NTA is not an anti-renewables venture. If I had the space I would put a small turbine up to help power my home…as my brother in law has, as my friend has. As An Talla has, as the Mart did (pretty shocking it self destructed in a storm)…I noticed a new one in Sandaig during my last leave…probably 15m high…if it got hit by a goose the thing would also self destruct…there are a number of new small turbines on Coll, again small, singular and none evasive…and again would probably self destruct if hit by a goose…if they last the winter storms… I have, on my yacht. a small turbine…would you be anti this ? you seem to be anti-yachtie…, anti Tirees kids, anti everything.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
A very recent New Statesman piece highlighted that the decision, libdem achievement and DECC public relations spin were not all that they seemed.
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/who-runs-britain%E2%80%99s-energy-policy
‘Who runs Britain’s energy policy?
‘A smaller cut in wind power funding comes at the cost of a commitment to decades more of dirty and expensive gas.
‘BY GUY SHRUBSOLE PUBLISHED 27 JULY 2012 14:34
‘Who runs Britain’s energy policy? We have a Department of Energy and Climate Change – you might think from their name that they do. Or perhaps it’s Chancellor George Osborne’s Treasury that calls the shots? Now you’re getting warmer.
‘This week’s announcement by the Energy Secretary, Ed Davey, that he had secured only a 10 per cent cut in wind power funding, was heavily spun as a victory for the Lib Dem-run department. Given that the Treasury had been demanding 25 per cent cuts, this seemed a victory indeed – but one with a huge hidden cost. Because, as payment for this victory, Davey has been forced to quietly concede to another of the Treasury’s demands: a commitment to decades more of dirty and expensive gas.
‘We know this to be the Chancellor’s wishes, because on Monday someone leaked a letter – effectively a ransom note – that he had sent to Davey outlining his position. In it, Osborne demanded that the Energy Secretary issue “a statement which gives a clear, strong signal that we regard unabated gas as able to play a core part of our electricity generation to at least 2030 – not just providing back-up for wind plant”.
‘Acceding to this outrageous demand would mean seriously jeopardising the UK’s fight against climate change. As the Government’s independent advisors, the Committee on Climate Change, stated in response: “This would all lead to a second dash for gas. This would be incompatible with the government’s climate change goals.”
‘But on Wednesday, DECC dutifully trotted out a press release stating that “the Government… is today confirming that it sees gas continuing to play an important part in the energy mix well into and beyond 2030”. Some victory.
‘The exchange has also highlighted the hypocrisy of the Treasury in its assessment of what merits public subsidy, and what must go without.
‘Osborne stated in his letter to Davey: “While your proposals [on renewables funding] achieve some savings we will still be paying more than £500m more to support renewable generation in 2013-14 than we collectively agreed was affordable”. No-one disputes that as technology costs come down, public funding for renewables should decline; the renewables industry itself was offering up 10 per cent cuts.
‘But wait; what’s this? On Wednesday, as DECC announced its cuts to renewables funding, the Treasury simultaneously unveiled £500m of tax breaks for offshore gas drilling. What’s unaffordable to spend on clean energy suddenly becomes eminently affordable to spend on drilling up the dirty stuff.
‘Enough is enough. The Chancellor must be prevented from undermining the UK’s green economy – as the CBI recently stated, it’s one of the few parts of the economy still growing. A high-carbon energy system will lock the UK in to a high-cost as well as high-polluting future. So in whose interests is the Chancellor acting?
‘It’s now up to David Cameron and Nick Clegg to back their Energy Minister over the Chancellor. They should insist that the Energy Bill includes a target to decarbonise the UK’s electricity system by 2030 and unlocks support for clean British energy. The alternative energy strategy that George Osborne would have us follow is a dirty and dangerous dead end.’
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
But not at the cost of further damage to our least damaged/most natural areas…currently the protection to the waters around the uk runs at less than 0.001%..an EU target we have missed !!! why? because it has no large commercial (read big business) value.
You should all read Finding NIMA’s
Here: http://www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/publications/commissioned_reports/325.pdf
or near here !!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The press today states that during one day during the Olympics, when the sailors were finding wind difficult to obtain, the proportion of the UK power provided by wind was 0%.
Nuff said.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This isnt about wether or not wind energy has potential- BUT about wether Tiree and surrounding sea area should be sacrificed to enable Iberdrola to make a huge profit.
Yes go and build a wind farm over the horizon at least 35 miles away and use oban as your heliport
Dont over fly Tiree
Build the windfarm without being bailed out by uk tax payer
But suddenly it doesnt make financial sense anymore so we would be better off building new state of the art nuclear reactors- and of course drill for more oil and gas.
We are off to the barents sea next we are also drilling off the faroes
And all the ” greenwash” statements did you go in a car today ? and have you used a plastic bag or spoon this week ?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Thorium offers the potential of reactors that are much safer than the current uranium based ones. That is because unlike uranium the reaction is not self-sustaining and so can be switched off. Going in that direction would make nuclear a lot more acceptable.
The SNP plan of trying to squeeze the last drop out of aging plant with obsolete designs seems foolish to me. It is not an anti-nuclear stance, it is using nuclear in the worst possible way. If they cannot run a passenger ferry service, they should not be deciding nuclear policy.
Even with thorium reactors there is still the problem of waste. I have just read that America is not issuing licences for new reactors, or even renewing the licences on existing reactors, until they have resolved the waste issue.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Please remember:
“NTA is the campaign to resist the proposed construction of the Tiree (Argyll) Array, or any ancillary development, within 35km of Tiree’s coastline.
35km is SNH ‘s “recommended seaward outer limit of visual significance“ (basis turbine height of 150m). Tiree Array ,if consented, will have between 180 and 300 turbine units ,in excess of 200m in height, sited from a mere 5km off Tiree’s shore.”
Or
http://www.no-tiree-array.org.uk/?page_id=687
Back to work.
Karl
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Exactly- thankyou to No Tiree Array – NTA
Dont let Iberdrola destroy the island and surrounding sea area
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
…just let the Tiree community destroy its own environment by erecting wind turbines for itself.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Face it you have problem with Tilley…a community venture…and are totally anti-wind
If you have a problem with crofters putting up small scale wind/small turbines on Tiree then object to them via TCDT or via A & B council…the Tiree Array is a totally seperate issue. NTA is not an anti-renewables venture. If I had the space I would put a small turbine up to help power my home…as my brother in law has, as my friend has. As An Talla has, as the Mart did (pretty shocking it self destructed in a storm)…I noticed a new one in Sandaig during my last leave…probably 15m high…if it got hit by a goose the thing would also self destruct…there are a number of new small turbines on Coll, again small, singular and none evasive…and again would probably self destruct if hit by a goose…if they last the winter storms… I have, on my yacht. a small turbine…would you be anti this ? you seem to be anti-yachtie…, anti Tirees kids, anti everything.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Lowry: i think if i lived on that island i would be investing in overtunity rather than wind,
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Whats overtunity ???:) sounds good I want some !
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Overtunity is basically a generator powered by its self.
a low powered electric motor drives the generator the additional power generated is Overtunity
Here is an interesting guy http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEdQRVQtffw
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
So a generator produces electricity which runs an electric motor which powers the generator!!!
Energy will be lost through friction and noise, it is not going to work.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
No such thing as perpetual motion.
It is against the laws of physics
Unfortunately.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ferryman: damn guess all the guys which are using this system are wrong, perhaps you should go buy a small generator and a 18 -24v battery/cordless drill remove the petrol motor from the generator and connect the drill then come back and tell me it does not work
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Karl: have you tried it? Have you tried HHO? Have you tried magnet motors? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InZ9XtiKpXo
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Your cordless drill driving the generator will only work until the battery has been discharged compensating for the losses.
There was somebody looking for “investors” (i.e. the gullible) a while back for a car that had wind turbines attached. As the car moved the wind turned the turbines which generated electricity that powered the car.
