Machrihanish Offshore Windfarm

[Bertie]

Thanks for that S6MMF, another interesting fact. In your experience is that a normal practice for this kind of development?

[S6MMF]

Hey Bertie, I can't speak for all contractors but the general rule of thumb is that we employ local where possible, I also know that this is the case for the utility company. One of the pressures that should be put towards SSE I guess, however it is obvious that in some areas sub contractural works have no alternative, but when that is the case they contribute to the local economy like all other sub contractors when it involves staying locally in hotels / B&Bs etc

[daisy]

Excellent post, StephenJ. Fundamental problem is that SNH is funded by the Government, so how can they lead the fight against some of these proposals? I found a document they produced in 2005. (It's on their website called "Sensitivity and Capacity of the Scottish Seascape in relation to windfarms.) One of their first assumptions was that they should be at least 8km offshore to minimise visual impact. Well, that's gone well and truly by the wayside, hasn't it?

However much the odds are stacked against successful opposition, I still think we owe it to future generations to stand up and be counted in this fight. If there must be a rush to invest in this soon-t-be-outdated technology, then let's at least argue strongly that it should not ruin such a beautiful corner of the world forever.

And I do mean forever - whilst the applications may talk about a lifespan of 25 years or so, what will happen to these windmills once they become obsolete? I don't expect anyone will want to invest in uprooting them from their deep concrete foundations, so they will remain as rusting hulks in the sea, a constant reminder of our folly.

[A15 NMA]

Well, that's very strange . . . However, the point is that the area, greatly in need of work and regeneration, had been told it would bring benefits but it didn't. The only thing it brought was a blight on the landscape and not in an area of great beauty.

Sorry, it's not strange - but true (fact)

I think Ramsgate and Dunkirk have done very well out of this project with some hotels revenue running into six figures not to mention (again) all the other spin off's..........

[Govangirl]

Well, I’m not going to get into an argument here with you because it’s not about my area. However, I burst out laughing at your assertion that Ramsgate has benefited in the way you have rosily painted. Tonight I have only shown your post to three people: a local fisherman, a local councillor and a local HEO in the Job Centre – all laughed at this idea that there have been benefits to our community. What jobs?

http://thanetstrife.blogspot.com/2009/0 ... -jobs.html

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kent_busine ... _blow.aspx

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8582865.stm

The 300 turbines off the Thanet coast were expected to transform the economy of East Kent, with Ramsgate flagged up as a centre of turbine assembly. This hasn’t happened. I really, really wish that you were right and I hope that one day (because I live in an a very deprived area that desperately needs jobs) there really will be benefits. By all means, promote wind farms, which, after all, is your job, but be realistic about the local benefits.

And have a look at these pictures above, people - ugly, ugly blights on the landscape which makes me weep to imagine how they would look off the coast of the most magical place in the world.

[Kintyre Forum News]

Here are a couple of photos of the proposed site taken from the Scoping Document prepared by Chris Bell of S&SE. (for the purpose of this debate)

[Pans Lass]

One word .....HORRENDOUS !!!! I pray to god this does NOT go ahead!!

[daisy]

And now imagine them against a blue sky, with the morning sun glinting off them.

Or silhouetted against the evning sky in front of a once-beautiful sunset.

Very sad.

[mrn]

Yes, have to agree, it looks terrible. Why not put them up in the hills where they aren't so visible.

We certainly need windfarms but I just can't understand why people can come on here and say the proposed development is fine!

[jowett63]

They look so horrendous because they are outrageously close to shore compared to all the other sites identified in this round - 2km average to the nearest one. They are close to shore as this makes the install so cheap and so the profits big. Last year SSE made £1.29 billion in profit and according to its own forecast is "targeting annual dividend growth of at least 2% above inflation in each year to 2013, and annual above-inflation increases after that".

According to their own scoping document Offshore turbines are economically viable in depths up to 50m. If you look at the bathymetric survey provided with the scoping document the average depth in the bay is 22m and the positions of the turbines are only "Indicative" - they will squeeze as many inshore as possible within the overall area.

The incredible thing is that it is us who are paying them to do this through the Renewables Obligation Certificates subsidy scheme: http://www.globalsubsidies.org/files/as ... 0_pdf5.pdf

Through a levvy on our electricity bills we pay the offshore generators £100 for every Megawatt hour of leccy they generate - this is a 378mw development so simple maths shows that at peak production they will receive nearly £39,000 per hour from us in subsidy (enough SM66 to pay the community bonus off in less than half a day!)

So they could easily afford to locate the turbines in a less lucrative, less harmful area, but this is too good a cash cow opportunity to miss and hey - what are a few "views" anyway - like the man says - we can all drive to Southend!

[In the know]

Just a few point’s I would like to raise for everyone who is using Robin’s Rigg as an example.( please correct me if I’m wrong but this is my understanding)

The Foundations for Robins Rigg were manufactured in Belgium.

The towers and possibly the Nacelle’s were manufactured in Denmark.

The towers and nacelles were shipped to Harland and Wollf in Belfast and all the fitting was done there.

The same towers and nacelles were loaded from there and taken to the site.

Now for that project I don’t see a lot of jobs being created locally from the construction stage. Belfast seemed to be the winner for this project.

I also have a question for those working on these projects. Is Campbeltown Harbour deep enough and big enough to cater for these offshore barges that company’s like A2sea use ? Or are these turbines going to be laid up somewhere else .

[WC1]

Judging by these photographs this is far worse than I ever imagined. We can't allow it.

[Ags]

Living in Machrihanish as we do, we obviously have a good view of the Tangy Turbines. Maybe one of you local emplyees can answer this question which has bothered me for a long time. Out of the 24 turbines at Tangy, why have the 8 from phase 2 never been deemed fit to turn nor been attached to the national grid?? It just makes me wonder why we need more when we have 8 sitting there doing absolutely nothing??

[abbey craig]

I worked on these 8 turbines about 3 years ago Ags,they were designed and made by a Spanish company called Gamesa (i think) they were erected by an irish company called McNallys,and were never commisioned,because of design faults and health and safety issues,i spent about 3 weeks going through a list as long as your arm replaceing certain parts inside the Nacelle and towers.The Spanish site agents on the job were not interested,and some days they woudnt even turn up.

The latest rumour i heard was that they are to be removed sometime soon,and replaced by Siemens towers and Nacelles

[A15 NMA]

[

quote="jowett63"]They look so horrendous because they are outrageously close to shore compared to all the other sites identified in this round - 2km average to the nearest one. They are close to shore as this makes the install so cheap and so the profits big.quote]

Everyone is having a go at SSE here! The crown estate is responsible for allocating all the offshore development areas. SSE can only work with the area available to them.

On the grand scale of things I don't see the distance from shore being a deciding factor with regards to installation costs, whether it be in 10m of water or 40m of water the cost difference would be negligable - the same installation methods/infrastructure would be needed for either.

In the know,

Campbeltown harbour could easily berth the current jack-ups in operation at the moment, I doubt there is enough open space for pre-assembly with the current ferry terminal set-up. Maybe with the proposed harbour extension this could be an option. Campbeltown would need to work hard to secure this unlike Ramsgate who missed the boat (no pun intended).