BLUEMOMENT

.
There's a proposal to build an 11-turbine windfarm on the hills behind Puilladobhrain. The visibility map in the curent scoping report clearly shows 8-11 turbines visible from the anchorage. The turbines will be Enercon E44s, 78m to blade tip. From the map on the developer's website it looks as though the nearest turbine will be situated near the 80m contour the other side of Clachan Sound less than 0.5km from the anchorage.



More info on http://www.clachanwindfarm.co.uk .

.
(bumped because map added)

I am interested (and a little surprised) by the responses your post has provoked in TOP.
I am led to conclude that some of them are motivated by envy. ("We have to do our sailing in places blighted by industrial development, so why shouldn't you?")

Alan_D wrote:I am interested (and a little surprised) by the responses your post has provoked in TOP.
I am led to conclude that some of them are motivated by envy. ("We have to do our sailing in places blighted by industrial development, so why shouldn't you?")

Aye, I was a bit surprised . . . it's really a bit odd that even anti-GW conspiracy theorists seem to feel obliged to defend wind farms.

When he was climate change secretary last year the junior millipede attended a screening of 'The Age of Stupid' in London where he said:

Ed Milliband wrote:'The government needs to be saying, 'It is socially unacceptable to be against wind turbines in your area - like not wearing your seatbelt or driving past a zebra crossing'

I nearly chucked. Problem is, we are too far down the wind turbine route - if people find out they are fundamentally flawed there will be trouble. They are big and show that something is being done, and of course there are no votes in the country as so few of us live there any more - and city dwellers who come out to play have been convinced that they are 'graceful' etc.

I agree with Lovelock when he says:

James Lovelock wrote:If wind energy were the one practical and affordable answer to global heating then I would grit my teeth at the loss of the countryside and accept it."

I go to Pulladobhrain for a quiet night, and am thankful to have had quite a few - I don't usually choose the windiest place to drop the hook.
Why don't we forget these things and concentrate on predictable - measurable - tide turbines... The Moon tugs, the Sun tugs, they both tug, day after day - ad nausium.
We have lots of wind turbines on the Clyde coast, and it's amazing how many are in "maintenance mode" (stopped!) when there is a decent wind.
Then there's the days there isn't enough wind and they're all stopped..
If we MUST have windmills, they should be in the valleys the wind howls through (like Lochranza) - maybe they can't make them strong enough?

I find them rather pretty

claymore wrote:I find them rather pretty

Aye, but then you sail a Claymore

sahona wrote:

Just an illustration that it is all in the eye of the beholder, Bill

Claysie's 'argument' is specious. I think the 747 is one of the most graceful and astonishing machines man has ever built, but I don't want dozens of them permanently overhanging my favourite anchorages.

And anyway the whole premise of windpower is fundamentally flawed. Claymores ( lovely boats btw) are a better way of extracting energy from the wind.

Claymores are spacious, not specious...

claymore wrote:Claymores are spacious, not specious...

Three weeks to come up with that? Your audience expects more.

Been busy