UKC

The BMC is joining forces with the MCofS in opposing one of the latest and most appalling plans for wind farm development in the Scottish Highlands. The Monadhliaths are a classic wilderness area with tops rising above 2500 feet between the Cairngorms and Loch Ness. Clearly no place for a wind farm of 36 110m high turbines, but that is exactly what is being proposed for this area of plateau sitting at a height of 2000 feet on the Dunmaglass Estate. This would be the highest wind farm in Britain. As well as intruding into a wild area, this development would threaten Golden Eagles and be visible from the Cairngorm National Park.

If you want to oppose this proposal, visit the website for the campaign to ‘Stop Dunmaglass’ at http://www.stopdunmaglass.com. This tells you how to object to the plans and gives more background information on the importance of this site.

Graham Lynch
BMC Access & Conservation Officer

In reply to graham lynch: While I broadly support your objections would you please note you would get more support if the BMC and The MCofS got off its arse and sorted Scott Muir out.

In reply to Liathac: I dont think on here is where we should post support, OK we should keep this at the top of the threads, but time would be better spent commenting on the site quoted.

In reply to Liathac:

Dear Liathac

Please get your priorities right. A wind farm may harm a few Golden Eagles, bolting a Scottish mountain winter crag does bother the Golden Eagles.

Norrie

In reply to Norrie Muir:

Dear Norrie, you really will have to dumb that down a little for me, ok a lot.

In case of any ambiguity (sp?) my priorities are A, object to Scott Muir, B, object to wind farms. I have other objections such as Kennedy supporting the Shieldaig hydro but not the power lines in Ullapool, salmon farming lastly and the biggest time bomb the Scottish national parks not being the planning authority

In reply to Liathac: why salmon farming?

you want to stop it, or better practices?

In reply to Iain Ridgway: The gits have already built some of the roads.. There is this monstrosity right at the summit of Carn na Saobhaidhe.

http://www.sub3000.com

Must have been "built" last summer

In reply to Liathac:

Dear Liathac

Your priorities are commendable, however, as your first one is not related to birds, but to a climbing issue, the MCofS, sets that as a lower priority.

It is good that the BMC supports the MCofS, in these vital issues.

norrie

In reply to Iain Ridgway: I suppose I would be quite happy to see it continue if methods could be found that dont effect the immediate environment. The problem for me is not one of farming salmon but the damage done to local sea trout populations and wild salmon being infected by sea lice in such numbers that they can be fatal. However I do think there are mis truths being put about by both sides of the argument and I have a suspicion that scientists especially government ones come up with findings that require further funding for their work!

In reply to Fat Bumbly Mk2:
The gits have already built some of the roads.. There is this monstrosity right at the summit of Carn na Saobhaidhe.

Dear Fat Bumbly

That is shocking. I was up that hill about 18 years ago and the esate Land Rover track stopped just short of the top. It was such a quiet hill then.

Norrie

In reply to Liathac: I dont know too much about it, should do as our dptmnt did a lot of research, but I support farming but think it has to be improved, as you say there are biosecurity issues.

Weve started having meetings now with Politicains, fisherman and scientists all in the same room. Its a good idea as we all say face to face and theres no third man reporting what you supposedly said.

In reply to Norrie Muir:


Dear Norrie
I was up there about 4 years ago and it was a quiet hill then too. I think it's appalling such a beautiful area is going to be churned up like this. Eagles or not, all of us who appreciate the outdoors, particularly the few remaining, truly remote, unspoilt, areas, like this particular part of the Monadhliath, should oppose this scheme.

In reply to Liathac:

Dear Liathac

I am not a Scientist, however, I have noticed that since the introduction of farmed salmon there has been a dramatic decrease in the sea trout numbers. It was joy while doing some mountaineering to catch a sea trount on the way down or after dark. This mountaineering activity of late has been curtailed by the lack of sea trout. If, sea trout had been birds maybe something would be done about their demise.

Norrie

In reply to wcdave:

Dear wc

Yes a quiet hill.

Norrie

PS I have just noticed a typing error in my part, it should read 10 not 18 years.

