News Items
Ross-shire Journal Poll results
Should the revised Lochluichart wind farm proposal be approved?
The windfarm vote ended at 3.20pm on December 15, after two weeks, with 1,750 in favour and 1,706 against. Thanks to everyone who voted, even if you did so more than once - there were cheats on both sides! And thanks for all your comments. The selection below indicates the passions and convictions held by everyone. The debate, no doubt, will continue.
The following are the comments made by those voting 'No' to the proposal.
No - Wind Farms seriously damage the landscape and are particularly unwelcome in remote and beautiful areas. They are a massively inefficient way of generating electricity and do not remove the need for allocating conventional generating capacity to cover the occasions when the wind does not blow. Charles Tongue
No - Because it's a short-sighted, very damaging plan, rushed into in order to benefit commercial interests, whilst ignoring the interests of people who actually live in the area. Furthermore, should the plan go ahead, (shame on the perpetrators) it could be fatal to the local tourist industry, a shocking despoilation of the areas natural beauty. Once lost , never recovered. Only the money-grubbers win. Anne Chadwick
No - Creating wind farms is an act of vandalism because they ruin our beautiful countryside and the wind system does not produce enough electricity to make such an act worthwhile. Gloria Oates
No - The revised proposal is no improvement on the original proposal and will destroy an area of unique beauty, currently enjoyed by thousands, to be enjoyed in the future by millions. Let us not destroy our unique landscape in this way. Simon Wergan
No - A far more effective method is small single windmills sited close to groups of houses or a farm - the energy therefore created is not wasted and unslightly, huge windmills avoided. We should look to our forebears for the answers - they were on the right track. YCL
No - Its size will overwhelm the area, with many significant adverse affects on wildlife, people, environment and landscape. The Carbon Emission/Environmental benefits do not justify building windfarms on this scale in such locations JUST BECAUSE it is difficult to get consent at the moment in more suitable places. Existing Government support encourages all wind farm power plants in a poorly planned fashion, and when it comes to an end it will be realised that schemes such as Lochluichart should not have been supported, and that the resources would have been better applied elsewhere - both as to windfarms and other technologies. Henry Birkbeck, Kinloch Hourn and Westacre, Norfolk
No - Scotland has the Loch Ness Monster and the Scottish Parliament. It does not require a white elephant. Or more of them. Greg Waggett
No - I do not decry the technology, I simply say it belongs offshore where it cannot be seen. Furthermore, councillors and MPs recently attended and inspected the site of Mohammed Al Fayed's proposed windfarm at Beinn Roishal in Lairg, and as a result refused the application. Any person involved in the Lochluichart application MUST go to the site and see for themselves what is going to be ruined. Fraser Gray, Sal Mhor, Laide, Wester Ross
No - With current technology wind farms are an inefficient form of energy supply. If given the go ahead who is going to restore these sites and dispose of this obsolescent equipment? We would be sanctioning the creation of yet another long term industrial wasteland. Fred Belcher
No - It is interesting that many of those criticising the No voters as NIMBYs are commenting from the energy-demanding south. My retort to them is please insulate your homes, get rid of your 4x4s, install solar cells and small windturbines, use public transport and fly less. Lobby for government spend in other alternative energy sources including nuclear fusion and do not ride this one horse energy solution. Like the hydroschemes before them, and the current one at Glendoe, these windfarms will only create a peak of jobs, with many workers brought in from outside because the Highlands cannot meet the demand. In the long term it will impact the tourist industry with the net effect of a loss of jobs. It has no economic benefit to the Highlands. Please let us learn from history and do not despoil the Highlands yet again to satisy the insatiable desires of the South. Dave, Aberdeenshire
No - I am a Welshman who loved going to the hills of north Wales, but now never go back there. There is now no wild view in Wales - every hilltop is in sight of the windfarms. My people have desecrated their inheritance at the behest of rich Londoners. The Scots are a prouder people, strong enough to tell the money men to stop hiding their greed behind a false concern for the planet. Ask them how many flights a year they take, and how many they have cut back to save the planet. Your forebears and your children will be ashamed of you if you allow this desecration of the highlands. Michael Hughes, Dorset
No - Don't build it. Honest weighing up of the pros and cons show you that it should not go ahead. Ginnycorb
