Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Saturday, 19th July 2008 Change Date

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Blowing hot and cold over wind power



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 26 April 2008


IT IS a question of nature versus need, and livelihood versus landscape. The Scottish Government's rejection this week of plans for Europe's largest wind farm on Barvas Moor, on Lewis, has shown there are many shades of green.
Only a few years ago, the merits of the Lewis Wind Power (LWP) scheme were trumpeted high and wide. The 600MW wind farm, to be constructed by Amec and British Energy, would cut a quarter of a million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year from Britain's
greenhouse gas emissions.

Since then, however, environmentalism has come in for increasing questioning and paradoxes have been revealed. The rejection of LWP – to protect the fragile ecosystem of the Lewis Peatlands Special Protection Area – may be a taste of things to come.

Now, more than ever, renewable energy – or wind power, at the very least – is under scrutiny, not least in Lewis. In the same way the military describes friendly fire as "blue on blue", so there will be "green on green" conflicts as clean methods of harnessing renewable energy are seen by some to be ecologically intrusive, and are thoroughly examined and debated.

According to the British Wind Energy Association (BWEA), the wind power industry body, there has been a downwards trend in the number of wind farm planning applications in Scotland. There were applications for 2,221MW in 2004, 1,779 in 2005, 1,107 in 2006, 563 in 2007, and 65 so far this year.

The SNP administration's decision on LWP has led to widespread criticism of its policies on green energy, or rather, the sparsity of them.

There are 27 wind farm projects before the Scottish Government's Energy Consents Unit. Alex Salmond, the First Minister, has repeatedly talked up the nation's capacity for generating green power, but the detail of his intentions has so far been scarce.

The aftermath of Lewis may be a spur. A source in the Scottish Government said yesterday: "Regardless whether the decision to oppose the wind farm was right or wrong, the past few days have seen an interesting debate.

"People are saying, 'Yes, that project's great, but it needs tinkering with,' or 'The principle's good, but it's not suitable at the moment'.

"It's opened up a forum for people to analyse renewable energy and how to make it work, and the government isn't excluded from the process."

The Lewis scheme may yet be revived. The developers have retired to pore over the government's response, and are officially "considering their options".

The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds in Scotland (RSPB), perhaps the most vocal objector to LWP, has registered tentative support for the developers. While seeking reassurances that "they will not simply seek to continue pushing modified versions of the same proposal," it is willing to help "identify new areas" for development.

More significantly, it is thought Jim Mather, the energy minister, is amicable towards the idea of a smaller wind farm, and has stressed he is in no way opposed to onshore wind farms in the Western Isles.

It is a pledge many in Lewis will be hoping turns into reality. Though thousands considered the Amec-British Energy plans an affront to the landscape, the community is aware of the benefits they have lost. Along with 400 jobs, the wind farm was expected to bring in millions of pounds a year, a vast sum earmarked for leisure and sporting facilities.

Politicians in the Western Isles have insisted this week that a renewable energy conduit to the mainland is vital to the region's economy, provided it is developed sensitively.

Alex Macdonald, convener of Comhairle nan Eilean Siar, and chair of the Outer Hebrides Community Planning Partnership, said

"The decision to refuse planning consent for the wind farm represents a huge missed opportunity for the government to meet its national renewable energy targets, and for the economy of the Western Isles to receive a sizeable, sustainable long term boost.

"In particular, the refusal is a desperate blow for the future viability of the Arnish Point fabrication yard which has been the recipient of a major investment package in recent years to meet the needs of the energy turbine market."

He added: "It is time for the government and those representing the Western Isles in Westminster and Edinburgh to come forward with fresh proposals to sustain and re-energise the (area's] economy.

"The government needs to be more proactive in helping the Outer Hebrides Community Planning Partnership to address the serious socio-economic issues facing the islands."

There are two other wind farm applications in the south of Lewis, and an inquiry will open next month into a 53-turbine scheme at Eisgein.

Wind may not be the only option, though. Barely had the Scottish Government's decision became known than Lewis found itself the subject of another renewable energy proposal – to use the seas which lash the island with a wave power plant.

Still in its formative stages, the Siadar Wave Energy Project (Swep) is a collaboration between Npower renewables and Wavegen, an Inverness technology firm.

They believe their pilot project, if approved, is capable of generating enough electricity to power 1,500 homes on Lewis and Harris, harnessing power from waves in Siadar Bay to generate up to 4MW of electricity.

Building work could start as early as 2009. The project could generate up to 50 construction jobs, would take about 18 months, and would be the first project to operate under the Scottish Government's Marine Supply Obligation (MSO).

