«   |   »

Keep Rannoch Wild – My personal objection

by backpackingbongos

At the tail end of last year I wrote a very brief blog post after finding out that there was a proposal to build a large wind farm on the edge of Rannoch Moor. The application for the Talladh-a-Bheithe wind farm has now been submitted. This is for twenty four wind turbines, each 410 feet high. The location is between Lochs Rannoch and Ericht, slap bang in the middle of one the finest landscapes in the UK.

The excellent Keep Rannoch Wild website has far more information than I can include in this post. I recommend that you follow this link here to have a look at what is proposed and the impact that it will have.

If you object to this development in the midst of such an iconic landscape I urge you to spend a few minutes making that objection known. A letter outlining your objections does not have to be big, long or clever. Just write what you think about the proposals. Details of how to do this is on the Keep Rannoch Wild Website.

Whilst my dinner was in the oven this evening I fired off a letter, twenty minutes and the job was done. This is my effort. Every objection counts.

 

 

Energy Consents and Deployment Unit
Scottish Government
4th Floor
5 Atlantic Quay
150 Broomielaw
Glasgow
G2 8LU
Dear Sir / Madam

Application for a Windfarm at Talladh-a-Bheithe, Rannoch.

I write to object to the above application by Eventus Duurzaam BV for consent under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 to construct a windfarm on a site at Talladh-a-Bheithe, Rannoch.

The word ‘Rannoch’ in my mind sums up all that is special about the Scottish Highlands. The word alone bring images of wide open landscapes, a place to escape from the hustle and bustle of the modern world.

On the 1st August 1997 my love affair with the Scottish Highlands started on the hills, moors and mountains of the Central Highlands. I caught a train to Rannoch station and with a heavy rucksack set out on the long walk to the isolated bothy that is located below the southern slopes of Ben Alder. Over the next couple of days I climbed Ben Alder itself along with many of the surrounding hills. I eventually caught the train home from Corrour station.

As a city dweller what struck me was the sense of scale and space. I had never experienced a landscape that was both so large and empty. The scale took my breath away. I could not believe that on such a small crowded island you could stand on a mountain that was a whole days walk from the nearest road. That mountain was Ben Alder and from the summit there was literally no sign of human interference. Not wilderness in the purest sense but about as wild as it is possible to get in the UK.

The fact that the date of this trip is recorded re-enforces the impression the area had on me.

Those few days in the Rannoch area kindled an obsession with the mountains and remoter corners of the Scottish Highlands. Over the following years I have visited the Rannoch area many times. The main reason for returning is the freedom to walk and camp amongst such a large and unspoilt landscape.

I am therefore saddened to hear of an application to place twenty four moving structures, each 410 feet high right in the middle of such an iconic area. Rannoch is to many people the heart of the Highlands. The walk that I did all those years ago would if the application was given the go ahead be dominated by not only the turbines but the infrastructure such as roads that will need to be constructed.

If the turbines were built I do not think that there would be a reason for many tourists to visit. I doubt that I could return. What would happen to the many small businesses that cater for hillwalkers and mountaineers in this isolated area?

Scottish Government planning policy aims to support renewable energy developments but not at any cost and not indiscriminately at any location. Schedule 9 of the Electricity Act places on the ‘developer’ a duty to have regard to the desirability of preserving natural beauty, and the current Scottish Planning Policy (June 2014) states ‘Wild land character is displayed in some of Scotland’s remoter upland, mountain and coastal areas, which are very sensitive to any form of intrusive human activity and have little or no capacity to accept new development. Plans should identify and safeguard the character of areas of wild land as identified on the 2014 SNH map of wild land areas.’ In my view this guidance applies fully to the proposed site which lies within the ‘Wild Land Area 14’ on the 2014 SNH map: mitigation would make little difference in this case due to the topography, and the visual intrusions into magnificent scenery would be too great a price to pay.

As the proposed development is within Wild Land Area 14 of the SNH 2014 map and is on the edge of the Rannoch and Glen Lyon National Scenic Area, this proposal should not be allowed to proceed.

