Machrihanish Offshore Windfarm

[LO]

.... there were other more blatant examples masquerading as car number plates......

....... as opposed to masquerading as a set of initials This is getting to the silly stage now!

Whatever.........

[Ags]

Let's all have a wee calm down and get back to what we should be discussing instead of slagging each other off!! Yes call me a hypocrite again if you like because I spat my dummy out last week too . but this has been a great debate on Kintyre Forum and we are all just getting extremely upset because we are passionate in our own beliefs!! Do what I did last week, and again this week, step back and don't read anything for a couple of days.
Remember the SSE Renewables public meetings, town hall tomorrow and Machrihanish Golf Club on Friday.
Absolutely brilliant photograph Malcolm -Ship thank you for posting that

[WC1]

It's clear that feelings have been running high. A lot of us feel very strongly about the proposed destruction of a spectacular part of the beautiful area where we live. But it's important for our health and well-being that we have beauty around us. I found an interesting paper published by a team at the University of Essex about this. A major part of it focuses on the benefits of physical exercise and the importance of the countryside in enabling people to take exercise, but it also touches on the important contribution of the natural environment in maintaining the mental health of the population. Here are some snippets:-

How does nature make us feel? Much, of course, depends on what else is important in our lives. Is it a
good or a bad day? Irrespective of where we come from, it seems that the presence of living things makes
us feel good. They help us when we feel stressed, and if there is green vegetation, blue sky and water in the
scene, then we like it even more. This idea that the quality of nature affects our mental health is not a new
one, but it has not greatly affected the planning of our urban and rural environments, nor the setting of
public health priorities.

There is substantial evidence that links the natural environment with good physical health and
psychological well-being.

In the face of widespread and growing threats to the natural environment, two major arguments about
the need for conservation have come to dominate: the environment should be conserved for ethical
(Leopold, 1949; Eckersley, 1999) or economic (Costanza et al., 1997; Sandifer et al., 2004) reasons.
Relatively little attention, though, has been paid to the potential emotional and health benefits. Nature
and livings things, it seems, tend to make most people feel good (Kellert and Wilson, 1993; Maller et
al., 2002).

the social and physical environment has long been known to influence mental well-being,
affect behaviour, interpersonal relationships and actual mental states, as well as shape relations with
nature. The design of the built and natural environment thus matters for mental health (Newman,
1980; Freeman, 1984, 1998; Halpern, 1995; Kaplan et al., 1998; Pretty and Ward, 2001).

I have long felt that this idea of the natural beauty of our environment contributing to our mental and emotional well-being (and by implication its destruction being harmful to it) should be at least a part of our deliberations about what SSE are proposing here. I know the dangers of selective quotation, but this paper seems at a first glance to bear out my contention.

[Govangirl]

Sheik, I was categorically NOT referring to anything you said when I mentioned the word 'piffle' - I was talking about the assertion that these turbines would bring jobs and prosperity to Kintyre. We disagree on this (as we usually do! ) but I have found your views interesting and stimulating and intelligent. That's what I meant about a healthy debate. I was simply referring to those on here that I believe are from the companies themselves pushing the scheme. The guy who says he's from the company and says he is from Campbeltown also has a very interesting viewpoint as he obviously must love his hometown yet is pushing for what I see is a horrendous carbuncle. My only strong point, apart from destroying a part of our heritage, is that the promise of jobs is not true - and sorry, it has nothing whatsoever to do with being 'slow to react' either.
And I very much liked the snippets from WC1 too.

[Bobbie En Tejas]

Sorry to burst your bubble Sheik but you were certainly not the target for my post ..

..... and sorry to burst yours LO, you were not the target of my post, it was StephenJ who brought up the initial theory.

..actually, it was me it was a valid question, to ask if there is anyone pushing for it who doesn't have an agenda and isn't going to profit/benefit personally from it. StephenJ posted something that was worth thinking about, whether it pertained to this issue and your backyard or a multitude of other issues and mine.

