Brian (Windy) Wilson's retainer Windmill bosses must be peeved.

This application was refused because it is in the Central Belt - too many voters there and the Scottish Parliamentary elections in May '07. Highland applications are a much better bet.

I have done a bit of research and it looks like ROCs are being paid on the theoretical output of the wind farm. Operators are getting £55/MWh generated but are getting £55 for every 125kWh generated as well!

The smaller one eighth capacity generator on board every large wind turbine generates for about 80% of the year.

This is outrageous. If anybody can show me the maths that disproves all of the above - I think that we would all like to see it!

This would certainly put the wind up the voters

In the 60s we had concrete block high rises which were thought to be modern wonders of technology and beauty and accordingly were erected all over traditional urban landscapes. Our present decade has windmills which are thought to be modern wonders of technology and beauty...

It's interesting to me that these windmills are all produced by a foreign company.

Why exactly are we using taxpayers money to enhance the revenue stream and corporate cv of overseas companies?

Donald, maybe they didn't give a big enough donation to the Scottish Labour Party. Airtricity UK, Chairman Brian Wilson, gave a £3,000 donation last year to the Scottish Labour Party.

Green campaigners welcomed the rejection, saying wind farms are not always in the right place.
Ministers say no to plan for giant wind turbines in beauty spot
JOHN ROSS
PLANS to build a new wind farm in a Perthshire beauty spot were rejected by the Scottish Executive yesterday because of concerns that it could damage the environment.
Sir. This is a very selfish outlook. We are looking everywhere for the energy. Just because you have the beauty spots does not mean you blow the trumpet of already GREEN. The global warming is the issue. Not one. ALL of are the part of destroying the ozone and it is up to us to make up the greenery by any way we can. Do not at the beauty now. Look at the future. These beauty will be eaten up the UV rays if ozone id becoming thinner. No. Not your fault. But you are looking at the beauty spot for yourself. This is the fight for of us. I cannot do it alone. You cannot do this alone. The sky is not over Scotland only. The acid clouds coming in from the North, South, East, and West do not look at your greenery. It will pour it will pour. So no one at that time will look at the beautiful sites or tourists attractions.
This is all combining to fight the global warming. So please put up the wind mill. They are not asking you fro cheese or milk or and burgers. Are they?
I don’t know but you are crazy?

I am an environment friendly type of person. And so whatever is harmful to the environment is something that I opposses to. Although the project is quite interesting. Maybe they should find other area to make this project possible.

I am an environment friendly type of person. And so whatever is harmful to the environment is something that I opposses to. Although the project is quite interesting. Maybe they should find other area to make this project possible. It's the best option there is.

Let all laugh at Brian ..lets all laugh at Brian

Dick no 5 - I hope you bear that in mind next time you go shopping at ASDA. (Or, maybe - I hope - you don't...)

I tend to agree with Mr Firozali. Why are we obsessed with this "beauty" issue in Scotland. Yes Scotland does have some breathtaking scenery, unfortunately most of you wind turbine sceptics have probably never donned a pair of hiking boots in your life and would not recognise a beauty spot if it you square bewteen the eyes.

I do agree however there are better locations for some of these proposed windfarms. The North East of Scotland is mainly ploughed and ugly in the winter, its a comforting thought that these man made structures along the A96 could well be the catalyst to U-turn our commitment to green energy.

glad that one has been rejected ,they all should of been as they are a blight on our beautiful country side iam am sure the boffins of today could of come up with a better solution for more energy

There's always going to be a conflict between different conservation interests and I wouldn't want to be the one making some of the decisions.

freetalkscotland includes a dedicated forum on environmental issues at http://www.forumspring.com/freetalkscotlan/viewforum.php?...

I think Andrew, (2) is right, my own experience with waste incineration, an eminently suitable and more productive source of energy than wind turbines, showed that townie "enviros" were much happier to have a new landraise site miles away in a rural area than have an incinerator on their doorstep where the bulk of the waste was produced. Of course their numbers are significant in terms of votes, and also subscriptions to enviro organisations. Again as Andrew says, there are mega bucks involved for the turbine companies, but not for the consumer, as wholesale energy prices keep rising because of these massive subsidies.

Wind turbines are destroying our natural and wild environment in all the upland areas of the UK and will continue to do so whilst this obsessive focus on co2, a vital component of plant growth, continues. The temperature of the planet is not accelerating out of control, but say it often enough and people start to believe it. Politicians may not believe it but they jump on the bandwagon and use it as vote fodder as with Mr Cameron.