Wild land is a valuable asset that should be cherished. This is an inappropriate setting for a large-scale industrial site. I therefore urge that you reject this planning application.
Yours faithfully,

James Boulter

Posted on July 8, 2014 at 6:41 pm in Random Pish   |  RSS feed |   Reply   |   Trackback URL

Tags:

56 Comments to “Keep Rannoch Wild – My personal objection”

    
  1. Ruth Revell
    July 8, 2014 at 7:05 pm

    Am I naive in wondering why they can’t just have them in urban locations/on top of residential houses for example? It would be a travesty to have them on Rannoch Moor 😦

    Reply
    • backpackingbongos
      July 9, 2014 at 11:11 am

      It would indeed be a travesty Ruth. Unfortunately a 410ft wind turbine would not fit on a residential house. I do however believe that more should be made of small scale local energy production. Situating wind farms in wild areas for most people is out of sight out of mind. I have always thought that putting a turbine every couple of hundred metres along the M25 would be a nice idea………

      Reply
  2. Willem Fox
    July 8, 2014 at 7:20 pm

    Excellent piece, James.
    Hope it works out well!

    Willem

    Reply
  3. Mart in the Hills
    July 9, 2014 at 4:11 am

    Well written, Rannoch is wilderness & they should be doing everything in their powers to keep it that way.

    Reply
  4. David
    July 9, 2014 at 6:26 am

    Sent my objection as well James, although as the area is designated “wild land” it should be refused anyway. That said nothing is safe from these people and we need to keep the pressure up in every area they try to desecrate.

    Reply
  5. Robin
    July 9, 2014 at 8:15 am

    Excellent letter. If they give marks for eloquence, then your letter should see them slap down this proposal. I shall be writing a letter soon. I hope that someone takes notice.

    Reply
  6. Peter Macleod
    July 9, 2014 at 10:38 am

    Very well said. I certainly agree that a wilderness should remain wild as we have precious few places that are truly wild. I will make the effort to write a letter also.

    Reply
    • backpackingbongos
      July 9, 2014 at 11:15 am

      Once they are lost they are lost Peter. Just a few lines in a letter will suffice to be counted as an objection.

      Reply
  7. Noel Darlow (@noeldarlow)
    July 9, 2014 at 2:11 pm

    If you understand what’s at stake, there is no possible argument which could overrule the urgent need to reduce carbon emissions. Some spoiled views just do not register in the balance when you consider the genuinely devastating effects of business as usual.

    As I see it, objectors to all such developments on wild land must answer the following question: is an alternative site available with equivalent energy production and emissions reduction potential? If not you must withdraw your objections.

    Reply
    • backpackingbongos
      July 9, 2014 at 8:34 pm

      Gosh you are so right and I have been so naive……………

      Reply
      • Noel Darlow (@noeldarlow)
        July 10, 2014 at 4:19 pm

        In fact you really are being extremely naive with respect to conservation issues.

        Wind farms do not actually destroy anything. When you drill down through the hyperbole, we are mostly only talking about some spoiled views.

        By contrast, the effects of unmitigated climate change will be truly catastrophic. This threatens a mass extinction possibly with the loss of a third of the earth’s species – perhaps more. The rate of biodiversity recovery following mass extinction events has been studied by examining the fossil record (Kirchner 2000). This suggests that it would take several million to a few tens of millions of years to be restored. Note: this is not recovery of similar population levels of the species we know today but of equivalently rich and diverse environments. Once a species is gone it’s gone forever.

        This kind of time period is very likely longer than the expected lifetime of our own species and so, if we fail to cut carbon emissions hard and fast now, we will condemn those who come after us to a denuded, relatively barren earth for all of the rest of human history.

        By contrast, wind farms are not permanent features. I would imagine that a first wave of land-based turbines would be scaled back in the future as we move some offshore or other renewables become more competitive – solar is surging ahead for example. A few decades after a wind farm has been dismantled, you would hardly be able to tell it was ever there.

        Thus, it is not possible to make a conservation argument against wind. Mass extinction trumps anything you could possibly come up with. We have to stop objecting to wind developments and we have to stop supporting organisations like the RSPB and JMT who campaign against them.

