Tangy existing copy

Why have the Tories got it in for Onshore Wind?

[Updated disclosure] The short answer, obviously, is votes. Votes from folks who, in general, don’t want their view spoiled. Their view. Spoiled. Actually, let’s be slightly more specific about that: folks who don’t want any view that they deem as important spoiled.

You’ll note here I am completely ignoring the ‘noise’ issue, the wind farm sickness issue, the ornithological issue and the ecological issue. I am even ignoring the subsidy cost/benefit issue. Why? Because in each case you might argue it either way. Well actually, in the case of Windfarm sickness syndrome, there is evidence only one way. And in each case you will take your view according to your overall socio-political standpoint.

So let’s ignore these things for now and talk about the views that wind farms supposedly spoil. Actually, no, let’s not say supposedly, let’s give it an unequivocal ‘spoil’. Let’s say wind turbines have no redeeming features whatsoever on aesthetic grounds. A wind farm, a turbine, one of those new rotating poles, all of them spoil views of nature, of landscape, all of it.

Now consider this. Our climate is changing. It is warming. 97% of scientists agree (it’s like L’Oreal, but only 81 out of 111 agree that the shampoo works – and we believe that don’t we?). To stop this in its tracks we need to generate power cleanly. We can do it in a number of ways: nuclear fission, hydro, solar pv, wind. I am leaving biomass out of the equation here because, as I am sure you agree, the 50-year carbon neutral cycle doesn’t end up helping us in the timescale that we need to act. And there’s limited capacity for Hydro, solar PV uses alot of rare earth materials and nuclear, well, nuclear has lots of issues. Wind though, wind has fewer issues, fewer negatives, but the big one, the humdinger, is the view. The spoiled view. It’s a killer.

Time to consider the voter. The Tory voter – and I am sorry but I am going to generalise here unashamedly, unsupported by specific research, but evidenced by all the demographic studies they publish in various newspapers across this fine United nation we live in – is generally white, middle-class, affluent even, nearing retirement, country-living and probably dead within 25 years.

Do I have to spell it out? My thesis is this: the Tories, understanding that their mandate is built from this type of groundswell, cannot allow the hills around these voters’ homes to be peppered with wind farms – if they did, well, they’d be voted out and some anti-wind, anti-green, anti-antis would get in led by the deeply unpleasant Nigel Farrage. These voters do not want change and they do not want their views ruined, despoiled, raped. But we have already given them that wind farms spoil views haven’t we? But I can’t really leave it there – you didn’t think I would anyway did you? And not only because in my view I think that in this decade, at this time, a stand of turbines is the most beautiful, hopeful, visionary thing a community or a nation can do, but because we’re talking about a temporary installation. That’s right its only temporary. Not permanent. To be removed. Gone.

Because these windfarms will eventually be dismantled. Every single one has to be dismantled. Taken down. The ground, and the view returned to its pristine state of being. This work is built into every business plan ever proposed for any of these installations. It is a condition of planning consent. And these Tory voters (a) will be dead before this happens and (b) will be dead before climate change really bites, and therefore oppose windfarms with their every sinew. They will not have the last years of their life ruined by the despoiling view from their kitchen sink in their £1M+ mansion (yes, yes, generalising for effect, I know it!). What stress and heartache would this cause? Such aesthetically promoted despair? Such deep and abiding sadness? (With my apologies to those that despair and those that are sad, and also those that enjoy looking at windmills through their kitchen window).

If I could say anything to these people, I’d say, stop being so very selfish and see that your view is a worthy sacrifice to the greater good, to your children, your grandchildren, your inheritors… I’d say to the Tories, stop thinking about winning these selfish votes, and think about an economy which is strengthened by a world-class wealth-generating renewables industry – think of the votes of those who’ll be living in this country in 25 years time – they could be your future …

I want to leave you with a further thought. Suppose you felt that commercial forestry was a blight on the landscape. You might think too, using my argument, that that’s OK because on 25-40 years the trees will be gone. Well, in the case of forestry, it’s not the same. What use can you put an area felled of its timber. Um, well, only more commercial forestry. If I were to proclaim a moratorium, it would not be on the temporary forests of metal windmills, it would be on the permanent monoculture of industrial woodlands… (Actually to be fair the forestry industry is actually doing much to change this and may actually end up riding to climate’s rescue – but more of that another time).