I feel sad for Mr Firozali, MBA, PhD, he must be out of his mind with worry about the forthcoming apocalypse, having bought the whole package from acid rain to ozone and co2 and conflated them all together. Relax Mr Firozali, in a few short years it will be apparent that the current cooling trend is well established and the scrap merchants can start collecting the turbines, although what we do about all the concrete in the ground I don't know. What a legacy for the future.

Most seem to forget that in the manufacture and placement of these " friendly" windmills, more polution is produced than saved. They are simply a money making device for their builders. Rather than building them in Scotland, why not build them where they need the power, On the south coast of England. Scotland has excess power and exports energy to the south of England, why do we need to have more of these monstrosities put them where they are needed and leave our countryside alone.

Windfarms damage the environment, well I have never heard so much piffle in my life. They 'damage' the view from a few people's second homes. I think someone needs to tell the objectors that the landscape is not 'natural' if it was it would be an oak woodland. I suggest that the posters above visit this site...
http://www.yes2wind.com/debunk.html

James, mate, you need to get out more, they are building them in the SE I have welcomed the development of two sites near me in Kent. The problem with waste incineration is two fold; PCBs and other nasties in the gas they emit, because people are too lazy to properly seperate their rubbish-this affects all of us; and, they are a disincentive to suppliers to change their products.

I am amazed that the ramblers objected, one of the most destructive forces in the countryside are the little ribbons of bright orange kagoules from ramblers. They make pleasnat little paths into great wide gashes on hillsides, destroy the solitude experience of the countryside with yabbering about their gardens or holidays and dmand facilities that ultimately change the area they are visiting.

A wind farm does none of these.

Once again we are told that this windfarm will supply 40,000 homes. While no figures are given so it is impossible to be certain previous such assertions have relied on (A) the windmills producing at full capacity - in fact the average about 27% due to the wind not always being perfect (B) averaging out a households electricity use to a bit under 1 KWhr all the time when in fact we use less than that when sleeping & far more making tea.

The figure is therfore dishonest. Even Scottish renewables say wind is to unreliable to form any part of our baseload.

Why are we never told all the technical possibilities? These windmills are such huge monstrosities because their sails revolve vertically around a horizontal axis. There are, I understand, well-tested models in which the three sails are still vertical but rotate in a horizontal movement round the sides of the stem and using it as a vertical axis. They are less obtrusive not only because they are half as high but also because they are twice as efficient so only half the number is needed. Moreover they are safer because they can continue operating at much higher windspeeds. If we must have windfarms, why are the much smaller vertical axis turbines never considered? And what are we going to feel in a few years when we see once beautiful landscapes ruined by armies of the huge horizontal axis turbines by then rusting away because they have been overtaken by advancing tachnology?

I would like to see the development of off the shelf products that can be placed in your garden or on the side of houses. I don't like the fact that the only people getting grants etc are Corporations and other big companies. We should be encouraging the development of tech that can be bought and used by individual home users. Dependency on large Corporations for 100% of our energy needs is a NO NO. If tech like this exists, please let me know and i will put it up on my site

Scott: www.navitron.org.uk would be a good place to start with that.

Shetland faces a similar problem to that of Scotland, where windmills are concerned - see
http://www.shetland-news.co.uk/pages/news%20stories/09_20... - for details of what's being suggested at the moment. As you'll be able to see, a perfectly pleasant little village will be turned into something that looks like a bad day at Blackpool if the 'windies' ever get their way - 'defaced', in a word.

I somehow doubt that the 40,000 Scottish homes cited in the Scotsman article will hold their levels of consumption down for long enough to make such a project a success, even on paper.

The real key to this problem still lies, not in creating more generating-stations to meet ever-increasing and largely wasteful demand, but in reducing our demands on the grid and doing more with less. This is the so-called 'Factor Four' approach, where twice as much is done with half the resources. For example, low-power LED-based lighting will soon become available in the UK, just as it's lately become available in the USA. Replacement of incandescent bulbs with solid-state lighting will allow people to slash their lighting costs by a factor of about 30, while increasing the mean-time-between-replacements of their bulbs by a factor of around 10.