Here are some working perpetual motion machines
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=287qd4uI7-E
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ferryman how much power did you produce with the generator prior to you battery going flat? Enough to power your laptop, tv a charger? How many spare 18-24v batteries did you charge up? What if you connected the 18v charger direct to your drill?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Keith, what was your point about the “magnet motors”? The person was putting mechanical energy into the generator to turn it, he got a little less electrical energy out. The lost energy went as friction heating the bearings in the generator.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ferryman: my point is there is alternatives out there, and if people took the time to look into them they could be developed to remove the need to be dependent on corporate crooks like the oil companies and power companies, but guess what you always meet the nay-Sayers who have not tried it or seen it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8iKPj4IMiQ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Keith…I’m no physicist…but surely big business would have cottoned on to such things the same way as they have community renewables.
My head hurts…but surely the power to charge the battery will be less than that generated…?
Karl
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Karl: Big business yeah! Ask yourself how would they charge for the electricity created? Why would they let you become energy independent? When they have you slaves to their profits? Trust me mate I am just looking into this stuff, I have tried the HHO on an old law mower it worked for a while. (Long story) I have tried the water battery.
I have yet to try the Overtunity on a larger scale. The whole idea is if the motor takes a small draw ie 12-24v as in a car motor the generator would produce household electricity
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Keith, don’t believe everything you see on the internet http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYovDvyheZ4
Energy has to come from somewhere. You cannot get more out than you put in, and most of the time you get quite a bit less out than you put in.
In a petrol engine you put in chemical energy, the petrol, but only about 30% comes out as usable mechanical energy to move your car. The other 70% is just wasted as heat and noise.
A large electric generator is very efficient, but the electrical energy you get out will never be 100% of the mechanical energy you put in to turn the generator.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
ferryman LOL guess this must be fake as well? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGlUZg2pC0Q guess tesla and muller were just a fakes also, like i say i have not had the time to try this out but during the winter i shall
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The MYT engine is an attempt to design a better combustion engine. It may well work.
On the other hand perpetual motion or energy from nowhere machines will never work.
Think about a battery, running a motor to turn a generator to charge a battery. Let it run till the battery driving the motor goes flat. Then swap the batteries, and repeat. What do think will happen? You will have to swap the batteries sooner and sooner and after a while you will have two flat batteries.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I certainly do have a problem with Tilley and the reasons are exactly the same as the ones for large scale wind farms. If you similarly want a ‘small turbine’ to help power your home would you be so keen to do it without incentives? Why should I pay towards subsidies that you can pocket?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I would not expect a bloody incentive, it wouldn’t even be plugged into the grid…I would pay for it myself and run low consumption items off it…laptop, radio, goldfish tank…Are you also saying by covering my roof with PV and feeding back into the grid as a battery that I am somehow adding to fuel poverty…absolute humbug.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
No – I don’t think that anyone using electricity directly from any source that they have paid for themselves is a bad thing, providing it does not negatively affect the environment or their neighbours. What I object to is any FITs money that you may be claiming.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
But Lowry…any fits money or other benefits that come from Tilley are fed b ack into the community…personal profit or any other form of profit (in theory) do not go to a power company that has share holders making cash at the communities expense….
if I link my power generation into the grid and use it as a battery, surely any reduction in my overall power consumption is a good thing whether I get paid for it or not. Any profit goes back into my pocket…yes the power company that owns the grid gets a chunk…the government gets a chunk but at some stage I reach break even for the investment I have made…just like a savings account.
Home generation, micro generation by any form is good…community generation with less line loss…and income passed to all the community is a good thing. The environmental footprint…even aesthetic footprint is minimal as the generation is wide spread and close to end user usage. if all embraced tis then the larger industrial windfarms…or any other larger industrial power generation for domestic users could theoretically be made redundant and theoretically prices would drop…
POWER TO THE PEOPLE…BY THE PEOPLE (sorry to be a bit wolfy smith)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There is nothing wrong with getting paid a premium for home generation. It makes homeowners invest their own money and gives them an incentive to make the thing work.
That is exactly what the Germans did with solar. People got a premium, a larger market made the price of panels drop so even more got installed and the Germans established a panel manufacturing industry.
In the UK we offered subsidies, companies got setup then we pull the carpet away by removing the subsidy.
Is that not what happened?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Seems it was…and I know at least two local solar panel guys who now have no employment.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I completely agree that local generation should be the way forward – but not wind.
How have you reduced your consumption? Seems to me that you’re using the same amount but paying less because you have accessed subsidies.
Tilley feeds into the grid. The amount of income received by the community is not distributed evenly across the community nor do any of its members benefit from electricity generated by the wind turbine itself.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’m in Iraq… I have tried to reply 3 times and the net won’t have it…
I live near at the pier, also have a family home in Balevullin.
Say hello next time I am home (2nd Week Sept) look me up for a cuppa or a dram…and we can chat…the internet is of limited use in some cases.
I recieve no handouts from the government in regards to renewables…my house is about to go on a power saving quest…maybe we can exchange info.
Karl
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi
With regard to “Tilley” and local generation of electricity.
Yes Ideally Tilley should be hooked up so that it could feed directly to the island and power Tiree if the national grid was down. Although I dont believe it can do this due to cost of ” re wiring ” converters and other hardware needed.
So Tilley is feeding into the Grid therefore we could argue that Tiree has done enough for reduction of CO2 from burning fossil fuels and that Tiree should not be sacrificed for the giant windfarm-
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Questions are now been asked by wind industry organizations and forums in regards to the Argyll Arrays environmental sustainability…in a couple of days I will anounce who is asking.
Today I was asked to counter comment on the following SPR Iberdrola statement:…it is pertinent to the original post>
“ScottishPower Renewables is carrying out comprehensive surveys in the area to better understand the site including the marine ecology. This work is necessary for any proposed development and we’re happy to add to the growing information base particularly around Basking Sharks.”
“The survey activity is ongoing and when concluded the data will be evaluated and shared with all relevant stakeholders. This information will then shape the design of the windfarm and our future planning application for the Argyll Array.”
Our reply (NTA):
“ We understand that SNH and Exeter University are carrying out a parallel study of the area in regards to Basking Shark behavior and numbers. This study is part of a survey from Mull to Skye that will ascertain if the area will be accredited as MPA (Marine Protection Area), RSPB/HWDT & JNCC see this as a highly desirable…
The Scottish and UK government have an obligation to the EU to protect areas of least damaged/most natural importance (NIMA)…in much the same way as they have a commitment to reduce co2 output.
It is more than fair to assume given the data already acquired, which includes behavior, numbers, gender and size; that the area is used for courtship as well as feeding.
Broaching of the sharks, tailing, parallel swimming are all indicative of courtship…and have been observed on mass within and throughout, the proposed array location.
Numbers observed in the current survey and historically observed within the proposed windfarm array location far exceeded earlier expectations, and as such the area is a primary if not the primary location for courtship within UK inshore waters.(edit:primary or secondary will be ascertained upon completion but the outlook looks more than faourable)
The Basking Shark is protected by law:
Basking Sharks are protected under the Wildlife and Countryside Act (1981), the Countryside and Rights of Way Act (2000), the Northern Ireland Wildlife Order (1985) and the Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act (2004). These Acts make it illegal to intentionally kill, injure or recklessly disturb or harass Basking Sharks in British waters. Any person committing such an offence could face up to 6 months in prison and a large fine.
Internationally, Basking Sharks are listed under CITES Appendix II, CMS Appendix I and II and UNCLOS Annex I.
The protection afforded the Basking Sharks could not be more relevant than when it is applied to breeding activities.
Given the protection laws applicable to the species, it will be impossible to mitigate disturbance caused by construction activities during the sharks visiting months. (Late April to end of September). The remaining weather window September to April is the storm period and it is hard to see how any form of major maritime construction could take place.