In the interests of full disclosure, I am a member of the Scottish Greens, but you guessed that already didn’t you?

UPDATE: And as per comments below, we can see three turbines from our property, and, when the conditions are favourable, hear the soft whump of the blades as they rotate.

C. S. Dixon-Spain

· · · · ·

Related Articles & Comments

  • I doubt very much that the sites of these wind power stations will ever be restored to pristine state, whatever assurances were given. It will probably be found that the, mostly foreign, firms that have built them have ensured that there is no money left to reinstate the sites. The hills will be left with a large network of roads, deep concrete foundations as well as all the other infgrastructure built for these very inefficient devices.

    Most people who I know just hate the things.

    I was amused the other day to see that Edinburgh Minister responsible for wind power stations is also the minister for tourism! You could not make it up!

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 12

    Lundavra July 24, 2015 7:13 pm Reply
  • Well, I’ve never been a tourist to a wind power station yet, but my wife and son have been and quite enjoyed their visit. So their might be a method in the madness.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 9 Thumb down 10

    Murdoch MacKenzie July 24, 2015 9:45 pm Reply
  • Wind turbines on suitable sites are far from inefficient. Lundavra mentions foreign ownership of wind farms and it is true that the level of local ownership in all forms of power generation is very low in this country, unlike in Germany and Denmark. It doesn’t have to be that way. In the village of Fintry – with just over 500 inhabitants – the Fintry Development Trust raised the funds to buy a share of the nearby Earlsburn Array. At present they receive an annual income from this, after loan repayments, of about £50.000, which is used for community projects. In 2022 however, when the loans have been repaid, they will have the problem – as one Trust member put it – of finding something to do with over half a million each year. One wonders why other small communities don’t do the same.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 10 Thumb down 9

    Arthur Blue July 24, 2015 9:52 pm Reply
    • ‘The level of local ownership’ issue has acquired a whole new perspective just south of Inveraray, where the 23 turbines of the 19.32 MW An Suidhe wind farm are now half owned by a consortium of local Authorities – in Germany.

      Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 10 Thumb down 5

      Robert Wakeham July 25, 2015 7:24 pm Reply
  • Perhaps that half million could go to the people whose tourism businesses have been ruined by the blight of windmills? No? Mmmm. I didn’t think so.

    If these windmills are so good, why do they need such masive subsidies?

    Argyll is a land full of people in fuel/energy poverty. These silly windmills have created that poverty.

    Tell me in February, with temparatures well below zero in a windless high pressure area, why you think these idiotic machines are good for the people.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 9

    Once-ler July 24, 2015 11:08 pm Reply
  • It’s over folks ! Conservative policy – as clearly outlined in their manifesto – is killing off the cash machines otherwise known as wind turbines. Also all the subsidy soakers such as solar panels and small hydro schemes. Just a pity we can’t claw back all the money we are wasting on them at the moment – somewhere near £500 million in Scotland alone. The Greens should be castigated for their airy fairy ideas but more importantly, made to take lessons on how to modify well established and successful web sites.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 9

    Malcolm Kirk July 25, 2015 8:27 am Reply
  • The Tories do not have it in for Onshore wind

    The Renewables Industry has always said its long term strategic goal is to be subsidy free.

    Onshore wind is obviously well on the way to achieving this long term strategic goal

    A lot of nonsense has been ‘shouted‘ by the SNP and Scottish Govt protesting at UK Govt dropping ROCs, 12 months earlier than originally planned.

