Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Wind farms could cover same area as National Park

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: 17 June 2009
AN AREA of Scotland the size of Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park will be covered in turbines if all wind farms in the pipeline are given the go ahead, figures seen by The Scotsman reveal.
A report drawn up by Scottish Natural Heritage shows 194,459 hectares of land in Scotland could be covered by wind farms.

This includes the space taken up by wind farms that have already been built, those that have planning permission, and those t
hat are still going through the consents process.

Proponents of wind farms argue they are essential to meet challenging climate change targets. However, the figures have raised concern among campaign groups worried about the amount of wild land being covered by turbines.

The document reveals that a fifth of the land on which turbines would be built – 41,886 hectares – would be heather moorland. In addition, 1,639 hectares would be mountain land, and 10,421 hectares would be rough grassland.

A spokesman for the John Muir Trust, which campaigns to protect Scotland's wild land, said the extent of development was of concern because wind farms currently only contribute 2.2 per cent of the UK's electricity.

Helen McDade, head of policy at the John Muir Trust, said: "Research suggests that current UK policy could require a twenty-fold increase in industrial wind developments in Scotland.

"More and more, this will mean generating electricity far from the point of use, in scenic and ecologically valuable areas such as Shetland and the Western Isles, with the knock-on effect to tourism."

Ms McDade called for more government funding to be directed towards energy conservation, instead of "inefficient generation".

"Every watt of energy generated by wind power is seven times as expensive as an equivalent saving through loft insulation," she said.

And she called for large-scale onshore wind farms to be built only on brownfield sites, near large centres of population.

Ms McDade added that she was worried about the lack of a clear government strategy for the development of onshore wind farms.

In contrast, a strategic environment assessment is being carried out by the Scottish Government before any offshore wind farms can be built.

Figures from the British Wind Energy Association show there are 69 wind farms in Scotland, another 17 under construction, 53 with planning permission, and 100 seeking consent.

Further applications are also expected in the future.

Last week ScottishPower Renewables emphasised its intention to consider applying for consent for more onshore wind farms in Scotland.

The figures in the SNH Wind Farm Footprint document, produced for Scotland's Moorland Forum, a partnership of 31 organisations concerned with the future of the Scottish uplands, included the entire footprint of the wind farms.

This is the area over which land management is influenced by the wind farm, and is larger than the area of direct habitat loss due to the turbines.

A Scottish Government spokesman highlighted that not all applications would be granted consent. On average, about a third of wind farm applications are turned down, meaning the total land area covered could end up being lower than suggested in the report.

The spokesman said: "Scotland has a vast natural energy potential to create a sustainable, low-carbon economic future. We have always said we cannot have onshore wind anywhere or at any price, and that means utilising some of the best natural resources in Europe for energy from wave, water and wind."





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 16 June 2009 10:19 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Wind Power
 
1

nabodican,

Newton Stewart 17/06/2009 01:30:07
At last, a sensible report from Jenny Haworth - well done lass.
I would suggest that anyone who thinks windfarms are a good thing, should drive in to the middle of Whitelee and then decide if this is what they want for vast swathes of rural Scotland.
The South West in particular is being is being ravaged with the likes of Arecleoch with its 475ft turbines being another whitelee in the making. Whats more is that the Arecleoch extension at Kilgallioch in Dumfries and Galloway is already in the pipeline.
Then you have North Rhinns, Artfield Fell plus extension, Ochiltree, Glenvernoch and Balunton Hill.
We now hear of a further three monitoring masts going up.
Any sane person must now realise that this is a money making scam of epic proportions that has been inflicted on the Scotland with the full blessing of our councillors and MSP's.
The Southern Upland Way is now a sick joke. The death knell has been sounded for South West Scotland's tourism.
2

Andrew Morton,

Berkshire 17/06/2009 07:55:09
Time to compartmentalise Scotland. leave the natural heritage to the birds, beasties and people to manage and enjoy and build up the industrial areas with the turbines.

