Friday, 16 March 2012

Breaker Hill wind farm #13

Yesterday, South Ayrshire Council's regulatory panel voted unanimously to reject the Breaker Hill wind farm planning application. Fantastic news. I think the rural communities in the area owe a huge vote of thanks to the small group of activists who were central to the opposition effort for many, many years. That group know who they are; they certainly have my respect. Doggedly, they spread the word about the potential development and ensured there was a healthy number of objections from a diverse cross section of individuals. Well done all. I will be updating my maps and statistics accordingly at the weekend.

Yesterday's decision also sends a strong political message: South Ayrshire Council will measure wind farm applications against a very strict set of criteria and will not just approve anything in a effort to see Scottish Government policy implemented at any cost. Having said that, it is still essential that people continue to express opinions about other developments. The planning system both permits and encourages this, and people should not feel shy about expressing their opinions.

There is of course always the possibility that the developers will appeal the decision. If they do, there is little more that can be done. However, if an appeal is launched and the Council's refusal overturned - then South Carrick will have to look no further than Edinburgh to find the individuals who would have been responsible for the wanton destruction of South Carrick. Let us all hope that the developers and land owners associated with Breaker Hill will now just walk away from this application with good grace and accept the verdict handed down yesterday.

Thursday, 1 March 2012

Breaker Hill wind farm # 12

Earlier today, I received a copy of the Planning officers addendum to the report on the Breaker Hill planning application which goes before the regulatory panel on March 15th. Now, I hadn't read the additional material in detail at the end of last year, but a quote in the planning officer's report caught my eye. In essence, the Additional Information main text contains the following: "the addition of Breaker Hill into an existing landscape baseline that already includes a number of operational and consented developments has resulted in both a local and wider landscape that is characterised by windfarms and could actually reduce the overall sensitivity of that landscape to accept wind farm development".

I suppose it was bound to happen sooner or later, a developer attempting to justify one development by making reference to existing ones! In other words, the landscape's already broken, so why not let us just go ahead anyway? At least the planning officer didn't fall for that one. Links to all of the additional documents submitted by the developer are available here.

Also noted in the report is the rather pathetic attempt by the developers to make use of an organisation called Alliance4wind. This group of people accosted members of the public in Ayr attempting to get them to sign letters of support for the development. Needless to say, all 255 letters were received too late for inclusion in the original report. Shame. The recommendation of the planning department is still for refusal.

I headed over to the Alliance4wind website and found a few interesting things. First of all, the web site is actually a sub domain for the free hosting service that used to be called synthasite, but is now known as yola. So whoever these people are, they clearly cannot be bothered to register their own domain name (which by the way, IS available) - ohh, but hang on a minute, they'd have to give their address for that wouldn't they? And the contact telephone number? A mobile. Says it all really. Going back to the home page, Alliance4wind claims that its website is powered by ecotricity renewable energy. Given that yola is based in San Francisco, I sincereley doubt the accuracy of this claim. Whoever Alliance4wind are, they clearly are neither professional nor credible! Perhaps we will see them campaigning for support for Straid Farm wind farm - I'll look forward to that!

Monday, 27 February 2012

File download issues

I have become aware that there are ongoing issues with regard to the server on which I host the files for download from this blog. This is a continuation of the previously reported issues - basically caused by a massive influx of new users at FileFactory, which in turn was caused by the shutdown of a number of other file hosting services for copyright law breaches. I have no information on a resolution date for this issue, and can therefore only apologise for any inconvenience caused.

I am currently considering moving my document library to another service provider - but with approaching 3,000 files - such a move could be a big job!

Glenchamber wind farm # 4

I'm a bit late reporting this (I've only just found out), but it is now clear that at the end of 2011, RES submitted an appeal against the refusal for the Glenchamber wind farm planning applicatoin. No great surprise really. The press release regarding the appeal can be found here.