The serious, underlying, long-term problem with power generation, though, is still one of inadequate
engineering. Energy garnered from the wind (in particular) is not efficiently utilised: because instead of being buffered (stored) either as heat or in a new form of battery for consumption later on at peak load times, it's phased-in with what's on the grid already from fossil- and nuclear-fired generators, and is used directly. As a result, much of it is (and has to be) wasted - as much as 4/5 of it, some will tell you - because it's virtually impossible to predict take-up due to

(cont)
Put your minds to it, all you engineers - and stop thinking about waste heat in out-dated Victorian terms, where it was disguised in the equations as 'entropy' and 'enthalpy' to hide just how much energy was being casually thrown away to drive a few wheels. Bear in mind that steam locomotives of the 19th and 20 centuries were about 1% efficient, which is why they were superceded: diesel generators can be about 44% efficient, and would be around 90% efficient overall, if their cooling systems' waste heat output was used to drive central heating systems, instead of being vented to the atmosphere and lost.

comment @21/22/23 Philip. Nice one, thats for that and i agree with a lot of your comments matey ;)

Scott - thanks for that. I've been conjuring for some time with the idea of a home generator (based on the engine from a soon-to-be-scrapped Vauxhall Corsa) that will supply its waste heat through heat-exchangers into a household central heating system. It'll be brill :)

Seriously - 12V or 24V may be the way to go - it's amazing how little energy is required to keep a well-insulated house warm, and I reckon that much of it could be supplied by a single 400W yacht-based wind-turbine. AIR-X, for instance, make a good one (look on eBay for that item, and on the Navitron site for something similar).

Robbie 17,

You're incredibly blinkered in your assertions. Wind farms are industrial features and as with any development they bring pros and cons so obviously some locations will be much better than others - ideally, they should be built close to our larger centres.

"Windfarms damage the environment, well I have never heard so much piffle in my life".
I suggest you read the environmental impact statement for the AMEC proposal for the Isle of Lewis, maybe then the penny will drop.

"They make pleasnat little paths into great wide gashes on hillsides, destroy the solitude experience of the countryside with yabbering about their gardens or holidays and dmand facilities that ultimately change the area they are visiting".

Mmmn...How exactly do you think turbines get placed in the ground? By great wide gashes on hillsides and many cubic tonnes of concrete.

Why dont they stick a wind turbine in front of wee jack boot at first mincers questions,this would create
enough electricity to heat scotland through an ice age.

#27 rab - nice vest, old chum! Do they do them in white?

Maybe we could force-feed all of these mental-pygmy politicians on beer and baked beans, and then obtain an 'output' from both ends at once. Even Le Petomain couldn't do that :)

Sorry, typo - make that Le Pétomane - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_P%C3%A9tomane.

Quote :
"It was recommended for refusal as it would not help to preserve the natural beauty of the area. "

And what about the beauty of our lovely Scottish islands? Can we rely on the Scottish Executive (SE) to protect the natural beauty of areas such as the Island of Skye and the Western Isles? With at least three windfarms planned for the areas of Edinbane and Dunvegan will the SE protect these areas?

Will tourists want to look across Skye to Dunvegan Castle and beyond and see turbines on hills instead of hills and mountains? What about the 2,300 or more eagles killed at one wind farm site by turbines and numerous bats dying a horrible death?

After the Scotman's article about the SE riding rough shod over local people's views this decision looks more like a knee jerk reaction.

28. Philip /But blubber jaws joggin junkie Andy kerr can.

Andy Kerr - http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/msp/membersPages/andy_k... - this geezer? Does he come in economy size, or is 'what you see is what - you gett??'? Whatever - he sounds to be a versatile sort of carbon-based biped ... maybe I should vote early and often for him.

#30 Faye - if power systems generally had been engineered in a sensible way, we wouldn't be having these discussions. It's our misfortune that the elected dolts-in-office haven't a clue how to go about questioning the situation - and I imagine that most of those DIO wouldn't understand the answers to their questions anyway.

What's needed now is a complete rethink on how we transport ourselves and provide the power to run our lives, in the ways that we've become accustomed to. The entire Victorian mechanism of open-ended systems (that dump crap into the envrionment, treating it as a huge waste-disposal scheme) has to be brought to an end, before we precipitate an environmental disaster that wipes the planet clean of its most malevolent and genuinely stupid life-form to date.

Looking around the internet at numerous engineering websites, I'd say that an integration and rationalisation of knowledge on this front is imminent. The only question is: will we come to our senses on environmental and energy issues in time to allow the majority of people in the world to survive - or will we be forced into it by necessity, when the disaster is already under way? The former way would mark the human race as truly intelligent - the latter way would mark the human race as truly stupid. There will be no middle ground - and what currency the politicians will try to make of it for their own ends will be irrelevant.