This point is all the more pertinent given that the same area is occupied by the internationally protected Great Northern Diver through from October to mid March…in this species case, it is already known (JNNC) that the proposed array area contains the largest concentration of this over wintering species in Europe…approximately 40% of the UK population and 9% of the European population. Again , this species is protected from “deliberate disturbance or harassment.” If a species is known to exist in an area and, is protected under such laws…to enter into the area and disturb the species falls under the “deliberate harassment” clause.
May I also add that other species are too at risk and that the two above are but the visible tip of the iceberg…other species will be presented as and when we or government bodies see fit.
You may find this link of some use: http://www.sharktrust.org/content.asp?did=27433
SPR are in the process of paving the way for commercial industrialization (Note: the site is not necessary for Scotland to meet its co2 reduction targets)
SNH are paving the way for legacy environmental management and protection (Note: this location is necessary, given available data for Scotland to meet it’s EU conservation targets)
The two surveys could not be more diametrically opposite.
If you need more info please drop me a line.
All the very best
Karl
FYI Karl (NTA)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Karl,
A little knowledge from my fishing career.
If one were to draw a line on an chart from Cairns of Coll to Hawse Bank to Skerryvore, East of said line is the Spring spawning grounds for Turbot and Brill.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Sincere thanks for this information. All but one of the Tiree creel boats (6. The other is neutral)) do not want the array & they have mentioned spawning grounds, but were not specific on the species. Local hereditary knowledge is priceless…yours included.
Regards
karl
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Excellent and well said NTA-
We must remember also there are two or three other areas of planned potential wind farm and or tidal generation areas that were bought up in the original SPR presentation-
And yet again SPR were unwilling and dishonest not to admit the obvious fact that once they had set Tiree up as a Construction base, Port, heliport and Converter station that it was so screamingly obvious that Tiree would become their centre hub for these further developments. eg Tiree= Electric Company Industrial Estate on Sea
Thankfully we have legislation in place to protect places like Tiree and the surrounding sea area. Now we wait and see if the Scottish Government will break their own laws in the pursuit of Alex Salmond’s Ego and Iberdrolas’s share price
Maybe the spanish government could Issue Bonds to pay for all this- or borrow money from the IMF possibly reward Alex with a villa in the Costa del Crime
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
RE. the fears of harm to basking sharks from the noise created by piling turbine foundations into the seabed:
It seems that this has already come up in Germany in connection with porpoises, and E.ON and RWE are investigating a techno-fix which will reduce the noise.
Guardian Environment article
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi…noise and basking sharks is not the primary issue here (ref:basking sharks)see post 9. I covered this issue earlier in this thread.
This article refers to Cetaceans…whales, dolphin, porpoise. mammals and not fish. They use acoustics to echo locate for navigation, hunting, communication between groups and individual’s. Needless to say NTA will be addressing this with the rise in Minke and Orca etcetera as part of the environmental elements of the campaign
“good to have a sense of porpoise” isn’t it LOL couldn’t resist.
Back to the Sharks: SPR cannot mitigate by displacement. The proposed array area is a hereditary courtship/breeding/feeding ground…this is so because the area provides an ideal balance of all the necessary elements….and the sharks have through inherited/learnt instinctive behaviour (maybe navigational genetics) alway passed through or even seasonaly visited the area.
Subjective comment now based on what I have so far managed to learn/read, and not wishing to second guess the marine biologists or sharks for that matter; seasonal upwellings of plankton and the associated currents condenses (horizontal) a food source into the area…looking at marine charts and current data…a huge eddie exists in the area…slack water moves over the same ground.the water temp does rise (plankton with it) seasonally…this is good for the food source. the water is shallow which again condenses the food source depth wise.
Basking sharks as filter feeders are slow moving leviathans…the expend energy as their food source allows. During breeding/courtship they become far more active…to fuel this activety they need a ready available and plentiful food source…far more than they would normally consume while in migration…the array area provides this fuel…the fuel they need to breed, to survive.
Add to this no disturbance and the location makes sense…this balance can be seen to some extent at other hotspots Hyskeir and Gunna sound. Sharks in Gunna move in and out with the tide.
Again: SPR cannot mitigate by displacement.
If you chop down the only tree in the desert a pair of birds have no place to rest, to feed, to breed.
The distance to the next tree could be to far, or the next tree could already be occupied. The bird fails to breed, the genetics and birds die.
I hope this makes sense…seems to.
Karl
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The Scottish government has today issued a new set of guideline best practices for wind farm planning applications, designed to speed up the planning process and make it easier for developers, communities and planning authorities to assess project proposals.
The new guidelines set out a series of best practices that largely focus on developers working closely with affected communities right from the start of the planning process and taking steps to limit environmental impacts.
I wonder if SPR have read them yet . . .
GOOD PRACTICE GUIDE
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi SR…
Thanks for the link…appreciate it.
Just started ploughing through it: Mitigation is a bit of a grey area and, no doubt levels will be set on a case by case basis as to what is and is not classed as acceptable or indeed prsctical.
But having read other items under community liasion and environmental protection…Scottish Power Renewables Iberdrola, are none compliant…but remember these are guidelines,should,could,may and might….not directives.
This comment however completely blew me out of the water:
“USING THE PROFITS FROM WIND ENERGY AS A LEVERAGE FOR DEVELOPING OTHER RE PROJECTS
Using the profits from wind energy as a leverage for developing other RE projects.
Financial revenues from wind farm projects can help launch other RE initiatives. Similarly, local cooperatives active in other sectors can in turn generate new wind energy deployments. Such integrated wind turbine installations and complimentary projects are likely to increase the buy-in from the local community.”
Wind at any cost !!!!
Karl
PS one for you….http://www.scotsman.com/news/christine-jardine-balance-of-scottish-power-1-2478911
and a very scary one for us all:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19330307
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Good links, interesting comment on Crianlarich – I can see the signs on the A82 & A85 now: “Welcome to Crianlarich – wind farm free!”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Excellent Article thanks NTA.
This shows again why SPR think they can ride roughshod over all other considrations.
Why do SPR want to put the Wind farm next to Tiree ?- Shallow water, Windy and a fixed platform about 12 miles x 5 miles, a small local population ( about 750) and attempt to bribe the locals with some low level jobs.
But quite forgetting that Tiree is an area of Natural beauty does have various SSI areas of Special Sceintific Interest and the surrounding sea area is a very important natural resource.
I would love to hear some thoughts from SAMS university – Scottish Association for Marine Science in oban on this.
Tiree and Coll are unique and SPR and Scotish Government do not have the right to destroy this. Even if it is in the name of reduced Global warming- although an energy balance on how much steel concrete and transportation would be required to build this would be interesting.
Here is an a side for comparison of the size of this project the estimated cost ( correct me if wrong please) is of the order £ 5 billion yes £ 5 000 000 000 – now for example the cost of building the Shard in london was according to wikipedia £435 million ( £ 435 000 000 about £ 1/2 a billion) therefore the cost of this project is the same as building 11 Glass skyscrapers 72 storeys high in central london- this is no ordinary windfarm but mega development- and Tiree and surrounding sea area will be totally swallowed up, minced up and spat out by it. but Argyll and Bute council will do well and they are the people who make the planning decisions- possible conflict of interest here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think it will be the Scottish government that will have the final say, not Argyll and Bute Council.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
That is true but Argyll and Bute Council have vested interest in this. I would like to hear from the Councillor who represents Tiree, SNP, on here- he previously told me he would represent the views of the people but I do fear that there is a vocal group on Tiree who want the wind farm but have not ever lived in an Industrial area or been involved industry and have no real idea what this massive development involves and how it will change the island and surrounding area- these are the group that SPR attempt to whoo with there offers of grants and other incentives.
So I call on our Councillor for a reply
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’m not entirely sure what A&B Council’s ‘vested interest’ in this is – what income exactly do they stand to make from the array?
I am intrigued to hear your assertion that there is ‘a vocal group on Tiree who want the wind farm‘ . I have long suspected that there must be a group on Tiree who are pro the Array – it stands to reason in a population of 750 souls – but I would hardly describe them as ‘vocal’ – to date they have been remarkably mute, in the off-island media at least.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If a council is to serve its constituents then the council should maximize and encourage investment and spending in there region eg Oban eg Oban hotels services and by default spending on tiree.