This appeal rally is one to watch, since Dumfries and Galloway Council refused the application partly on Visual impact grounds. Now, if this application is overturned at appeal I think that it will well and truly demonstrate that the planning system as a whole with regard to wind farms is irrevocably broken. I have yet to be convinced of the real independence of the reporters who review these cases.

Sunday, 26 February 2012

A word on subsidies

A lot of folk are waking up the the fact that wind farms are not really about generating clean and green electricity. That they do generate electricity is not in doubt - providing they get they right sort of wind, you know, not too much, not too little just so. I will leave the 'green' thing alone for this post - other fish to fry don't you know!

I notice that the traffic on this blog has increased lately, and I suspect I know why - perhaps a development proposal close to a certain South Ayrshire landfill site has something to do with it. Anyway, for those of you who are new to this blog, I wanted to concentrate on subsidies in this post - and give a quick and easy method of understanding just how much one of those wind turbines actually generates in terms of cash for its operators. For those familiar with these things I apologise for covering what you may feel is old ground.

OK, on with the words. First of all, I need to explain what the term load factor means in relation to a wind turbine. Essentially, it is the actual percentage output of the rated capacity of a turbine (or group of turbines) over a period of time. For example, a 2MW turbine does not always generate 2MW. Over an extended period of time, it will actually generate far less. Wind farm developers will often claim a 30% load factor, but the reality is usually about 25% - and that's perhaps being a little generous. What this means is that a 2MW turbine will in actual fact only generate 25% of 2MW when taken over a period of time. The debate regarding load factors has raged for a long time and I'm not going to go into that here, so we'll go with 25%.

Now, electricity suppliers have to show that a certain percentage of the electricity they supply comes from 'renewable sources'. They do this by acquiring what are called Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs) - from the electricity generators. And these cost. Generators can trade these ROCs - they can even stockpile them for two reporting periods. And how much does a ROC cost? Well that varies. This site will give you an idea of how much a ROCs are being traded for. I'm not going to average out that lot of figures for the purpose of this post - but £47.50 looks like a reasonable average. For an onshore wind farm 1 ROC is created for each MWh of electricity generated. So, how much is a turbine worth in terms of ROC revenue per year? Let's take a 2 MW turbine and see: (2X24X365.25)X25% = 4,4383 ROCs. Taking the average price of a ROC as £47.50, we find that those 4,383 ROCs are worth £208,192.50. So essentially, a turbine is worth about £104,000, per MW of installed capacity per year (assuming a 25% load factor).

Let us also not loose sight of the fact that the electricity a turbine generates is also saleable (this site will give you idea of how much that can be per MWh). At the time of posting, the 48 hour average sell price was just over £50 per MWh. Finally, let's not forget that operators may also receive constraint payments to 'not produce electricity' - at a rate they can name. So essentially, a 2MW turbine could easily be worth around £400,000 per year in revenue for the generator, and more than 50% of that would be subsidy through the ROC system.

Now going back to those ROCs. Who pays for them? I'm afraid it is you and I - the consumer. Money for old rope eh? All of the cash required for suppliers to obtain ROCs from the generators is built into our bills.

And the local perspective? Here is a short list of the built and proposed wind farms shown on my map, along with an estimate of just how much cash each wind farm will generate, in terms of ROCs over a year and assuming a load factor of 25% and a ROC sell price of £47.50 per MWh:

  • Assel Valley - £4,424,090 (proposed)
  • Breaker Hill - £2,029,877 (proposed)
  • Dersalloch - £7,182,641 (proposed)
  • Hill of Ochiltree - £2,394,214 (proposed)
  • Straid Farm - £3,830,742 (proposed)
  • Tralorg Hill - £2,081,925 (proposed)
  • Kilgallioch - £30,916,586 (proposed)
  • Glenapp & Loch Ree - £10,409,625 (proposed)
  • Arecleoch - 12,491,550 (operational)
  • Artfield Fell - £2,977,172 (operational & approved)
  • Hadyard Hill - £12,491,550 (operational)
  • Mark Hill - £8,744,085(operational)
  • North Rhins - £2,394,214 (operational)