If he managed to reach the beautiful scenery north of Crieff before good sense prevailed then energy minister Allan Wilson must have been overcome by the breathtaking vista toward the Highlands as you travel northwestwards on the A9 on the Dunblane bypass. Perhaps he just closed his eyes in horror!
This outstanding frame of wild Scotland now boasts the brutal welcoming statement that the powers that be in Scotland are willing to sacrifice its finest scenery on a planet-saving mission.
The facts and figures from ministerial offices on the logic leading to approval of this controversial development would perhaps put an end to much doubt and debate on the whole issue of windfarms.

I really get a kick out of Firozali A. Mulla MBA PhD,Dar-Es-Salaam, Tanzania.Hé's the best part of these blogs.
Keep 'em coming Big Boy!

#35 Anthony - except that he lives in Wolverhampton!

Philip:
quote "The former way would mark the human race as truly intelligent - the latter way would mark the human race as truly stupid."

We have intelligent life on earth. NASA. Just look at Cassini, its been in space for more than 8 years, using energy from the gravitational pull of planets. It's currently photographing Saturn on its way to Titan and not even a petrol station in sight! Yet here we are playing with windmills. Is the SE living in the 21st century?
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cassini/timeline/index....

What about George Leslie in Orkney, a Scotsman, denied help from the SE to design a product which could produce as much energy as a nuclear power station. But no, it favours a multinational company and we all know that another country will again benefit from UK taxpayers money.

http://www.land-care.org.uk/science/current_topics/2005/j...

Here's hoping the pylons go the same way.

Its just surprising no one has thought of underground wind turbines!

;-)

Hint Hint

Fantastic news - I am pleased that this development has been refused planning permission. Based on the developer's own figures the wind farm at Abercairney would have required over 171,000 years to negate a single year's global carbon dioxide emissions. Consequently the planning refusal is unlikely to have any impact on reducing the effects of climate change. I am not sure that I agree with Mr Ruskell's view that a similar monstrosity to that proposed for Abercairney should be constructed nearby at Griffin Forest - hopefully planning permission for this development will also be refused. Given that at least one member of Mr Ruskell's party has declared a financial interest in a proposed wind farm development (see url reference below), his view is perhaps unsurprising.

reference: (use edit (find (on this page) - sleeping partner.

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/officialReport...

Have you ever seen a power pole? They are a much greater blight than a wind farm. How many people would be without electricty because of the high cost of installation?

Actually I think that wind turbines are amongst the most graceful artefacts from any 20th century designer's pen that I've ever seen. Even if they are inefficient, conventional wisdon is that they are at least buying a little time.
Anyway, people who get all mincey about rural 'heritage' shouldn't take jobs in cities.

sqc #38. That's a good idea actually. Harness the power of sewer-gas, I like it.

Thanks to 'The Donald'

There's just no pleasing some people. This NIMBY attitude will not save the planet. In fact, let's be sensible here. When other countries are churning out Earth-damaging pollutants is there any sense trying to make our country 'clean'? This muck travels the World and infects other nations regardless of their strenuous effects to minimise domestic pollution. Here we have a case of the right green sourse of energy but in the wrong place. Tell me where the right place is? Any sensible person is going to object to having these levanthians on their doorstep. What about an underground nuclear power station at the same location. Out of sight, out of mind!

Cynic, well put, most of these objectors are second/holiday home residents because the locals can't compete with superinflated house prices and are forced to live (or relocate) in less aesthetically pleasing areas.

I suggest you sell your second/holiday homes back to the locals and invest in some type of green cooperative.

all wind farms in the Shetlands,NOW thats a good idea.Yhen we could keep Scotland lovely.
I mean who would want to go go to the Shetlands for a holiday

I read this and started to believe....

"There are ominous signs that the earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production—with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only ten years from now.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard pressed to keep up with it. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 14 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in thirteen U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down." (Oops!)
NewsWeek April 28. 1975

13 October, 2004, BBC News Online Carbon 'reaching danger levels'
"Professor Sir David King told a London audience climate change was "the most serious issue facing us this century and beyond", needing global solutions. On present trends, Sir David said, the world was just 60 years from triggering an irreversible climate disaster." (Not scary enough, ten years always worked in the past).

Countdown to global catastrophe, 24 January 2005 Independent.
"The global warming danger threshold for the world is clearly marked for the first time in an international report to be published tomorrow - and the bad news is, the world has nearly reached it already. In as little as 10 years, or even less, their report indicates, the point of no return with global warming may have been reached." (That's better).