In reply to Iain Ridgway:

For anybody interested the 40km visual influence diagram is availabe on RES website

http://www.res-ltd.com/dunmaglass/5_NTS_Map_2.pdf

Within 40km the following significant summits will have a view of 28-36 turbines out of 36:
Creag Meagaidh, Stob Poite Coire Ardair, Carn Laith, Bean a' Chaorainn, Ben Macdui, Cairngorm, Braeriach, Mullach Clach a' Bhlair & Sgor Gaoith
(probably just about squeeze Toll Creagach above Glen Affric into the 40km)

Within 30km the following summits will have a view of 28-36 turbines out of 36:
Carn Dearg, A Chailleach, Carn Sgulain,

Within 20km the following summits will have a view of 28-36 turbines out of 36:
Gael Charm

Within 10km the following summits will have a view of 28-36 turbines out of 36:
Esentially every summit point within the Monadh Liath

Obviously it isnt possible to list every hill affected I have just picked out the obvious munros.

This is a crucial issue, its not just about eagles, but the essential wild nature of our landscape. Windfarm developers have already destroyed the essential wild nature of the north east of the Galloway Hills (and the development proposals keep on coming in there)

http://www.viewsofscotland.org/Library/SWAP%20Wind%20Gazetteer%20v1.1.PDF

There are numerous other schemes banging about and have been mentioned on this forum before most notably Lewis but also the Ochils, the Sma' Glen, Glenshee etc

In reply to Norrie Muir: The other day, well a while back, I was out on a research vessel, and we turned on all the imaging equipment to have a look at the seabed, honestly it was amazing there was barely no part of it which wasnt criss crossed with trawling marks, fishing is very intense in the clyde sea, weat coast area.

anhthing there is generally caught, we can trawl for an hour and only pull up a few baskets of under sized hake, cod, haddock, monk fish and whiting.

There just isnt much about nowadays.

In reply to Iain Ridgway:

Dear Roy

If you are trawlling for sea trout in the sea, may I suggest you do it when the sea bed is 2 fathoms. The sea trout don't like going much lower.

Norrie

In reply to Norrie Muir: no, its just theres nothing else there, we maybe get 1 largeish sized cod every two trawls.

In fact apart from catching a few mackerel when hauling the net higher we get sod all thats edible.

In reply to Iain Ridgway:

I used to go sea fishing from Ayr in the seventies. Even then folk lamented the state of the fishing. My mother told me that when she was on holiday in Ayr in the late 40's she would walk along the beach and look at the seals looking back at her. I only remember seeing one seal in Ayr bay back in the seventies. Of course there a couple of harbour seals in Troon harbour now.

Things changed when scallop fishing started in Ayr bay. The gear they used left the seabed like a ploughed field destroying much of the feeding and decimating the sealife.

In reply to Iain Ridgway:

Dear Roy

Aye, it is like that now, even, if you go down river. I blame the fish farms for the lack of sea trout in our rivers and hill lochs.

Norrie

In reply to Removed User:

Dear Eric

Mind you there is plenty of mackrel still caught at Reiff, shame about the parking there though.

Norrie

In reply to Removed User: Yeah scallop dredging is a destructive method.

I was working on a trawler out of troon last year, and when we were sorting the catch there was about 4 seals lay at the back of the boat waiting for rejected catch. very tame.

In reply to Norrie Muir:

Which bit is good for fishing there?

In reply to Removed User:

Dear Eric

Other than off the stones at the shore? I have stop going there, too many hippy types, now, but my mate goes every year with his weans, so I'll ask him. His boy catches stacks of mackrel at Reiff, so he tell me.

Norrie

In reply to Norrie Muir:

Dear Norrie apart from the fact that birds can be seen and fish usually not the biggest thing on the side of birds is the RSPB, 1 million members the majority being voters, makes a big pressure group.

In reply to Liathac:
the biggest thing on the side of birds is the RSPB, 1 million members the majority being voters, makes a big pressure group.

Dear Liathac

I know. The MCofS, should spend our meagre resources on more specific hill/mountain issues. Moral support to the RSPB is sufficient.