    ROCs was always to be replaced by CfD’s as the subsidy mechanism/regime.

    The SNP and Scottish Govt signed up for a unified UK energy market irrespective of the outcome of the Referendum ie Scottish Govt signed up for CfD’s as the new subsidy mechanism/regime .

    Scottish Govt held a consultation on transition arrangements from ROCS to CfD’s .

    The transition period started earlier this year

    11 of 15 Onshore Windfams awarded CfD’s earlier this year were Scottish Onshore Windfarms.

    The next CfD round is expected in the Autumn.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 6

    rob trythall July 25, 2015 9:53 am Reply
  • Does anyone know if Offshore wind turbines continue to get subsidised by the consumer. If that is the case, surely that subsidy should have gone first as they must be a lot more expensive to set up..

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5

    Murdoch MacKenzie July 25, 2015 11:07 am Reply
    • There was an item on the Today programme this morning on how much is being added to all our energy bills to pay for these subsidies.

      Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 4

      Lundavra July 25, 2015 6:38 pm Reply
      • Someone on the same programme about a week ago voiced the opinion that the really good onshore wind farm sites in England had now been developed, and the less windy places would henceforth be uneconomic to develop without subsidy.
        However, the situation here was said to be very different, with plenty of good windy places that could host new unsubsidised wind power projects (sorry, Malcolm).
        This left me wondering just how profitable some of the ‘plum’ sites in Scotland – already developed with generous government subsidy – might be.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4

        Robert Wakeham July 25, 2015 7:34 pm Reply
        • Robert – unsubsidised is OK with me because nobody in their right mind would take on the debt involved in owning one. Because of the guaranteed subsidy for 25 years no bank would refuse the loan – guaranteed repayment. Try borrowing the money on the basis of a fickle wind and no guaranteed income from subsidies ! Don’t think so.

          Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 10 Thumb down 6

          Malcolm Kirk July 25, 2015 7:44 pm Reply
  • Offshore wind continues to be subsidised via CfD’s.

    Like onshore wind the Renewbales industry is aiming to be subsidy free..some time …when possibly pigs will fly.

    But, if you really believe offshore wind “should have gone first”then make a call to Alex S and Nicola S.

    Whilst Alex S and Nicola S aint too happy about RoCs closing early,if you suggested to them that Offshore Wind ‘should have have gone first’they would have told you to get on your bike.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 5

    rob trythall July 25, 2015 12:17 pm Reply
  • Subsidy or not, cash machines or not, blight on the landscape or not, the point is this: if we don’t put every effort into renewable energy, these debates will become academic. Frankly, if we have to subsidise these installations ongoing, well, why not? They are presently the only game in town – for the abovementioned reasons. And to object to them on their aesthetic impact is, as I say in the article, selfish. A question: would you prefer to subsidise renewables or fossil fuels? Because that’s the choice the Tories are making…

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 9 Thumb down 10

    Charles Dixon-Spain July 25, 2015 1:17 pm Reply
    • I don’t trust the Manmade Climate Change people, they have produced more dodgy statistics than any bent banker and many of them have got very rich on the back of the Manmade Climate Change theories.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 5

      Lundavra July 25, 2015 6:43 pm Reply
    • Charles – I bow to your superior knowledge on this one, as I can only relate to it in layman terms.

      From what I can understand, the majority of research indicates our planet’s weather is about to undergo some pretty drastic climatic changes which could/would have a potentially devastating impact on particular parts of the world.

      In my mind, whether it is manmade or not is largely irrelevant, the fact is as the so called intelligent species on this planet, we have a responsibility to ensure we do everything we can to help alleviate the potential negative impact of climate change.

      We can invest and subsidise wind technology, wave technology and so on, however, are these not simply fill-ins until we develop long term solution eg nuclear fusion for electricity and hydrogen fuel cells for engines.