Certainly a Tiree hotel would be a gold mine if the windfarm went ahead
There will also be alot of people and machines passing through oban and spending- I hope that explains the obvious.
With regard to Pro Array people on Tiree I await to see if any Pro Array Tiree people wish to put there view here as I obviously cant speak for them or about them-
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
They can be volcal in the pub after a few drams ! no names thats not fair…it’s up to them to step forward…I will say that all of the pro-array/industrialisation folk on Tiree (all as in the ones I know about or have spoken to me…honestly and sincerely a dozen at most) would welcome a nuclear powerstation or an interment center for bad guys, if they thought their personal bank accounts might swell.
I know of no one who simply thinks the Array is good for Tiree.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It’s certainly been my experience here on Seil that the ‘pro-windfarm’ faction grumble and mutter down the pub and among themselves but tend not to be the sort of people who get involved in public debate in forums like this.
It’s much more difficult to protest in favour of something!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Encumbant Scottish Government has the final say. A&B council stand to make something but not sure what. As it’s classed as a strategic development A&B council do not have a say in onshore development either….basically 2 Pandas Salmond is the man who signs the go ahead…
in ref to Tims Comment :”Certainly a Tiree hotel would be a gold mine if the windfarm went ahead”
if there was development onshore…but only during onshore construction and only if a labour force camp was ommited (which is doubtfull)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
SR.
“It’s much more difficult to protest in favour of something!”
True…100%. and I can understand why…folks also find it difficult to see the difference in folks anti- a certain windfarm development and folks who are anti wind energy “full-stop’. This is also compounded by island life and to a lesser degree village life.
Seriously most folks don’t care if a change is good or bad…they see it simply as a change, never look at the pro’s and con’s, just human nature. However, I don’t know of any group that have fought for a large, as in commercial windfarm…community yes, but not commercial.
Folks protest for other things, schools, swimming pools, harbours and the likes…things that should be there anyway.
Karl
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Tim…Prick up your ears…there is going to be some massive news within the next few days.
http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2012/08/21/communities-against-turbines-scotland-cats-press-release/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Thanks for that link
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/features/how-offshore-wind-turbines-could-be-more-efficient/
ffshore not inshore as could happen around Tiree…(thinking out aloud that means for every turbine built, the 15th never pays off it’s co2 footprint)
That time of day when all the websites I sign up to send me bumpf…this one is interesting too.
Seems currently that a ration of 15:1 exists in harvesting energy….from offshore turbimes, that is I think, the energy used in building turbines is repaid 15 times…however, Cambridge Uni have shown a way to make this 25:1 and even more important is that turbines can be placed in deeper water ie
SPR will if they get there way furnish us with outdated tech ( unless we here otherwise LOL) cheers
Karl
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Thanks for that
Now we have indication of the overall energy balance.
I do feel that SPR have targerted Tiree as they can call it an “offshore development” ( even though it is really inshore waters)- but they can get shallow water and a land base only 5 km away- plus of course they could try to build a converter station onshore and increase their profit,
I hope that the NTA campaign as well as stopping the turbines also brings an awareness of how a relatively small area of land and sea is of vital importance to the overall ecology and that it should be protected and managed in a sympathetic way ( I would also call for further study of the sea area around Tiree and Coll)- eg crofting and small case fishing as these are also vital and important for the community that lives here.
Tourism is a part of the economy but also means that the wider comunity beyond the people who are lucky enought to live on Tiree can share the beauty and tranquility of this special island.
Upto now, it would appear, that Crofting laws, Planning regulations and Argyll Estate have controlled development on Tiree lets hope it stays that way.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Rip off upon rip off – and all legal. Some wind farms have been paid up to £800pKWh against a loss from having to turn the turbine off of only £45. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/9490712/Energy-companies-overcharge-customers-by-600m.html
Another ‘racket ‘ exposed. All the visualisations I have done where accuracy was important ( inc. NTA) were at a 70mm setting – it was not difficult to establish that as a minimum but the wind companies are always less than honest. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/9438774/Wind-farm-developers-using-tricks-to-make-turbines-look-smaller.html.
Karl – NTA said you would be forwarding some details on the required lighting for offshore turbines to see if I could make an animation of the light effect behind a revolving turbine blade.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Malcolm – constraint payments which massively exceed the cost to generators of being curtailed are indeed a bad thing and it is right that the regulator should clamp down on it, as with any other form of profiteering.
However, I notice you only mention wind farms, whereas the Telegraph article you quote clearly states that the problem exists with gas and coal generators also.
Wind farm operators, like any other generators, enter into contracts to supply certain amounts of electrical energy at certain times to their customers. If they are unable to meet the terms of those contracts because the grid network is congested, the cost to them of the lost contract is obviously going to be more than the ROCs lost (which is what you are presumably referring to when you say £45). They also lose the value of the energy sales, plus (possibly – here I’m unsure) the cost of making good the lost supply to the customer. Unlike fossil generators, there is no saved fuel to offset this loss, hence constraint payments to wind generators are high.
As I’m sure you know, the price of electricity varies widely throughout the day, so the constraint cost will depend to some extent on the time when it occurs. The cause of constraint is not ‘too much electricity’ – it is too little capacity at certain pinch-points on the network. The solution is more investment in the network.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The system is definitely wrong and needs to be corrected for the sake of all utility bill payers. However, as has been shown by others posts , we are not short of electricity and therefore don’t need wind power. Please look at http://www.geog.ox.ac.uk/~dcurtis/NETA.html – zoom in on the August graph the bottom green line is wind. You will clearly see above the regular up and down graphs showing other power stations covering our night and day needs. Now look at the wind graph – totally out of control.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Malcolm – you could just as easily point to the nuclear line on the graph and say it is ‘totally out of control’ – generating a more or less constant output night and day whether we need the power or not.
Of course in both cases the point is facetious – the system contains enough flexibility to match supply with demand whatever the input from those generators whose output is not correlated with demand. There are upper limits to be sure; we are nowhere near them yet.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The “system” is called the “Balancing Mechanism”. As I understand it it is a market. Energy demand is forecast (not sure how far ahead) generators then have to bid to provide electricity in half-hour slots. National Grid accept bids to fulfill the predicted demand. They will also be paying some generators to keep some energy in reserve incase the forecasts are low or there is a problem like a big nuclear plant shutting down.
If for some reason bidders cannot provide the power they offered then they are penalised, possibly at many times the rate they were going to be paid.
If the wind companies are participating in bidding like this (and I think they are) then they must be pretty comfortable about how much power they can produce and when.
The “system” seems to be an open market aimed at delivering a reliable supply at lowest cost.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
That is a really interesting site. For one thing it shows wind is contributing consistently more than hydro. Look at coal though it is still ‘king’ and gas is huge.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
CONDENSED VERSION (MODERATED BY SELF)
Malcolm and all:
I am about to throw my teddy out of the pram, hang it and draw it…please read on.
I read the article in the Telegraph…doesn’t suprise me one bit ref: Size and jiggery-pokery…
But I am completely blown out of the water and shocked at the: new government guidelines issued by the SNP :http://www.project-gpwind.eu/
I sat up to the wee small hours looking through the doc, each page turn was full of blatent and un democratic BS…and then the penny dropped, I had intended to write an article on the following but the Telegraph has done an outstanding job with this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/9490886/SNP-proposes-wind-farm-propaganda-for-the-classroom.html
I am totally shocked…
I read increased desperation from SG..until recently SG has had an armchair ride on renewables and wind in particular..CATS/NTA /Others are making an increasing impact …. SG is becoming increasingly ‘doctrinaire ‘ on policy …
SG would be better served by improving basic education ..didnt the Arnold Clark report on apprentices show that something like out 1800 out of 2300 of applicants were totally unemployable…. in the widest sense of the word ..