Russian Scientists Issue Global Cooling Warning
August 28, 2006
"Khabibullo Abdusamatov said

"A wind farm does none of these." Whilst you were singing the praises of windfarms you might have included another few statements such as don't generate meaningful amounts of power, fail to reduce 'global warming' nor are they cheap.

I am glad to see this has been rejected. I was an ardent fan of windpower. However as I have a clear few of the construction now going on at the Braes of Doune, I have changed my views. This wind farm of 36? units can be seen from all over the Stirling Area. It is hideous, the white structures standing out like sore thumbs. I agree with the local rag 'Stirling Obsever' that something should be done to camouflage them a bit.

My daughter who works on the east side of Stirling says she can see them from her office windows. I thought that was unlikley until I went around to her office. Between the gap, formed by the castle rock and the Ochils there they are.

Given that this is one of the many planned sites for the corriodor running between Stirling and Perth. I can now see why people are becoming more vociferous against them.

We should have smaller sites serving local areas , this would also dispense with the need for the large pylons that are required to carry the power to England!!!!!

I am glad to see this has been rejected. I was an ardent fan of windpower. However I have a clear few of the construction now going on at the Braes of Doune. This wind farm of 36? units can be seen from all over the Stirling Area.

My daughter who works on the east side of Stirling says she can see them from her office windows. I thought that unlikley until I went around to her office. Between the gap of the castle rock and the Ochils there they are.

Given that this one of may planned for the corriodor running between Stirling and Perth. I can now see why people are becoming more against them.

Having travelled to the Western Isles in July last year - and experiencing for myself the exceptional beauty and peace of those islands - I can only hope and pray that the ministers will also say no to the massive windfarm developments intended for the Isle of Lewis. So far planning and scoping applications for roughly 400 colossal turbines (125 - 140m high) are before the Scottish Executive for Lewis. Not only are the islands beautiful, they are of immense historical value. The Neolithic Callinish Standing Stones on Lewis date back 3000 - 1500 BC with further sites in the area still to be excavated. The Iron Age broch at Dun Carloway dates from the last few centuries BC and is one of the best preserved in Scotland. St Moluag’s Church, built in the twelfth century when the islands were under Norse rule, is still in use today. Restored blackhouses tell of the lives of the earliest inhabitants on the island. In 1831 a cow rubbed herself against a sandbank on the Uig Sands dislodging 78 twelfth-century Viking chesspieces, carved from walrus ivory, which became known as the Lewis Chessmen. The Iron Age or Pictish settlement at Bosta was only discovered in 1992 when a storm washed away part of the coastline. Who knows what other archaeological sites and artefacts are still to be discovered and may be damaged/destroyed in the building of these massive windfarms covering huge areas of land? The land too is of huge ecological and environmental value. The North West Lewis Peatlands are a UN Ramsar Site - a Special Proteced Area – and the area designated for ‘Europe’s largest windfarm’ runs along it and in part of it with 167 km of road traversing through it. Is Lewis to become permanently damaged for a highly contentious energy source which has not been proven to significantly reduce CO2 emissions? I pray not.
For further reading see: Wind power dilemma for Lewis on http:

I like windmills

Right decision -wrong resaon

There are NO better sites

E-ON report,EU s biggest wind farm constructer says carbon dioxide saved is neligible.

So the fail in only purpose

Just a scam to give taxpayers money to wind constructors and landlords

Without windfarms the Beauly-Denny Pylon Project is not necessary

I'd just like to ask all the people, critisizing thoes people who agreed, the project should be rejected because it was in a "Beauty" spot. Go out to the area, and take a good hard look at it. Then picture in your mind all the Turbines, that were being propoused, then tell me where your eyes will be drawen to? Will it be to the landscape. Or the Turbines?

Now don't get me wrong. Im as much in favoure of conservation and renewable energy production as the next person. But lets be more practical about it. As far as Im concerned, for a place like Scotland or all of England for that matter. Thoes Wind Farms, should go 'Off Shore', not on land.

Thats just my oppion.

I see, so all you naysayers want nuclear, then? Do yoiu honestly think that Dutch (Holland) windmills were an eyesore? It provided that small country a cheap, viable source of power when there was none other. The only legitimate grip I can see is perhaps get your goventment to assure the citizenry that a goodly percentage of the contracted labor and windmills, power controllers themselves, etc, come from domestic companies, given that their bids are good, competetive ones. Otehrwise, get a life (and save a planet!)