Now totalling that lot up, we arrive at a figure of £102,368,271. So, if everything on my map gets built, wind turbines will generate over £100,000,000 per year in ROC subsidies alone for the generators. And realistically you can double this figure to give a general guide as to the total revenue potential for the generators (which will then include the revenue for the electricity generated). £200,000,000 per year then - for at least 25 years (which, in case you are interested equates to £5,000,000,000 - yes, that's 5 billion). Given that so many of these turbines have been, or could be built on agricultural land, the phrase cash cow really does spring to mind. Annoyed? You should be. I am - my map still has some suspicious lonesome met' masts.......

Breaker Hill wind farm # 11

This is a quick head's up to let you know that the regulatory panel for the Breaker Hill wind farm will meet on Thursday March 15th at the County Buildings, Wellington Square, Ayr. This is the meeting that was postponed from late last year, after the last minute document submission by the developers. We don't have sight of the running order of the meeting, so if you are interested in attending the panel meeting starts at 10:00AM sharp and I would strongly suggest that you arrive early to avoid disappointment!

Perhaps we will finally see this application approach a conclusion - after how many years? 7 I believe. Anyway, a strong showing is important, as it may help any panel members who are a little uncertain of the strength of local feeling to make up their minds.

Tuesday, 14 February 2012

Kilgallioch wind farm # 5

Tucked away on the Scottish Power Renewables web site was this press release. It advertises three exhibitions for the amended proposal for Kilgallioch of 99 turbines. The exhibitions are to be held at New Luce (21 February 2012), Barhill (22 February 2012) and Kirkcowan (23 February 2012).

This press release is dated the 13th February, giving just 8 days notice for the first event; its almost as if they don't actually want people to attend and be informed - or ask awkward questions!

Sunday, 12 February 2012

Straid wind farm # 13

Right of the end of January, ecotricity submitted their planning application for the proposed wind farm at Straid Farm, although the application has only just become available online. The details of the planning application can be found here.

A quick scan of the Environmental Statement makes interesting reading. First of all, the grid connection will be at Mark Hill - some 9.5km from the proposed site. Presumably then, yet another set of power lines will have to be installed from the wind farm to MArk Hill. It should be noted however that the grid connection lines are not part of this planning application. Also of interest is the maximum operational wind velocity for the model of turbine being proposed: 25ms or 56 mph in old money. This shouldn't come as too much of a surprise, since the promotional leaflets handed out by ecotricity stated that they were going to use direct drive turbines (they are after all, cheaper to buy and maintain than those with gearboxes). I wonder how often these things will be standing idle if they are consented?

Further interesting pieces of data from the Environmental Statement from this proposed development include over 4,000 HGV lorry journeys (excluding turbine delivery), 7 km of new access track, and for the foundations plinths 4,354m3 of structural concrete (which equates to nearly 10,500 tonnes) and a total of 1,078 tonnes of steel reinforcing. Green things these wind farms aren't they?

The link above takes you directly to the planning application where you can leave your comments. Here is the non-technical summary of the application (with a nice photomontage of the proposal on the front cover). At the back of the document is a Zone of Theoretical Visibility (ZTV) diagram for the development - but do note that this particular ZTV does not include any operational turbines or any turbines from the 4 other wind farm planning applications currently under consideration for the area.

From this point forward the really interesting part begins - and over time we will start to get a measure of the support (or lack of it) for this particular development.

Friday, 10 February 2012

Big, still air

I don't know if you watched yesterday evening's Tonight programme on ITV, entitled The Cost of Going Green (the programme is available in itv's ITV Player - it was originally transmitted at 19:30 on ITV1). I did, and was somewhat disappointed with regard to the lack of depth in the subject matter being broadcast. Indeed, the situation we face in Scotland was ignored completely; Eigg was showcased as a fine example of community renewable energy schemes - and that was about it for Scottish specific content. Eigg isn't really representative of the industrialisation issues we face in some areas around here - Eigg's renewable energy scheme is really about providing islanders with their own power, which to my way of thinking makes a lot of sense.