        I don’t want to change the mood and atmosphere of Scotland’s wild places any more than you do but I do know that we have no choice.

  8. Noel Darlow (@noeldarlow)
    July 9, 2014 at 2:19 pm

    @Ruth Revell

    The amount of energy in the wind is proportional to the cube of the wind speed. This means that locations with larger average wind speeds have significantly greater potential as wind farm sites. It’s a bit like the difference between foraging for food in a forest and foraging for food in Tesco.

    When you look at a wind map of the UK, coastal and upland areas have significantly higher average wind speeds and so this is where wind turbines have to be located in order to be most efficient. Unfortunately this also coincides with much of our wild land in Scotland.

    As a long-time bothier and backpacker who loves the Scottish landscape, I don’t take this lightly but I do know it must be done.

    Reply
    • David
      July 10, 2014 at 8:24 am

      Noel you say you are a long time bothier who loves the Scottish landscape. I think you are mistaking love for something much, much less. If you loved the landscape you would care about it, fight to preserve it and in no way would stand by and watch its steady desecration. Destroying one part of our environment in order to protect another on the vague promise that it might slow climate change is naive to say the least. As others have said we are poles apart and I doubt anything we say will change your mind so I will stop there.

      Reply
      • Noel Darlow (@noeldarlow)
        July 10, 2014 at 4:37 pm

        I’ve been on more bothy trips than I can even remember – I even looked after Camasunary on Skye for a while. When I was an MBA trustee, I constantly used to argue about keeping bothies as simple, basic facilities with low publicity so as not to cause any inappropriate, creeping development of wild places. I’ve sat and watched the northern lights on west highland beaches. I’ve walked across Loch A’an in the middle of winter. I’ve camped on top of summits in the remotest parts of the country to watch midsummer sunsets. I’ve seen sea-beams glitter next to the Tannhausen gate… OK not that one but trust me: I’ve got lots of treasured memories of the wild places and I feel incredibly lucky to have been born in Scotland with all this on my doorstep, waiting to be explored.

        There would have to be something pretty serious to overrule how I feel about the wild places and unfortunately, there is – see my comments above.

  9. Martin Rye
    July 9, 2014 at 8:42 pm

    Noel the carbon footprint to build them is too high, running costs too high, return in affordable energy too little (they work sporadically) and they damage landscape and wildlife.

    Investing in homes to need less energy, and produce less carbon emissions is a far better way to manage the issues, as well as reducing energy consumption without damaging wild land. Building subsidised wind farms to produce expensive energy is not a solution that is sustainable.

    Make homes need a lot less energy, be efficient, and sustainable is an achievable and wildland friendly solution.

    Reply
    • Andrew W
      July 9, 2014 at 9:01 pm

      Well said James.
      Unfortunately Noel has a different opinion.
      He is of course entitled to it.
      He may comment here because it is an open portal.
      But Noel.. You have made your point.
      Don’t labour the issue sir, because it is unlikely that anyone here will agree with you.
      Alan Sloman will be along shortly to destroy any argument you can make, or could make.
      We know we need an alternative, but destruction of our wilderness which has taken millions of years to evolve is not it. Especially with such a flawed technology.
      Anyway, nice one James.
      I am objecting too.
      Don’t reply Noel.
      I won’t be reading it.
      You may as well go and shout at your wall.
      Nothing personal I am sure you are a nice chap. Opinions differ. 😉

      Reply
    • Noel Darlow (@noeldarlow)
      July 10, 2014 at 4:43 pm

      In 2014 Scotland produced 40% of total electricity demand from renewables, mostly wind. Wind works. We can see it working in our own country and all over Europe. Intemittency is an issue but nothing like the issue it’s made out to be. A Europe-wide grid, also incuding parts of North Africa, could be built right now and would solve it at a stroke.

      Reducing energy consumption is also important but it’s not an either/or choice. We have to do both – and anything else we can possibly think of. However hard it may be to radically alter our patterns of energy generation and consumption, we have to face up to the fact that failure to act now only stores up worse problems for the future.