This is a great shame…if this had been handled properly in an un bias fashion Scotland could have been proud of it’s renewable track record and plans for the future.
Donald Dewar will be turning in his grave….you are turning us into the Saudi Arabia of renewables, complete with commercial/political wind power madrisa schools. I have to laugh at the desperate measures,
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Karl – with respect, I think you should take a deep breath, it sounds like you are in danger of hyperventilating.
Another perspective on this is that the absence of public education on these important matters is leading to a vacuum into which the anti-windpower lobby is throwing huge amounts of misleading, often technically illiterate information and a fair measure of downright mischievous lies.
OK, perhaps I need to take a deep breath also
What the Telegraph article points out right at the start is that the stated purpose of this education initiative is to “to provide a foundation for balanced decision-making in later life”. This seems like a reasonable enough aim does it not? It’s not altogether surprising that the Telegraph should choose to put an anti-SNP spin on this…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Finished ripping the arms off my teddy…
Suggest we move over to a more pertinent post “Davids strike Goliaths in the battle of wind at all costs”
Money would be better spent on teaching democratic process (err who’s money ?) and the wee tubby Tunnock muncher would definately need to sit at the front of the class
breathing gently now
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The rapid spread of wind turbines across Scotland could accelerate, after SNP ministers issued new guidance promising a ‘smoother’ planning process.
A new ‘good practice guide’ has been developed as part of a Scottish Government-led project, containing tips about how to overcome opposition to the schemes.
Ministers say the guidance is designed to ‘make planning applications for wind energy developments run more smoothly’.
It includes a section on ‘optimising social acceptance’, which features advice on how to communicate the benefits of any scheme to the local community.
Campaigners say the document is the latest attempt by the SNP to ‘fast-track’ new wind farms as quickly as it can, to help achieve its green energy targets.
Fears have been raised that a smoother process will benefit developers at the expense of local communities, where there are concerns about the impact that the spread of unsightly wind turbines will have on Scotland’s countryside.
Susan Crosthwaite, chairman of the Communities Against Turbines Scotland pressure group, said: ‘This is a huge concern because they are putting pressure on planning departments and councils to make more areas available and push things through. The whole system is being pushed in the developer’s favour.
‘The Scottish Government is pressurising all the councils about passing more wind turbines and the sad thing is it will push more people into fuel poverty and it’s all for nothing.
‘The Scottish Government put out its renewables route map for consultation earlier this year and we found it to be a wanting document. They are pushing out all these things to try to fast track them but they are not making sure the environmental i mpact work and ground works are done properly and it will lead them into a lot of trouble.’
The guidance has been issued following the Good Practice Wind Project, an EU-funded scheme that was led by the Scottish Government and looked at how to address the barriers to wind energy development in order to meet targets aimed at increasing the amount of renewable energy produced in Scotland.
The Good Practice Guide urges developers to take part in ‘effective, meaningful and early communication’ about new schemes.
It recommends promoting the features of a wind farm that are attractive to tourists, such as a visitor centre, as ‘an original way of contributing to the optimisation of social acceptance’.
The SNP has previously been criticised f or ordering all councils to set aside more land suitable for wind farm developments. Already, up to a third of some council areas have been earmarked for wind turbines.
Scottish Tory energy spokesman Mary Scanlon said: ‘While it is welcome that the Scottish Government wants a planning system which runs smoothly for all, at some stage developers and communities will disagree, and it is not clear how this will be overcome.
‘Other than reiterate its ambitious renewable energy target, the SNP has not said what it will do to ease the fears of communities across the country. Guidance may be useful but the fact is the SNP wants to continue developing wind farms across Scotland, often in the face of strong local opposition.
‘Spinning the facts to make it sound positive is not a solution.’
The SNP Government is desperate for more turbines to help it achieve its target of the equivalent of 100 per cent of Scotland’s electricity needs coming from green energy by 2020. But opponents say it is focusing too much on onshore wind and not enough on offshore wind and other renewable energy types.
Energy Minister Fergus Ewing said: ‘I’m delighted to launch these materials, which aim to make the planning process for wind developments go more smoothly for everyone involved.
‘The Scottish Government wants to see the right developments in the right places and this guidance will help to ensure that – while also making sure there are fewer unsuitable applications and that communities are properly consulted and informed.
‘We have set an ambitious, but achievable, renewable energy target and we are determined to ensure that communities all over Scotland benefit from our renewable energy revolution, which is already bringing jobs and investment.
‘But we are determined that this should be done in a sustainable way, sympathetic to the needs of communities and protecting the environment and our f antastic natural heritage.
‘This project supports our drive to promote engagement with communities from the very beginning of a plan’s development.’
Walk the talk Alex…Walk the talk Fergus
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You obviously were not aware that the renewable companies have been financing indoctrination for young children for a long time. Our own local primary pupils at Ardfern were taken to a exhibition in the village hall particularly aimed at young children where they were shown pictures, models, etc. The exhibition was moving round Argyll. What the lecture contained I have no idea but it all fits with Salmonds policies of using young people. Speaking to somebody up North recently, they commented that the same thing was happening up there so it is presumably country wide.
The big problems are the SNP fanatics who seem to have some sort of inferiority complex about belonging to an organised unit ie the UK. They regularly appear on these pages and are even worse in the ‘Scotsman’ forums where the hate and bile and bad language is disgraceful.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
More Kirkspeak
Indoctrination : Anything that happens in schools that Malcolm disagrees with
Fanatics : SNP supporters ( i.e over 45% of the voters in the 2011 election)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
24%
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’ve amended my comment. You need to change yours now.
If people don’t bother voting then they cannot complain about their representation.
According to recent polls, the First Minister’s satisfaction rating is still over 50% though, so half the Scottish population must be fanatics.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“If people don’t bother voting then they cannot complain about their representation.”
Why vote if you do not accept the tribes trying to gain power, the majority tribe is the non voting tribe.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@John Sinclair:
‘The majority tribe is the non-voting tribe’
Not quite yet at the national level, thank goodness.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ok, let me get this straight before I get the popcorn and watch you all kicking off…
Malcolm, are you claiming that all ecowork and/or renewables projects in schools are an instrument of the SNP to brainwash our children into supporting an Independent Scotland?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Come on Malcolm ! I was not born yesterday.
read the guidelines and cross reference any pertaining documentation…I was given the link by a SPR employee and then again by an RSPB employee…both saying that popular opinion is forcing the SG hand…and they are on the back foot.
I suggest you read the Guidelines in full.Malcolm: READ THIS :http://www.project-gpwind.eu/index.php?option=com_content&view=featured&Itemid=101
And in regards to the SNP… I have voted for them in the past, and wish the renewables (wind) had not been used for political gain….a great disapointment.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I suggest you get some rest Karl – I have no idea what you are talking about.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
the energy company involved here will need to be as ‘scrupulous’ as any other moneymaking industry where the plastic and questioning minds of children are involved. for example, our schools made the most of the opportunity to educate their classes about sport. that’s great education. but the distasteful presence of macdonalds and coca cola? indoctrination, endorsed on a national level.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
this quote is doing the rounds
“McDonald’s being the official restaurant of the Olympics is like smoking being the official medicine of cancer”
http://www.alerewellbeing.com/blog/post/2012/08/06/Junk-Food-Brands-Sponsor-Olympics-Send-Mixed-Messages.aspx
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I wonder if Tiree’s “SPR representative” would like to comment on any of this- bear in mind he is the ex headmaster of Tiree school.
I feel SPR are being clever, sneaky and underhanded with their “offers” to the school- the only obvious reason is to turn the school children into Pro Array so that they can then influence their parents. These “offers” are not being done out of any sudden magnaminous feeling from SPR that they care about the future job prospects of Tiree kids.
As ever SPR do not come clean with the shear scale and size of this development.