However, there were one or two interesting pieces of information to come out of the broadcast. I will focus on just one. Renewables UK's Maria McCaffery stated (start at time index 9:18 for the full effect and context): ......"what we need to do to smooth out these peaks and troughs is actually to deploy more wind because we always have wind resource in the UK, somewhere....."

Hmm. OK, lets kick this one into touch straight away. First of all, have you ever heard of an Azores high? No, its not what you may be thinking. It refers to a permanent climatic feature that is located over the Azores in the Atlantic. It is a high pressure system that quite often extends (or ridges) north east over the UK. If this happens, because of the size of the permanent high pressure system itself, it tends to lead to a long period of stable, warm, windless weather. Eventually, other low pressure systems degrade this ridge and a more variable climate is re-established. Now, Azores high pressure systems tend only to affect the UK in the summer months, but we do experience high pressure systems in the winter, and to give you an idea of the size of some of these systems, here is a snapshot of a high pressure system the met' office thinks will establish itself right over the UK in the next 48 hours:


Note the lack of isobars (grey lines) over the UK (and Europe for that matter); this means there will be little or no wind. What is shown above is actually the result of two high pressure systems colliding, one from the south west, the other from the north east (rather than the aforementioned Azores high). However, the effect is the same - little or no wind. Now, I have to admit this is a surface pressure chart, but sometimes this lack of wind can extend well above 1,000 feet. Low pressure systems can also cause a lack of wind - wind after all is only created by air moving from a high pressure system to a low pressure system (ie, when there is a pressure differential), so if a big enough system (high or low) develops over the UK, we get no wind until other systems around us start to erode and break down the stable system over the UK.

The Azores high I mentioned earlier extend from the Azores (off the west coast of Africa), right across Europe and the UK - they are truly huge systems. As a result, the ridge that sometime extends across the UK tends to take sometime to break down (hence the long period of stable, still weather). Finally, we should not forget that Stuart Young quite recently demonstrated just how often we have no wind in the UK (Analysis of UK wind Power Generation, Stuart Young Consulting March 2011); to suggest that the wind is always blowing somewhere in the UK demonstrates an ignorance of monstrous proportions; it is a generalisation that has no basis in fact. And, it is certainly not a safe assumption to make when you are talking about having enough wind to drive umpteen Gigawatts of wind turbine output, and when that output forms such a significant part of the energy mix for the whole of Scotland. I am disappointed in some ways that this quote was included - it is 'factually incorrect' and grossly misleading but then again, I suppose I have come to expect such things from Renewables UK and when wind farms are reported by the mainstream madia. Ho hum.

Saturday, 4 February 2012

Rose tinted spectacles

Earlier this afternoon, I was having one of those surfing sessions - you know, the type that sends you all over the web, getting distracted left right and centre - leaving you eventually at a place that bears little resemblance to your original target! Well, I ended up at the Department of Energy & Climate Change (DECC) website - and more specifically, at a part that I didn't even know existed: the planning database. Sad really, but there you go!

Having found myself at the DECC planning database page, I decided to head over to their Renewables Map. Now, I'm the first to admit I struggle to keep a handle on what is going on in this tiny area of Scotland, but I thought the might of DECC would have their finger on the pulse. After selecting the appropriate options I produced the following map of wind farms in the South Carrick area (which I thought, should tie-in quite well with my map - at least, that is what I thought):


Looking at this map, no reference is made to the following submitted planning applications:

  • Kilgalioch
  • Breaker Hill
  • Assel Valley
  • Tralorg Hill
  • Dersalloch

even though the 'Submitted' filter was set.