Otherwise, how can bodies like the SNH, who, in the past have prevented or objected to landowners doing something with their land to turn a coin, have any credibility left?
3

mr broon,

Edinburgh 17/06/2009 08:21:48
A £2 million visitor centre on the vast moorland site of the Whitelee Wind Farm will open this summer and will make it one of the UK's largest eco-tourist attractions with tours of the area.

90 kilometres of access road, much of it paved, has been constructed on the site, and it is now part of a national cycle route in the West of Scotland.

After construction, the surrounding moorland
has become a managed habitat and is still home to black and red grouse, pheasant, curlew, and other upland birds. The surrounding wetlands are populated by dozens of species of wading birds which have come back to nest this spring. The area has a large roe deer, fox, badger, and hare population. Many of the flowers and plants are unique to the moorland.

The wind farm has planning permission to be extended and further steps will be taken to ensure the wildlife is not disturbed during construction.

SNH and other organisations may well be against wind farms but they cannot refute the above facts.
4

Unimpressed one,

17/06/2009 09:10:08
#3, Wind farms are hopelessly inefficient, highly subsidised and do not prevent any emission of any CO2. These are also irrefutable facts.
5

nabodican,

Newton Stewart 17/06/2009 09:10:13
Mr Broon - facts my backside, every so called windfarm tourist centre in the country has failed. No right minded cyclist is going to cycle through a windfarm if they value their life.
It is a fact that turbines kill thousands of birds every year. It is a fact that they deter tourists. It is a fact that Whitelee is a massive eyesore. It is a fact that it is getting massive subsidies(rocs @£52/MWh. It is a fact that we the consumer are paying for this. It is a fact that no permanent jobs are created. It is a fact that the temporary jobs go to the Danes and Germnans. It is a fact that they do not cut emissions from power generation. It is a fact that they will never replace a nuclear or coal fired power station. It is a fact that the Scottish people neither need nor want windfarms. It is a fact that they are one gigantic rip off.
6

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 17/06/2009 09:41:00
There is no evidence that wind farms adversely affect tourism.

Cats and road traffic kill millions of birds. Wind turbines almost none.

All power generation is subsidised.

Power entering the grid replaces power from other sources. The system operators choose which, according to pricing and pollution criteria.

Jobs are created for operators, maintenance and admin staff in all power technologies.

It is irrefutable that wind generation saves carbon emission.

7

Richard Lionheart,

17/06/2009 09:58:44
Following the report that the earth will collide with a near planet it is suggested that the wind farms are blowing the planet off it's orbit.

Stop wind farms to save the planet!!!!!
8

nabodican,

Newton Stewart 17/06/2009 10:01:59
Wrong again Fred
Many tourism surveys have shown that windfarms deter touists, including one by Visit Scotland which found that 28% of visitors would not return to a turbine infested area.
All power generation does not get ROCS in fact large scale hydro does not even get it.
Wind power may well displace generation but it only displaces a basket of generation methods and not just coal, even then only the turbines are shut down due to the need for spinning reserve, the excess steam is simply vented off.
Not all power technologies ie wind, take Causeymire as an example - Danish turbines sent over on Danish ships with a Danish Crew, put on Danish trucks with Danish truck drivers and then erected by a Danish crew. Then after erection monitored in Denmark via a telemetry system by Danish engineers then Danish crew come across for repairs and maintenance.
To date all the wind turbines in the uk have not reduced emissions one jot, in fact with 2000 tonnes of reinforced concrete per turbine base they have increased emissions.
9

nabodican,

Newton Stewart 17/06/2009 10:06:05
Oh, and world wide, birds are killed all over the place.
Altamont pass kills thousands every year, Smola in Norway also. In Scotland not long ago a swan ws killed in front of hundreds of witnesses. We have lost eagles, hen harriers and all sorts - even the wind industry admit this. You can also add in the deliberate destruction of hen harrier eggs in the nest by wind farm supporteres as happened at Edinbane on Skye.
You are blind to the facts Fred
10

Saoghal Beag,

17/06/2009 11:46:34
#9. Even the ill sited braes of doune does not have a significant effect on the local population of red kites. road kill is much higher.
11

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 17/06/2009 11:51:34
8. nabodican:

The survey you refer to is available here:

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2008/03/07113554/18

- the following is a direct quote from that report:

'Overall there is no evidence to suggest a serious negative impact of wind farms on tourism.'

As for birdkills, you quote Altamount and Smola because they are the only windfarms anywhere in the world where signifcant number are killed owing to the obsolete types of turbine and their distribution. Birdkills are negligible elsewhere.
12

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 17/06/2009 12:07:32
8. nabodican:

As for the question of concrete - the number of tons taken to construct a hydro station is about 700/MW; a nuclear station about 600/MW and a wind turbine about 400/MW.

And it is easy to calculate that the emissions used to make the concrete are saved in a few weeks of turbine operation
13

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 17/06/2009 12:15:10
8. nabodican states:

'Wind power may well displace generation ... it ... displaces a basket of generation methods and not just coal'

Surely that is a good thing and shows that coal 'backup' is a very small part of the picture?

In any case, 'backup' as you term it is more likely to be provided by CCGT rather than coal which is being steadily phased out in favour of the cleaner and more efficient technologies.
14

mr broon,

Edinburgh 17/06/2009 12:23:05
It is an incontrovertible fact that renewables are here to stay as part of an energy mix for Scotland, and the rest of the UK.

The proportion of renewables, including wind power, will grow even greater each year. More and more micro hydro-electric power stations are also being built where ever the terrain is suitable throughout Scotland. Necessity is the mother of invention and wave and tidal power research will also eventually provide further sources of energy.

The State owned Electricite de France(EDF), which has 20 nuclear power plants, is now the major controlling interest in British Energy but has a subsidiary company EDF Naturelle which builds wind farms throughout France, and the rest of the EU. It plans to build wind farms throughout England and Wales where planning consent is obtained.

At present, less than one percent of France's electricity needs are met from renewables.

However, by 2030, the French Government is planning through its State owned company to obtain a massive 12 to 15 percent of France's electricity needs from renewables, the vast majority of which will come from wind farms. (EDF website)
15

StevenB,

17/06/2009 12:48:32
What about the amount of CO2 produced when making and installing these turbines, that's more than is saved in the projected lifetime of them.
16

Lianachan,

Highlands 17/06/2009 12:54:55
Power should always be generated as close to its area of intended consumption as much as possible. Windfarms to generate power for cities should be on the roofs of high buildings in those cities, not out here in the wilderness with me. I'm pretty sure the only reason there are windfarms here are because the landowner enjoy the incentives and subsidies.
17

Tartan Viking,

17/06/2009 13:01:38
Wait until the landscape is blotted by electricity pylons hundreds of feet high, taking electricity from the north so that power can be provided to England.
18

Tartan Viking,

17/06/2009 13:03:49
#14 Mr broon "However, by 2030, the French Government is planning through its State owned company to obtain a massive 12 to 15 percent of France's electricity needs from renewables, the vast majority of which will come from wind farms."

"It plans to build wind farms throughout England and Wales where planning consent is obtained."

The phrase "Not in my back yard" comes to mind.
19

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 17/06/2009 13:06:36
8. nabodican claims:

'Not all power technologies ie wind, take Causeymire as an example - Danish turbines sent over on Danish ships with a Danish Crew, put on Danish trucks with Danish truck drivers and then erected by a Danish crew. Then after erection monitored in Denmark via a telemetry system by Danish engineers then Danish crew come across for repairs and maintenance.'

Actually Causeymire is owned and operated by RWE Innogy which is based in Germany:

http://www.rwe.com/web/cms/en/87264/rwe-innogy/renewable-energies/wind/


20

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 17/06/2009 13:10:21
15. StevenB:

The average wind farm in the UK will pay back the energy used in its manufacture within six to eight months, this compares favourably with coal or nuclear power stations, which take about six months.

21

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 17/06/2009 13:14:46
16. Lianachan:

The windfarms are out in the Highlands and Islands because that's where the wind is.
22

Lianachan,

Highlands 17/06/2009 13:20:46
#21 It's pretty windy up at the top of high buildings too, you know, plus the scenary is already rubbish.
23

mr broon,

Edinburgh 17/06/2009 13:29:28
20# Hydrocarbons and renewables certainly have CO2 emissions but nothing like the lifetime contaminated waste created by nuclear power.

The United Kingdom Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, a government agency, estimates that it will take anything between 75 and 100 years to manage and store highly dangerous nuclear material and, at today's prices, cost anything between £40 and £70 BILLION, including the clean up of the nuclear sites. Dounrey,
currently being decommissioned, will take another 28 years to make it safe.

Wind turbines are easily decommissioned by simply dismantling and removing turbines from the sites of farms and restoring the landscape. Many wind turbine designs can easily be dismantled and re-erected elsewhere whilst the parts from other designs can be recycled for reuse or as scrap. (Source: The Times)

24

Saoghal Beag,

17/06/2009 14:33:44
Lianachan, embedded energy generation is something we need more off. it is easier to embeddwind generation within the buuilt environment than nuclear.
25

El Franko,

17/06/2009 14:39:54
Windfarms are just one of the harms that have followed from the false premise of a 'man-made global warming crisis'. We cannot afford the greenies and their hatred-of-humanity-and-the-environment agenda.

I just read a new phrase from Lord Monckton, a traffic-light analogy: the greens are too yellow to admit that they are red. Too smart as well, since socialism has been exposed as a curse on humanity. Roll on the day when the greenies are exposed for what they really are.
26

El Franko,

17/06/2009 14:44:32
Link for Monckton interview: http://seeker401.wordpress.com/2009/06/15/the-real-face-of-global-warming/

Via the invaluable Greeniewatch: http://antigreen.blogspot.com/
27

trimbleofmains,

London 17/06/2009 15:12:56
So what if we cover an area the size of a National Park with wind farms. There are many beautiful parts of Scotland that are protected, such as Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park. There are many areas such as Whitelees that are grim and dismal and are well suited for wind farms. I don't buy the notion that every bit of the countryside should be protected. Lets face it man has been scarring the landscape for centuries, felling trees, planting conifers that don't belong and poison the rivers, piling stone and building roads. It is important that we protect our parks, but areas like Whitelees? Come on!

If you really want nature go to Canada. We don't have room for it here.
28

Geomac 1,

Scotland 17/06/2009 15:59:11
Well done Jenny - at long last a counter to the more normal article supporting windmills.
When are those in power going to acknowlege what ever more of us already know - windmills are a con propagated by developers and landowners to make fistfuls of cash. They are unreliable and intermittent in operation and require around 80-90% conventional backup in order to maintain a reliable electricity supply - so there are no overall real CO2 emission savings. Further, they will inevitably result in destabilisation of our supply grid by their weather related surges - as has happened on continental Europe (Germany, Spain etc.). They are a total distraction and more significant efforts and investment must be made in reliable renewables and low emission electricity generation
29

Saoghal Beag,

17/06/2009 16:17:06
Geomac, there is no alternative that operates 365/24/7. that does not require subsidy, and does not have it's own specific impacts. In terms of unreliable generation Hunterston and Torness have not been performing well, not only with planned down time, but also unscheduled down time. Unlike other supplies nuclear is unresponsive and either off or on. Being inflexible and unreliable it is necessary to ensure we have 100% back up for that generation. There are many cons about generation option being banded about.
30

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 17/06/2009 16:24:35
Geomac - your claim that wind needs 90% 'backup' is erroneous, especially at this time of year when peak demand of around 30GW amounts to only around a half of the maximum available power in the UK and half the power stations are not generating anything.

Even in the dead of winter with every available station generating there is more than enough spare capacity on the system without the need to build more just for the 1GW average that UK wind can supply.
31

Geomac 1,

Kinross 17/06/2009 16:28:56
#29 Saoghal - your points are well made BUT surely this tells us that we need a mixture of electricity generation systems - including coal, gas, nuclear and renewables - but I fear that wind is the least sensible (from my engineering background perspective) in that their output is intermittent and totally reliant on a feature (wind) over which we have no control whatsoever. Hydro and tidal power are a good examples of sensible renewables. Wave is a bit better than wind but also depends on weather.
Don't you think that politicians should get out of the way with their political dogmas and leave the strategy for our future generation to power and power distribution engineers, who know what they are doing?
32

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 17/06/2009 16:33:13
Geomac:

Your claims about reliability are also wrong. Wind generators may provide variable output as the windspeed varies but they are much more relable than other generators at around 95% availability.
33

Saoghal Beag,

17/06/2009 16:39:22
Geomac, only a fool would recommend a single generation technology as a solution. There must be diversity of generation technologies, locations and sizes to ensure security of supply. Wind has a role as it is not as unreliable as some would have you believe when the generation capacity is spread through a wide geographic area. However i would rather see more embedded generation as the Mitchelin factory in Dundee has shown to be viable. Clean burn coal and hydro are essential, it is hydro that ensures we meet our surge demands. Nuclear has so many draw backs, despite it being a fantastic piece of engineering it can only generate 20% of base load and then there is an issue about waste adn the hidden costs. If nuclear was financially attractive there would be new stations being in built in England now, that is not the case.
34

Geomac 1,

Scotland 17/06/2009 16:50:55
#30 Fred. I simply do not accept that the UK has a 100% power back up available - even in the summer, it's around 30% but in the winter it's less than 15% nowadays. UK peak demand is nearer 50 GW (not 30).
You say that my claim of the need for 90% backup is eroneous (it's not my claim but one made by EON and Iberdrola) yet you go on to say that requiring backup is not a problem for 1GW of wind???
I assume that you are aware of the fact that within a few years Britain will be faced with a terrifying and unprecedented shortfall in its electricity supplies. All but one of the nuclear plants which provide a fifth of our power are so old they will have to close. Nine more major coal and oil-fired power stations are rapidly running out of the hours they are allowed to remain open by Brussels.

The combined output of these plants is 22 gigawatts (GW). At peak demand we need 56GW. We thus face a 40 per cent shortfall in the supply needed to keep our economy functioning. There is no way that gap can be filled in time by new nuclear plants. Building more gas plants, when we are fast running out of our own gas and prices are likely to soar, all the experts agree is crazy.

Wind is even less of an issue in the big picture!!
35

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 17/06/2009 17:20:06
geomac: the latest BERR Energy Statistics Report which gives comprensive figures for 2007 specifically states that total generation capacity was 75GW. As peak demand at this time of year is only around 30GW I cannot see how you come to believe the 'backup' is only 30%.
36

Geomac 1,

Scotland 17/06/2009 18:41:36
# 35 Fred It may have escaped you that electricity use has increased significantly since the last BERR stats were developed. Also 75GW gen cap is closer to 30% of peak demand that the 100% you claimed earlier!
37

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 17/06/2009 18:51:25
Geomac: Peak demand is around 62GW.
38

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 17/06/2009 18:52:04
(in the winter of course)
39

nabodican,

Newton Stewart 17/06/2009 19:52:29
Fred,
Tourism / If you dont consider a 28% drop in return visitors serious, you are mad. On top of this the survey they carried out was slanted to the wind industry by using their own visualisations which are hotly disputed.
Concrete / The latest turbines have bases approx 20x20x2m giving 800 cubic metres @ 2.5 tonnes per cubic metre giving 2000 tonnes each
Causeymire / Who owns it has nothing to do with who built it and it was the Danes, I know because I spoke to them.
CCGT / Peterhead is the only one in Scotland and if you think any of that reaches the central belt you are clearly lacking in engineering knowledge.
Subsidies / You do not seem to understand that the ROCS subsidy received by wind is directly added to our bills ie you are paying this along with the rest of us.
The bottom line is that we had a perfectly good balance of power generation before wind using several different sources and with around 25% spare capacity to allow for breakdown etc. This spare capacity was never desogned to cater for the vagaries of wind and sooner or later we are going to have power cuts because of this.
Wind certainly does not pay back its CO2 and never will as it can never reduce the coal being burned at Longannet or Cockenzie.
The bottom line is that no matter how much you love the thousand plus turbines decorating our hills, they are simply not necessary, particularly in these days of fuel poverty.
Your stance in supporting the mass desecration of the Scottish landscape is inexcuseable.
40

nabodican,

Newton Stewart 17/06/2009 19:57:56
23 Mr Broon / What about the 2000 tonnes of concrete in each turbine base !!!!
41

nabodican,

Newton Stewart 17/06/2009 20:01:57
27 trimbleofmains / what about Arecleoch, Kilgallioch, Edinbane, Ben Aketil, Braes o Doune, Millenium etc etc etc. Have you actually had a look at the SNH map, bear in mind it is not complete.
These things are costing the Scottish economy dearly.
42

nabodican,

Newton Stewart 17/06/2009 20:44:44
Here is another one for Fred and Mr Broon
You will have heard many times the wind industry claiming that a Scottish Executive survey shows that the majority of the Scottish people support wind and the nearer they live to a windfarm the more they support it!
Load of cobblers - they fixed the questions then fiddled the results so that the nearer you lived to a windfarm, the less your opinion counted !!!!!
43

dido-bendigo,

Scotland 17/06/2009 21:47:48
Has anyone compiled a report as to how many members of government, local government executives or their relatives , have purchased shares in windfarm companies? If not, isn't it time such a report was set in motion?
44

nabodican,

Newton Stewart 17/06/2009 22:52:44
Good idea Dido,it will be interesting to see who has a vested interest.
We already know that Alex Ferguson, who happens to be my MSP owns the land a windfarm is on.
45

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 18/06/2009 07:33:55
39. nabodican:

'CCGT / Peterhead is the only one in Scotland and if you think any of that reaches the central belt you are clearly lacking in engineering knowledge.'

If Peterhead is on the grid then its power is pooled with all the other stations on the grid and the final destination of that power is indeterminate.
46

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 18/06/2009 07:36:24
ROCs are handed out for free to suppliers of green power. Only those suppliers who fail to supply renewable power have to bid for the ROCs so only their customers are paying for them.
47

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 18/06/2009 07:41:10
As for the burning of coal at Longannet; when the system operators allow some wind power onto the grid they are choosing not to take power from some other technology which might well be Longannet as coal is being used as a load follower - this is clear from the BERR figures on the relative amounts of power coming from coal, gas and nuclear. So CO2 emissions are be reduced by the use of wind in place of coal.
48

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 18/06/2009 07:44:44
As for your belief that wind farms 'desecrate our hills'; beauty is in the eye of the beholder - most people do not hate the sight of wind turbines and the hills have already been desecrated by tree fellers and sheep and deer breeders.
49

fred bloggs,

Edinburgh 18/06/2009 09:01:02
And finally nabodican, at #8 you state:

'Many tourism surveys have shown that windfarms deter touists, including one by Visit Scotland which found that 28% of visitors would not return to a turbine infested area.'

The problem is, nowhere in the report is the above statement to be found.
50

dido-bendigo,

Scotland 18/06/2009 21:30:04
#44 Nabodican.

Funny how no vociferous 'Windy Millers' jumped in on that idea! I wonder why? The 'Scotsman' must take up the cause and find out! Why, they might even get 'Daily Telegraph' sales figures!

#48 Fred Bloggs.

A farmer friend of mine wrote an objection to a planned windfarm opposite my house (we won). He phoned me some weeks ago and apologised for the fact that he had discovered windfarm shares in his portfolio of investments for his pension!
51

El Franko,

23/06/2009 22:17:53
Windfarm developers are no better than snake-oil salesman. They have seen a market opportunity and some of them will do well out of it. Society as a whole will suffer opportunity losses, as well as the desecration of the visual, accoustic, and economic environments.
52

Dragonfire,

17/07/2009 16:07:57
What is the world coming to with all these ugly windfarms?

 

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.