Iain Macleod, a crofter at Siadar, and one of the most outspoken opponents of the wind farm, said:

"This started as a community project. We were looking for ways to improve the old slipway where we used to launch boats," he said. "There have been no objections anywhere in the community."

The industry, while reeling from the LWP decision, largely believes it is a one-off case.

Duncan McLaren, chief executive of Friends of the Earth Scotland, said: "The SNP should be doing more to promote energy saving as the most cost-effective option, but its approach to renewables is sound – drawing a line at European designated habitats, but approving wind farms in appropriate places, and not allowing a nimby tendency to dictate policy."

Jason Ormiston, the chief executive of Scottish Renewables, the green energy trade body, told The Scotsman: "I think the renewables industry will just view Lewis as another planning decision, not something that may impact on their own projects. The LWP scheme is unusual in scale and location, and it's certainly not a death-blow to wind power.

"There are a lot of problems with the planning system, but broadly, there's political support for wind power. I don't think the decision is reflective of the government's energy policy."

Charles Warren, senior lecturer in the School of Geography and Geosciences at the University of St Andrews, in a paper in the Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, wrote: "Given the 'green on green' nature of the debate, opinion will doubtless remain divided over whether such a development would be a good, bad or indifferent development in Scotland."

His study was published in 2005. Three years later, it is still unclear which way the wind in Scotland is blowing.



The full article contains 1211 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 26/04/2008 01:45:28
MacDonald, McLaren and Ormiston !! The three puppets of Amec.
The people of Lewis are far better off without Amec and their false promises of jobs and riches.
Scotland will be a better place when we have condemned these useless bird mincers to the scrapheap.
2

MarkR,

USA 26/04/2008 03:43:39
Wave power? Sure to be a cod-killer. Save the fishes!
3

Greenheatman,

TAIN 26/04/2008 07:05:54
All existing renewables have one major flaw - they are all intermittent. Yes, it is true that tidal and solar are predictable but how is that going to help keep the lights on 24-7?

We are all being taken for a ride down a dead end road. Let's look 20 years into the future with the whole of the UK's land mass covered with wind turbines and the continental shelf full of wave and tidal machines all producing a mix of random and predictable electricity. We will still need power stations run on coal to provide rapid load following 100% backup when the unavoidable coincident nulls occur - these will occur around 30% of the time!

4

Kenny A,

26/04/2008 07:18:40
Correct decision by the government at the end. The LWP project would have added to carbon emmissions, killed the poor feathered friends and basicaly wrecked the tourisim industry which is in the end a developing area that shockingly brings money into the Islands.

Not against windpower but look at it this way Lewis has huge amounts of area that is unused so in the wisdom of the developers and the imbiciles in the council they decided to plop this on peoples doorsteps. Also an amobia with a semi functioning brain cell, if they have such a thing could have seen it was against existing EU rules.

Now the moron who is known as "Angus the Brain Dead", ABD for ease of use, has proposed yet another folley which will stir up the public again and also has no chance of passing muster.

The conveynors comments about the courage of the council about opposing public opinion just makes me howl, always thought they were there to reflect public opinion, somewhat wrong I guess.
5

Kenny A,

26/04/2008 07:24:19
3

Good points but I disagee to an extent, tidal is fairly sure. wave power less certain but bet your bottam doller there will be waves.

Tide is at different times round the coast so shoukd be able to plan accordingly.

Agree that nust have reliable power so that means power stations.
6

n/,

Perth 26/04/2008 07:44:53
#1 Hey come on nabodican....you've forgotten to mention our good ol'friend Fred Bloggs in despatches.

Let's not forget that puppet.
If he's not having his strings pulled who is?
7

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 26/04/2008 08:12:52
Ocean currents are 24/7. Place submarine turbines below shipping depths and energy problem is solved. The blades rotate slowly so no danger to fish; in fact fish will find breeding sanctuary around them. Turbines will be out of sight and below storm damage level. We can build them by the hundred in our ship yards.

Come SNP! Show some get up and go! Sponsor the R&D.
8

Douglas,

Bathgate 26/04/2008 09:19:19
What strange phenomenon is it that makes a towering white structure with relatively slow rotating blades invisible and instant death for creatures who can see and catch insects in flight and spot small creatures in the grass from a fair height?
9

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 26/04/2008 09:25:42
So now the population and economy of the Western Isles will continue to shrink with the loss of this project and the looming world recession; coal burning for power and consequential greenhouse gas emissions will continue to rise while our nuclear stations sink into disrepair and are not replaced and renewables to fill the gap are rejected by the militant green wellie brigade.
10

McX,

26/04/2008 09:33:07
#8 Arf!

We've got three Wind Factories in a line from Langham to Carsphairn, the most recent being above Dalswinton outside Dumfries.

In my opinion they enhance the landscape rather than detract from it. There's something almost hypnotic about watching them. I climbed Criffel hill earlier this week and spent about half an hour just watching them, fascinating examples of clean modern engineering.
11

danielrober,

26/04/2008 09:33:47
If there is a problem with the LWP, it is a problem of three parts.

1, Scale. This might just be too big for such a small community. After all the Americans have not turned every fast moving river into a hydro plant. Many rivers have been left for sport and nature. Why should every hill is Scotland and the UK have the artist kicked off and replaced by a WT.

2, Jobs. The employment figures are confussing, as the degree of subcontracting is unclear. After all this a huge tax grant. Are we just 'spending' for investment and capital costs elsewhere in Europe or is this a real Scots-UK investment

3, The Plan. The oiginal plan for wind trubines on Lewis actually came from the 1950's (1957 i think). The plans have just been updated, but has there been an actually a new - published assessment? I don't know but the similarity to the old plan is striking.

Additionally, companies seem to missunderstand the locals. The locals have to live and maintain these machines, their co-operation is vital.
12

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 26/04/2008 09:41:45
Further to my #9, it is relevant to note that two of the few places in the West which are thriving, namely Gigha and Eigg, have both set up successful wind generation schemes.
13

quite reader,

26/04/2008 09:54:38
Comment 10

I agree that they can look facinating at a distance, but what of the projects in planning that are within 1-2K of homes. Everyone likes them at a distance but what about on your doorstep.
14

Tweedmouth,

Coldstream 26/04/2008 09:58:19
#8 Douglas"What strange phenomenon is it that makes a towering white structure with relatively slow rotating blades invisible and instant death for creatures who can see and catch insects in flight and spot small creatures in the grass from a fair height?"

The answer is 'night- migration' - many birds fly at night to avoid predators. The Altamont Wind Farm in California was closed by a judge two years ago after evidence was presented of thousands of dead eagles, hawks, duks, geese etc. whose corpses were found at the foot of the turbines there.

Windpower is nice - in moderation. Building 300ft high towers across the landscape is not 'moderation'' it is sheer greed - paid for by your electricity bills.
15

McX,

26/04/2008 10:06:57
#13 The ones nearest to us are about four miles away, we visit friends up at Dalswinton who live within a mile of them, they cannot see them from their home as the windmills are above the tree line. It's only when they are driving home that they see them.

When the Chapelcross towers came down last year, a lot of people expressed a sympathy at seeing them going, as they had acted as an identifier to their home, the windmills are having the same impact.

Other friends live below a proposed site of fifteen turbines, they will have a direct view of them as there is no forestry to shield the view, they are remarkably open minded about them, having visited dozens of sites to see for themselves the impact they have on close neighbours. Despite the upheaval their construction is going to have our chums approve.
16

dido-bendigo,

Scotland 26/04/2008 10:45:15
Jason Ormiston states there is political support for windfarms. True, but there is also political opposition to windfarms too. How many politicians would want to say they are against them, when it is seen as showing support for 'green power' to state support? We are being brainwashed by the media through constant exposure to subliminal messages about the 'benefits' of turbines. Mention 'green ' or 'renewable' and the average listener thinks of a wind farm. That is how successful the marketing forces of the 'renewables' speculators have been. It is time we got out of that mind-set. A good start would be to get schools to involve children in looking at the efficiency of power production, rather than following the current teaching that 'all green is good'.
17

dido-bendigo,

Scotland 26/04/2008 10:53:09
To get an impression of just how popular windfarms are with people living close to them. Look up a map of proposed and existing windfarms in the Borders. Then look up 'houses for sale' in the Borders. Enquire as to how many of the houses have been on sale since the windfarm was first proposed and have not been sold to date. It is quite revealing!
18

McX,

26/04/2008 11:13:47
#17 I believe those same people are rushing to buy houses at Torness, Sellafield and Dournreay.
19

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 26/04/2008 12:05:10
#6 n/
Sorry, how could I forget Fred !
He did not disappoint however, after his long lie in bed, up he popped with his dailly dose of misinformation.
What some of the posters here are getting wrong is that it is not just a fact that they are a blot on the landscape, even if some think that the thousand turbines already on Scottish soil enhance our relatively unspoiled landscape.
It is the fact that they are not an alternative to any 24/7 method of electricity generation but only a very expensive "as well as"
Worst still is the bit you don't see - viz, The 2,000,000 tonnes of reinforced concrete holding these monstrosities down. This concrete will never be removed! - Please comment on this Fred.
As for the likes of # 8 who think they turn slowly - simple arithmetic shows that the blade tips of the latest turbines are travelling at nearly 200 mph !!!!
Even a falcon can't match this speed.
Besides birds like eagles have eyesight a bit like a telescope when hunting. Their peripheral vision is limited, hence the term "eagle eyed"
20

quite reader,

26/04/2008 12:25:48
How about 800m from one if the planning goes ahead, yes they are going to plant trees to shield them, the life span of a turbine is 25 years how long do they think it will be until the trees hide them. I will only see them from one window and the garden, the village opposite will have the full impact of the turbines across their skyline without any interruption. Try selling your house with a wind farm adjacent to it; I don’t see these developers or planners rushing to buy property next to their cash cow.
21

McX,

26/04/2008 13:24:30
#20 Quiet reader, are there any pylons near your home? To be perfectly honest I have not heard of one person locally complaining of turbines having an adverse effect on their house prices. Have you tried to sell yours?
22

jacabite view,

Still in London 26/04/2008 22:08:47
Time for a less serious moniker - Danielrober.

Life is fun you know :-)
23

Douglas,

Bathgate 27/04/2008 11:31:04
#14 Tweedmouth: I can find stories of groups of or individual towers being shut down but not the whole farm. Am I missing the relevant article?
24

Max C,

Edinburgh 27/04/2008 23:36:29
#16 dipdo-bendigo

" A good start would be to get schools to involve children in looking at the efficiency of power production, rather than following the current teaching that 'all green is good'."

How do you measure the efficiency of something that doesn't use any fuel in operation?.... it's incredibly efficient! I think you'll find most children think this is worth doing, as we squander what's left for their children...
25

Yocal,

South 04/07/2008 09:08:28
Max C, although i am a supporter of wind energy, it isn't free.

The 'efficiency' is measured by looking at the energy payback time and ratios. This is done by analysing the energy required to build a generating source and the time it takes for that generator to produce the same amount of energy.

The energy payback ratios for wind farms are generally better than fossil fuel sources and similar to nuclear energy. The only energy source which beats all for the amount of energy produced is hydro-electricity.

But all energy sources use some fuel during their life time, what is important is that you get more out than you put in. Wind is as good or better than most.
26

Yocal,

South 04/07/2008 09:15:59
Kenny wrote:

"Correct decision by the government at the end. The LWP project would have added to carbon emmissions"

Incorrect.
The carbon footprint of a typical is between 5 and 30 gCO2eq/kwh.
For gas it is between 450 and 519 gCO2eq/kwh.
Coal is between 894 and 975 gCO2eq/kwh.


"killed the poor feathered friends"

Climate change will do far more damage to bird migration than any wind turbine.
Also road vehicles do far more damage than a wind turbine, but i doubt you are going to give up your car and the RSPB have no policy about cars.


"basicaly wrecked the tourisim industry which is in the end a developing area that shockingly brings money into the Islands."

And increases the tourists carbon footprints.
27

Yocal,

South 04/07/2008 09:17:37
Correction of my previous post...

Kenny wrote:

"Correct decision by the government at the end. The LWP project would have added to carbon emmissions"

The carbon footprint of a typical wind farm is between 5 and 30 gCO2eq/kwh.
For gas it is between 450 and 519 gCO2eq/kwh.
Coal is between 894 and 975 gCO2eq/kwh.
28

Yocal,

South 04/07/2008 09:39:57
nabodican wrote:

"It is the fact that they are not an alternative to any 24/7 method of electricity generation but only a very expensive "as well as""

Technology is being developed that will reduce the effect of these issues. That is what Engineers and scientists do, solve issues of energy storage, distribution, wind fuctuations etc. If problems were not solved, then you wouldn't be driving your car today.


"Worst still is the bit you don't see - viz, The 2,000,000 tonnes of reinforced concrete holding these monstrosities down. This concrete will never be removed! - Please comment on this Fred."

erm, this figure is certainly not per turbine.
The UK was covered in concrete defences after WWII, nature takes it's course and people remove it if they want!
Hadrians wall wasn't built for pleasure either, if it wasn't for the fact that humans restored parts of it, nature would take over and break it up. every human structure will be destroyed by nature over time.
Do you oppose the building of nuclear waste stores and power stations as well for the same reason?


"Even a falcon can't match this speed.
Besides birds like eagles have eyesight a bit like a telescope when hunting. Their peripheral vision is limited, hence the term "eagle eyed""

Do you drive a car?
How many birds are killed by road vehicles per year?
Does the RSPB have a policy to restrict car use?
Double standards maybe?

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.