      Reply
  10. Robin
    July 9, 2014 at 9:37 pm

    Funny old game. Trash the wilderness to save the planet. Sorry, Noel, completely disagree with you. I shall be writing a letter to object to this desecration.

    Reply
  11. Carl Mynott
    July 9, 2014 at 9:58 pm

    Dear Noel, *sighs*, you just don’t get it, sir.

    The only reason we try to save the planet is for us and our offspring. If we demolish all of the good bits (wilderness) and leave only the bad bits (concrete and metal) then we have lost the battle.

    I’ve used the comparison before (and it still stands) of a face full of post-adolescent acne (wind turbines/solar arrays etc) versus an incidental boil tucked behind the ear (nuclear etc). The former will ruin your life, the latter will merely be an irritation.

    Hope that helps.

    Much love,

    Carl.

    Reply
  12. John Meed
    July 10, 2014 at 11:52 am

    It’s a vexed question, James. I agree with Noel that we do need more wind- and solar-powered electricity. But do we want them in our favourite places? Would I really want a wind farm on my own local patch (http://www.johnmeed.net/nine-wells/)? I’m not sure.
    We need more imaginative thinking about the issue. Your suggestions of turbines along motorways, HS2, etc makes sense to me. And what about more community wind farms (see for example http://www.westmill.coop/westmill_aboutus.asp)? They give local people the benefits of having turbines nearby, rather than simply fuelling the profits of another energy giant.
    Cheers
    John

    Reply
  13. David (@FellBound)
    July 10, 2014 at 7:43 pm

    Interesting discussion! Noel’s arguments are based on a questionable (at best) series of premises, though. They smack of that all pervasive “there is a problem so something must be done quickly” argument. The sort of thing thinking that led to, say, a war against Iraq, calls to intervene in Syria, or Libya or, at another level, useless legislation to control dangerous dogs.

    I am prepared to accept that carbon emissions are causing climate change and thus, that carbon emissions should be reduced. However:

    If the UK cut its carbon emissions to zero (next to impossible of course) it would be a pinprick given the rest of the world’s emissions. This, in itself, is is no reason for us not cutting our emissions, but we shouldn’t pretend that any action we take in the UK will save the planet. Further, if we make our economy less productive it will mean greater industrial development elsewhere in the world, and so potentially cause even greater carbon emissions in other places

    Noel assumes that wind turbines will make a significant difference to carbon emissions and his argument is based on that. That is highly questionable. Significant carbon is used in simply building the things. They are not very effective, and building them on peat destroys a major carbon sink.

    It is true that wind turbines will be more effective where the wind blows more constantly eg the Highlands. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, they are 10 times more effective in the Highlands than in built up areas. I would rather see 10 times the number of turbines in urban areas, on industrial estates, around harbours and ports, alongside motorways and rail lines etc rather than putting them in our few remaining wilderness areas.

    There are alternatives. How about investing far more in carbon reduction measures, as pointed out by Martin Rye above? How about ensuring every new building has a small wind turbine on the roof, together with solar panels? How about putting solar panels on every building in London and the south east where there are most hours of sunshine? How about solar farms on the rural urban fringes of southern and eastern England? What about tidal power? What about wave power? What about nuclear power (I used to be dead against this but have changed my views over the last 40 years)? What about geothermal power?

    We need to save the planet but we need thought through strategies, not knee jerk reactions. I want a planet worth saving, one in which our bodies AND our souls can thrive.

    Reply
    • Noel Darlow (@noeldarlow)
      July 10, 2014 at 9:48 pm

      Claiming that the UK can’t affect global warming is a thoroughly amoral argument – see Tragedy of the Commons.

      If the ship is sinking we all have to bail just as fast as we can. Nothing is more certain to guarantee that the ship will sink than someone who insists that they won’t do anything to help because they don’t think someone else is doing their fair share. This is not the way that grand, co-operative enterprises get off the ground. It is perfectly possible to create global agreements and, as one of the world’s major historical polluters, we have a duty to take a lead.

      Wind turbines do significantly reduce emissions through their lifetime and the windier the site, the more carbon-free energy they produce. The energy in the wind is proportional to the cube of wind speed – which is why rooftop turbines are a non-starter. Small increases in average annual wind-speed result in big increases in harvestable energy. If you look at a wind map of the UK you can see that coastal and upland areas are the prime sites for wind farms.

      Solar shows great promise – even in a country like Scotland. I would envision a first wave of turbines making significant encroachments into “wild” land but being scaled back in later decades as some are moved offshore and technological developments with other renewables such as solar possibly begin to provide significant amounts of energy. How much of the industrial architecture of the 18th or 19th centuries survives to this day? Much of the development I would like to see will be temporary, at least in a historical context. There will be no lasting environmental impact – and precious little even while they are operating, if we’re honest about it.

      I have no objections to nuclear except that it’s doubtful if this can compete with rapid developments in renewables technology. If it could be shown they are good value then fine: build a dozen.

      We have known about global warming for decades and done nothing. Meanwhile innately conservative estimates of the consequences keep getting revised upwards. For example, the West Antarctic ice sheet was recently discovered to be in a state of terminal collapse which means that 10-12ft of sea level rise is now inevitable (over several centuries) and similar vulnerabilities of Greenland glaciers to warming undersea currents exist will add even more.

      There is nothing “knee-jerk” about the need for urgent action. It’s already too late to escape all of the consequences of a sharp global warming pulse. All we can do is try to avoid the really scary stuff – such as a mass extinction event. We have no choice but to cut emissions hard and fast and we will have to make sacrifices to do it.

      Reply
      • britishwildlifetales
        July 11, 2014 at 6:32 am

        What a lot of sensationlism.

        So we die off, over a very long (by human standards) timeframe.

        Who cares?

        Ps. What has cost got to with whether nuclear is good or bad? I thought this was about the planet, no?

  14. alan.sloman
    July 10, 2014 at 8:04 pm

    Noel Darlow:

    Apparently an expert on the environment.
    An expert on Man Made Global Warming (let’s not be coy about “climate change”, eh?)
    An expert on the probable consequences of Man Made Global Warming.
    An expert in species extinction.
    An expert in the field of wind turbine efficiency.
    An expert on the value we place on land, love and possibly the sex life of hamsters?

    Listen, Noel. I’ll put this simply, as you seem to have very little grasp on reality.

    I could take you to pieces on virtually every single utterance you have led us to believe as fact, but life’s too short and I hate wrestling with pigs – you just both end up getting covered in shit.

    So – I’ll just take issue with one of your long list of reasons to support wind turbines in Scotland’s wild places.

    You obviously believe that the world is warming and that the cause of it is man made and that it is carbon dioxide that’s causing this rise in temperature. You obviously also believe that wind turbines built in the Scottish Highlands will reduce man’s output of carbon dioxide, which means that it’s okay to trash a landscape for well over a generation. Actually it’s forever, but let’s not quibble over a few millennia.

    Well, I’m sorry to have to tell you Neil, that wind turbines built on peat soils save no carbon dioxide whatsoever!

    Now read that again: I have just told you that wind turbines built on peat soils save no carbon dioxide whatsoever!

    I repeated it just to let it sink in. A good conference speaker (as I’m sure you’ll know) repeats important points three times in their speeches. So for good measure, I’ll say it again at the end of this comment.

    The Scottish Government paid researchers at Aberdeen University (Dr Jo Smith, Dr Dali Nayak and Prof Pete Smith) to come up with this stunning conclusion. However, the Scottish Government didn’t like this conclusion, as it meant that the whole raison d’etre for building wind farms in the Highlands was shot-through.

    So they ignored it.

    So let’s not hear any more rubbish about how much you love the Highlands. Join with James and everyone else who is fighting this wind farm and do something positive for the Scotland you love.

    Now – all together – “Wind turbines built on peat soils save no carbon dioxide whatsoever!

    Reply
  15. Louise
    July 10, 2014 at 8:41 pm

    I would just like to join in here, firstly to thank James for his excellent letter of objection. Mostly I would like to say that none of us here at Rannoch are against renewable energy. All of the power for the area is generated by hydro stations, these have been running for years, the one thing we are not short of is water! There is so much capacity here for hydro power, unfortunately there’s not millions £ in subsidies available for the developers or land owners for hydro like there is for wind farms. Hydro is much more reliable than wind and the stations can be sympathetically built in the landscape (just look at Cruachan).

    The salient points about Rannoch in particular apart from the obvious visual and wildlife effects are the questions about how much carbon is saved by building a large wind farm on peat, it is questionable whether the wind farm will ever pay back the carbon released from digging up the blanket peat. There is then the problem of the 24,000 tonnes of concrete and 12,000 tonnes of steel that will be used for the turbine bases which will be left there forever underground, that amount of concrete is not environmentally friendly. I will let anyone who is really interested to do their own research into the facts about this particular wind farm but I don’t think you will convince the residents of Rannoch that this development has anything to do with saving the planet and not for the ££££££ for the developers and land owners.

    Reply
  16. Robin
    July 11, 2014 at 10:58 am

    Noel, just to let you know, I’ve just sent my objection 🙂

    Reply
      • backpackingbongos
        July 11, 2014 at 12:46 pm

        Noel could I respectfully ask that you now stop commenting. Otherwise we will be going round in never ending circles. You have made your point of which you are entitled to, leave it at that.

      • Noel Darlow (@noeldarlow)
        July 11, 2014 at 3:55 pm

        Did I break some rule about posting?

        I don’t believe my conduct is on trial here – but yours is. You do not live in Scotland but nevertheless you are trying to stop a much-needed renewable energy development which is very important to our country’s future.

        If you wanted to do that in private you were free to do so but you chose to do it in public and you have also encouraged others to object. There is no honest reason to seek to exclude people from the consequent discussion if they are expressing a reasonable point of view and have taken the trouble to explain why they have arrived at that position – as I believe I have.

        The problem you have is that you are injecting your own emotional attachment – which I do share, oddly enough – into what is primarily a scientific discussion. If global warming is not occurring, then I am wrong. If rates of speciation and biodiversity recovery are better than I have stated, then I am wrong – and if you want to show that I am wrong on either point you will have to do it with a valid argument which can be traced back to real, published science.

        If not, any disruption caused by temporary industrial structures cannot reasonably be said to outweigh the prospect of a mass extinction.

  17. akkw1954
    July 11, 2014 at 6:11 pm

    OH My GOD…

    I am converted!

    Suddenly I see it all.
    Of course you are right Noel
    ON EVERYTHING.
    We must destroy our wild land, to save the planet.
    And Scotland is leading the way..
    I have been so naive to not see the TRUTH before me!

    I am converted!

    Yes, I know, am lying.

    No, I haven’t read any of your posts.

    Democracy is a wonderful thing isn’t it 🙂

    But, as James says..

    Enough already.
    No one here is listening, or cares about your opinion.

    We all CRAVE EXTINCTION HERE, because Mankind is a fundamentally flawed species!

    100 years from now, they will look back at the Wind Myth, and say
    “What the **** did they think they were doing”

    Reply
  18. Martin Rye
    July 11, 2014 at 6:13 pm

    Noel maybe James will delete and bollick me for this but I am going to say it anyway:

    You say:

    “You do not live in Scotland but nevertheless you are trying to stop a much-needed renewable energy development which is very important to our country’s future”

    I say:

    Take your nationalist clap-trap and stick it where the sun doesn’t shine.

    We live right now in a UNION. Hello you moron. Your elected MP’s vote on things effecting me in England. Yet you say we cannot have a voice back on the protection of land we value. We are in a UNION still (you aint voted no yet) you arrogant twerp.

    So go take you so called “expert” opinion and jog on tucking your nationalist crap under your arm.

    Reply
    • Noel Darlow (@noeldarlow)
      July 11, 2014 at 7:04 pm

      Personally I wouldn’t dream of interfering in developments which might affect Welsh scenery or Cornish scenery etc. Unless there were some overriding national interest, that’s not for me to say.

      Maybe we will meet up some time and you can explain to my face what you mean by “nationalist moron”.

      Reply
      • alan.sloman
        July 11, 2014 at 7:22 pm

        I expect you’ll be meeting a queue of British hillwalkers who all love the wild places in Scotland, Noel.
        I would love to be at the head of that queue.
        I note that you have absolutely no answer whatsoever to the fact that wind turbines built on peat soils save no carbon dioxide.
        Your silence is golden.

      • Martin Rye
        July 11, 2014 at 7:58 pm

        moron

        1. a foolish or stupid person

        Hope that is helpful Noel. Like I said UNION is somewhat lost on you, or the fact Scotlands MP”s do have a say on what happens in England. But why I deduced your a “moron” is simply the fact you objected based on a identity of living in Scotland to have a voice on the matter and dismissed others who do not. You failed to see the UNION you live in, and that all in that UNION, and outside of those who love the Scottish hills have, and can have a voice on this matter. Then you respond with words like “interfering” How arrogant and dismissive of those who care about this matter. They are not “interfering” Noel. They value wildland and the Highlands and seek to protect it. Hope that helps clear it up for you.

      • Andrew W
        July 11, 2014 at 8:23 pm

        But you feel you have the God given right to muck up Scottish scenery, because you live there.
        We’ll, that’s a bit arrogant.
        We all have a right to our opinion.
        And according to you we all on the same planet.
        So I think we all have a right to comment on anything anywhere.
        Otherwise we are just hypocritical.

        And stopping a much needed development.
        So really, it is all about short term economics and not about the planet at all.

  19. Robin
    July 11, 2014 at 8:20 pm

    Noel, why can’t you accept that all of the people who have commented on here disagree with your view that wilderness land should be sacrificed for wind farms. You have a view. We have a view. We are all entitled to have a view.

    Having said that, I find your suggestion that anyone not from Scotland should not be able to express a view is, quite frankly, offensive and arrogant.

    I suspect all of us who have commented have been to Rannoch and appreciate its beauty. We have responded to a call by “Keep Rannoch Wild”, an organisation set up by local people to object to this wind farm development. If you look at their web site, they encourage people from outside the area, including from abroad, to make their feelings known to the planning authorities.

    I (and others) have responded to the call by local people to support them by objecting to a development that in their eyes and in mine is a desecration to a special area of land. If you expect respect for your views, then you must respect our right to express ours as well, wherever we come from and not play the nationalist card.

    Reply
    • Noel Darlow (@noeldarlow)
      July 12, 2014 at 3:32 pm

      What form does this desecration take exactly? Wind turbines are temporary structures which cause very little short-term or long-term environmental damage. There will be some bird deaths. Each turbine sits on a foundation block. Access tracks will be built. Once they are dismantled, everything will return to normal – not that there will be a great deal of disturbance in the first place.

      It’s important to distinguish between any real, physical harm and imaginary harm which exists only in our minds. The rest is all about spoiled views and sense of wilderness – an emotional attachment to the “spirit of place”.

      This means at least as much to me as it does to you but we have to get real about climate change. We need wind, lot’s of it, and we can’t avoid encroaching on wild land. Many of the best wind resources are located in wild, upland areas.

      Reply
      • Robin
        July 12, 2014 at 4:36 pm

        A) have a look at the photos on the “Keep Rannoch Wild”, that’s my (and their) definition of desecration.
        B) temporary structures? 24,000 tonnes of concrete (their figures) which will not be removed
        C) the bases are absolutely huge, see this http://windfarmaction.wordpress.com/2011/11/12/concrete-turbine-base/
        D) the displacement of peat releases huge amounts of CO2 and removes a valuable CO2 sink.
        E) the bases and access roads damage drainage and hydrology, causing erosion and the drying out of peat.
        F) bird deaths have been underplayed by power companies http://savetheeaglesinternational.org/releases/spanish-wind-farms-kill-6-to-18-million-birds-bats-a-year.html

        All these points suggest to me and to Keep Rannoch Wild that this wind farm will have a major and sustained negative impact on the area. You clearly have a different opinion of “temporary and limited impact”. It surprises me that you can’t see that others take a different view. I don’t think desecration is too strong a word, nor do others who have commented on this blog. As I said before, it’s odd for Greens to advocate saving the planet by trashing wilderness. To many of us, that seems like blinkered fanaticism.

        To be honest Noel, I can’t see any point in extending this discourse any further. You clearly inhabit a different planet to the rest of us. Your planet holds no appeal for me.

  20. iansommerville
    July 11, 2014 at 9:40 pm

    I am Scottish and live in Scotland and I too find it offensive that anyone from Scotland should seek to deny a voice to those who have real concerns for the Scottish landscape.

    Sadly, too many people in Scotland have been taken in by the energy policy of the Scottish Government which is based on populism and sound bites (nuclear-free Scotland) rather than science and engineering. We need a balanced environmental and energy policy that looks at the environmental issues as a whole, rather than simply focusing on one thing be that carbon reduction, preservation of wild land, etc. Wind turbines have a role to play in this but we (a) need to carefully think about the need to preserve wild land, especially where constructing turbines means peat destruction, and (b) need to think how these turbines will benefit the community as a whole, rather than already wealthy landowners.

    There should be a moratorium on new developments until we have had a national debate on this issue – but sadly, I doubt that the current Government is willing to face up to the inadequacies of its energy policy.

    Reply
  21. Paul Sammonds
    July 12, 2014 at 4:25 pm

    As Ian has stated above I think there needs to be a bit more joined up thinking about the whole subject of energy production. I certainly have my doubts about the validity of building wind farms and cannot rationalise the reasons for even considering building on wild land.
    My objection has been written and is now wending its way through the ether.

    Reply
  22. Chris G
    July 12, 2014 at 5:13 pm

    Noel who is going to dismantle them? Who is going to re landscape over the access roads and the foundations? How will the hazardous materials and chemicals be disposed of? When? How much will it cost? Who will pay for that? There are parts of the USA full of these “temporary structures” that are no longer in use but still in situ.There are toxic lakes in China due to the mining of the rare minerals for the turbines batteries and gearboxes. These are then transported all over the world on diesel powered tankers. I live in an English county where the established, planned and scoped areas for these things mean that there will be one turbine for every 2.8 square miles.

    Due to the inefficiency of these turbines there are now plans for back up by diesel powered generators used by police stations, hospitals, factories etc to act as back up for when there are power shortages eg when the wind stops blowing during the numerous anti cyclones we experience (usually at the coldest times of the year in the UK).

    We dont need lots of wind because they cant operate when it gets too windy..

    We don’t have to get real about climate change, the climate has been changing since the earth has been turning. Nature does not really give a shit whether we are around or not.

    Oh and when your not too busy Noel could you reply to Alan Slomans point regarding wind turbines built on peat soil saving absolutely no c02?

    Reply
  23. backpackingbongos
    July 12, 2014 at 6:48 pm

    Noel I asked that you stop posting comments. I said that you are entitled to your own opinions, those of which I am not questioning. I asked you out of politeness because you had made your point known. Very clearly you have made your point of view known. Several times.

    Instead of taking on board a polite request you decide to get personal. saying that my conduct is on trial simply simply due to where I live is outrageous. How close do I need to be before I can make a reasonable objection in your eyes?

    And yes I am ‘injecting a personal attachment’ the reason for this is because I am a human being. All my actions apart from breathing and shitting are based on emotions. From what I had to dinner, where I work, friends I have, who I share a bed with………….

    I really cannot be bothered to go through and have any discussion with you. What will that achieve? I did not originally write this post to have a half baked argument on mass extinction. I simply wrote a letter, from the heart on a subject that means a lot to me. I did not expect a troll to come along and abuse that.

    Therefore any further comments from you will be deleted. You can’t say that I have not given you a fair platform to put across your views. Please go and bother someone else. Open your curtains, its nice outside.

    Reply
  24. backpackingbongos
    July 13, 2014 at 7:34 pm

    Comment from Noel Darlow deleted 13/12/14 at 20.33.

    I did not think that he would be able to resist.

    Reply
  25. alan.sloman
    July 13, 2014 at 7:36 pm

    Good moderating Sir.
    He had no answers.

    Reply
    

Leave a reply to Robin Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.