Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Lewis wind-farm decision illustrates renewables do have a cost

PLATFORM

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: 06 February 2008

MEDIA reports and a widely circulated letter suggest ministers are "minded to refuse" the application for the massive Lewis wind farm. RSPB Scotland supports the development of renewable energy to combat climate change, but has long argued that this proposal is in the wrong place. The case has been highly controversial and, predictably, this news has sparked a backlash.


A steady drip of propaganda to discredit this decision has begun. Western Isles Council obtained a meeting with Jim Mather, the energy minister, and called for the First Minister's intervention. On Monday, the council met in emergency session to
plan its next move. The council seems to remain at odds with public opinion – a poll on the Stornoway Gazette website indicated 82 per cent backing "refusal".

Monday also saw, in this newspaper, a letter from the Scottish TUC, Scottish CBI and others supporting the development. This claimed that refusal would jeopardise the future of the island's economy and Scotland's energy and climate-change policies. How did these bodies reach such a conclusion? Did they read the Government's "minded to refuse" letter? Contrary to these claims, the Government should be applauded for reaching the view it has, which follows a thorough analysis of the evidence, adopts an approach that is consistent with the growing body of EU law and reaches conclusions in tune with its own environmental and energy policies.

Most fundamentally, the letter concludes that the development would have "a serious detrimental impact on the integrity of the Lewis Peatlands SPA". Special Protection Areas are Europe's most important areas for birdlife, and European law requires such areas are given stringent protection. This is the key issue. Damaging developments are allowed on such areas only where there are no alternatives and there is overriding public need. This same legislation helped the Scottish Government to ensure ship-to-ship oil transfers in the Firth of Forth were better controlled – it is good to see it being applied properly again.

Critically on SPAs, the Government has to look at "alternative solutions". It rightly concludes that there are other sites for wind farms – just look at recent consents and those awaiting decision. It makes clear that renewable energy targets are not at risk from the refusal of this development.

It also explodes the myth that refusing this development will inevitably deny the island an interconnector.

One thing the Government cannot be accused of is being unclear about its energy policy. John Swinney and other ministers have all stated that renewables will not be permitted at any cost. Developing the Lewis Peatlands SPA would have been too high a cost – causing untold damage to wildlife and our reputation in Europe. This "proposed decision" recognises this – and any change of mind now would appear highly irrational.

If confirmed, this refusal should be widely welcomed. However, we should also move on – and learn lessons.





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 05 February 2008 10:04 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

,

06/02/2008 02:26:40
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
2

Greenheatman,

TAIN 06/02/2008 06:58:50
Wind farms produce the wrong kind of electricity - the right kind is secure base load for a modern developed society.

All the hype is to cover up for the inadequacies of 'real time' generation subject to the vagaries of the weather.

We are all being duped into believing that wind turbines, because they exist, are the answer to climate change - they are not, and a billion of these will not help one iota.
3

Richard Havers,

The Borders 06/02/2008 07:15:56
Given the RSPB's support for the Perthshire wind farm we could all be forgiven for assuming that it speak out of both sides of its organizational mouthpiece. Meanwhile on Edinburgh's doorstep in the Lammermuir Hills there's the Fallgo Ridge wind farm about which a public enquiry started yesterday in Duns. You'll probably be staggered to know that if it's approved there will be 236 turbines in the Lammermuirs, 15% of Scotland's total.

For more check here

http://thebordersparty.blogspot.com/2008/02/desecration-of-lammermuir-hills.html
4

Unimpressed one,

06/02/2008 08:18:37
#1 McAlba - wrong. The future of Scotland depends of delivering a descent living standard to all, not pandering to eco-craze wind projects. Get real.
5

Spicey,

Glasgow 06/02/2008 09:53:18
#1
The point is that Scotland does have a HUGE potential for renewable energy projects, so we have plenty of other options to place them elsewhere than on environmentally sensitive areas.

#3
What is wrong in supporting one application but critising another based on the percieved balance of benefits and costs? Is that not rational?
6

n/,

Perth 06/02/2008 10:02:54
#1.The only thing Scotland is "well placed to become"if this nonsense continues is THE LAUGHING STOCK OF THE WORLD!

7

Neil,

Glasgow 06/02/2008 11:11:48
"One thing the Government cannot be accused of is being unclear about its energy policy" Lol

Perhaps they might like to clarify exactly where the electricty we need to keep the lights on, let alone the extra to build the promised "Celtic Lion" economy is to come from when we lose 50% of our generating capacity? If that is unclear then there is very little energy policy left to be clear on.
8

blair,

North Berwick 06/02/2008 13:24:37
Where on earth is the wave and tidal power lobby? I read somewhere that because the previous administration dragged its feet Portugal was now leading the research.
9

Neil,

Glasgow 06/02/2008 13:24:48
They could also be the first European community of significant size to have all their streets paved with gold if we were willing to pay that too. Wouldn't do them any good but wouldn't it be "great".
10

Liberal for life,

Dunblane 06/02/2008 22:38:46
The real cost is the cost associated with having an SNP administration in charge. Apart from independence they have no clear long term strategy as they are full of blaggards and luddites.
11

Kenny A,

06/02/2008 23:27:48
9

Not up to speed with the facts of this cse I am afraid. The power generated by the three large proposed windfarms would go South, mainly England. The power would not be used in the Islands as it would not generate any signigifant revenue for the power companies.

However if you were meaning small sacle windfarms, twave power which is being developed or tidal which I feel could be a real winner in the Islands and elsewhere. I stand corrected.
12

,

08/02/2008 00:40:47
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:

 

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.