DRAFT PLAN FOR OFFSHORE WIND - CONSULTATION PERIOD EXTENDED

[Nick]

.
CONSULTATION ON THE STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (SEA) AND DRAFT PLAN FOR OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY IN SCOTTISH TERRITORIAL WATERS

The consultation period has been formally extended by six weeks. Public opinions on the Draft Plan and its report are invited. The new closing date for responses is Monday 27th September 2010.

Details HERE

Most of the proposed areas look fairly sensible to me (my objections to the viability of windpower being set aside for a minute) but I think all those of us familiar with the area should take the opportunity to object to the Machrihanish proposal. (Google machrihanish offshore wind farm for more info).



USEFUL LINKS

SSE Renewables Kintyre Offshore Wind Farm Proposal

Discussion on Kintrye forum

Kintyre Offshore Windfarm Action Group

[DaveS]

Hmm, this straddles the voi normale between Gigha and MOK. No mention in the impact statements of any impediment to navigation. IIRC the offshore wind farms in SE England IIRC have a rotor clearance of 19m at HAT, so if the same applies here, most of us shouldn't get dismasted... Still a bit of a nuisance, though.

I'm surprised that, given how long it is since this first came out, that there hasn't been any previous comment e.g. from the RYA.

[Nick]

.
Assuming the 105 turbines are equally spaced over the entire area they will be just 800 metres apart, which is not good for passage planning in poor vis. Blade tips will be clear of masts for most of us but . . . whether or not it is theoretically possible to sail through them in strong winds I am sure they will intimidate a lot of people from taking a direct route. This means going within 1km of the shore or making a detour round three sides involving a detour of over 20nm into a fairly rumbustious stretch of open water.

This is not the Arklow bank here either - they will be just over 1km offshore. They are going to look pretty stark from the shore . . . but I realise that uglification is not an issue when we are talking profit.

[Gardenshed]

so close to the shore ... a benefit for the politicians as the voters can see them and believe that renewables are contributing to carbon reduction.
Now, the embedded carbon content of the concrete bases, the turbines themselves, not to mention the overall efficiency (25% net efficiency per annum) plus the transmission losses to move the energy to the place of need .... oh, maybe I'm confusing science and engineering with doing the right thing.

Yes we need non fossil fuel sources of energy but as a great comment that I heard recently states: isn't it windy enough without installing so many big fans?

If tide energy generation was visible instead of being inconveniently hidden under water, then there wold be a lot more political support for it. You dont' get votes if the voters can't see what you are doing for them.
should they install this offshore windfarm ... yes but instead of using the campbeltown turbine manufacturing facility what are the odds that the turbines selected come from far far away!

[Yotter]

I am more of a fan for tidal turbines since the energy source is more predictable..................if only there were strong tidal currents in the local I bit further than 100m off-shore would ptovide a better route for RTM passages to Gigha.

[Telo]

There are aesthetic, economic, political and social issues on which people will differ, but, leaving them aside, and forgive me if I'm asking a daft question, but does an offshore wind installation not have the same fundamental characteristics as an offshore rock, a sgeir even? Presumably these things will be rather better marked than many rocks.

Agree with Nick, it won't be an Arklow Bank, which is the only one we've passed. That must be about five miles or so offshore.