Corrections (damned keyboard!) "gripe", "government", "otherwise", "competitive" (I get tired of being singled out as the "ignorant foreigner" that seems so rampant here)

Wind power is not paid for by the taxpayer. However it is subsidised by the market. The system of Renewables Obligations Certificates ensures that the generating industry cross-subsidises wind and other renewables (apart from large hydro). The end result is, at the moment, all electricity consumers pay about 2% extra for electricity to support renewables. (Renewables apart from hydro generate a couple of percent share of our electricity. )

The un-subsidised cost of electricity from onshore wind is about twice the cost of electricity from (non-clean) coal; and about 50% more than the cost of electricity from gas or nuclear. This should be obvious - otherwise the generators would have developed wind-power without any ROC incentive.

However, fossil fuel electricity is also indirectly subsidised. This subsidy comes from the fact that it does not pay for its external costs - i.e. the damage to health and the environment. The european ExternE study (http://www.externe.info/) showed that if fossil fuel paid its full external costs the price of electricity from coal would double, and the price from gas would increase by about 30%. Emissions trading might do something towards this, but at the moment everybody (the taxpayer) subsidises the external costs of fossil fuel, more or less to the same extent that the market subsidises wind.

Almost all electricity (apart from hydro and nuclear) should cost a lot more than we're paying at the moment.

Crikey!!! Got to love them windmills! If you go south of Lamar, Colorado about 19 miles there are hundreds of them. Pretty to look at, kind of soothing to see them turning, and they add to the landscape instead of detracting. If I had a chance, I would take a couple of hundred myself, and a couple of hundred for my wife, and a few hundred for the children. NIMBY. Senator Kennedy is p*ssing his pants that someone wants to build windmills off Marthas Vineyard. The Bush at Kennebunkport aren't going to allow any to scar their viewscape. The rich are obnoxious and a pestilience. The enviro-nazis want and want and want, but when the fruits of technology appear, they are apoplectic over some preceived harm to the "environment". Give me a break. It is all about donations and power to them. They have tried their damnedest to destroy the cattle industry in the West, farming in the Mid-west, and landowners all over America. The timber industry is on the ropes, the oil industry would be if we weren't short supply (and I never saw an enviro-nazi that didn't ride everywhere they took their smelly bodies). Now there is a good rant from an affect party!!!

Europe had best not let the enviro-nazis stop alternate means of making power, b/c it looks like Putin of Russia is planning on owning and controlling the supply and price of energy to all of the Euro/Asian landmass. Putin has be making the Ukraine pay for wanting other than what he wants for them, in price and supply. Belarus was rewarded with cheap gas in adequate supply for siding with Putin on gov't alignment issues. When Bush said he saw love and compassion in Putin's eyes, it was gas he saw.
We have had some seismic work being done local, and 1 guess who is doing it. If you said Russian companies, you won the monkey!

@Ron from Colorado. Windmills have killed thousands of protected birds in the States and the proposals to litter areas with these industrial structures in 'natural' habitat is stupid. What has happened here in the UK is politicians have paid huge sums of UK tax payers money to set up companies producing turbines, without first seeking the opinions of the public. Having committed themselves to this folly, they now perpetuate even more folly by riding rough shod over public opinion in order to save face. Don't you think this is 'environ-mental' wholesale destruction devoid of democracy?
Sorry to hear about the loss of cattle industry but unless the public speaks up and condemns politicians for their actions, the damage will continue unabated.

I live in Crieff and I'm really happy this has been stopped in its tracks. This wholesale industrialisation of our upland areas is extremely sad. For a short term gain, these areas are going to be scarred for a very long time.
I think the attitude of the power companies is one of the main reasons that these schemes are opposed by local communities. If they were to pledge a decent percentage of the money created back to the local community they would have a much easier ride.

@Adam. You are happy to scar the landscape, kill off our wildlife all for a few bucks? For an energy which fails on the land ratio to energy output calculations.

Fortunately, there are people who believe the environment is much more important and are not easily bought off by the lure of money. Politicians are pushing this green energy because they have spent millions of taxpayers money to entice corporate companies over here. At £54,000 an employee in one company, they really can't lose face. The public are being hoodwinked.

#46 - "all wind farms in the Shetlands,NOW thats a good idea.Yhen we could keep Scotland lovely.
I mean who would want to go go to the Shetlands for a holiday"

Fortunately for us, not guys like you :o)