[bigchang]

I would just like to add that anyone who knows me, will also know that there is know way that I woukld be posting on behalf of any company.

Personally I believe that if this project does not go ahead we may as well bury our heads in the sands at Machrihanish & let other communities reap the benifits, then once again we'll hear white elephant being chanted. It's time people started getting behind projects in this area instead of seeing negatives all the time.

People will still come to walk on the beaches, wherever the wind farm is built.
People will still come to play golf, wherever the wind farm is built.
People will still come on holiday,wherever the wind farm is built.
People will still stay in the villages,wherever the wind farm is built.

This is my opinion so don't start name calling, I also do not hide behind a user name that you do not know, I came on to give my views as this was supposed to be a debate.

But remember years down the line when the younger generation have no job prospects, that we all had the chance to get behind this project & give everyone a decent chance.

[WC1]

People will still come to walk on the beaches, wherever the wind farm is built.
People will still come to play golf, wherever the wind farm is built.
People will still come on holiday,wherever the wind farm is built.
People will still stay in the villages,wherever the wind farm is built.

Only the last sentence of that is likely to be true. Golfers, walkers, tourists of any description, will be deterred by this blot on the seascape. Tourism. a potential source of larger numbers of long-term jobs and of vastly larger revenues to the local economy, will be damaged greatly.

But remember years down the line when the younger generation have no job prospects, that we all had the chance to get behind this project & give everyone a decent chance.

Young people will have the job prospects we all work together to give them. Far better to seek sustainable and sensitive developments that can give jobs to many than agree to a massive monstrosity employing very few.

[StephenJ]

While I agree with Big Chang that the effect on tourism wouldn't be total annihilation, the effect on the possibilities for future development and branding could still be very significant. I would imagine that Machrihanish Dunes would have to rethink their brand significantly. From “unspoiled natural beauty” to “come and see the largest inshore windfarm in Europe” perhaps?

As for Machrihanish Golf Club? “The best first tee in the world?” Might have to re-think that one…

It seems to me that a lot of people are so resigned to economic depression in the area that ANY new development would be welcomed with open arms, regardless of the effect on the very fragile existing economy and the natural environment. New Tesco that is guaranteed to devastate local traders? “Say yes, because we’ll get a new creamery.” What next? A nuclear power station in Carradale Glen? “Aye, great, we might get some scraps from the table.” Turn Beinn Ghuilean into a strip mine? “No bother, my boy will be able to get a job manual labouring.” Are these types of projects really the best that we can hope for for the area? It’s not even as if the local economic benefit is guaranteed in this case, it is all hypothetical.

S6MMF,
Your posts were indeed informative.

I fully accept that it is possible that you wrote your 1500 word essay of pro-windfarm propaganda (and energetic subsequent replies) out of personal self-interest in the success of windfarm projects in general, rather than because you were paid to do so by a third party.

Of course not everyone who is in favour, or on the fence, is "on the payroll". The very idea is ludicrous. However, the idea that a vast media management budget isn't built into the opportunity costs of a contentious, multi-billion pound project is equally ludicrous. Blogs and forums have a clear, growing influence on mindshare and media agencies are well aware of this.

Having read your posts again, I really can't understand why you can't understand some people's cynicism about your "golden egg" slant on things.

Using your figures and the ones from the referenced websites, this project will generate close to £3.5 billion of electricity revenue (at today's prices) over it's proposed lifespan. If you really think that local community rolling over quickly with no fuss is the way to go, what are you saying the attendant benefits would be?

A wee donation to the lifeboat, perhaps a sponsorship deal for the pipe band, music festival and/or local football (that’ll keep the locals sweet!), and a fund to distribute 0.03%(!) of the total economic product while putting up with 99.99% of the downside and other unquantifiable negatives? If you think that represents is a good deal, then you must be either not thinking it through or ignoring the facts deliberately.