      Instead of investing in a short-lived stopgaps, would it not make more sense to direct all our resources, and brain power, in to researching and developing genuinely sustainable long term solutions for our planet.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 6

      John M July 25, 2015 8:24 pm Reply
      • There are regularly graphs published showing a steady change going back as long as records exist. We could put every car in the garage and shutdown every coal power station and I doubt whether it would have any discernible effect on the weather. Every prediction of the Manmade Climate Industry has been proved wrong.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 7

        Lundavra July 26, 2015 12:22 am Reply
  • What utter nonsense – gas initially and then nuclear, it being the cleanest form of energy,and then possibly fusion sometime in the future. Germany – the centre of the ‘Green” world – is building new coal fired power stations to use the dirtiest brown coal possible – lignite – what hypocrisy !. They have the highest energy costs in Europe and their electricity supply system is a mess. I quote from a recent letter in the Telegraph ” I advise major manufacturers and have just calculated electricity charges for one factory. Its bill next year will be £575,000 with £120,000 of direct levies to subsidise these sources of electricity. I have not included indirect taxes,such as the cost of pylons and power cables to remote wind installations” Weren’t 700 jobs lost just last week in the steel industry down south partly due to the cost of their electricity ? ?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 7

    Malcolm Kirk July 25, 2015 3:27 pm Reply
    • Indeed, Malcolm. So are Japan, India and China.

      The US is laughing all the way to the bank, CO2 emissions back to 1992 levels and falling fast because they have invested in advanced gas drilling technology – “fracking”. And their electricity is half the price of ours!

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3

      Andrew Argyle July 26, 2015 12:48 am Reply
  • Malcolm Kirk July 25, 2015 7:37 pm Reply
  • For Charles Dixon-Spain –
    I read your article with interest, but I have concerns over your claim that we have no other alternative but wind power. That is very far from the case. America has already stated that by 2020 over 40% of their electricity needs will be met by photoelectric cells.
    The Chinese and Americans have now developed the ability to print photoelectric cells in massive quantities and, as long as the sun shines, all the energy we need is available.
    Wind power is expensive and not reliable.
    The rare earth elements needed to produce the magnets in the turbines (neodymium) are, indeed, rare and expensive. China has a monopoly on the supply and has already used it as a political weapon against the Japanese, whose electric car industry depends upon a supply of neodymium for the super magnets needed.
    The same elements are essential to the production of wind farms. Without these rare earth elements there would be no wind farms.
    You may have read that the life expectancy of a wind farm is about 25 years, and in the interim period these turbines require expensive maintenance. After 25 years they require replacement … or removal. It’s a fair guess that when a wind farm needs replacing or removing it’s the public purse that will be paying for it.
    A triple whammy!
    And … when the wind don’t blow … no energy is produced.
    But the private investors get paid whether the turbines turn or not.
    Where from?
    The public purse again.
    Let us hope the Americans and Chinese are right with their assertions that they can produce 40% of their energy from printed photoelectric cells. Give them a few more years and that may increase to over 70%.
    As long as the sun shines, perhaps we can live without destroying the planet.
    And yes – there is still nuclear power, with the possibility of fusion instead of fission.
    Aye. We would be imitating Nature and creating a little sun.
    That should do it!!

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2

    jimbean July 25, 2015 8:52 pm Reply
    • Why don’t we check whether there’s any convincing evidence that global warming poses a serious threat. I don’t know of any and I’d be interested to see some – as opposed to swivel-eyed prophesies of doom – before we go wrecking economies and inflicting poverty on large tranches of the world’s population where currently none exists by turning the clock back to the energy sources of hundreds of years ago.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 7