Additionally, note how the same icon is used to indicate the Girvan Community Hospital turbine as is used for the entire Arecleoch development (which spans 9,637 acres); there is no indication of an individual development's scale. Well, not true - if you click on a turbine symbol (on the real map), you do get an installed capacity figure - but that's it. So, what precisely is going on here? Is a wind farm development regarded by DECC as just a pin on a map? Is there a deliberate intent to not show the true scale of development being undertaken? Is it pure incompetence on the part of DECC? One can only guess, and hope that Chris Huhne's replacement starts his tenure at DECC by trying to get a handle on the pickle his predecessor has left him.

The impact of this apparent lack of understanding is more concerning if you consider Chic Brodie's reaction to the out of date SNH wind farm footprint maps at the Wind Farm conference in Ayr towards the end of last year (given that he sits on the Economy, Energy and Tourism Committee). He expressed surprise at the scale of development shown on them - I wonder if he normally looks at the DECC map - or any map at all? Does anybody in authority have a clue what is going on and just as importantly, do they actually care?

Knockormal turbines

Very recently, two planning applications were submitted to South Ayrshire Council for the erection of a total of 4 turbines, in the area of Knockormal HIll. These turbines are no minnows, coming in at approximately 47.05 metres (154 feet) maximum blade tip elevation, they are likely to totally dominate the surrounding countryside. To find out the approximate positions of these proposed turbines, consult the map below (they are the two pairs of blue turbines in the middle of the map):



View South Carrick Wind Farms in a larger map


The South Ayrshire Council planning references for these turbines are: 12/00058/APP and 12/00057/APP. To put these turbines into a local perspective, they are approximately the same size as the Girvan Community Hospital turbine and their position in the surrounding landscape (and the fact that there maybe up to 4 of them) will make them difficult to miss. Here is the landscape and visual impact assessment document that forms part of this planning application. The photographs are probably the worst I have ever seen in relation to a turbine planning application and the viewpoints seem to be few and far between.

Map update

Almost all of this weekend's map update will be delayed until early next week. For the second weekend running, the South Ayrshire e-planning system is non-functional. I don't know if this is a planned outage, or whether it is just plain broken. I have an ever growing list of updates that I will apply early next week. Apologies for any inconvenience this causes.

Sunday, 29 January 2012

Dowhill turbine # 2

On January 24 2012, the Local Review Board (LRB) sat in judgement of the appeal lodged in support of the planning application subtmitted for a single 77 metre (262 feet) wind turbine in the area of Dowhill Farm. It decided to overturn South Ayrshire Council planning department's rejection of the original application, essentially deciding that:

"Taking into account the fact that this is a single turbine and following the site visit the LRB concluded that the scale, siting and setting of the turbine meant that the turbine would not have an unacceptable impact on the locality, landscape character, visual amenity, tourism and recreation interests including Turnberry Caravan Park and Turnberry Golf Course, cultural heritage and that the proposal was considered to support rural diversification."

The full ruling can be found here. This is an important decision - and perhaps one that the councillors that made up the LRB may yet come to regret. Girvan Mains Farm have submitted an application for a single 53.88 metre (176 feet) turbine (SAC planning reference 11/01564/APP), which if approved would be sighted very close to the existing Girvan Community Hospital - so there is now the very real possibility that a 'small wind farm' will be built piece by piece extending along the A77. If the Girvan Mains Farm application is approved we will have three turbines of significant size between Girvan Hospital and Dowhill Farm along the A77 complemented by a nice view of Hadyward Hill in the background - and possibly Tralorg Hill as well. I wonder how many more farmers will note the decorative addition to the A77 and jump on the band waggon?

Thursday, 26 January 2012

Kilgallioch wind farm # 4

Scottish Power Renewables have amended their proposal for the Kilagllioch wind farm. I was aware that some changes were 'in the wind' but until today had no detail. In essence, the main changes are:

  • Total number of turbines has been reduced to 99 (down from 132)
  • Two turbines have had their maximum blade tip elevation reduced to 125 meres
  • Total length of proposed access track has reduced from approximately 92 km to approximately 69 km
  • Total number of proposed watercourse crossings has reduced from 68 to 51
  • Land take up (the area occupied by turbine foundations, tracks, control infrastructure etc) has been reduced in area to 68 hectares (168 acres) from 93 (229 acres)
  • Volume of material required for track construction reduced to 750,000m3 from 1,020,000m3
  • Installed capacity reduced to 297 MW

The text of the non-technical summary of this addendum can de download from here, whilst the new layout proposal can be downloaded from here. I tend not to be a great fan of these 'abridged' documents, but in this case the non-technical summary is worth reading since it does explain a lot of the rationale behind the scaling back of the overall proposal.

I will be amending the layout for this proposed development on my map and updating the area statistics over the coming weekend. I will also be publishing links to all the documents that constitute the addendum as soon as is practical.

Whilst it is good to see the scale of this proposal being reduced, it still constitutes a huge piece of wanton vandalism. To get an idea of how the scale of the development has been reduced, have a look at the following picture:


The red lines show the extent of the original boundary, and the black lines the new boundary. The new area of development encompasses a total of 9,404 acres (3,806 ha). As can be seen from the picture above, most of the areas that have been removed from the development proposal are non-forested areas.

Fancy a trip...

to St Andrews?


Cameron Community Council have organised an interesting evening for March 1st 2012, with the aim of casting a critical eye over the wind farm debate. A good line up of speakers is planned, so if you are in the area, why not attend and show your support?

File download issues

As a result of some recent copyright infringement issues, certain file hosting services (for example MegaUpload) have experienced a forced exodus of their law abiding customers. The departing customers have been looking elsewhere for alternative file hosting capability, and selected - you guessed it, the same provider as I use for the files I make available on this blog (FileFactory). This has resulted in a three-fold increase in network traffic for FileFactory. Filefactory are in the process of increasing their available network and storage capacity (including the installation of new cabling, network switches and storage arrays), but the process may take another week or so to complete. In the interim period, file downloads may well be slow or fail completely. I apologise for any inconvenience this may cause - and no, this is not another free service - this one does actually cost!

Wednesday, 25 January 2012

Map issues - fixed

Sometime between Monday and Tuesday of this week, the data layers on my wind farm map 'broke', with the result that I was restricted to the number of layers and/or objects I could display. I selected some basic layers whilst the problem was investigated so at least something was visible. The individual layer data files have now been moved to another server, and normal service has now been resumed. I apologise for any inconvenience caused - but this sort of thing does happen from time to time with free services!

Monday, 23 January 2012

Heating up the CO2 and back up debates

In December 2011, The Clingendael International Energy Programme (CIEP) published a paper that looked at the potential for CO2 emissions reduction as a result of using wind power to displace normal electricity generating plant. In essence, this paper concluded that CO2 emissions resulting from wind generated electricity are far less than they could, or should be.

The paper concludes that this situation has arisen because the non-renewable plant that is displaced by wind power tends to be that which has the highest variable (ie, fluctuating, operating) costs - and this tends not to be coal fired plant which tends to have the highest CO2 emissions - but gas fired plant - which tends to have lower CO2 emissions. Now admittedly, the paper assumes that the driving force behind massive adoption of wind power is CO2 emissions reduction - but that is not the case in Scotland. The main driver here are our policies of 100% of our electricity coming from renewable resources by 2020, although CO2 emissions reduction arguments are often used as a supporting justification for any wind power scheme.

Irrespective of the driver, if what this paper is saying is true - and I'm the first to admit that I do not believe I am qualified to critique its contents or approach, then a lot of people have a lot of explaining to do. The paper can be downloaded here.

However, leaving the CO2 emissions aide, there are some very interesting pieces of information sprinkled throughout this paper that potentially undermine the renewable energy industries attempts to 'debunk' those who oppose wind farms. For example, opponents have long argued that wind power cannot be the cornerstone of a large scale energy policy because of the need for 'back up' capacity if the wind is not available. The renewables industry tends to try and counter this argument by saying that 'all power sources need back up capacity' - which is true - sort of. The back up problem is one of scale. Currently, the National Grid has at its disposal 1,350MW of electricity to cover unexpected, infrequent outages. These are covered by what is called the Infrequent Infeed Loss Limit (which is due to be increased in 2014 to 1,800MW). 1,350MW is still only really about the output of a single, large conventional power station - and that is essentially it. If we loose more than that amount in terms of generational output at an inconvenient moment - the lights will start to go out (as happened in 2008 when Sizewell B and Longannet both went offline within 5 minutes of each other, creating a supply shortfall of 1,510MW). Ouch.

Now according to the CIEP 2010 paper (page 24 refers), we will need to maintain between 70% and 80% of our wind powered output capacity to account for the unavailability of the wind. This presents a couple of problems. The first problem is: how do we calculate 70-80% of output capacity? The output from wind turbines varies with the wind speed, so this 70-80% is not a static figure. Secondly, holding this much capacity in reserve represents a significant increase in generational capacity that has to be installed and maintained - just in case. What will this plant do whilst it is not needed? Stand idle? Additionally, we see some political slight of hand going on here. If we use conventional generational capacity to 'fill in the gaps', how can we say we are generating 100% of our electricity through renewable resources?

Once again, I cannot comment on the validity of the figures presented in this paper, although they stand up to my (unqualified) scrutiny. However, these sorts of issues are demonstrative of the need for a proper systems driven design for our 2020 electricity generation and supply system. We do not currently have this and it is probably now too late to implement such an approach if we really are going to generate 100% of our electricity by 2020. Instead, we have ever moving goal posts driven by political motivations, underpinned by unsustainable subsidies. The minutia of policy implementation is left to commercial organisations to figure out with no attempt at coordination. And by the way, it is not those same commercial organisations that have to match supply and demand - that is the preserve of the National Grid - they're the ones who have to figure out the mess the generators and politicians give them whilst still keeping the lights on.

Sunday, 22 January 2012

Glenchamber wind farm # 3

Below are the links to the Environmental Statement for the Proposed Glenchamber wind farm. At the time of posting, this planning application had been turned down by Dumfries and Galloway Council. However, since nothing has been heard from the developers with regard to their plans for the development, I suspect an appeal is in the air.

As in previous similar posts, the coffee table summary is the Non Technical Summary and the real detail is contained in the remaining files. The individual chapters and appendices are quite small, so I suggest you download those that are appropriate to your interests and then reference the relevant figures from the drop down selector boxes as required.

Volume 1 - Non Technical Summary
Non Technical Summary
Volume 2 - Environmental Statement - Chapters
Contents & Preface
1Introduction
2Planning & Policy Context
3Design Evolution & Alternatives
4Description of Development
5Construction and Decommissioning
6EIA Process
7Landscape & Visual
8Ecology
9Ornithology
10Cultural Heritage and Archaeology
11Geology, Hydrology and Hydrogeology
12Noise
13Electomagnetic Interference, Aviation and Shadow Flicker
14Access Traffic and Transport
15Socio Economics
16Potential Grid Connections
17Summary
Volume 3 - Technical Appendices - Chapters
Contents
2Planning & Policy Context
4Description of Development
5Construction
6EIA Process
7Landscape & Visual
8Ecology
9Ornithology
10Cultural Heritage and Archaeology
11Geology, Hydrology and Hydrogeology
12Noise
14Access
16Grid
Volume 4 - Landscape & Visual Figures


Finally, if you are receiving this post via email you'll probably find the drop down lists don't work for you. This is as a result of the code used to 'power' them. If you wish to access the documents listed in the drop down lists and are having trouble with them from within your email client, please visit the blog where you shouldn't encounter any such problems. If anyone encounters ANY OTHER problems with the download links, please let me know via the 'Get in Touch' link at the top of the blog.