North Beachmore Wind Development

[jowett63]

The surest way to cease this relentless conveyor of speculative turbine applications is to turn off the subsidy tap that makes these otherwise uneconomic behemoths viable. Halleluya therefore that over a hundred MPs have written to the Chancellor to do just that: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy ... ister.html
Their point is "In these financially straitened times, we think it is unwise to make consumers pay, through taxpayer subsidy, for inefficient and intermittent energy production that typifies onshore wind turbines."
This is another straw in the wind of the growing backlash against these developments, which are a cure for global warming in the same way that the Spanish Inquisition was a cure for heresy.

[north beachmore]

The full planning application for this 84m turbine has been submitted to the planning department. It can be found via the following link.
http://www.argyll-bute.gov.uk/Planning/ ... 1/02521/PP

There is also an outline of an objection letter at www.northbeachmore.webs.com

The more objections we can muster, the higher the chance of stopping this development and others of the same type in their tracks..

with thanks

[north beachmore]

the 50 metre met mast has been erected over the last two days. The scale of this mast may help to illustrate the overall scale of the proposed 84 metre wind turbine.
Please object to this development at A & B planning website

[democat101]

National Trust comes out against 'public menace' of wind farms
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthn ... farms.html

[John Cowan]

Regarding objections to planning proposals:-

1. To count with the Council, each objector needs to give their address, as well as their name. A petition is not enough on its own, no matter how many names or signatures it has, unless it has the individual addresses of the petitioners as well. If it has their addresses as well as their names, then every objector on the list counts individually. This is very important because...
2. If 10 or more objectors register, then the Council Planning Committee and the Lead Planning Officer are required to have a meeting to discuss it. This meeting would be held in public, but the public are not allowed to participate.
3. If 20 or more objectors register, then there has to be a full public hearing, in which the public are allowed to participate.

[north beachmore]

An enlightening article that featured in the Spectator magazine regarding the scam that is wind energy.

http://www.epaw.org/echoes.php?lang=en&article=n80

[Board Admin]

Interesting article, but I'm not sure I'm impressed by anyone who says that shale gas is a better alternative to wind. Certainly Friends of the Earth dont seem too happy with the process that is needed to extract it.
http://www.foe-scotland.org.uk/fracking

[democat101]

Can anyone explain why this development is being described as "Muasdale Community Wind Turbine" ?
And being compared with Gigha Community Wind Turbines?
Whilst I fully support the projects on Gigha which include its community owned wind turbines, there is a fundamental difference between the North Beachmore (Muasdale Community Wind Turbine)privately owned project and Gigha community owned project. This difference couldn't be better described than the following extract, taken from Community Energy Scotland's website which "highlights positive links between Community Land Ownership and Community Energy Developments"

"Professor Hunter commented ‘As a consequence of owning their land, a whole set of communities have been able to capitalise on their local renewable energy resources. There is a huge difference between community ownership and community benefit. Community benefit payments paid by commercial developers can be just a few thousand pounds a year. When communities can own and operate their own wind turbines the income can be transformational."

To read the full article follow this link:-
http://www.communityenergyscotland.org. ... velopments

Gigha community turbines, according to published data should generate an annual income of £150,000 per annum which goes directly to the community.
The North Beachmore (Muasdale Community Wind Turbine) proposal, according to published CES data on a comparable wind turbine project should generate on average £152,000 per annum. The community benefit offered for the immediate community is £5,000 per annum. This is simply because the North Beachmore (Muasdale Community Wind Turbine) development is NOT COMMUNITY OWNED.

Over the expected 25 year life of these turbines the Gigha community will have generated in the region of £3.75 million. What could be better!
North Beachmore (Muasdale Community Wind Turbine) will generate £3.8 million of which the community will gain £125,000.
What could be worse!

[north beachmore]

Sorry democat101, cant think of any reason why the North Beachmore / Muasdale wind turbine proposal has been described as "community". It just aint! But then again, if someone was to buy a couple of fields, does that make them a farmer?

The Scottish Parliament is coming under more pressure everyday to justify its 'green agenda' from many fronts, including within. The following is an interesting take on the 'climate change' arguement which is at the heart of the Executives headlong pursuit of using wind technology to eleviate climate change issues...
http://www.holyrood.com/articles/2012/0 ... ience-bit/


Keep talking!!

[Board Admin]

Lol, another article that likes shale gas! It also promotes nuclear which tbh I once thought would be the best way to provide power in the future. But after Fukishima in Japan I'm not so sure

[sewer]

I am very puzzled by the following-

How is it that a well known local builder with at least two associated companies is now described as being a local farmer.

He certainly has some land at North Beachmore with one plot which has planning permission for a house and two other plots to be developed as crofts. There is also an Alpaca shed with about four alpacas and a number of fields of which one is let out for the grazing of highland cattle.

North Beachmore has not been farmed for over twenty years. There was a very successful restaurant operating there , for a number of years, which must have been visited by most of the locals and many visitors. Food was exceptionally good and there were magnificent views.

The restaurant and surrounding land was sold about five years ago, not as a farm, but with building plots and a number of agricultural fields.
The new land owner then tried to get permission for ten crofts but was un-successful.

Maybe he feels he is a farmer if he is receiving the farming subsidy for the fields he owns.

A wind turbine is his next business venture.

[north beachmore]

Some new information available on website. Follow link to read:-
http://www.northbeachmore.webs.com/

[Han_OH]

I have to say I am very surprised by the influx of support from many of the residents of Gigha. I cannot comprehend how so many intelligent people fail see the fundamental differences between the Gigha community turbines and the proposed turbine at North Beachmore, as described above by north beachmore. I wonder if there has been a case of misinformation, or simply whether they have not done their own research on the proposal.

Also, here are a couple of pictures I have taken in the last couple of days, which should hopefully serve to show that it is not only those at North Beachmore who would be affected by this proposal. Considering the anemometer is 50m high and the proposed height for the turbine is 84m, I find these rather alarming! I didn't expect it to be so high above the hill, and so conspicuous, considering it's such a narrow structure. How imposing would the turbine be?!

The anemometer from the Ferry Road at Tayinloan:


And the anemometer from the heart of Tayinloan, on quite a dull, cloudy day:

[mankind]

The answer to the question at the end of Han_OH's post is 'horrifically'. This turbine would totally dominate the scenery over an alarming area and destroy the scenic nature of this beautiful area. Are the pro-windpower lobby so blinkered that they support every turbine application without judging each on its merits? I think so.

[Bexy]

I totally agree, mankind, some are acceptable, and some are totally ridiculous, this one being the latter!! Can't believe the proposed turbine would be almost double the height and generally a much bigger structure!