      Andrew Argyle July 26, 2015 8:49 am Reply
    • Rare Earth Elements are misnamed, they are not rare at all; the principal problem with mining them is a combination of Chinese hegemony in cornering the market(a very successful industrial policy for them, allowing control of billions of dollars of industrial output and countless more trillions of potential dollars in intellectual property rights), the legacy of the cold war arms race and the chronic disfunction of the US legislature. The US mining industry, in the form of titanium, manganese, phosphate and other mines, dump well over 100% of the world’s REE requirements into their tailings every year; the reason they do this is US legislation deems unprocessed tailings as overburden rather than waste. If the tailings were processed to extract the REEs Thorium would be extracted at the same time, which is a problem, the same problem which obliges the only operational US REE mine to ship its unprocessed ore to Chinese foundries for smelting. In the US Thorium has been regarded as a proliferation risk(i.e. the same as Uranium) since the 1940s, despite the fact it can neither create fission directly nor be used to make a bomb without first going through a reactor.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      db July 29, 2015 2:28 am Reply
  • This may dispel some other myths – from the Scotsman’s letters page:http://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/letters/solar-weakness-1-3840460

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 5

    Malcolm Kirk July 26, 2015 8:03 am Reply
  • The officers, never mind the “rats” are leaving James Hansen’s “sinking ship”, the USS Gore. Even Kevin Trenberth, one of the most notorious of the global warming alarmists, has roundly condemned Hansen’s latest piece of alarmism on rising sea levels:


    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 5

    Andrew Argyle July 26, 2015 8:40 am Reply
    • The Daily Mail as a bizarre story this weekend, claiming that three ‘scientists’ from the Manmade Climate Change industry have been murdered by allegedly oil companies. The best part of the story is that they somehow managed to murder one with a lightning strike! Even the KGB / FSB have not managed that, at least not as far as I aware.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

      Lundavra July 26, 2015 11:43 am Reply
  • Hurrah! To Global Warming sceptics: 97% of all scientists agree. I rest.

    I agree technology will eventually come to our aid with, hopefully, fusion, non-rare earth-based pv etc. etc. but we must reduce emissions now, not in 30 years time, not in 20 years, not in 10 years time, but now. What do we have now? Wind turbines.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 9

    Charles Dixon-Spain July 26, 2015 11:49 am Reply
    • Charles please calm down.

      Carbon emissions, as you demand are coming down now, maybe not as fast as you would like,but they are coming down.

      Even covering the UK with turbines aint gonna achieve what you would appear to want ie ZERO emissions.

      The pro-turbine environment lobby tends to neglect,rationalise,or ignore, that wind turbines onshore or offshore pose environmental issues.

      Note environmental considerations were one the three main reasons Scottish Power (SP) dropped the Tiree Array, yet prior to SP dropping what was to be one of Europe’s biggest offshore wind farms ,the WWF and FOE deafened us with their silence!!

      So less noise,and more balanced debate is required.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3

      rob trythall July 26, 2015 3:29 pm Reply
    • I think the majority of scientists just keep their heads down and don’t want to say anything that could affect their career prospects – I have heard people say that on radio / TV. Others just want to get on the Climate Change industry gravy train.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4

      Lundavra July 26, 2015 4:50 pm Reply
  • Charles – Can I ask what fuel you suggest for baseload stations?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4

    Lowry July 26, 2015 12:02 pm Reply
    • They can us the “bull” produced by the red,blue and yellow Tories.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 7

      Hugh Jazz July 26, 2015 2:13 pm Reply
    • Could it be that Charles doesn’t understand what a Baseload station is and why we need them? Or perhaps he believes that we don’t need any, believing instead that renewables will provide all our energy requirement?

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4

      Lowry July 26, 2015 7:31 pm Reply
  • i think,I think I don’t know what I am saying or in this case writing.
    I think I will have to think about this a bit more.
    I really think so……….!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5

    Charlie Dixon- Portugal July 26, 2015 5:20 pm Reply
    • I think you have been having us on ! No sensible person could offer up the posts you have. On the other hand the ‘cods’ you have made in updating ForArgyll perhaps confirms you lack of understanding of the how the world really works.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5

      Malcolm Kirk July 26, 2015 7:16 pm Reply
      • ‘The cods you have made updating ForArgyll’

        Really, Malcolm? When you yourself have the most outdated, non-mobile-friendly, hideous-looking pigs breakfast of a website for miles around?