They havent said to anyone on Tiree ” Once we start this project the Island will never look or be the same again, you will be ringed by towering wind turbines, the sky will glow at night, the island will be turned into a giant industrial estate and have constant helicopter flights particularly in the summer when we are catching up on all the time lost due to waiting on weather in the winter”
Hence there manipulation of the photo montages and unwillingness to show night time views
Although I am oilfield I am a supporter of renewables but not at the expense of Tiree and surrounding sea area.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Lest we forget Tim the cutting comment from Ralph Thornton the project manager of the Tiree Array years ago “…nothing but a rare species will stop this development…” or words along that line and the crowd were stunned.
And I am happy to be a NIMBY on Tiree’s behalf.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Yes thanks Karl, this illustrates SPR total disregard for all normal planning procedure and the arrogance of SPR and their backers the Scottish Government.
I do note that SPR have not published any cost figures on how much it would cost to put the Converter station ( a nine storey high equvalnet building approx size of a footbal pitch)offshore versus onshore- and then they state that they havent yet decided which route they would like to take.
Sound like economical with the truth which is the way SPR have been all along.
Come on SPR give us some numbers.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I would like to go bak to Karl’s earlier note on carbon footprint payback per turbine.
“Seems currently that a ration of 15:1 exists in harvesting energy….from offshore turbimes, that is I think, the energy used in building turbines is repaid 15 times…”
http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/features/how-offshore-wind-turbines-could-be-more-efficient/
If that is correct then for the 500 turbines apparently currently planned then 33 turbines dont pay back there energy used in manufacturing and placing them on the seabed-
seems like quite alot really
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Is it a lot?
You would need to know the figures for (eg) a nuclear power station before that was a fair comment. The figures for this are as controversial as they are for wind, with estimates varying from 10 months to 15 years. (Nuclear power stations are generally considered to have a lifespan of 40 years).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Bit of a difficult for me to get my head around…but at last a figure picked from the ether that I am happy to accept, and it is lower than I expected.
In Tiree’s case, I see it as 1:15 turbines doing lasting damage to the seabed for little return.
But I am glad to see the possibilities…1:25.
My head hurts the last couple of days are busy with windymills…think I need a break.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
At least wind turbines and other renewable energy sources do pay back the energy used in their manufacture. 15:1 seems like quite a good ratio to me, especially if it is at the lower end of the estimates.
Unlike any form of conventional large thermal generation which spends its lifespan throwing away between 40 and 70% of the potential energy in the fuel as waste heat, never mind the energy used in its construction.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Surprise surprise :-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19347503
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
No Suprise…winters coming and somebodies goose needs to get fat…steeper than I expected though.
Definitely a bad hair day for Alex and Scotlands international “everything is on ok with commercial wind” image.
In two years I have never seen so many negative reports….kind of sad really.
http://www.wind-watch.org/news/category/locations/europe/uk/scotland/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It (SSE) blamed the increases on the extra cost of using the gas and electricity networks and rising costs in energy wholesale markets.
Malcolm on the other hand blames it all on wind turbines.
Hmmm . . . who to believe?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
A “conundrum”…
I personally blame it on my first wifes mother !
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I blame it on all of us (me included) for being daft enough to pay it!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Time to disconect Tiree from the grid ? with Tilley and our own grid and claim independance maybe ? We have a nice diesel generator to provide a base load…mind you…given that we have so many power cuts we could just go back to candles and chats over a dram
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Karl – why not? A few more wind turbines, perhaps some solar panels (Tiree’s quite sunny I hear), some battery storage and your diesel genny as backup… you could do it, like Eigg (but without the hydro).
The cost would probably make SSE’s 9% look quite good value though
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Maybe we should stay connected and export our surplus ?
somebody would pay for it…actually we could just get a loan off the people of Oban and build a 50 turbine array in loch Crernan (bit of a shame about the cold water corals, seen some pics and they look quite nice, hey but no one will care on Tiree) and charge the people of Oban a premium on their electricity and they can sit and watch the turbines go around when the wind blows…when it doesn’t we could build half a dozen big diesel generators on Kerrera and charge the people of Oban for both the stationary turbines and the cost of the diesel to keep their lights on…yep, sure that would work…hey we have a plan !!!
Sounds familiar no ?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“I blame it on all of us (me included) for being daft enough to pay it!”
great quote, I am included too.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Lowry – that’s the great thing about consumer subsidies instead of taxpayer subsidies. If you don’t like ‘em, you can always just switch off the lights…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Of interest Karl ?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-19346598
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Far more interesting than Highland infighting that harks back 300 or so years>
‘overcharge customers by £600m’
Credit: By Rowena Mason, Political Correspondent | The Telegraph 21 August 2012 ~~
Energy companies have overcharged households and businesses up to £600 million by manipulating the electricity market, ministers have said.
The Government believes companies have been “profiting unfairly at the expense of [the] consumer” by overloading the national grid with electricity.
They are then able to claim “unduly high” compensation payments to switch their wind farms and power plants off when the system becomes too full.
Official estimates suggest that some companies have been over-claiming for up to five years at a cost of up to £125 million per year – the equivalent of £25 for every household in Britain.
Two of Britain’s biggest energy companies — Scottish Power and SSE, which supply energy to six million homes — have been investigated for alleged abuses by Ofgem, the regulator.
All bill-payers in Britain have to bear these extra costs, regardless of who their energy supplier is.
The scale of the alleged abuses comes after energy companies announced large profits at a time when households are struggling to pay record bills.
Charles Hendry, the energy minister, is planning to ban such “exploitative behaviour” by the owners of wind farms and gas and coal plants, after warnings from Ofgem that compensation payments are rising out of control.
New rules will go to consultation this autumn. They would force firms to surrender 10 per cent of turnover if they charge excessive compensation in future.
John Robertson, an MP on the energy committee, will write to the Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) demanding a full inquiry.
“This is a lot of money and consumers are having to pay for it,” he said. “There has to be some kind of retribution. If this has been happening, it is shocking and must be investigated.”
In 2009, Ofgem dropped the investigation into Scottish Power and SSE, the owner of Southern Electric, after concluding that the chances of a successful prosecution were “low”. The companies strongly deny breaking any rules.
However, the regulator still believes that some of Britain’s dozens of power companies have been able to manipulate the system for years without penalty.
According to Ofgem, the level of compensation payments has risen sharply over the past few years from £84 million in 2005 to around £325 million last year.
The problem has been made worse by vast numbers of new wind farms in Scotland, where the grid is regularly unable to cope.
Last year, some of the biggest compensation payments in the wind market went to Scottish Power, SSE and RWE npower.
Ofgem says power firms are able to “exacerbate or create” too much electricity for the grid to cope with in areas where capacity is limited, such as the border between England and Scotland. The power plants and wind farms are then able to claim compensation — constraint payments — for having to switch off their plants when the network becomes “unbalanced”.
Officials estimate the proposed ban on “exploitative behaviour” will reduce compensation levels by £300 million over the next five years. Energy UK, the body representing Britain’s energy firms, said: “Generating companies have contracts to fulfil and being ‘constrained off’ the system and unable to supply their customers can prove very expensive to them.
“That’s why they have to bid for what seem to be significant payments to be ‘switched off’. In the long run, the answer to these issues will be more investment in the network.” On Tuesday night, energy companies said they always act within the rules.
A spokesman for SSE said: “We have been working with the DECC throughout the consultation period and are confident that we have always been and will continue to operate within the given industry framework.”
A spokesman for ScottishPower said: “We’re looking forward to seeing the guidelines from Ofgem and don’t envisage having to make significant changes to what we’re doing.”
British Gas, E. ON, EDF and npower did not return requests for comment.
The DECC says constraint payments only add £4 per year to household energy bills, most of which is legitimate. The rest is footed by businesses, which will ultimately pass their costs on to consumers.
karl: MAYBE ITS TIME TO RE-NATONALISE FOR THE SAKE OF ENERGY BILL SECURITY AND PROTECTION FROM FOREIGN BLOOD SUCKERS …….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Karl – I know this thread is getting a bit long, but… we’ve been here before courtesy of Malcolm – see no. 36 above
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“MAYBE ITS TIME TO RE-NATONALISE FOR THE SAKE OF ENERGY BILL SECURITY AND PROTECTION ”
I would go for this, how much money did we give, or giving to the banks.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I have been mulling this over as the Tiree Array has evolved and my conclusion is:
If you want to enforce transparency and accountability to the TAX payer:
It is morally and socially responsible to subsidise a strategic industry (service) for the benefit of all, rather than all to subsidise a commercial industry for the benefit of a parasitic few.
The problem now with British politics is privatisation of services passes limited accountability onto the provider and, British politics sits in a comfort zone that , by default, degeneration and delegation, lacks accountability to British Citizens.
Until this is reversed we have bad management of our nations, the politicians have ethereal, if any worth and the country is run by contractors who answer to shareholders and foreign governments and not to the people who employ them. You, me and us.
Karl
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Have things really changed, could it be that we have more time and better communication and we can now see the injustices more clearer. Will change for the better happen, I do not know, but if it is going to happen then we need to work together.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
So focussing on Tiree Array , or Argyll Array.
Questions ?
1. Have Iberdrola /SPR and Scottish Government been : Clear, Honest and Transparent with their plans.
2. Have all the interested parties involved in the planning permision been : Clear, Honest and Transparent with what they want out of it and what they will trade for giving permission
3. Is Tiree Array a first step to covering massive areas of the west coast inshore waters with large windfarms.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Morning all !
As you are all aware by now I believe that facts are more important than mere words – so this is all going in the right direction:-
“Danish wind turbine firm Vestas has announced plans to cut another 1400 jobs as it prepares for a drop in business next year as demand slows.
The Company cut its forecasts for the shipment of turbines this year, and said 2013 would be even tougher.
Earlier this year,Vestas had said it would cut 2,335 jobs during 2012.
Hoooraaaaa !!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Crass barely begins to cover the sentiment expressed in this post.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Learned it all from you -sunshine !
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Malcolm
Please much as I dont want the Tiree Array it feels rather crass and unfair to hoooraaa for job losses and the pain this causes just to put it proportion 2335 is about 3 times the whole tiree population probably 5 time working population.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Tim – I agree with your sentiments entirely re job losses – sad for all those involved wherever they are – but you should never create artificially/ unreal jobs at other people’s expense – in this case the UK utility bill payer and as you will have gathered from all my posts this year, I consider them much more important.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“artificially/ unreal jobs at other people’s expense” Pretty outragous comments !!! these are people with families, they pay their taxes. there is nothing artifical about wind energy…it has it’s place (not in it’s current guise). I feel politicians in Scotland are mismanaging deployment of wind…but my heart goes out to these folks…they are fabricators to the energy industry…not energy multi-nationals who will not see lay-offs….whatsmore somebody has to pay their dole Malcolme and if they were in the uk that means YOU, ME, US…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I wasn’t aware Karl that Vestas employed thousands in the UK – perhaps you could offer some detail on that. And could you also answer your emails
please.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think I covered that by with this comment…” if they were in the uk ” …I never said they were in the UK.
The thing is some people are now without jobs. (it doesn’t matter where they are)..just as sad as the folks in Argyll who do not have jobs (heather company)same as the folks that were laid off in Campbell Town after the ongoing saga with turbines there too.
Hopefully the folks from Vesta will find other fabrication work…
Anyway Malcolm you are chasing something thhat is not of relevance to the original article….
As for answering emails….you sent me a screen capture of a comment I made, somwhere further up on this page…no question was asked…if it was (?) please ask me again…given I can get 50 plus a day on my private email and around a 100 or so here at work I answer my emails by priority, I always answer my emails if there is something to answer.
Rgds
Karl
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Good luck to anyone who gives Malcolm their email address.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Today:- “As delegates to the Republican National Convention ………the party platform committee has dropped the federal win power tax credit from its policy goals.
Presidential candidate Mitt Romney does not support the tax credit which wind power manufactures such as Vestas depend upon “
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You are right Robert – a lot of people have gained from having my email address inc. NTA, but also everyone else working against the destruction of the Scottish countryside and of course the rip off subsidies supporting useless wind farms.
Karl 37 /7 / 8 – it was in the email.
Something I have never done before Robert – I have counted the viewing figures for my animations which spread the anti turbine facts on youtube and videoproviders – in excess of 6,600 – they can’t all have been the ‘Doc’. Not bad considering they contain no sin, sex, seduction or Scottish politicians with noses in trough.
SR – I see your little red thumbs down – how predictable
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Moray windfarm’s potential impact ‘being played down’
The Press and Journal 24 August 2012 ~~
Members of a Moray community group have claimed the firm behind plans for a controversial windfarm are “playing down” its potential impact.
Representatives of Innes Community Council have produced a 15-page document on proposals for the 19-turbine development at Brown Muir, three miles outside Rothes, off the A941 Elgin to Rothes road.
The public have until August 31 to lodge representations to the proposals, which have been tabled by German firm Vento Ludens. A petition against the project has attracted hundreds of signatures. Due to its scale, the plans have been submitted to the Scottish Government rather than Moray Council.
Innes Community Council’s report highlights a raft of issues.
It criticises online documents published as part of the planning application, claiming they “do not give full and proper information on every stage of the development and construction of the site nor the full decommissioning programme”.
It claims the reports of the plans are “of poor quality”.
Community councillors said they were also concerned that Vento Ludens had not explained what would happen to peat being moved from Brown Muir, or given detail on the carbon footprint of construction vehicles.
The report adds: “No mention is made of views from the A96 AberdeenInverness road, especially that part between Fochabers and Elgin.” It also claims thatdiagrams in the planning application are “not accurate”.
“In our opinion the consultants for the developer have used their photography and writing skills to play down how big an impact this development will have on the landscape and skyline of the northern portion of Moray,” the report adds.
Community councillors also voiced concerns about the heavy concentration of wind turbines in Moray and Aberdeenshire, the impact on wildlife, and any permanent scarring which could be left on the hillside after the development.
Dr Jay Butler, of Vento Ludens, said last night:“We have taken careful note of Innes Community Council’s representation to the Scottish Government and will review the comments made in full and provide a detailed response to the ScottishGovernmentas the planning authority for this application.
“In the meantime, we would wish to emphasise the exhaustive process of preparation and pre-application consultation our application has gone through prior to submission and the great care we have taken to ensure the application complies with all relevant guidance and best practice.”
Karl: The spin, greenwash &corruption of the facts is obviously totally in line with the current SG new guidelines…if it wasnt so blatant and desperate it would be laughable.
Just give me one example of an open and transparent foreign wind energy company set on industrialising our wilder places…?
Karl
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Welcome back onside – Karl
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Just to let those who want to know
You’ve Been Trumped (PG), Tuesday 28th August 2012 -17:30 Oban Phoenix http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_Gq2kj4ryg&feature=player_embedded
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Oh ! Talking about Mr Trump – here’s what a member of the Scottish Parliament had to say in front of the biggest media audience he is ever likely to appear before – a blatant lie but what the hell – it wasn’t the only lie from an MSP that morning ( there is a fault at the video senders end so only stills can be viewed )
http://www.windfarms.me.uk/wind6.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Why there’s only one honest objection to wind farms
Damian Carrington says:
“The daft claim that wind subsidies have driven 50,000 people into fuel poverty exemplifies the dishonesty of most objections”
Re. Patrick Harvie’s thumbnail – it still – by Malcolm’s reckoning – will hide a 154m turbine at 3 miles and a 200m turbine at 4 miles. They really do not occupy much of our visual field.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
http://www.thinkscotland.org/thinkpolitics/articles.html?read_full=11588&article=www.thinkscotland.org
Like the above link RS ????
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
As always SR – body swerving answering a very definite statement and image – the image is metre perfect . I notice how you don’t ask me who else blatantly lied in front of the cameras on that day – a bit close to home for you Eh ?
If I can locate the file I will redo it on your suggested distances and re-post.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Malcolm,
Let’s face it, your endless Youtube images of a flickering lightbulb representing the UK’s wind generated electricity are hardly models of mathematical prcision, are they?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
http://www.thinkscotland.org/thinkpolitics/articles.html?read_full=11588&article=www.thinkscotland.org
RS: So you are saying it is important to be precise ??? The wind power companies are not capable of producing accurate images or visualisations, and they are multi million/billion $ industries….? not one of the SR, not one of them…is it simply that they feel aesthetics are not important…or is it that they realise that aesthetics are so important to the folk who have to live with mega industrial sites…with a surface area many times larger than any coal/nuke or gas powerstations and in areas that are not already industrialised will not be accepted by the majority… so with a bit of jiggery’pokery they LIE ? and the SNP SG not only accept and support but actually advise these behmoth companies TO LIE !!!
On a lighter note: Ref Scotsman “Panda declines cake on first Scottish birthday”…whereas we all know, two Pandas wee eck would want all of the cake…birthday or not. Seems to me humble pie will be on the menu soon enough.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
OK – resolved the Scottish Government’s problems – can’t do anything about SR’s spelling though.
If Mr Salmond can get his friends at the European Offshore Wind Deployment rip off to build the turbines 4 miles offshore then me old mate Donald might spend his £800 million on the rest of his project.
http://www.windfarms.me.uk/wind8.html
Can I go and get my lunch now please !
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
SR – the lightbulb models were totally detailed and accurate – the reason the light was flickering was because of the lack of electricity from the connected wind turbines over the 24 hour period.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Malcolm,
Your idea of ‘detailed and accurate’ and the scientific community’s idea of ‘detailed and accurate’ sadly do not have much in common.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Explain please ! Your connection with the scientific community is what exactly?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Malcolm: your enthusiasm for your cause is to be commended, but ‘detailed’ on its own is not enough, it’s on the ‘accurate’ which I (as a non-scientist) have had cause to criticise your pronouncements. It seems to me that you’re so keen to advance your own cause that you’re inclined to make assumptions without always checking the facts, and to use facts selectively. You could well be damaging your own cause.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Come on Robert – just for once in your life come up with some facts instead these lordly pronouncements from your armchair. What is – or was – not accurate. I have to tell you that my software is accurate to 4 decimal places of a mm and the lie told by wee green Harvie is on video.
As an example of what the anti wind farm groups have to put up with: – the last few sentences are just like you and SR – no facts to answer facts – just the same hot air propaganda every time the Renewable industry is questioned.
http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2012/08/27/wind-farms-didnt-blow-in-a-blizzard-of-apprentices/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Malcolm, you won’t get me spending my time dredging through all your past stuff to find examples of badly researched misapplied half truths – others have already done this, but if my memory serves me correctly I first realised that your presentation of facts could be specious when you compared the undersea cable from the proposed Argyll Array with what you thought was the length of an hv cable project linking Shetland to the mainland – but you just hadn’t bothered to check your facts and had assumed the link would be with Caithness. Your condemnation of your critics seems usually to be baseless, and you seem unwilling to be more careful with your ‘facts’.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
SR – One of the amusing facts on these forums is something Karl referred to above – it is much easier to get people to disagree than agree.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
An improved version of the thumbnail method of judging the height of wind turbines
http://www.windfarms.me.uk/wind8.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Come on SR – there’s probably only the 2 of us left in this – Karl’s on piers – please lets have your comment on 59 – it is absolutely accurate – so await your remarks with interest.
Remember Harvie said that the turbines 1 mile off Donald Trump’s golf course would be no bigger than his thumbnail.
Incidentally one of my sons played Donald’s golf course at the weekend – ‘fandabydosy’ apparently
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Germany building 23 new coal fired Power Stations:-http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/28/germanys-new-renewable-energy-policy/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The only fossil fuel plants that are being built are those committed to, or commenced, before the nuclear phase out was announced.
Germany’s two biggest utilities E.ON and RWE both dismiss the need for additional coal or gas capacity, they say that the current fossil fuel generation will ultimately be relegated to a role of back-up generation for renewables, rather than being called upon to supply “baseload” power.
More info here
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Don’t know why the live address is not working but if you cut and paste into your browser you may get a nasty shock !
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Nothing I found on WUWT would ‘shock’ me. As usual Malcolm you are rpepared to dredge up any old guff from anywhere on the internet without analysing your sources. All that matters to you is that it supports your own narrow agenda.
Anthony Watts is a blogger, weathercaster, non-scientist and paid AGW denier who runs the website wattsupwiththat.com.
He does not have a university qualification and has no climate credentials other than being a radio weather announcer.
Watts is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, which itself is funded by polluting industries seeking to deny climate change to protect their balance sheets.
The article you link to is not even written by Watts, it is a guest post by a little-know South African ‘Business Strategy Consultant ‘
As usual you have not bothered to read the article I linked to, which includes these statements from Germany’s two largest power companies:
“We won’t be building any more gas and coal power generation plants in western Europe, because the market does not need them,” a spokesman for E.ON told reporters at a briefing at the group’s headquarters on Friday. RWE made a similar statement a week earlier.
Germany is convinced it can integrate a high level of renewables into the grid without building extra fossil fuel power stations. You had better get over there and point their error out to them Malcolm.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I would have been very shocked Malcolm, but unfortunately the article is written by a notorious sceptic (Anthony Watts) who is funded by the Heartland Institute. The Heartland Institute is an American ‘think tank’ group who argue that global warming is not occurring but if it is then it may well be beneficial… Heartland also spent a lot of time in the 90’s working with a tobacco giant to show that the effects of second hand tobacco smoke did not pose a health risk. Oh, and the Heartland Institute has also received funding from the Koch brothers.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Oops, sorry to reiterate SR, you’d posted by time I had my piece written!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ooohhh – see how they squeal ! !
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Another article I’m sure you won’t read Malcolm:
Wind power study says opponents’ claims are unfounded
A brand new Report from thinktank IPPR says wind power is an efficient and reliable energy source, contrary to claims made against it.
Reg Platt, an IPPR fellow, said government and local communities were right to scrutinise costs and planning issues, but that the report showed “unequivocally that wind power can significantly reduce carbon emissions, is reliable, poses no threat to energy security and is technically capable of providing a significant proportion of the UK’s electricity with minimal impact on the existing operation of the grid”.
Claims to the contrary are not supported by the evidence, said Platt, who pointed out that the study had been peer-reviewed by Nick Davis, the head of the Institute of Energy at Cardiff University.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
” Dr. Kelvin Kemm is a Nuclear Physicist and business strategy consultant based in Pretoria, South Africa. A member of the International Board of Advisors of the Washington,DC – based Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow,Dr Kemm had been awarded the prestigious Lifetime Achievers Award from the National Science and Technology Forum of South Africa.”
Denegrated by a little know part time web site designer hiding on the Island of Seil on the West Coast of Scotland – and one other.
Yea – well !
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What exactly are his qualifications to speak about the German energy programme? The quotes I provided were from the two biggest German generating companies. It is just conceivable that they know more about it than Dr. Klemm.
He has a degree in physics yes, but works chiefly as a lobbyist/publicist for the climate denial cause. Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) is a right wing climate denial lobbying organisation underwritten financially by big oil and the Scaife Foundation.
Klemm is also a board member of NIASA, the organization representing companies developing nuclear power stations in South Africa, and is in deep with nuclear station designers Westinghouse, PMBR and French company Areva. Naturally he is interested in talking down Germany’s decision to abandon its nuclear programme.
The pretense that Klemm is a disinterested academic is just so much nonsense I am afraid. You need to select your ‘experts’ more carefully.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It’s simply politics, Malcolm – ‘The Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow’ seems to be largely a child of the right, promoted by climate change sceptics and funded by ‘big oil’. That’s oversimplifying it, I know, and it’s got all sorts of academics on board – but I can feel George Orwell stirring in his grave at the name, and it does make me wonder if you’re just another of the climate change deniers determined to arrange the facts to suit the required answer.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0