Those aren't benefits. On a project of this size, 1/3500th is a rounding error. If you are genuinely fond of the area, and still think you can argue that your figures represent a good deal for the community in the grand scheme of things, I despair. You sound like a SSE shareholder.

[John S]

Learned today at the consultation event that the actual site was not identified by crown estates, but crown estates opened up Scottish territorial waters for bids from power companies for sighting offshore. (or inshore apparently) SSE identified this site themselves and crown estates accepted their bid to develop it without any notion for the effect on other economic activity.

This will be the strongest ever test of Scottish Planning Legislation but it will only be tested if sufficient people take up the cause to stop this development in its tracks. The only motivation for this location is minimising the development cost and maximising the efficiency of the wind, leading to greater profits to the company and its shareholders.

Te benefits to the community are totally unknown, the risks unmeasured. The mere fact that this is inshore rather than off shore means the interaction of this type of development with a costal environment is completely unknown and therefore not possible to model. Move it to the Clyde estuary.

[WC1]

Te benefits to the community are totally unknown, the risks unmeasured

Two points from SSE personnel at the exhibition in answer to my questions may be of interest.

Firstly, "SSE has no policy for providing community benefits in relation to offshore windfarms. We do for ones on land, but not for offshore."

Secondly, from their 'landscape architect', "There is no way of reducing the adverse impact this will have on the landscape" (not her exact words but pretty close to them). She also said that even by their own criteria the Machrihanish area is at the highest level of 'landscape sensitivity'.

As a final point, none of their people could tell me how to change my gas and electricity provider (currently SSE). I'll just have to Google that, then . . .

[John S]

Here is an interesting website from the ARC Consortium claiming to represent The Community in the development of these offshore proposals.

http://islayenergytrust.wordpress.com/a ... onsortium/

Having looked at the work they are undertaking I see no representation which says that consideration should be given to the development not going ahead - to quote the recommendations in their impact assessment of 5th Feb 2010 -

"it is agreed to work in partnership towards the successful development of the offshore
wind farms with a positive balance of benefit to all."

To quote one of the conclusions of the assessment -

The current view within the communities is generally positive although there will be
differences of opinion, concerns and degrees of support there is a commitment to work with
the developers and other stakeholders to create a ‘win-win’ outcome to this significant
opportunity.

How are the views of the people totally against this development being represented by ARC?

[WC1]

More to the point, who are the members of the "Kintyre Energy Trust" and of the "Argyll Renewable Communities Consortium"? If there are groups or individuals purporting to represent Kintyre on these bodies, surely we should know who they are and how got into these positions.

[WC1]

Re Kintyre Energy Trust, a quick Google search came up with this information from the Ileach:-

"The Kintyre Energy Trust is a community group set up to progress renewable energy projects across Kintyre for the benefit of the community of Kintyre.

Contact: Chair, Mary Turner"

[jowett63]

I attended the Town Hall meeting and found it very informative from a learning about the process of how the investigation/consultation approvals side of things will go. The folk were very open and honest about all the things they cannot give us definitive information on - like the type of turbines, their actual location, the investments they will guarantee for kintyre etc. They were open about the fact they chose the area as it is the easiest to develop and so promises a least cost quickest implemented solution. But fair play - they could have waited until they had firmed up their proposals before coming to town so are between a rock and a hard place and I respect them for coming and having the spirit to do it.

What really did get my goat was those outrageously doctored photomontages with either bright backlit sunlight or a grey miasma obscuring the turbines to the point of rendering them invisible. I have written to Jim Mather asking that an independent company be asked to give us a truthful preview of what we could be opening our curtains to for the next 3 decades.

Oh and anyone who thinks 105 400ft turbines covering 70 square km will not deter tourists is in denial - these are the only tourists who won't care about such an eyesore 3km off of middle beach:

[RonanH]

Have you read this?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/g ... irc-report