        I really don’t think you are in any position to criticise others.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

        Longshanks July 29, 2015 12:30 pm Reply
        • Absolutely correct Longshanks. And it’s because I am so busy with others fighting against windfarms and the despoiling of our country by the SNP that I don’t have time to maintain my own sites. ( Note – we are winning) The qualification is that I don’t advertise and promote the site you mention and have let it go down on the search engines. However I do know how things should be done and this was a ‘cods’. Still think the definition of the text or the font itself should and could be improved

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

          Malcolm Kirk July 30, 2015 5:59 pm Reply
  • Can we do a wee experiment Charles? See that big tall tree in your grounds? When you market the castle in future as (hopefully) a wedding venue or whatever, can you put on the prospectus that the tree, along with say, 10acres, will be razed and a wind turbine erected – to save the planet of course.

    You up for it? Will you share the feedback at a given point in time on whether it made people book, or put them off? MOney where mouth is time!


    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5

    JB July 26, 2015 6:28 pm Reply
    • JB – look around you and you’ll find that wind turbines are built on top of hills, not down in valleys.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

      Robert Wakeham July 26, 2015 9:33 pm Reply
      • Of course, but my point still stands. Of course the purpose of the article is to provoke debate, and that it has done – and done in the knowledge Robert that Charles’s own view will never be sullied because it’s the the bottom of the glen?

        I chose not to delve in to the whole host of inaccuracies in the article, some of which others have picked up…like the hundreds of thousands of tons of concrete left in the land never to be replaced with peat…like the utter nonsense claim that the turbines will be removed in 25years….like the nonsense claim that landscapes will be returned to pristine – in the same way coal companies in Ayrshire did….the ignorance of the fuel poverty these very wind turbines create… slightly hypocritical for a Green wouldn’t you say?

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3

        JB July 26, 2015 9:44 pm Reply
      • Though a few years back there was a fashion for building the monstrosities alongside various public buildings like schools, community halls until it was realised how dangerous it was to have them so near to people. You still see some, stationary of course because they have been disabled though too expensive to remove completely.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3

        Lundavra July 27, 2015 12:13 am Reply
        • Garbage.

          I’ve just been on North Uist. There are wind turbines beside public buildings all over the place, spinning furiously.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

          Longshanks July 29, 2015 12:22 pm Reply
  • Turbines in my back yard: yes, but not likely given present planning constraints. As for its effect on tourism, well, I am not so sure it has an observable effect. There’s an accommodation provider who has good views of a big windfarm in this glen, and the business has not suffered in the slightest (but then that might be because it is a well-run business). Baseload, for now, preferably gas, but even then … Fuel poverty is defined as over 10% of income I think, and frankly if that’s the price of clean energy we should consider paying it as a society – and before you ask, I fall into that classification. And lastly, great spoof of my name…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3

    Charles Dixon-Spain July 27, 2015 11:13 am Reply
    • Sorry everyone, I didn’t disclose all I should have: as a matter of fact I do have views of three turbines from my property and on some nights we can hear the soft whump of the blades turning.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

      Charles Dixon-Spain July 28, 2015 11:08 am Reply
      • Fair enough – integrity proven in that respect then 🙂

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

        JB July 28, 2015 1:04 pm Reply
  • Charles, good to see you putting your cards on the table.

    Now the ratpack has turned on you, you can see the nest of vipers your creation has become.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

    Longshanks July 28, 2015 2:21 pm Reply
    • Longshanks – CHARLES ? ? ?

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      Malcolm Kirk July 28, 2015 6:01 pm Reply
    • LOL. Poor longshanks. You’ll find that this is probably the most interesting debate we’ve managed to have for a while- and the reason being, we don’t have the usual Nationalist trolls who are incapable of putting their thoughts down in a meaningful manner (not, when I say ‘usual’,I do mean a specific few).