No - The generation of electricity accounts for around 25% of greenhouse gasses. Focussing on wind generated electricity takes attention away from the other 75%, mainly transport and heating. However, variable wind-produced electricity in the grid needs large amounts of power station backup to ensure a constant stable supply. Ewan Nelson
No - The wind turbines are a hideous blot on any landscape. Fran Charlesworth
No - This would desecrate one of the most beautiful parts of Scotland. No human being has the right to do this. Christopher Penn, London
No - Because it would spoil the Highlands! W van Beiningen, Holland
No - Vandalisation of the highlands, cumulative effects of windfarms in Scotland major negative impact on tourism our great white hope for the economic future of Scotland. There has to be a public inquiry. Tom Ingleby
No - Windfarms are a blot on the landscape - in this case Scotland?s finest. As an energy source they are expensive and inefficient. They will soon be seen as a disastrous over subsidised form of energy that made landowners and developers very rich at the expense of the energy consumer. They will do little to reduce carbon monoxide emissions. Jenny Scobie
No - Having a bit of experience with wind farms, their placement, outputs etc, and the look of them, I know it's in the wrong place and will not be as efficient as it could be elsewhere, for example near a flat coastline. Andrew Allan
No - When I fly into Newcastle upon Tyne l admire the sheer sense of the Local council in placing their wind farm on a coastal breakwater and in the shallow water to its seaward side. Despite the relative unobtrusiveness of the location and the excellent uninterrupted wind capturing location, I am always surprised that the turbines are more inactive than turning with vigour! My family have lived in Suffolk for the last 33 years some four miles from Sizewell nuclear power station. Every day of the year it is a huge and beneficial source of power for the National Grid and employment for the local community. That it achieves without blighting vast swathes of magnificent countryside and these part time windfarms are not the serious solution to Britain's power needs. Alistair Calder
No - Reasons: visual impact, industrial landscape, wrong priorities. I also believe this area was once the estate of the legendary elephant hunter "Karamojo" Bell who retired here and hunted red deer. If he had seen the proposals for his estate he would be turning in his grave. Dr Julian Hunter, North Kessock
No - Why don't the government give everyone the option of buying solar panels to heat their water and swifts to go on their roofs if they are in rural areas, and the option of solar panels on roofs with a local wind generator for them that live in cities. It's very much a case of I don't want it on my back door step, when it comes to windfarms going on brownfield sites. Well guess what, Id rather they were there than in my backyard, when my yard is the highlands and islands of Scotland! Jane Evans
No - Where is the electricity to be used? I suspect it is going to be exported to south of the border - electricity should be generated where it is used, not spoil someone else's country by unsightly turbines and pylons. Community-owned windfarm schemes where the electricity generated is used by the local community - great! Mairi Brown
No - Scotland's highland landscape is priceless and incredibly beautiful, as well as being a wonderful tourist attraction. This wind farm would ruin a large area of it for millions of visitors and for generations to come. Far from saving the planet, this would be destroying it. There is a place for wind farms, e.g. in the central belt, in Ayrshire, and amidst landscapes elsewhere already degraded. Alan Dawson
No - I sincerely hope that this windfarm will not happen, for the sake of wildlife, natural beauty and the Highland economy. Michael Power
No - Yet more random spoiling of our countryside for trivial gain. I would like to see a properly independent study of the costs of wind farms and other sources of power, to allow a real and true comparison without pressure from one or other side. It appears at present that landowners stand to gain too much just from subsidies - but I'd like to know the truth. Ian Macnab
No - This project is based on financial greed. It will do precious little for the environment except to ruin for ever a most beautful part of the Highlands. It must be stopped. Anthony Dunbar
No - Wrong place, wrong time. This area of outstanding natural beauty deserves better. Russ Manion
No - Scottish energy requirements will never be satisfied even if our whole countryside is covered with turbines. Profit is pushing this proposal, not the desire to produce clean energy. The Scottish Executive should grasp the nettle and support replacing our nuclear sources. David Laidlaw
No - I believe that the energy required to build the turbines, pylons and produce and transport the cement to build the roads etc. could exceed the energy produced by the turbines. Thus traditional means of producing power can be equally, if not more, energy efficient, including nuclear energy. Phil Lambert
No - What seems to be forgotten about wind farms is the cost of producing these machines in pounds and carbon. After 25 years they will cost a vast amount of money to remove and leave behind 1000s of tons of concrete. Why can not these Wind Farm Industrial Estates be built near to where they are needed which would make sense as then there would be little loss of power generated as where they would be up here in the Highlands of Scotland they will lose about 50%.We already have many Dams up here producing a lot of power, very green and lasting a lot longer than 25 years.I wonder if the price of power will come down with all this green energy? We should be educating people to use less not creating more. R Baker, Scatwell
No - Regardless of what this developer tells you about the efficiency of wind farms what he won't tell you is that the energy consumed to build the turbines and more importantly the infrastructure (the production of the cement to build the concrete roads for example) far outweighs the energy produced by the turbines over their lifespan. More traditional means of producing power are far more energy efficient in the overall - even nuclear energy! He also will not tell you about the effect of the wind farm on the loss to the tourism of the area or the loss of our rare species of birdlife on their migratory routes. This scheme must be stopped at all costs. Alan Sloman, Cambridgeshire
No - There is a time and a place for everything, it may be the time for wind generators but this most certainly is not the place. Tony Hulme
No - Scotland is fed by hydro power and there is enough of it to satisfy all her needs. Why should we blight our countryside with wind farms to service another country? It is time to stop and feed only our own nation and keep our countryside for its unblemished beauty. Rhona Clark
No - Even the revised scheme is an unacceptable intrusion into an area of magnificent landscape. Our Highland scenery is the only realistic hope for long term prosperity for the inhabitants; it should not be ruined by inappropriate industrial scale development. John Donohoe
No - The true total and unsubsidised cost of generating electricity from either onshore or offshore windfarms is simply not viable. Other debate on the matter is secondary to the above. David Harrison, Chartered Engineer
No - The plan to turn the Scottish West Highlands into a wind-farm is ludicrous given that the small amount of generated energy, in real terms, will not even benefit the folks that will have their environment wrecked. I am not against wind farms if they are located in areas where the local residents will directly benefit from the energy generated, but definitely NOT in areas that will be devastated by their presence. Sue Goldberger
No - Unsightly noisy ineffective a blot on the landscape in this area of great beauty. Victoria Legge
No - Planning a windfarm in the Scottish highlands is ruining the beautiful countryside. One must be out of one's mind to think of such a plan. Generations ahead of us will suffer of this ridiculous idea. There is no logic, nor rationale behind the plan. The economic benefit does not outweigh the destructing of nature. Albert van Dedem, Amstelveen, Holland
No - Wind farms are merely paying lip service to pc demands for renewable energy They are a blight on the landscape,are inefficient and are so costly that a payback date will never be reached. Tom Russell
No - If the price of energy is to cover parts of the rural landscape with Wind Turbines, then the price is too high. They should be located in industrial landscapes or near power stations and refineries or anywhere where they would not look so out of place. We cannot sacrifice the beauty of the landscape with these machines. Antony Preston
No - The wind farm would desecrate an area of great natural beauty which in turn would affect the livelihood and well-being of many in the area. The energy benefits are highly questionable. Richard Nathanson, London
No - The technology of wind farms of this scale is flawed. They do not work - that is why in Denmark and Germany the Governments have stopped the subsides. The only people that benefit are the Landowners and the power companies. Ian Cockburn
No - I don't object to wind power per se but many of the wind factories going up just now are merely a PR exercise to make the government look as if it is tackling global warming rather than dealing with it effectively. As we have seen in my native Lammermuir hills, they are a total blight on the landscape, ruining views for miles around - and with that, creating a negative impact on tourism. Carol Carr
No - Already in Sweden and Denmark they have stopped building and are dismantling these highly inefficient electricity producers, that can only work when heavily subsidised by the tax payer. If we are prepared to carry the cost of the minimal contribution that wind farms can make to the general energy production (3 percent?), then they should not be built in places where they ruin the environment, but only on islands or coastal areas. W. van Dedem, Fannich Estate, Ross-shire
No - Motivation for this farm is purely financial - talk of ethical investment and the like is totally erroneous from these people. They are simply greedy like all other big businesses involved in providing energy (speak to Offwat about the lack of competition and the consequent impact on our bills!) And meanwhile our most valuable natural heritage is being destroyed ... David Fyffe, Aberdeenshire
No - As an Englishman who loves Scotland and the Scots I consider it is tragic that the Scottish authorities can allow their beautiful scenery to be despoiled. I am "green" but this scheme is too big and in the wrong place. Please try and find an alternative location (offshore?) Once the project is completed it can not be undone. Richard Shuttleworth
No - The reasoning behind wind turbine power generation is flawed. When the wind is not blowing wind turbines produce no power and therefore the supply of electricity is not reliable. R Cooper
No - I can see no advantage whatsoever in allowing turbines to be erected. Why not use derelict wasteland within and around cities? There would be ample wind to power the turbines, certainly as much or as little as there is in the country. Why spoil beautiful places and endanger wild life? Julia Plumptre
No - This wind farm will blemish the natural scenic beauty of the area - why should the natural beauty of the highlands be blemished to service the demands of urban populations very many miles away?! Let's wait until under the submarine wave power technology really gets viable enough to service all of Scotland's needs, and not destroy the environment in the meantime! Wave power technology is hot and is coming in big time! Ned Magennis
No - My husband and I own the studio in Achnasheen and have been meeting and speaking to tourists in our shop for the last 10 years and we know that tourists come to the area because it is an unspoilt wilderness. These tourists would stop coming to Wester Ross if this wind farm went ahead. Why should our lives be ruined to benefit one "fat cat" from down south? Susan and Stephen Plowman
No - The whole scheme is totally crazy. It destroys major parts of Scotland's heritage and our nation's wilderness, it does not stand up economically and it can only supply a very limited number of homes, and not all of the time. Stephen White
No - They are unnecessary, uneconomical and ineffective and despoil the countryside for no purpose (other than meeting some obscure political imperative). In due course, new giant "off-shore" wind farms will make all "on-shore" wind farms redundant. I am totally opposed to their building and installation anywhere in the UK. Michael Denny
No - Reasons for saying no are: energy contribution will be minimal; devastating effect on visual amenity of the naturally beautiful site; devastating effect on game and wildlife; government has switched to nuclear energy as the future for UK plc; wind farms in Europe are being dismantled after only 10 years - Denmark and Sweden are cases in point; if the government want wind farms, put them offshore - the cost increase is not significant; need I go on? Steve Callaghan, Chief Executive Officer, MMI Research Ltd, Hartley Wintney, Hants
No - It would spoil a wonderful tract of Scotland. Guy Paterson
No - This scheme is driven by the commercial in the interests of those who are promoting it. There is very little evidence that it is a cost-efficient way of generating energy and in my view the damage it will do to some of the most lovely unspoilt countryside that is still left to enjoy, is entirely unjustified by the very marginal benefits is purports to provide. Selina Elwell
No - The eventual environmental benefit is not certain enough to justify the impairment of one of the Highlands' most unspoilt areas. The carbon cost of the industrial installation will be high, but the real problem is that the resultant energy supply will be too unreliable to contribute towards the decomissioning of nuclear or coal powered stations, which must always be on standby emitting carbon. Windfarms certainly have a place in a sensible energy policy, but in microgeneration, and not in installations so far from centres of consumption. The locals will bear the cost of lost tourism and gain no benefit from cheaper electricity; the only parties that stand to gain are the Lochluichart landowners and the multinational corporation behind the scheme. Jamie Grimston
No - Because of visual impact, danger to birds, adverse long term impact on tourism, flawed and disingenuous analysis on reducing carbon emissions. Alasdair Douglas, London
No - This desecrates a beautiful wilderness. There is no point in saving the planet from global warming if in the process we destroy the aspects that make it worth saving in the first place - including unspoiled landscape beauty. I am also very concerned at the visual impact of pylons/transmission cables to take any power generated. This aspect is often brushed aside but should receive proper examination and alone would justify going to public enquiry. Andrew Joy, London
No - This is not an argument about the benefits of wind power, which as all those well informed will know, is an inconclusive debate. There is no question however, that the proposed windfarm will line the pockets of the developers at the local community's expense. I am frankly appalled by what I see as the flagrant exploitation of this community by energy bigwigs and self-styled 'experts'. This outstanding area of natural beauty is a distinctly fragile environment. The trauma caused by the construction and maintenance of the proposed windfarm will irreversibly damage this last great wilderness. The local Scots, and nobody else, will be left to pick up the pieces. Edmund Glover, St. Andrews
No - It is against the interests of the electricity consumer that energy should be generated so far from its market. Up to 30% of the electricity generated is lost in transmission. Windfarms should be built on brownfield sites close to the towns and cities that will use the electricity. On-shore wind is the most expensive power currently generated, pushing up prices for the consumer and industry. It is only viable through the ROCs (Renewable Energy Certificates) which are a form of subsidy also paid by consumers and taxpayers. As ROCs are tapered in the near future electricity from this area could become uncompetitive in the next few years. Lochluichart could become a Stranded Asset. This scheme is too near the mountain landscapes of Wester Ross, from which it is visible. These priceless landscapes attract tourists from round the world and should not be threatened by unnecessary industrial development. Sue Hopkinson
No - There is no excuse with the technology at our disposal to make the mistake of committing to a development that will have a detrimental and perhaps irreversible affect on the wildlife in the area proposed for the wind farm. A long term view needs to be taken and a thorough enquiry be made before such a development can take place. This has not been done. WHY? Mariella Norman
No - This is not an argument about the pro's and con's of renewable energy in general. It is whether this windfarm is suitable to this site. Industrialising 6,000 acres of wild land, destroying the habitat of and endangering some of Britain?s rarest birds and animals whilst ruining the spectacular scenery that makes the Highlands famous is not only completely indefensible but is likely to do great economic damage to the tourism industry that keeps the area alive. The complete lack of respect shown to the local people by the developers is reprehensible. Jocelyn Seligman, Strathbran
No - It is encroaching on the last wilderness in the highlands. After this, one the next one and the next one, from Dingwall to Cape Wrath. Put them near Glasgow where they need them. Alastair Robertson, by Huntly
No - As with many other priceless environmental areas being targeted by developers, this area is vulnerable in many ways - wildlife, especially endangered species, peat degradation, important tourist route threat - literally 'costing the earth' for very little return which could possibly affect climate change. Such developments are being exposed as cripplingly expensive for the consumer via the little understood or explained ROCS system. Yesterday's technology being pushed simply because it is 'available now' but many are beginning to fully understand the true implications accompanying excessive implementation of this particular form of renewable energy. Christine Metcalfe
No - I live at Lochluichart and am appalled at the lack of respect for the local community which has been shown by the lack of honest straightforward communication with regards to this development. Behind my house is the last remaining true wilderness of the UK - and all that goes with it. The development will have a dramatic effect on the wildlife here and begin eating away at our wilderness. I do not trust the developers not to continue development once they have a foot in the door, the pylons will inevitably be made bigger - why won't the developers invest in underground transportation? - and there are plenty of other areas where the impact would not be so great. The developers here are hiding behind "renewable energy" banner - this is a business. Pammy Johal
No - Wind energy while very clean is also very ineffective. It always requires the back up of conventional power sources, as when the wind doesn't blow or blows too strongly the turbines generate no electricity. They offer only a temporary and intermittent, short lived source of power. If we covered the entire landscape of the Highlands with turbines (and as of 2004 there were proposals in the Highlands to build 1700+) - we'd still have only short lived and intermittent power, but would have ruined not only a unique environment (to "save the environment" ?) we'd have wrecked Scotland's major growth industry on which much of the west coast economy totally depends. Ike Gibson, Ullapool
No - There is no need for windfarms since the current changes in climate are natural and normal, have happened before, and will happen again. Nuclear power is more efficient, and could be built underground. Am sure that a safe means for disposal of nuclear waste can be found. Furthermore, windfarms are not efficient, and the only good they do is in favour of those people who own the land, and those who manufacture the structures (foreign companies, I believe). Additionally, they are a blight on the landscape. Lionel Brough Martin, Forfar
15 December 2006