Norrie

In reply to graham lynch: sweet mother of christ! am i the only climber to realise that wind farms are no bad thing? they are almost essential (the german study bears no relation to british conditions). windmills look good, people go on holiday to the netherlands specially to see them. don't go on about ruining the wilderness either... there was perfectly good forest til humans cleared it all away leaving a barren landscape. get on your soap boxes about REAL concerns (some of which the builders of wind farms are trying to address).

In reply to graham lynch:

Interesting. Is this within the remit of the BMC? I'm a member and I don't oppose wind development in most circumstances. I'm not sure I approve of this 'diversification' surely it would be better to bring this to the attention of all BMC members and allow them to determine their own views?


Sounds like a good place to catch a continuous breeze.


I consider the threat to wildlife the major point I'm unconvinced whether the other points are important.


So are the BMC simply raising the profile of this development and providing a link for individual action or are they actively involved?

PS. As yet I'm neither for or against the development.

The Crow
Curious BMC Member.

In reply to dominic_s:

No you are not alone, I personally support wind farms and most other environmentally friendly power sources, Some people seem to forget the bigger issues at hand.

GLOBAL WARMING

If there isn’t a huge move away from polluting power sources there wont be a world for the anything to live in! All you winter climbers that complain about how the “conditions aren’t like they were 10 years ago” This is just proof of the problem, unless the people who do complain about the damage birds/countryside/etc walk everywhere on foot, never use any electricity or gas then who are they to represent the environment? They are harming it as much as the rest of us! Some people are trying to make a difference; the Kyoto protocol is one good example of how much a bigger issue this is than some place in Scotland 99.99% of the human population will never go to.

Sorry if I sound arrogant but this issue, especially so called environmentalists really gets to me (Researched this heavily for Uni),

And just for the record im neither for or against this particular development just thought I should point out the bigger picture!

Rob

In reply to Rob in a Field:

You failed your degree, I assume?

In reply to dominic_s: of course we need alternatives, but wouldnt 2000 turbines out at sea be better than 36 on a hill top?

In reply to Rob in a Field:
All you winter climbers that complain about how the “conditions aren’t like they were 10 years ago”
Dear Rob

I remember some winters in the golden era of the 1970's which we called "green winters". The only white bits on the hills were the colour of the water pouring off the hill it was so wet.

Norrie

In reply to Rob in a Field:

The bigger picture is much much bigger than a few wind farms in the Highlands. Bill Wright, in the latest edition of Climber, finally takes on the bigger picture in the context of climbing and mountaineering by pointing out our responsibility in reducing GHG emissions through transport use - climbers flying off to sunny Spain for a nice weekend, or driving up from London to Scotland for a cold weekend - are all making their own contributions to global warming. Until we start looking at taking responsibility for our own actions, all the fuss about wind farms is just so much hypocritical hot air.

In reply to tony: hear hear!

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

Nope doing very well if you ask.

And do you know how much damage wind farms do out at sea? The rare sea birds that will get killed? the sea bed that will get ruined? People only like the idea of off shore windfarms because they are out of sight and out of mind. As i said i am neither for or against this wind farm but im simply pointing out some facts.

Rob

In reply to Iain Ridgway:

Well not necessarily. Consider the environmental fingerprint of each development.

Pile driving into the sea bed would cost more and use greater energy resource, it would involve a significantly larger volume of concrete. (Concrete manufacture is a massive producer of CO2 incredibly so!!!) this would mean the payback period in terms of CO2 budget for a marine project may be more than 10 times as long as that for a terrestrial one possibly longer?

Given that the purpose of renewable power generation is to minimise CO2 production all other factors being equal what would you choose?

In reply to Rob in a Field:

Will this windfarm fix the problem for more than 0.01% of the population, or do you think a few more might be needed to do that?
Windfarms may be a part of the solution to the problem here, but they'll never be more that just a part. Some areas may be worth sacrificing to that end (quite possibly this one); some are not.
Surely stating that you support wind farms without qualifying that support is just as foolish as to opposing them all without considering the individual circumstances?