      So, rather than try (and fail) to be the smart ass, why don’t you add something meaningful to the debate? After all, as I stated before, the article is deliberately provocative, and it’s got a corresponding reaction. So come on – put up or shut up buddy.

      I’m sure the author is enjoying the banter as much as anyone…

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      JB July 28, 2015 6:49 pm Reply
  • Healthy debate Longshanks, healthy debate.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

    oban4me July 28, 2015 2:50 pm Reply
  • As an engineer, the visibility of wind turbines is the least concerning! Their much more important problems is that they do not reduce carbon emissions to any significant degree (their prime raison d’etre), they are entirely weather dependent and cannot provide reliable electricity (and hence need almost 100% reliable generation back-up), they require perpetual subsidy to justify their construction (subsidies should only be required to start up a “new” technology/product), their construction (source to grid) is significantly more expensive than gas/nuclear (don’t be fooled by the wind industry’s cost comparisons using “levelised” costs (which ignore infrastructure costs – pylons etc – and the cost of having to run back up inefficiently. Then there are issues to the health of those who are unfortunate enough to live close to them. I could go on but that should be enough to challenge idealistic green claims

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2

    George Lindsay July 28, 2015 5:26 pm Reply
    • I wonder how long we’ll have to wait before the technology of viable energy storage methods catches up with the swarm of wind farms.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

      Robert Wakeham July 28, 2015 5:37 pm Reply
    • Indeed, I’m not a fan of the usurious behaviour of EDF with regard to Hinkley C, but even at the rather generous strike rate they obtained it makes offshore wind look costly, no faster to build and the intermittency as yet no closer to being solved(and no prospect of it being so).

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

      db July 29, 2015 2:38 am Reply
    • Sadly there is not a shred of proof for any of your assertions regarding the futility of wind power.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

      Longshanks July 29, 2015 12:14 pm Reply
  • Does anyone know why we are importing wind towers, the cargo ship BBC Atlantic is in Campbeltown for the second time this month unloading wind towers, these are being stored at Machrihanish.
    The BBC Atlantic has come from Germany.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

    richard July 29, 2015 10:03 am Reply
    • The 21 towers for A’Cruach phase 1, north of Lochgilphead, are due on site around now, so maybe that’s where they’re for – and as the 3 towers just being completed for Srondoire, south of Ardrishaig, couldn’t be sourced from Machrihanish due to lack of space in their manufacturing programme, perhaps the same applies to A’Cruach.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

      Robert Wakeham July 29, 2015 1:01 pm Reply
  • A single (very large) wind turbine on a farm near us is apparently causing power surging spikes in neighbouring houses whenever it spins. Imagine their joy.

    Must’ve just cobbled it into the mains with a few zip ties and cable clips, then.


    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

    ClootieDumpling July 31, 2015 9:18 pm Reply
  • These five turbines at the top of the story have been here a week now and I have not seen one of them turn yet. I hope For Argyll is not getting paid subsidies from my bill.
    I got a letter asking me to do my meter readings and I completed them online a fortnight ago, then this morning a guy came round to read them again. That’s the last time I’ll be helping them.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

    Murdoch MacKenzie July 31, 2015 11:44 pm Reply
    • I think they are required to take a reading themselves off the meter every few years.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      Lundavra August 4, 2015 6:42 pm Reply
      • The letter asking me to read the meters said that they had done the readings in January. I’m sure they are just meant to come once a year with the client doing the rest.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        Murdoch MacKenzie August 4, 2015 9:54 pm Reply
  • I see E.ON are trying to bribe the Ardrishaig community by offering them a chance to invest in Allt Rubha Wind Farm at Inverneill.

    Is Lochgilphead included as well as Ardrishaig or do they have to suffer the sight of turbines marring their stunning view and get nothing out of it?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

    Andrew Argyle August 4, 2015 12:30 pm Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *