Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


March of the wind farm in doubt on a divided island

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 January 2008
WORDS of support come to the "Wind Farm Man" as Gaelic whispers. As the local face behind the controversial plan to erect 176 colossal wind turbines on the protected peatlands of Lewis, Kevin Murray cannot expect bouquets and has endured no few brickbats.
But occasionally people sidle up to him in the pub or at the shops in Stornoway and say quietly: "Cum a' dol – tha sinn feumach air an obair." The translation: "Keep going – we need the work."

In the villages of Galson and Barvas, residents are liable to make other remarks in a louder voice. There, the white crofts face a landscape of purple and russet moorland on which a forest of 500ft steel sentinels may be planted to the detriment of heritage, wildlife and an emblem of Scotland: the golden eagle. White signs lashed to wooden posts declare, "No Wind Factory".

Yesterday, the "naes" could scent victory in the air when the Scottish Government wrote to the developer, Ameco, saying it was "minded to refuse" planning permission. However, ministers gave the company 21 days to address the concerns listed in a 14-page letter.

The fate of the Lewis wind farm is far from just a barrage of hot air among island folk. It goes to the heart of Scotland's attempt to generate 50 per cent of its electricity using renewables, such as hydro, wave or wind power, by 2020.

At the moment, Scotland produces 2.5 gigawatts (GW) of electricity through renewables. That must rise to 6 GW within the next 12 years. The Lewis wind farm has the capacity to produce 0.651 GW, 11 per cent of the country's total renewables requirement.

As the SNP administration is against nuclear and for renewables, supporters of the scheme argue, if not here, then where?

Lined up in opposition to the Lewis plans have been Scottish Natural Heritage, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) and the majority of those crofters and villagers who face being confronted by a view of gently rotating white giants. It is thought that, of the 9,500 public representations to the Scottish Government about the project, only 77 were in favour.

But the plans won the support of the Western Isles Council and the Stornoway Trust Estate, the largest of the three estates on which the turbines will sit. Its letter to 6,000 homes about the plans resulted in only ten objections.

Lewis Wind Power is the name of the company set up by Ameco and British Energy. Its office is next to a hairdresser and across the road from a Thai restaurant in Church Street, Stornoway, but the firm has no full-time staff on the island.

Mr Murray, who represents the company, is a self-employed engineer on contract who believes passionately in the scheme's potential benefit to the island on which he was born.

Yesterday, his mood was downbeat but not quite defeated.

He said: "We haven't been rejected just yet. The minister has still to announce his decision, but if he says 'no', then I fear for the future of these islands. It means the environment is riding over any desire for development that the local population want."

Speaking before it emerged ministers had concerns about the plan, he told The Scotsman: "There is no way 90 per cent of the population is against the plans. I would not be in a job for three years if I thought I was in a 10 per cent minority.

"I think support is split down the middle – but those who support it don't like to advertise the fact."

Ameco was invited to the island by the Stornoway Trust Estate and Western Isles Council in the hope that it could turn around the Arnish Fabrication Yard, where the workforce has fallen from 800 to 31.

Plans were then cooked up to turn the Western Isles into the "Aberdeen of renewable energy", with the yard making turbines.

Since the islands have the greatest wind and wave resources in Europe, the council's thinking was: why not tilt their sail to the prevailing breeze and lead the way?

What was required was a project big enough to justify investment of as much as £300 million by the government or the private sector to set up a new interconnector cable to carry the power to the mainland.

Calum Ian MacIver, a large fellow with an impressive arm tattoo who is the council's head of economic development, argues that they are trying to build a sustainable local industry that is also in the national interest.

As birth rates on the Western Isles are projected to drop from 240 a year to only 154 by 2031, something has to be done to draw people back: employment, he believes, is the answer – but traditional industries, such as fishing and farming, are in dramatic decline.

If approved by ministers, the Lewis wind farm is expected to create more than 400 jobs during the construction phase and a further 70 full-time posts over its 20-year lifespan, with 150 jobs created as a result of the £6 million in annual payments to crofters, landowners and the community – who will have a 15 per cent stake in the business.

But surely the local authority will admit that the turbines would be an eyesore?

Apparently not. Councillor Archie Campbell, chairman of the council's sustainable development committee, said: "If you think of pound signs every time it spins – I think they are quite beautiful."

But sitting in an armchair in front of a window that displays the brooding beauty of the peatlands, Finlay Macleod, writer, broadcaster and ardent campaigner against the project, said the wind farm would utterly alter the island landscape.

"Six huge quarries, 100 miles of road and hundreds of these massive turbines – it would be unrecognisable," he said.

His reaction to the news that the plans look like being rejected? "That makes it one of the most important days in the history of Lewis," he said.

Page 1 of 1

 
1

OscarMacApfel,

Dumfries 26/01/2008 01:06:49
Is this a ploy to reconsider the scale of the development?
2

Guga II,

Rockall 26/01/2008 01:47:13
This whole project is based on a blatant lie, or, to be more precise, a series of blatant lies.

There may be 400 jobs on offer during the construction phase, but most of these jobs will go to people from outwith the islands; probably Poles as they can, and do, exploit them by paying them less than the going rate.

As for the alleged 70 ongoing jobs, that is utter rubbish. In the large scheme they built in Wales, there are only 3 full time ongoing jobs, and only one of them has gone to a local.

The people in the islands will not benefit in any way from the construction of these monstrosities. They will not get a halfpenny extra in their pocket, and they will not get cheaper electricity. The power from this scheme will be sold to England, and the profits will go to foreigners also.

These towers will be 487 feet high, and the proposal was for 187 of them spread out over an area the size of greater London. They will be a blight on the landscape, and will not even be able to be utilised for a high percentage of the time because the winds will be too strong for them to operate.

Ignoring the numpties in the Comhairle, the majority of the people do not want, or need to have these monstrosities despoiling their island, especially when they will have no benefit from them. There is a lot to be said for bringing back annual elections for councils, otherwise these overpaid and underworked numpties will continue to do things against the wishes of the people. They should also remember that the church will not protect them, or ensure their re-election forever.

If they want to increase the popoulation and the economy of the islands, the only way is to have Sunday ferries, and Road Equivalent Tariff (RET) on the ferries. Not by blighting the landscape for the benefit of foreigners.
3

nolimits,

Alberta, Canada 26/01/2008 03:05:26
You know......Scotland has the great potential of leading the way in renewable energy. In 20 years or so, the offshore gas and oil fields will be watered out, and those who depend on diesel for power generation will be clamoring for lower prices on fuel. It makes sense to look at the long term benefits of wind power, if only for our future generations. There has to be trade offs between the landscape and the needs of the many. We have wind farms in Alberta, they work, and folks buy their power from them. I would rather have wind powered energy, regardless of the aesthetics. I can live with towers, and do!
4

Richardinho,

26/01/2008 03:16:46
If we're going to reject nuclear, then we have to be serious about renewables-and that means NOT standing in the way of such projects like this.
It's not good enough to say 'oh, this is an exception'-there will ALWAYS be objections, 'local' or otherwise, and there will always be environmental concerns about wildlife etc.

Personally, I don't see what the fuss is all about windmills. There is a windfarm up at Soutra near me.
I think it looks alright.
5

williamx,

canada 26/01/2008 03:58:59
Add on the cost of building standby generators when the wind is not blowing and the cost of electricity is uneconomic. The wind is only suitable 35% of the time and the standby units have to carry the load 65% of the time. So who is going to build the standby generators, the above company? Not on your nelly!!!!!
6

Sinead,

Tanunda 26/01/2008 05:21:05
A great idea providing the 400 jobs are solely given to locals.
7

W Smith,

Middle East 26/01/2008 05:40:20
After 35 years of developing wind power, Denmark's national grid is still connected to nuclear power plants in Germany and Sweden - while the Danish government are pretending to be 'green'.

Earth calling Salmond, come in Salmond.
8

Grahamski,

Falkirk 26/01/2008 07:45:59
Ok, so where are all the cyber nats pouring their vitriol on the locals against this project? Am I missing something here? Didn't the nationalist administration make such a big deal about renewables? Was this just posturing of the most dangerous and infantile kind? Looks that way doesn't it? The people of Scotland are going to have to get used to this kind of cynical politicking. Political parties can get away with this kind of opportunistic political charlatism in opposition, where they can appeal to all sides on any given issue. When they have responsibility that changes, they have to take a decision and take responsibility for it. When it comes to taking difficult or potentially unpopular decisions the administration of Mr Alex Salmond seems to be particularly ill-equipped. Roll on the election...
9

Plodjfriss, Hammer of the Numpties,

Edinburgh 26/01/2008 07:46:29
The developers should have had Donald Trump fronting the project. I'm sure that if he'd promised to build a golf course as well then everything would have been OK.
10

,

26/01/2008 08:02:55
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
11

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 26/01/2008 08:13:40
2. Chairman Gordon: Am I a 'neo-hippie' for being pro-wind and therefore pro-renewable or would I be one for being anti-wind and therefore pro-peat bog?
12

Very Rev Ian Paisley,

26/01/2008 08:21:52
These things remind of War of the Worlds and they are not particularly nice. If it means ruining things that are nice, for instance creating super pylons to go through the Highlands, then that must stop.

If an area can't support its people from indigenous resource, then we have to ask why people stay there and why they would turn this down. If no-one visits there and if it is bleak and the energy can be transported without ruining areas of natural beauty, then do it.


13

Very Rev Ian Paisley,

26/01/2008 08:23:04
If the folk move out then it would be the same for many people who have had to move for work anyway. people from Lewis should be no different.
14

Captain Fantastic,

Anywhere but here 26/01/2008 08:23:48
Absolutely right #8. Sweden is in the same boat, extending the life of some of its nuclear reactors 28 years after it said it was phasing them out. Denmark only generates 18.5% of its electricity by green means. If there was a green 'bullet' to alternative power generation, wouldn't the Danes and Sewedes have found it by now? Don't be taken in by the pro-windmill propaganda folks, it's disengenious at best. The only fact so many of these ugly monstrosities are going up is politics - be seen to be green, even though it isn't.
15

Kenny A,

26/01/2008 08:37:41
A good decision by the powers that be. If it is eventualy refused. Windpower on this scale is not the solution. As for regenerating the area, first class garbage. Work would not go to locals. This is a very specialised area and it is mainly Scandanavians and Dutch who know about it. People do visit the Islands in large numbers bringing economic benefit. The windpower options would not generate more benefit to the economy overall as it has been found by a few polls that tourists would be far less interested in visiting if these schemes went ahead. Houses are already going up for sale and some of them are because of these developments.

Tidal power the way ahead, constant powerfull and dependable, does not wreck the landscape and would not effect to many people. Fabrication yard already has some experience of building wave power generators.

Most locals against, most of the council for.

Vested interests me thinks, most of them will be out of work come the next elections at a guess and serves them right. Ment to represent the people who elected them, not their own interests.
16

Iain Percival,

Den Haag 26/01/2008 08:46:02
Let's hope common sense prevails indeed and all the tosh about "ensuring future prosperity" is consigned to the rubbish bin. Let's not forget all of the "future prosperity" pups sold to Scottish local communities over the years. The deal has always been "We'll blight your landscape but in return there will be money and employment for years to come". The list is endless.One of the most infamous is at Loch Kishorn where the lies told to enable the construction of one concrete sub structure were of epic proportions. I weep when I view the silent cranes at Ardersier and Nigg. The long disused British Aluminium pier at Invergordon bears silent witness to another chapter of hyped future and short lived benefits.
Scotland's beauty and it's attraction to a sustainable tourist industry should not be squandered.
17

Kenny A,

26/01/2008 09:00:47
Angus

Sadly young families would move out if these projects went ahead. Thats the truth.
18

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 26/01/2008 09:02:23
Will the pretty windmills be allowed to turn on a Sunday?
19

Draco Was a Wimp,

Edinburgh 26/01/2008 09:04:38
The government needs to make its mind up, is renewable energy the way forward or not. If they choose yes, then unfortunately the windiest places happen also to be some of the prettiest places. And as for the islanders, they need to think on the nation's needs not just their own. They're happy enough to take the huge subsidies required to provide roads, schools, postal and travel services to their remote and uneconomical areas and to take the dodgy crofting subsidies but not to make a bit of sacrifice for the greater national good.
20

Kenny A,

26/01/2008 09:10:35
Draco

You seen the price of petrol in the islands, living there takes a lot of sacrifice. Please inform us about these subsidies and perhaps compare them with a place like Edinburgh for example. Strikes me you know very little about the islands.
21

Unimpressed one,

26/01/2008 09:20:07
#9, Grahamski, "Didn't the nationalist administration make such a big deal about renewables?" Perhaps the first minister had a wee dose of reality poured into his ear by qualified people well versed in the art of power generation, as opposed to some shrill tripe from the mouths of the eco-loons.
22

Unimpressed one,

26/01/2008 09:22:42
#19, "These islands need work/industry so bad if they are to retain families and indigenous people, and not be turned into an Enviromental Museum for bird watchers,and arty crafty folk ,who peace and well endowed financially to look at the hills and seas all day" So it wasn't all about 'saving the planet' then?
23

Draco Was a Wimp,

Edinburgh 26/01/2008 09:25:58
Kenny A,

You must admit yourself the cost of providing services to the folk on the islands and other remote areas is higher than in the central belt. It stands to reason that providing a school and teacher for 3 bairns on Unst or somewhere is higher than a building and a teacher for 20 in Falkirk. Or the cost of mile of road per number of cars going to use it on Harris compared to Cumbernauld. Or flying a woman to give birth from Raasay to Fort William. It costs the government more to provide public services to people in the North West and Islands. As a taxpayer, I don't object. But now you have a chance to help the national good in a way that only your part of the country can and you're all moaning.
24

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 26/01/2008 09:34:55
Could it be that the objectors are the ones who won't be receiving fees from AMEC and who are rationalising their disappointment by professing a desire to preserve the peat bog that their ancestors have dug out and burned for hundreds of years?
25

ccblooms,

26/01/2008 09:36:45
Sadly, all your contributors have missed the point.
This isn't about renewables, jobs or the environment but about money. They are not the least bit interested in the welfare of the Western Isles
Ameco and British Energy are profit making organisations on a grand scale and, with the benefit of grants from central government see huge profits in sight.
If you dont believe me lok at their websites.
26

Kenny A,

26/01/2008 09:46:50
Draco

Good points all, however a few things to think about, a very large proportion of people from the islands work on the mainland, offshore or overseas. Taxes are paid by most apart from some overseas. Roads have to be built because public transport is almost non existant compared to the mainland. Many of the people in the islands are retired and have worked all their lives paying taxes, and now wish to stay at home not in an industrial zone. The people in the islands have worked and paid and pay more to live there.

Helping the national good is not a problem, the islands have a long record of doing this, check out the statistics for people who have served in the forces for example, unless I am wrong in both WW1 and 2, the islands sent more to serve than any other area in the Commonwealth.

The problem with the windfarms is they are just not suitable or cost effective and would not help the local economy at all.

Tidal power is a much better option and the tides in the West and North are powerfull to say the lesat.

I for one when I retire wish to return to the Islands, but not if these wind farm schemes go ahead. Going back to the transport issue, the tram way in Edinburgh will probably cost more than the islands spend on roads in decades. It will benefit more people, but where do you draw the line. Does everyone have to move to big citys?
27

Upbeat,

26/01/2008 09:52:07
If this project is about jobs there are many other ways of providing jobs in teh Hebrides.

Given modern broadband technology there is no reason for the Big banks and insurance companies etc. in the UK, to export call centre jobs to India. After all Stornoway already hosts the Maritime Rescue coordination centre. In the new communications age there is no reason why Scottish power , Tax authorities , DHSS, etc need to locate have their call centres in the central belt. The fact that the issue of relocating jobs back to the highlands and islands has has not been addressed properly is all down to government policy and ballot box apathy. .

Justifying wind power because it will bring employment to Lewis is a smokescreen. There is plenty of employment in other fields that could be relocated to the Hebrides if the Political will existed, without ransacking the environment.
28

Remmie,

26/01/2008 10:00:54
Roll on the day when each area produces its own electricity in the best way for that area. Lewis doesn't need that many wind turbines for its own electricity. Other areas of Scotland can produce their own from whatever resources they have. No-one would object then, unless they didn't want electricity any more.
29

SINGAPOREAN,

Historic Kincardineshire 26/01/2008 10:01:28
The problem is that the people who need the resource will destroy the environment of the locals who do not need it. The islanders could live forever, using peat for fuel, in a completely sustainable way. The cities and huge conurbations have no way of sustaining themselves using their own, local, resources. So, they raid and steal from their neighbours. The solution to the problem is simple - get rid of the unsustainable cities.
You could start by culling all the over-60s who need a lot of energy to keep warm. Then you knock down all their houses and erect wind-turbines on the sites. By selective targetting in this way you would eventually reach a poulation level small enough to be sustainable with the energy supplied locally.
It can't happen of course, so the earth is doomed to be destroyed by overpopulation.
30

Draco Was a Wimp,

Edinburgh 26/01/2008 10:02:26
#30 Kenny A

All good points yourself, and I am particularly respectful of the high sacrifice made by the men of the Western Islands in both world wars.

If wave power is more efficient and economically viable than windpower than, obviously, we should go with that. The government has decided against nuclear, right or wrong. If that is the case then, long-term, somewhere has to put up with the inconveniences of the non-nuclear alternatives or either the lights will go out across Scotland or we would have to import electricity from nuclear provision in England, which would be highly hypocritical. If the only objection is based on a NIMBY attitude of I don't want a horrible looking wind turbine in my pretty backyard then that, in my opinion, is being very selfish. Pretty vistas do not provide power for the nation, wind or waves do and, unfortunately for you, you have them.
31

Calum Crubag,

26/01/2008 10:12:28
Im sure a scaled down version would be ideal, with the islanders first getting cheap power and the remainder sold to the national grid.
32

Kenny A,

26/01/2008 10:23:27
Draco

We surly do, but tidal better option and less intrusive. The pretty backyard in the islands however contributes greatly to the local and national economy bringing in overseas tourists as do the historic monuments, Callanish the Doune etc.

Going to be difficult finding a balance on this one.
33

Mr. Lachie Todd,

Edinburgh 26/01/2008 10:27:37
The arguments about nuclear power will go on forever!

During the apartheid era, South Africa was unaffected by the world wide oil embargo, as the State-owned company SASOL had already developed a process of extracting oil from coal.

The argument about renewables is academic because
it will always have to provide a proportion of the world's energy output.

At some point in the future when crude oil runs out
the U.K. will once again have to develop the massive onshore and offshire coal fields to produce electricity, and petrol!

SASOL and other South African companies are already earning hundreds of millions in China constructing large coal-to-liquid-fuel plants from the vast Chinese coal reserves.

34

Graham McLellan,

Lewis 26/01/2008 10:38:59
There are loads of issues and opinions on the subject, I make a few comments. Lewis is probably the best place in the UK to bring up a family. But when kids have reached an age, they generally need to go off the island to continue their education. And I don't mean just tertiary education, I mean in the University of Life. My two are at this stage, my daughter is in her 2nd year at Glasgow University, my son wants to leave and join a rugby club that gives him a game every Saturday.
I hope they will "return", but the prospect of a job is not the only enticement required. Other issues, RET, Sunday sailings, cost of living , etc need addressing also.
Further, As an employer, I would suggest that there are very few people "fit" to work who are not in employment. Where would these jobs in windfarms have found their employees... from people already employed on the island. No net gain, except more migrant workers coming in. Yes, we do need them, no doubt.

It was commented on the radio yesterday that the previous MP and MSP had lost their seats through not listening to the electorate and pressing on regardless with their support of the Lewis windfarm. And then we had the vice convener of CNES winging that the council and the islands population were being let down by the Scottish goverment. I would note that in the recent local elections, Angus Campbell only got back into the council at the fourth count in the complicated system we now have of electing councillors. Under the old system he would have been dead and buried! He does not represent me or the majority, I would suggest he listen more and stops telling us what is best for us, there are intelligent and thinking people outwith the local authority.
If the "decision" to reject is ratified, then good riddance, and let us all on the islands pull together and move on.

35

Logie Almond,

26/01/2008 10:57:58
Taking this decision with yesterday's rejection of energy from waste, it is obvious that this is a populist SNP administration who are afraid to take difficult decisions. Their approach is to court short-term popularity without any care for the longer term benefit for Scotland.
36

westcider,

Isle of Lewis 26/01/2008 10:59:22
32. 33. 34. I see that the penny is starting to drop.
Lewis is the third largest island in the British Isles and yes draco there is plenty of room for windmills up here. However the bottom line with these companies means they wish to utilise the existing infrastructure ie, the roads, while there are great tracts of empty moor which could have taken all of the proposed turbines, largely out of sight. Such a scheme would have been welcomed with open arms here.
37

,

26/01/2008 11:06:45
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
38

Colin, Glasgow,

26/01/2008 11:47:58
#48 The thing about wind power is that it is extremely dependent on average wind strength. The power generated is proportional to the cube of the windspeed. A 20% drop in average windspeed results in nearly 50% loss of generating capacity.

So it is far more important to place wind turbines in sites with optimal wind conditions than it is to choose sites close to the consumer. At worst, transmission loss would be 10%, whereas the loss from poorer wind conditions will be significantly more. This is why urban turbines are mostly useless.
39

Rob - Honest Toun,

26/01/2008 11:48:54
Whit sicht wad be mair pleasin tae the ee? A peat bog covered wi windmills or a peat bog ablow 20ft o sea water?
40

william john,

ayr 26/01/2008 11:54:25
Wind farms are not efficient> No real figures for electricity being generated is shown . Mr salmond states that Scotland has wind turbine generation equal to an neuclear power station Some hope Publish some real figures on what is actually generated .
Publish some real figures on the jobs created for locals after the tubines are built.
Publish some real figure on the decline on tourism especialy as some holiday articles appear in the press
advising to go further afield than Scotland to avoid unsightly wind farms. etc etc etc The powers that be are in a world of their own.
41

Neil,

Glasgow 26/01/2008 12:06:00
I'm not sure about the "divided island" headline. The last poll showed 90% against which seems to be about as much unity as any political decision achieves.
42

Geomac 1,

Kinross 26/01/2008 12:08:40
#3 Guga - you are absolutely correct
The much repeated claims by wind turbine developers and their lobbyists that they are a major provider of jobs for local people was proved to be a fallacy recetly! Of the 38 workers recently rescued from a tilting rig at the Robin Rigg windfarm development being constructed in the Solway Firth, only one was British with the rest being from foreign parts, including from Denmark,The Netherlands and India.
43

Geomac 1,

Kinross 26/01/2008 12:21:15
Anyone here familar with the Causewaymire wind site in the noirth of Scotland - some 25 windmills.
Here's what the site engineer told a visitor during construction
"The machines are identical to those destined for Moray and every single component down to the last
nut and bolt had been manufactured in Denmark."
This endorses my belief that wind power will bring little benefit to the people of Scotland and even less to the people of Moray. Although construction at Causewaymire will probably have involved some local labour, maintenance of the site, which is remotely controlled from Denmark, will be carried out by two people.
Why should it be any different on Lewis?
44

Geomac 1,

Kinross 26/01/2008 12:29:10
#55 Clarry. I don't think that you understand that wind energy ADDS to the cost of electricity. Based on last year ROC payments, each household in the UK is already paying £40 per year for renewable energy - and so far there's only a total of around 4% in the UK from such sources - including hydro. In Scotland we intermittely produce around 5% from wind and 10% from hydro. Can you imagine the additional cost for ROCs if we were to get to 50% from renewables??
45

Geomac 1,

Kinross 26/01/2008 12:32:30
#48 Middlewatch
Good point! I wonder how much power would be lost transporting it hundreds of miles - and wind is inefficient in the base!! Sheer madness!
46

Geomac 1,

Kinross 26/01/2008 13:02:03
# 63 AND 64 Clarry
Yes, of course it's our money being returned AFTER the EU have snaffled asome 40% for admin purposes!!
Any grant will be for capital purposes I suspect which will not change the operating costs - including ongoing ROC benefits paid for by the poor consumer. Did you know that the consumer (in addition to the current £40 per year) also pays some £70-120 pounds per year to pay for the EU Carbon Trading Scheme (CTS). Politicians are happy to let us believe that power bills are going up because of the scarcity of fuel etc but they omit to mention the other costs (which they have inmposed!!) Fortunately, these costs are staring to leak out and are being noted by consumers!
47

Caora Dubh,

Croit sheasgair 26/01/2008 13:44:07
Why doesn't the Comhairle hold a properly governed public debate so that we can hear both sides: Proposers, seconders, and last rebuff - televised. Then they must allow all on Leodhas to vote in a referendum: we agree to abide by the outcome. It's their island so it's their decision. As it is we don't know all the short, medium and long-term financial, employment, tourist, and ecological implications. How will wind turbines affect precipitation over the peat beds? Will the sphagnum moss survive?

48

Caora Dubh,

Croit sheasgair 26/01/2008 13:49:23
One shouldn't forget that all the wind turbines will require access roads across the peat for maintenance and emergency servicing. This in itself, is not a minor thing - the roads will require proper foundations across the peat, so destroying it. Unless, of course, it is intended to service the turbines by helicopter, so producing a lot of noise and carbon dioxide.
49

Caora Dubh,

Croit sheasgair 26/01/2008 14:02:30
176 turbines: that's a grid of 13 x 13 plus 7 in a 14th row. Let us say that the diameter of each is 300m, and there is 900m separation between them. Then one row requires 13x300m + 12x900m = 3900m + 10800m = 14.7 km. Let us say that the rows are 1500m apart, then we require 13 x 1500m in the other direction, = 19500m, or 19.5 km. So the array will be about 14.7 x 19.5 km. So the array will be roughly one fifth the size of Greater London - more like Glasgow. Actually, this is about the limit of what I would tolerate, but I would tolerate it sizewise, provided it was environmentally acceptable.
50

Russell M,

Stirling 26/01/2008 14:03:24
Why would the people of Lewis reject a wind farm? Because for generations it has not been their land. In the past if a crofter wanted to improve his patch by planting a tree, by law that tree became property of the Laird. What a marvelous disincentive for improvement and innovation. So the only way people can exercise even a little control over their patch is to say NO!

If Lewis was owned by the people who live there. And a developer of wind farms had to go door to door offering free energy and an annual rent to use a corner of their land temporarily for a wind turbine. I am sure there would be more enthusiasm for such schemes. (This is how leases for oil and gas wells are obtained in some parts of the USA.)

It always comes back to land, power, and control. He who owns the land has the power to exercise control. So long as the ideas only flow in one direction from Westminster, Holyrood, or the big house up the hill there's going to be trouble. So the solution is not more centralisation of authority but less.
51

Geomac 1,

Kinross 26/01/2008 14:11:11
#52 William John

Real figures have been published and show a range of perforamance from low 20s percaent to low 30s percent capacity achieved.
try site for more data
http://www.countryguardian.net/Wind_Complete(3Dec2007).pdf
52

Geomac 1,

Kinross 26/01/2008 14:13:43
#79 Russel WRONG! The inhabitants of Lewis have steadily been buying land - through public ownership schemes - in order to STOP windmills from being built!!
53

minkwinkdink,

Malone WI, USA 26/01/2008 14:49:46
You can be assured the same diatribe was used here;
Jobs, construction, income. It is the same whitewash.
Very little local impact to the economy will ever be realized. More people will leave than come in because of the tower. That to me is a net loss, I don't care how you present it. It isn't even windy here....
Big money to be made by BIG companies.... Nothing else.

Details of my 'new' book are listed here:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0615180191
54

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 26/01/2008 14:54:29
78. Here's another calculation:

To meet the 20% target for 2020 solely from wind power, the UK would need around 26 GW of wind capacity if electricity supply increases to 400,000 GW. If 50% of this is met from onshore wind using an average of 2 MW turbines, this would require around 6,500 turbines. Based on a land-take of around 0.18 ha/MW for the turbines, access roads and substation, total onshore land-take would equal around 2,340 ha. Based on a total
UK land area of 24 million hectares, this is equivalent to around 0.0001% of the total available land. This contrasts with the 3.3 million hectares that is currently classed as ‘urban + other’ use land. As wind turbines are usually located on hilly land, the space around the turbines is still available for livestock grazing or other activities.


55

GalacticCannibal,

Murrieta, CA..captured from Mexico 1845 26/01/2008 14:54:40
81# Geomac 1,

If as U say the locals want to STOP the building of Windmills

What have they proposed as an alternative.? Dude

GC
56

Florence,

Edinburgh 26/01/2008 14:56:56
No. 9 GRAHAMSKI: Get a life. Have you read the article? If so, you have obviously failed to understand it.
57

Calum Crubag,

26/01/2008 15:08:36
Dave Barrach - good idea, I assume you've already started petitioning Holyrood?

Though, why shouldn't there be small wind turbines and solar panels on office blocks in the cities?
58

Burnymill,

Mauchline 26/01/2008 15:09:06
Wind power is a con, unreliable, expensive, lining the pockets of land-owners, energy companies and the numerous consultants etc who crawl out of the woodwork when these developments are proposed.
59

Geomac 1,

Kinross 26/01/2008 15:24:39
~82 Dave Thanks for clarification
60

Geomac 1,

Kinross 26/01/2008 15:29:23
#84 Fred

Oh dear Fred - you seem to have forgotten about the 25 -30% capacity factor for windmills!!
For half of the 26GW you claim - i.e. 13MW using 2WW turbines. Nearer 20,000 turbines required - not 6,500. And then what would we do when there was no wind or blowing gales??
61

Geomac 1,

Kinross 26/01/2008 15:30:44
#85 Galactic - same reply as 87 - Davefrom Barra
62

d.j.,

26/01/2008 15:41:48
A number of contributors seem to be of the opinion that it is only now that young people and families have been leaving the Western Isles and other parts of the Highlands and Islands.
Today there are some 14 million people world wide who have direct ancestral links with the Highlands and islands and the Gaelic language; many of whom were from the Western Isles. This is not a new difficulty by any means but one that needs solving and quickly.

Are the problems solveable, Yes of course, but the mind change needed in Scotland generally is too great to see anything other than short-term solutions.
It must start by getting those most able to want to stay here, rather than always expecting ideas and solutions to come from other countries and cultures.

If this does not occur then whatever comes about is doomed to failure through the most able people always leaving for greener pastures. Able does not mean most academic, indeed many academics kill ideas rather than exploit and develop them.
Sadly, Scotland is full of Gordon Brown types who kill enterprise rather than encourage it for their own need to hold onto power.
63

Draco Was a Wimp,

Edinburgh 26/01/2008 15:44:22
#87 Dave

Out of interest, what have the majority on Lewis proposed as an alternative to the windfarms? The article isn't clear. And do you all deny there is an need for alternatives to fossil fuel generation? Interesting to see a reluctance to help the rest of the country. It seems a few windfarms are OK as long as they only provide enough power for Lewis.Careful the rest of the country doesn't leave you to pay your own way in your idyll.
64

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 26/01/2008 16:25:04
Is it the case that Lewis at present gets its power from a diesel plant in Stornoway?

If so, not very green...
65

no wind factory!,

siadar iarach 26/01/2008 16:25:28
@#96 - draco and others..

This island has plenty of alternative ideas. The entire island has a seperate collection of organic waste, which is taken to an anaerobic bio-digester project in Stornoway; a number of local schools and buildings have their own wind generation; there are a number of community wind schemes in operation and in the pipeline and a pilot wave generation scheme being investigated in Siadar.

Far from being "NIMBY's" most of us would prefer small scale, community renewables in our "back yard" that would have genuine environmental and economic benefits over a monstrous scheme such as this one, which has very dubious benefits and very clear and unnacceptable risks and negative environmental impacts.

The environmental designations of Lewis should have ruled it out from ever being considered for this scheme, it was pure arrogance on the part of the developers to think anyone would accept their view of the benefits in light of the experiences of other communities that host wind schemes and that this could ever have been built by riding roughshod over the ecological protections and local opinion.
66

no wind factory!,

siadar iarach 26/01/2008 16:27:42
Additioanlly, improved transport links would likey bring more econmoc benefit to the island than this scheme could hope to. See last year's HiTrans report for more detail..
67

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 26/01/2008 16:45:42
84. Should read 400,000 GWh - not GW.
68

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 26/01/2008 16:50:42
103. So, DfB, Lewis's power could be coming from anywhere on the grid, including Torness and Longannet.
69

GalacticCannibal,

Murrieta 26/01/2008 17:03:29
Hey Dudes

To do nothing is not a plan , nor is it a a functional alternative.

Am very surprised at your response and attitude.

GC

70

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 26/01/2008 17:13:39
109. Country Guardian are a bunch of Barbour jacketed, Telegraph reading, anti-windfarm NIMBYS. They must be getting desperate to start blaming midges and salt.
71

Trond,

Norway 26/01/2008 17:38:28
# 107:

According to this page the area within 7 propeller diameters or 300m from the wind turbine is not suitable for living due to noise.

http://www.windpower.org/en/tour/env/sound.htm
72

n/,

Perth 26/01/2008 17:40:45
Keep spouting Fred bloggs of Edinburgh. Single handedly you are doing more to bring the renewables industry into disrepute and hopefully see it's demise in Scotland than any number of campaigners against ever could. Keep up the good work, More power to your elbow!
73

Am-Bodach,

26/01/2008 17:55:00
#84

"Based on a land-take of around 0.18 ha/MW for the turbines, access roads and substation, total onshore land-take would equal around 2,340 ha."

Splendid. But the ZVI for a typical wind turbine is 35km, equivalent to an area of 3848.451 km2. Now please calculate for us the more meaningful statistic -how many individual turbines are required to impose visual blight on the entire UK?

#110 - Insects

Sadly Fred, Country Guardian is probably quoting an article published in the science journal Nature - "Insects can halve wind turbine power" Volume 412 pages 42-3, 5th July 2001. FYI Nature is one of the most highly respected science journals in the world. I would expect only scientific studies of the highest standard to be published within its pages.
74

Mr Lucky,

At my computer 26/01/2008 18:08:00
This does seem to be a rather odd situation in some ways. The SG is very keen on Scotland moving towards renewables instead of nasty old nuclear (boo hiss etc)because renewables are 'green' and good for the environment. However this scheme has been rejected on the grounds of not being 'green' and bad for the environment.

I'm a little confused, but then I'm fairly easily confused.

If we're serious about renewables then I presume we need this scheme. If the SG rejects a big scheme like this then maybe we should just build some new nuclear power stations instead (at least we'd know where we were then) rather than trying to cosy up to the Greens to get their support at Holyrood.
75

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 26/01/2008 18:10:11
114. Gosh, they'll have to wipe them clean during a routine maintenance period. That'll provide a few more jobs for the locals!

However, no need to panic. Wind turbines are extremely reliable; they have an availability factor of 98%.
76

Neil,

Glasgow 26/01/2008 18:22:31
115 the answer is that nuclear is in fact pretty green & most "greens aren't. With a few honourable exceptions such as Professor Lovelock (creater of the Gaia theory) & Bishop Hugh Montefiore (who was fired from the Friends of the Eath board for speaking) most "greens" don't give a stuff about the environment. They care only for supporting Ludditism because they are scared of any technology they don't understand & their level of understanding barely reaches clockwork.

Nuclear produces virtually no CO2 & only a tiny amouint of waste. It uses up very little space, is reliable, inexpensive & doesn't involve risking peoples lives working deep underground or 300 ft in the air. But the Luddites don't understand it so they hate it. Because this is not a very credible objection they have to pretend to envivironmentalism but anybody who wants to cover scotland in windmills (or indeed wants only fortnightly bn collections) clearly care nothing for the environment.

(note that Fred STILL hasn't answered the question about putting windmills in Edinburgh)
77

Trond,

Norway 26/01/2008 18:24:41
117:

It won't be a problem to stop the rotor. They generate power only 25 % of the time along the coast here.

I suppose you need a new ladder.
78

n/,

Perth 26/01/2008 19:37:33
Blimey..........are we awaiting an answer from Fred bloggs of Edinburgh on this posting as well!
He must be an MSP!

79

Shug,

26/01/2008 19:45:53
Personally I don't believe windfarms on this scale are the answer. We should be pursuing a number of strategies. Wind, wave, hydro and maybe nuclear.

Lewis should have wind farms but ony enough to cover its own needs. It wouldn't take much. There are a number of small scale schemes near me and they are pleasing to the eye in my view. They are also a positive symbol.

At the end of the day we are all NIMBY's. Small scale local developments should be used as much as possible. It is not right to screw over Lewis just to make sure the lights stay on in Glasgow and Edinburgh. I suspect those accusing the people of Lewis of being NIMBY's are from the citiies. If they need power and have no other options then they should build nuclear power stations on Glasgow Green and the Meadows. We would soon find out who the NIMBY's are then.
80

yoric,

26/01/2008 20:22:55
"Dont do it"
Its an ugly blot on the landscape for generations to come, Windfarms produce tiny levels of Electricity for massive financial costs.
ALL of Scotlands energy could come from 2 or 3 Conventional or Nuclear stations taking up a fraction of the countryside.
Windfarms will destroy the tourist trade in the Highlands and leave Scotland permanently short of Electricity.
81

steve green,

preston. lancashire. 26/01/2008 21:11:47
I'm not a scientist but I am interested in science, not pro wind turbine but keen on renewable energy.
I have a question, if the turbine has to be shut down when the wind is too strong why cannot a brake be applied to bring the turbine down to a safe speed and would this not generate heat and therefore more energy?;
this technology is used in so called 'green cars'.
I still, however, think the sea tides have the answer.
Anyone out there can explain this to me?
82

Kenny A,

26/01/2008 21:12:47
Trump card?

Was under the impression that most locals near the proposed golf course were in favour of it, could be wrong not my neck of the woods.

What is for certain now is most locals in the Islands are against these massive wind farms because now they are aware of the consequences.

Initialy a lot of people now against them were in favour to some extent, however the blatent greed and missrepresentation of facts mainly but in fairness not exclusivly on the developers side has sickened a lot of people about the entire issue.

Time it was humanly put to sleep.

83

TheFife,

Beverly Hills 26/01/2008 21:16:50
It is truly odd when one sees two sides of a dispute arguing over who's greener, isn't it? Well, get used to it.

Increasingly, we are going to see industries cosy up to their old mates the politicians and paint everything they want to push through a bright green. And what is the result? The people waste their time arguing over the "greenness" of the issue rather than spending their time looking the beast square in the face and giving it a thumping.

To me what rivals this audacity is that they always use the same old arguments like we're all stupid and won't learn.

No, jobs won't be made for locals.
Yes, there will be no end of cheap foreign labourers brought in.
Yes, you will end up subsidising the industries instead of the project really creating income.
No, there will never be a drop in price of electricity.
Yes, these monsters kill birds.
No, they are not quiet whispers in the breeze.

These are all things that have come to pass in California time and again and I hear the same old tripe every time they argue it and the same old results.

So, OK, the people of California are idiots and never learn. What say the Scots for themsleves on this point?




84

Colin, Glasgow,

26/01/2008 21:39:56
#115 If I was looking for a conspiracy theory as to why the Scottish govt opposes both nuclear and large wind developments than I'd say it was because they were in the pockets of the dirty & dangerous fossil fuel industry - hence they want to keep the oil and gas flowing.

But a more mundane and transparent explanation is that they take the populist stance on all matters. They oppose new nuclear build, but keep the old plants running, which puts off the difficult decision until after the next election. They oppose unpopular wind developments, but espouse other renewable technology which won't be proven viable (or otherwise) until well after the next election.
85

Sambo,

The deep south 26/01/2008 21:45:20
What's the choices? Cheaper electricity or pictures for the Scotsman calendar.
86

Draco Was a Wimp,

Edinburgh 26/01/2008 21:49:23
#127 Shug

I AM accusing the Lewis folk of being NIMBYs. If the government has decided against nuclear, then the alternatives have to be built somewhere. It's absolutely ridiculous to suggest that windfarms sufficient to power Edinburgh and Glasgow could be built in the middle of Edinburgh or Glasgow. It's not physically possible and besides the consistent levels of wind are not found in either of these places. Next you'll be suggesting wave generators off the beach at Portobello rather than in the Pentland Firth. If we want alternative power sources for the nation as a whole, then they have to be sited in the parts of the country which can best provide them. And if you don't want to contribute to the nation's economy as a whole then you should be happy to give up the subsidies that allow you to live a 21st century lifestyle in an economically unviable part of the country.
87

Draco Was a Wimp,

Edinburgh 26/01/2008 21:55:40
#136 Sambo

It's not a choice between cheaper sources of electricty and greener sources. It's a choice between having electricity and not having it. We have to face the fact that, if we don't want nuclear or fossil fuel sources of power, our bills will have to go up and beautiful parts of the country will have to be slightly less aesthetically pleasing.
88

Kenny A,

26/01/2008 21:59:28
Angus

Sorry to disapoint, a lot, the majority in fact in the islands who are against these windfarms are far from new age arty types.

More along the line of down to earth presbeterian types who have looked at the pros and cons.

Just seems there are a lot of the new age crowd as the permanently whinge, refuse to listen to anyone else and make clowns of themselves therby tarring the rest in the Islands with the same brush.

89

Kenny A,

26/01/2008 22:08:58
Draco

Bad timing to come back to this subject.

Blunt question. Why should the people in the Islands who as mentioned before contribute to the nation overall, and have a strong and thriving tourisim industry based on the fact that the islands are unspoiled have to sacrifice this. Also see property prices slashed. Communities ripped apart and people leaving.

The islands do not use that much power and are certainly more self sufficiant than people who live in the cities. The cities use the most power and generate the least.

A solution for this little set of questions if you please.
90

Sambo,

The deep south 26/01/2008 22:49:40
#138
Draco, I don't understand why Scotland shouldn't use nuclear sources. Even the tremendous amount of coal reserves she has. Why blight the landscape with windmills?
91

beckypumps1,

fife 26/01/2008 23:21:33
Having worked in a large Scottish coal fired plant for 20years in all departments you only have to watch the Simpsons on TV to get an idea of the gross incompetence of power station management with regard to health and safety, building new nukes would be folly. And the problem of nuke waste, ive got small kids and it’s a hell of a legacy to leave them. But wind turbines is not the answer (0.3 load factor)
if money is to be invested in renewable why not look at PV systems, geo thermal, wave or even energy conservation (triple glassing 2feet of roof insulation b y law on new builds)wind turbines can help but lets get real here they are not the answer.
92

Katty,

Bannockburn 27/01/2008 00:08:36
27& 28 Shug & yoric

Noticed you two sneaking in with your nuclear plants
so nochalant.
Reading down in a hurry I just noticed them because they were together
NO not in my country. We are talking Wind Farms lots of wind so far

Lots of places in Scotland to put them. We can't load 1 piece of the country with too many. It is not fair.
93

livilion,

livingston 27/01/2008 01:21:53
#42 danielrober #143 DaveSubsea
Aren't we missing the contribution made by our very own Glasgow born James 'Paraffin' Young, who did so much to rearrange the topography along the route of what is now the M8?

The world's first oil man invented the oil industry a nigh on a century before Fischer-Tropsch and producing those eye catching red bings as he went.

On October 17, 1850 James Young patented a method for the extraction of oil from cannel coal(oil shale).
94

livilion,

livingston 27/01/2008 01:26:33
Why do wind turbines have to be stick-out from-the-landscape-like-a-sore-thumb white?

Couldn't they blend in better with the scenery if we painted them the same colour as telephone poles electricity pylons or cellphone masts?
95

Neil,

Glasgow 27/01/2008 12:57:01
131 Steve I have not seen this propsal before so I can't say for sure why it wasn't used but I would guess that the equivalent of brake pads they use would wear out very quickly indeed bearing in mind the forces applied. The reason for the top speed of windmills is that the speed at which the tips turn is very fast indeed, the moreso the larger the circumference of the rotors. They are already fairly close to breaking the speed of sound, which apart from the noise, would mean they would shake apart very quickly. The amount of good engineering skills wasted on this nonsense is tragic.
96

AbandonAllHope,

27/01/2008 15:42:13
Ya beauty ! Gawn yersel wee man !
97

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 27/01/2008 20:32:11
Hello All,

I'm fed up with your Enviro-Whacko Lot. There's no pleasing you; for the last 4 DECADES you sad lot have been whining, screaming, demonstrating, making speeches, haranguing, and generally abusing the peace, all in an attempt to get energy companies, cities, towns, states, and entire countries, to turn to Solar and Wind Power.

You bad mouthed coal fired electric plants, declaring to all and sundry, that the FUTURE was in Wind and Solar Power, CLEAN POWER, not the 'dirty' coal fired plants.

You were AGAINST natural gas fired plants, because that meant drilling for natural gas sources. So once again, you loud-mouthed sad sack lot continued making all those speeches, kept demonstrating, kept haranguing, everybody and anybody, for Wind Farms and Solar Farms to be built and hooked to the Grid.

You shrieked, chided, and scolded heartily, anyone who even remotely suggested Nuclear Power.

All you wanted was a mass conversion to Wind and Solar Farms.

Well, welcome to the Future which YOU CALLED FOR, day after day and year after year. The last FORTY YEARS I've listened to you hypocritical swine bad mouth anyone not in favor or the Wind Farms and Solar Farms.

Now that you've got them, you DON'T WANT THEM!

You want your cakes, ice creams, lollipops, chocolates, marzipan, and sodas, all at the same time, but you DON'T want to get sick after eating/drinking them all.

Well, shut up. You've got what you've asked for, so SHUT UP. Sit there, suck your thumbs, and SHUT UP, you bunch of ungrateful hypocritical TWITS. I've had all I'll take from you lackluster lot, and so have most other folks.

The Wind Farms MUST be built. The Solar Farms MUST be built.
Wanting is never as good as having is it?

Save the Earth! Save the Environment!

Sit down. SHUT UP. SMILE at your SUCCESS.

Cheers from the Rockies

 

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.