In reply to Rob in a Field:

also costs more to put wind farms out at sea as opposed to on land...

there is a bigger issue at stake here about energy consumption...

the 'not in my back yard' attitude is understandable but rather short sighted

In reply to Rob in a Field: erm mate quick contact the science research organisations, they are currently spending thousands researching wind farms at sea, I was out with the, before xmas and the findings as far as I know havnt been released.

not out of site, I was thinking it could be a static gear fishery, when was the last time you checked scans of the seabed for damage, pretty conclusive I can tell you.

In reply to paul hesketh: but the wind farms are at sea, haev you looked off the orm?

Thats not short sited, thats a fact, they are there, you have a regular sea breeze.

In reply to The Crow: Me personally nuclear, I dont think wind is the best option, but Im no expert, tidal may possibly have a future.

In reply to Rob in a Field:
Presumably then you never submitted the essay which used 10 years of apparently warmer-than-average winters as proof of global warming. A shame you thought it credible enough to post here.

I never mentioned wind farms at sea, I don't support those either.

In reply to Iain Ridgway:

think as someone else has mentioned wind and tidal energy could only supply a small proportion of the uk's current energy needs...

sure i heard something about uk importing a large proportion of its gas energy from asia, maybe russia...i could be wrong...ta

In reply to tony:
Did anyone see the interesting program the other month, it might have been Horizon, about research which showed that the particulate emissions from our weekend trips to Spain are actually slowing global warming and not increasing it?

In reply to paul hesketh:

Dear paul

We are now not self sufficient in the UK for gas.

Norrie

In reply to Simon Caldwell: hows that work?

didnt see or read about that?

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

Through my studies I met a wind farm developer, I had imagined him as a money mad environment wrecking loon, but he shared many of these views for and against, and now I appreciate how much goes into proposing future sites, ill try to dig out some interesting links tonight. In any case only 1 in 1000 (something like this) proposals ever get built.

Simon sorry i know you didnt mention farms at sea, i was replying to another person.

That program sounds good, shame i missed it. what was the theory behind it?

In reply to Iain Ridgway:
Something to do with the particles reflecting radiation I think. They did their research by analysing data from the days following the World Trade Centre bombing, when there were no aircraft in the skies above America.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

Global Dimming. You can read the transcipt of the programme here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_trans.shtml

In reply to Simon Caldwell:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_qa.shtml

Shows how much there is still to learn about our environment. It always makes me uneasy hearing people (even scientists) talking as though we actually understood global warming, knew all its causes, and knew exactly what needs doing to reverse it.

In reply to tony:
Shows just how much of the program was taken up by somnbre music and special effects if a transcript of a 50 minute program is that short!

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

Hmm, makes me uneasy listening to people who believe who think they know better than other people who spend their lives studying these things and refusing to believe that anything they do might have an adverse impact on the world.

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

Yeah, it does come across as being a bit light on words doesn't it!

In reply to tony:

Dear tony

It is the BBC afterall.

Norrie

In reply to Iain Forrest:


How do i go about qualifying my support? I simply belive that they are a part of a solution along with other forms of replenishable energy forms that and a realisation by the people that there is a big issue here! for example is this a major (and i mean major) part of any of the big three political partys future policys?

In reply to graham lynch:

Graham,

Your original post has sparked an interesting debate on renewable generation and energy policy - those interested should start by looking at the DTI website - www.dti.gov.uk/energy/ - to help inform their opinions - i personally find this a very useful resource (I'm an energy analyst).

On the subject of the BMC's involvement, I agree with some of the comments posted earlier sugegsting that the BMC should not be protesting against windfarm developments. I have a number of reasons for this view:

1.) By protesting against windfarm developments, the BMC will be viewed by many to be taking a stance on alternative forms of electricity generation and energy policy. This is not appropriate unless there is a direct impact on mountaineering.

2.) We can see from the debate on this forum that many climbers have differing views on this subject - we can assume that this is representative of a cross-section of the BMC membership. Therefore, by objecting you cannot assume to be representing the best interests of your members.

3.) I am not a member of the BMC because i like Golden Eagles - if i want to protect birds, i'll join the RSPB - if i want to promote renewable energy, i'll join the green party etc...


The only argument for BMC's involvement is if there is a direct impingement on climber's rights (eg access). In this case, BMC should work with the developer to attempt to resolve the issue rather than carte blanche opposition.

...rant over...

In reply to Rob in a Field:
Do you support all wind farm proposals, regardless of location, or are there certain qualifying factors (say, unique scenery, or inefficiency due to distance from where the power is to be consumed)? You simply stated "I personally support wind farms and most other environmentally friendly power sources", much as dominic s said that 'wind farms are no bad thing'. There may be quite a few people objecting to this development that might support another elsewhere.
Surely some are good things, some are bad, and a lot lie in the grey area between?
If wind farms genuinely can be a useful part of the solution (which they probably can), then I think that perhaps the Monadh Liath is an area which can reasonably be considered for such developments. I don't think I'm against this specific proposal. There are, however, a lot of places in the Highlands where such developments seem like a very bad idea. I would hope that the issue of preserving special scenery (and the tourism it can generate) could be considered alongside your 'bigger issue'.

As an aside, I'm not at all convinced of the 'damage to wildlife' argument some others have raised, particularly with regards to birds being killed. Surely all forms of large scale power generation kill wildlife, either directly or indirectly? Dead birds under turbines may well be more 'in your face', but would they really kill more wildlife than the pollution from more traditional power generation?

In reply to Iain Forrest:

In fact, I suspect raptors are more at risk from errant gamekeepers than from wind turbines.

In reply to tony:

What if I listen to 2 people who spend their lives studying these things but have different opinions. Am I forced to agree with both of them, purely because both have vested interests?

In reply to Simon Caldwell:

No, you might consider the possibility that it's a pretty complicated old world and it may be that there are no simple solutions.

In reply to tony:
I think that's what I was trying to say earlier

In reply to dominic_s:

Ah Dominic, my boy - the insouciance of those who have all knowledge.... I personally don't like the look of wind farms (next time you go to the Duddon valley via Greenodd, you'll see what I mean). But they don't work!! You'd need a farm the size of London to do the work of one nuke station. Coal technology will see us right for the next 500 years (and don't forget the Antartic!), but nukes can't be all bad - France, China, the States, Germany.... 'course if you guys win the argument, I'll enjoy hearing your piece when the lights go out in 15 years time.

In reply to Rog: i've nothing against nuclear energy myself... only the reprocessing of uranium to make plutonium weapons is disgraceful (but indicative of the warmongering society we live in). nuclear power (i think, happy to stand corrected) produces no CO2 so a combination of current technologies has got to be better than coal and gas fired power stations, yes? my major beef is roads and the cars on them, in particular gas-guzzling chelsea tractors and the tits that drive them and the american way of life that extols the virtues of drivng to the shops around the corner in 2 1/2 tons of pig iron powered by a highly inefficient V8! 80% of CO2 produced by humanity is produced by 20% of the population - that ain't right! amerikkka "buying" the unused CO2 of undeveloped countries is a crime against the planet. for just this reason alone dubya should be skinned and drowned in vinegar.

i like the look of windfarms by the way; i find them to be graceful and soothing. bizarrely i'm not some looney left hippy either, i just want clean air to breathe and that which is good for the planet as a whole. I fully understand about the "green winters" of scotland... just maybe global warming as we see it is a pile of dog-doo - there are cycles of warming and cooling which we live through, we just don't currently seem to be doing much to help ourselves.

In reply to graham lynch: I don't have anything against wind power when it's deployed appropriately, but I feel very strongly that we shouldn’t be building turbines (or much else) in the highlands. Lets for now ignore the fact that the Danes and Germans are re-thinking their wind energy policies in view of dismal results - I am hoping that we have learned from them and are doing it smarter.
There are wind turbines being built all around where I live, N.E. Scotland, I can already see one from my house, and there are several more being built on the hills behind my house. I have no problem with this, this isn’t a “not in my back yard” response, but the placements of these strike me as far more appropriate than what is proposed for the highlands and islands.

The countryside around where I live is all green and lovely, but like it or not it is an industrialised landscape. Human use for residential, farming and transportation needs, plus destruction of natural forests and re-plantation of un-natural ones has already taken place. I look out of my living room window straight at Bennachie, and all over it are the straight lines of plantation forests. Pylons stride across my view and fields of oilseed rape add unnatural colour to the summer views. This is land not just touched by humans, but radically and permanently changed. Turbines here don't enhance the view, but they don't detract from it enough to worry me. I think that most wildlife will already be so affected by current farming practices, roads, pylons etc that wind turbines isn't going to make much difference. The infrastructure is all there to make the turbines work.

One thing we have very little left of in the UK is land which has not been overly affected by industrialisation. What little is left is mostly in the Scottish Highlands and these are the areas which appear to be being targeted. Putting an industrial system into the last wilderness in the country is unacceptable. It’s not just the turbines, it’s the pylons and the roads that will cause the most damage. To be honest the wildlife doesn’t’ worry me all that much, what I am worried about is the loss of the last wild places in the UK, permanently changing the face of otherwise largely untouched areas. It flies in the face of what every other organisation is doing – all over the highlands people are removing bulldozered tracks, replanting ancient woodlands and repopulating endangered or even extinct flora and fauna. To me it’s vital that we protect these precious areas of our natural heritage, and that’s why we have to oppose industrialisation of these areas.

Cheers,

Tom.

In reply to dominic_s: I think you have some anti American issues you need to deal with. Such a phobia against say the Irish would be thought of as akin to racism.

Whats disgraceful about producing weapons that we never use? Is it not better than the planes built by the lovely people of British Aerospace that Indonesia kills tribesmen with?

In reply to Liathac: SOME issues? I'm disgusted by the way the USA conducts itself on both a domestic and international level. racism is not a word i'd use because generally it's not the people i have a problem with (the same as any nation - a mix of good and bad). America used to be the good guys but in the last 5 years they have become an internationally reviled pariah state. i am increasingly developing sympathy with those people who call the USA "the great satan".

I am also disgusted with the way that our government conducts itself too...

In reply to dominic_s: but your blaming the 4x4 culture on the US, ever been to aus?

you have issues, the US isnt all bad, they certainly halped the aid effort after boxing day., or do we only point out bad points, are we allowed to look at both sides of the argument?

or shall we just call them nasty men and stick our tomngues out?

In reply to Anonymous: erm look at Grahams title?

access and CONSERVATION???

In reply to Anonymous:

First line of BMC mission statements states "Negotiate access improvements and promote cliff and mountain conservation". Strikes me the objection to the construction of 36No. 120m tall turbines, associated access tracks and quarries in area that remains relatively unsullied by industrialisation (other than within the glens the transport corridors along the A9, A82 & A89 and commercial forestry) is consistant with the mission to promote mountain conservation. The fact that the development will sit at 2000' will have a direct visual impact on the whole of the Monadh Liah, the western edge of the Cairgorms and the Glen Affric hills itself is wholey inappropriate


ditto


ditto



Er ....... funny things happens when people rant anonymously, I cant help but hit the 'whois' tab and low and behold turns out that the message has emerged from British Energy ........ guess what ...... yep, British Energy are the 50:50 partner with AMEC for the massive Lewis windfarm, 100% of the proposed Knowehead farm in the Ochils and a proposed windfarm near Thurso ...... oh, then there are the 8 nuclear power stations, ooops almost forgot Eggborough power station one of the biggest coal plants in the UK!

Personally I think that climbers clock up more car miles than most in the UK and should support the government in an attemt to get britain more environmentally friendly.

You wouldn't think twice about driving 1000miles over a weekend to do some climbing.

The reason they want to put them on a hill is because there is more wind there!! Check out some geographical sites for wind profiles.

D

(sorry for being annonymous I have trouble logging on)

In reply to Anonymous:

I remain to be convinced that wind farms are more environmentally friendly than anything else.


I wouldn't even think once about it!